Wednesday, September 16, 2009

1835 to 1994 is NOT three hundred years!

By Lyndall Beddy

South Africa was the land of the Khoisan. When the Dutch arrived to establish a trading station at the Cape in 1652 on Khoisan land; the Xhosa were arriving in the area which later became the frontier of the Cape Colony and displacing the Khoikhoi King Hintsathi, and the Zulus were trekking into the northern part of Natal from the Congo. The Xhosa claim to have “bought” their land from King Hintsathi’s widow, Hoho, for a sum of cattle (like Rhodes later claimed to have “bought” Rhodesia from Lobengula).

White settlers therefore arrived in the South in the same century that black settlers arrived in the North, and both displaced the Khoisan off their land.

White and black did not meet, except for the occasional explorer or trader, until the next century when Xhosas and settlers started to clash on what was then the frontier of the Cape Colony, formerly the land of the Khoikhoi King Hintsathi. These were local battles confined to the frontier which started after white and black met in the 1770s.

Whites only started to encroach on “black” land after the Great Trek of 1835. The trekkers were a small group of landless poor whites who trekked out of the Cape Colony in oxwagons. Exactly how were these few hundred people supposed to advantage the hundreds of thousands of blacks? Split up an oxwagon and give everyone a splinter?

The history of SA thereafter follows a pattern – boers move in and start “buying” black land, missionaries go screaming blue murder to the Brits, the Brits set aside tribal lands which the chiefs are not allowed to “sell” and the boers to “buy”. The British Parliament then starts screaming in their turn about the cost of administering the tribal lands. The administrators try to tax the blacks, who go into revolt. The Brits give up – and hand the area over to the boers to administer, extracting a promise not to “enslave” the people.

Then came the disaster of the Anglo Boer War resulting in the destruction of the farms and the livelihood of the Afrikaner (and their workers) in the most expensive war that Britain had ever fought until then. Now Britain was really faced with an expense – the rehabilitation of the farms would have cost a fortune. Cheaper to hand the WHOLE country to the boers including Natal and the Cape! And out of this “glory” was born the Union of SA in 1910. And from then it was downhill for most of the next 84 years. Napoleon had a point when he called the Brits “a nation of shopkeepers”.

How does any of that add up to 300 years?

39 Opinion(s):

Exzanian said...

What a terrible air of fatalism surrounds the eventual fate of South Africa in hindsight!

Viking said...

look at a Peters Projection map of Africa - there was room for everybody. How sad the land of the South has been overrun. Rorke's drift was for nothing it seems.

Anonymous said...

@ VisArend...

A small but VERY VALID point.

The Afrikaners and the Boers are not the same people.
Some Afrikaners ARE Boers, but the Boers are NOT Afrikaners.

It may seem to be a meaningless distinction, but they are two distinct peoples (of the same stock originally).

The Afrikaner (and now it is common to lump the Boer into that definition) essentially is descended from the Cape Dutch. The Boer Nation are essentially the descendants of the "Voortrekkers" and frontiersmen who left the Cape ASAP and "tamed" this wild land.

The Afrikaner is a sheep compared to the Boer lion. They sat in the Cape and let us bleed and then usurped control of the country from us when the Brits finally left. Astute but not brotherly.

I for one am a Boer and not an Afrikaner. I had family at Blood River, Bloukraans, Majuba, 2nd Boer War and many points in between and before. We fought for freedom again in the 1914 Rebellion. We are simple people. All we want is a patch of land to plant and the freedom to run our own affairs. For over a hundred years this has been denied us.

But as Macmillan said many years ago: "The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact."

And as a much maligned and badly misunderstood HF Verwoerd replied: "The tendency in Africa for nations to become independent, and at the same time to do justice to all, does not only mean being just to the black man of Africa, but also to be just to the white man of Africa.

We call ourselves European, but actually we represent the white men of Africa. They are the people not only in the Union but through major portions of Africa who brought civilisation here, who made the present developments of black nationalists possible. By bringing them education, by showing them this way of life, by bringing in industrial development, by bringing in the ideals which western civilisation has developed itself.

And the white man came to Africa, perhaps to trade, in some cases, perhaps to bring the gospel; has remained to stay. And particularly we in this southern most portion of Africa, have such a stake here that this is our only motherland, we have no where else to go. We set up a country bare, and the Bantu came in this country and settled certain portions for themselves, and it is in line with the thinking of Africa, to grant those fullest rights which we also with you admit all people should have and believe providing those rights for those people in the fullest degree in that part of southern Africa which their forefathers found for themselves and settled in. But similarly, we believe in balance, we believe in allowing exactly those same full opportunities to remain within the grasp of the white man who has made all this possible."

It should have been so different, but here we are... All we have done is exchange an Afrikaner oppressor, who was not satisfied with the Cape, and who usurped the free republics, with a Kaffir oppressor, who was not satisfied with the land he had, and who usurped what was left of the free republics from the Afrikaner. At least the Afrikaner did not kill us out in our thousands.

It is a dream, but emancipation of the blacks in America probably only really started when MLK said: "I have a DREAM..."

Long Live The Free Republics!!!

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 5:29. Your views are well taken. I find the discussion about the distinction between Boers and Afrikaners fascinating. It's kind of like brandy. All Cognacs are Brandys, but not all Brandys are Cognacs.

Anonymous said...

@ Ron: Wet Dreamer. Afrikaner / Boer Republics so what? Spouting anti English, treacherous Afrikaner kak again. Instead of using the language of your hated English oppressor, you'd have more cred if you wrote in Afrikaans. Maybe your febrile imagination could invent a Boer taal eh?

Anonymous said...

So where does that leave Boers? Do they go their own way compared to the Afrikaners?

Ron. said...

Anon 7:40. I am not Anon 5:29. His post was pointed out to me just moments ago from someone else who ALSO thought it was me! But it should have been clear to the readers here that is was not me as I am not a Boer & have pointed out to being a Canadian in the past. Though I was born in South Africa & did discover that I have some Boer roots during my initial research into this topic during the mid 1990s. Furthermore another dead give away that it was not me was the fact that the post was EMOTIONAL while I tend to debate on INTELLECTUAL terms. The only time I have ever been emotional or angry here was in some debates with Greg / B C. Furthermore I have fundamental disagreements with some of what this Anon posted & I have NEVER praised Verwoerd [ in fact I have been very critical of him just as Theuns Cloete has ] despite his realization that the local White folks are not Europeans. Doberman can probably attest to the fact that I am not this Anon as he must no doubt know the IP addresses of the various folks who post.

Ron. said...

Furthermore I totally reject the concept that the region was or is " a country" as this Anon 5:29 asserted. I have ALWAYS called it a macro State. As this macro State consisted of different countries. Also: I would NEVER & have NEVER used the vile term "Kaffir"! Another example proving this was not me. Using derogatory terms like this only gives ammunition to folks like Greg & the elitists he works for by helping him to portray a just freedom struggle as "racist". Also: he posted at a time most UNUSUAL & quite seldom for me as I tend to post around this time ie: late evening Eastern North American time. I do not post anonymously as I am a registered contributor & even before then I still posted under my name & linked to my own blog.

Furthermore: I reject the concept that the average Afrikaner is an "oppressor" of the Boers because most of them were just caught up in political machinations not of their own doing as it was the Afrikaner LEADERSHIP which "usurped" the Boers not the average Cape Dutch folk who would ordinarily be indifferent to the Boers not necessarily hostile. The ones who are hostile to the Boers are only those moneyed elites who feel threatened by the prospect of Boer independence. I do not & have never advocated that there should be any acrimony among South Africans in general because they are ALL being played off of one another by the Global ruling elite who gain with divide & conquer.

The only thing I ever pointed out was that the Boers must get out from under Afrikaner DOMINATION so that they can more easily get back on the road to freedom [ also as Theuns Cloete pointed out ] BUT any Afrikaner who wishes to join them are certainly welcome to do so but just remember that so long as the Afrikaner leadership asserts its hegemony over the Boers: the Boers will be scuppered from obtaining self determination. Because remember that most Afrikaners do not have any such desire for independence ergo the inherent danger of forgetting that Boers are not Afrikaners. Just as Canadians are not to blame as a people for not being as independence oriented as their American neighbours as they have different outlooks due to having been brought up with & conditioned with different narratives.

Ron. said...

This article makes a valid point as it debunks the notion of " 350 years of oppression" so often parroted by the press & lazy intellectuals because the local White people have not even been in contact with the various groups for that large amount of time as the overt subjugation of the locals only started during the mid 19th cent particularly when the British began to conquer. Though the macro State of South Africa was not handed to the Boers as it was inherited by the Cape Dutch & some pro British Boers because the Boers were outnumbered & dominated & the old Boer limited government outlook was replaced by that of the imperial outlook which worked against the Boer people when they were trying en mass to reclaim their self self determination.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Ron. Don't stress, we all get caught up in it from time to time. Canadian eh?

Ron. said...

Furthermore: Anon 7:40. I think you must be the same person who I was debating with on the African Crisis forum back in March before the debate was canceled. I just want you to know that I tried to post a rebuttal to your latest comment & did not walk away from that debate. I talked to JoAn about it & she told me that Jan was tried of the debate so he prevented further comments on that particular discussion. I therefore challenge you to a continued debate on the matter. I still have the rebuttal I could not post. I find it interesting how you only ever debate me as an Anon while I have always posted under my own name wherever I post. Why do you not ever post under your name [ or any name for that matter ] instead of sniping at me & cowering behind an Anon. Perhaps you could also tell us why you are always so threatened at the prospect of Boer independence & self determination.

Viking said...

@Ron.
You're a Canadian? and here's me thinking I was the only foreigner on here. I often wondered why you posted at odd times... anyway.
I admire your historical knowledge and although I don't agree with your stated aims, I do in principle.
I do believe that all white South Africans have earned their right to their own space in this fine country, and no amount of ethnic infighting should be allowed to get in the way of that.

I would hope that although the decendents of the Boers have the right to their own homeland they would not use that right and rather choose to unite rather than withdraw, as withdrawal has been shown not to work in the past. As such the Western Cape is the homeland of all white tribes in South Africa, rather than an area where the Boers occupied for a relatively short time and which is now overrun, to use an antiquated expression.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

FishEagle said...

I am what I am and if I'm just a Brandy, and not a Cognjac, then so be it! Lol.

It seems this discussion is far from over.

Anonymous said...

@ RON...

Thanks old cock. It's not often you get some praise and a reasoned put-down from the same poster.

I am Anon 5:29. Yes, the post is emotional, but we all know that the cold intellectual analysis of the situation, history etc. means nothing to the "proles".

My point was made, "racist" comment and all. Throw in a bit of emotion and there you go.

I am still not convinced that racism is the MASSIVE crime the elites are trying to tell us it is.

When I look around the world I see that the most successful nations are the ones where there is a large degree of racial hegemony. Without it you cannot build the consensus of momentum needed to drive civilization forward. All you do without it is mill about talking about the "good old days". Anyway - I digress.

HFV was/is many things to many people. You will note that I do NOT praise him. I merely state that he was/is much maligned and badly misunderstood. Even today, many people still do not grasp that Verwoerd instituted (albeit badly) the first steps to the nationalization of your various countries making up this "macro state".

Thanks for the feedback. Next time I am going to bring my gun to this knife-fight.

Quark said...

Until recently I didn't realise there is a difference between Afrikaners (Cape Dutch) and Boers. I am a 4th gen born and bred South African of Scots & Irish ancestry, so I was unaware of this distinction. For me, it raises many questions, some of which are:

1. Do the two groups have different ancestry? If so, what, and what were the circumstances of these different arrivals in SA? If not, I assume then that the difference started purely based on differing ideology? If so, what is this ideology? Why does it have to be a schism? Can it ever be mended/unified? If so, would the two groups merge?

2. Can members of the two groups recognise each other easily? By Facial features? Accent? Or only in conversation, based on lanuage difference (if any?) or ideology?

3. To what extent do the two groups intermarry? Are there some people who are have Boer and Cape Dutch parents? If so, what do they call themselves? Do they lose the distiction ar assume one or the other!?

4. Is there any hope of an English speaker ever being able to tell the difference? How would one tell? (with asking the question directly?)

5. Is it offensive when a member of one group is mistaken for another (group)?

6. What are the stereotypes? i.e. what attributes do Cape Dutch Afrikaners assign to Boers and vice-versa.

And there are many more. Could someone please attempt to answer these? (FE?) Ron?

Thanks.

Ron. said...

Anon 5:29 / 8:37. Don't take any offense at my comments. I was just trying to point out the things I disagreed with you on to Anon 7:40. In order to demonstrate that we are not the same person. Emotional is not necessarily bad. I admitted to getting emotional here a few times [ basically just some early anger at Greg ] but I pointed this out because my style is generally analytical generally bereft of emotion. I am on your side here but you have to admit that the use of terms which are perceived as derogatory does not help the cause of independence because its enemies will waste no time at all maligning it by pointing out the perceived faults of its ardents. Let's not give the opponents of Boer [or other for that matter ] independence any ammunition because they already have an unfair advantage in the media due to its bias. At any rate: I think this Anon 7:40 [ the one who attacked me ] is a recurring antagonist whom I have sparred with in the past.

Viking. I am a Canadian but am from a long line of South Africans. My ancestry on the Boer side in the southern African region goes back to the earliest European arrivals. This Western Cape plan for a macro White independence only sounds good on paper & it was something I once wholeheartedly supported back in 1995. But I later discovered a MASSIVE flaw with this plan. It is the home of those who are MOST against any idea for independence! The folks in the Western Cape are [ as a whole ] are the biggest supporters of the macro State & tend to think that they can "influence" government enough for their liking. The other major flaw [ which is basically the other side of the coin ] is that the MOST independence oriented folks live OUTSIDE of the Cape region. This was as I soon discovered because those most interested in acquiring independence were overwhelmingly of Boer descent. The very people who have had various notable freedom struggles in the past.

This is the major crux of the problem why the notion of independence in the Western Cape will not likely work. It appears that your solution is to import enough Boer people to the Western Cape in the hope of swinging it in the favour of independence but another thing many people seem to forget is that the Boers & other independence minded folks will be outnumbered in this hub of pro status quo. Some might claim that they can "work on" getting the folks there to change in favour of independence but I think it would take at least a few generations.

Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...

Furthermore: the Boer Republics were recognized by various other governments around the world. Therefore the Boers do in fact have a legitimate claim to them particularly in light of the fact that they were taken from them by force & after a genocide was committed against them. Asking the Boers to move to the Western Cape would be asking them to relinquish their legitimate claims to the old Boer Republics & to live among people who are no more interested in obtaining independence than the various Bantu folks which live among them. Therefore there is no more guarantee of independence for the Boers whether they move to the Western Cape or remain beyond the old Cape frontier. As a matter of fact I think it might ultimately be easier for the Boers to overcome the current demographic problem within their old republics than to deal with the obstinate Afrikaans money power which works so hard against the Boers. Remember Theuns Cloete has pointed out that the "biggest obstacle" to Boer independence is the "Afrikaans money power" as he termed it. [ in the second & third interview with TRP ] Therefore I fail to see how the Boers could ever escape the dominating Afrikaans money power in the Western Cape where it is so strong! However I think it would be far easier to remove their power & influence in the old Boer Republic regions because they are many concentrated in & around Johannesburg: a town that non other than Eugene Terreblanche has PUBLICLY disclaimed citing many reasons among which was that it has the "majority" of the Black population [ within the old republic of course ] & that it was run by foreigners. Remember if [ more like when ] the macro State of South Africa collapses the Boers would find it MUCH easier to restore their old republics than to try to convince with the folks in the Western Cape to declare independence & to stop propping up the collapsing State of which they would no doubt be wanting to do due to their outlook.

Ron. said...

Quark. I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I have numbered my responses to correspond to your numbered questions.

1. The Boers are purported to have much more German ancestors due to the fact that a lot of Germans settled directly to the north eastern Cape frontier: the region where the Boers developed. The Boer people got started when the poorest folks at the Cape colony began to trek inland during the late 1600s & all throughout the 1700s so the Boers did not start out as an "ideology" [ though due to their rougher experiences they did developed a distinct independence oriented outlook ] & were then known as Trekboers before the term was later shortened to Boers when they began to settle down on the north eastern Cape frontier.

2. This depends because the difference is noticed mainly in a cultural sense namely through different dialects. In the past the Boers were often much more rustic compared to the generally [ but by no means always ] more urbane Cape Dutch. The Boer people are generally a more conservative & religious people compared to the Cape Dutch descendents [ though once again not always ] & the Boers are generally more independence oriented.

3. There has been some intermarriage between the two groups [ partic during the 20th cent ] & there are certainly many people who have both Boer & Cape Dutch ancestry but of course most White Afrikaans speakers were conditioned to call themselves Afrikaners all throughout the 20th cent so the distinction was tapered over officially but not on the ground as Theuns Cloete pointed out that the Cape Dutch descendents have derogatory terms for the Boers like "Vaalies" which he discovered [ much to his shock ] when he was visiting Cape Town as a young adult. Click here to hear him mention this starting at 1:59. That was the moment he was first personally made aware of the distinction.

4. Well even Cloete notes that this "is a very delicate matter" because you must remember that everyone was conditioned by the Broederbond to see themselves as Afrikaners in an attempt at creating a monolithic group. But as an "Oscar" noted in another forum discussion on another website: " Too many people -- particularly so-called "rightwing" politicians -- have tried (and failed) to combine all White Afrikaans-speaking South Africans into a homogenous group forgetting that the gulf is far too wide and deep to accomplish this sort of social engineering in a short space of time." The full text is quoted here within this article which features numerous other quotations of folks who recognize the distinction.

5. True. The term Boer is considered offensive especially to the Cape Dutch descendents. Though as I said most people were conditioned not to notice differences [ at least officially ] as the generic term Afrikaner was imposed. The term Boer was even often conditioned as a "bad"' term in further attempts at assimilating the Boers. Theuns Cloete would certainly take offense at being called an Afrikaner as he even specifically stated publicly that : "he is not an Afrikaner". Click here at this link to hear Cloete mention this at 0:35.

6. I do not think it would be appropriate to get into this as I do not want to perpetuate any unfair stereotypes. Which stereotypes by their very nature are unfair of course. All I can say is that it is similar to the North / South stereotypes of the USA.

Ron. said...

Post Script. To further understand this topic I would recommend listening to Thuens Cloete himself explain this within the 9 videos of an hour long interview at: The Right Perspective first interview of Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio. Theuns Cloete [ who was also part of the Transvaal Separatists which started up about 25 years ago & was contacted by Eugene Terreblanche in 1993 before they went to meet President F W de Klerk ] is the person you should address your questions to as he could probably answer them much better than I can.

FishEagle said...

Ron, I grew up an Afrikaner in the Eastern Cape, in a region known as Settler country (i.e. English country). My entire education, bar a few years in High School, was in English. I remember having lots of clashes with English kids but never with "Valies." The Valies used to come to our town during holidays and we had a lot of fun together. By the end of the holidays we were the best of mates. We only ever mocked them because they were not used to the sea, i.e. they were afraid of the water. This may all seem a little arbitrary, but my point is that these differences between the Boers and Afrikaners that you mention are incredibly subtle. The every day guy in the street is most certainly not aware of them. For practical purposes we can't distinguish between Boers and Afrikaners, although it is important to take note of the ideological differences that you've pointed out.

I won't defend the history of the Afrikaners because I don't have a good grasp of it. I'm sure mistakes were made on all sides, as this is usually the case. It bothers me that you are tearing into the Afrikaners and portraying the Boers as sanctimonious. You may get more support for your cause, which is very worthwhile, if you had a more objective and balanced approach. Using language like "selling out" and "betrayal" is very emotional. So the Afrikaners had an affiliation with the English? Why did they have that affiliation? I'm sure they had their reasons, which were obviously different from the Boers.

You are not going to make the Boers look better by playing down the Afrikaners. You will make the Boers look good by having a clear history (which you obviously have) and clearly stated aims (which you also have).

Viking said...

Ron, I agree with you that most Cape whites are liberal and a lot of them have no idea what's coming down the line - but that's changing.
There were hardly any blacks in the Cape for a long time, so Apartheid in the Cape was particularly oppressive, because it meant drawing a line between white and coloured that most people weren't prepared to accept and they saw no reason for it. Sure, it benefitted some but it did damage too.
Now that Cape whites see what the blacks are like, they are really allying with the Coloured people here (who hate the blacks much more and use the word kaffir a LOT!). Even the DA are now talking negatively about "in-migration" (brilliant word).
I'm not talking about a white homeland, because some sort of detente would have to be found with the coloureds, which would also make them happy and protect everyone here from the Africanisation of Cape Town which will destroy it.
Yes, sadly, for this to happen it would be useful for other whites to move here, but not compulsory. Others would be free to make their own case for a homeland but that is beyond hopeless at this stage.
There is simply no way it's going to happen. You cannot base an independent country on a snapshot of a people's history, i.e. two or three (?) republics that existed for a very very short time, well over a hundred years ago.
Rather try to concentrate number and base one's philosophy on survival rather than ideology. Those are just my thoughts anyway.

Quark said...

Ron and FE, many thanks for your comprehensive answers.

Ron. said...

Well FE: the Eastern Cape is home to Boer people & is the region where they developed so when you say you grew up as an "Afrikaner" what you mean is that you must have been one of those Boer descendents who grew up conditioned as an Afrikaner. Remember that all or at least most White Afrikaans speaking people were conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners as the Broederbond backed politicians were attempting to artificially create a monolithic group in part to prevent the Boers from reclaiming their republics as they had tried to do by force during the 1914 Maritz Rebellion.

The northern & eastern Cape was where the vast majority of Cape Rebels were from during the Anglo-Boer War due to the fact that the folks living in the Northern & Eastern Cape are Boers. The Cape Dutch are centered around Cape Town up to Stellenbosch & Paarl though many have since emigrated to the Johannesburg region [ as well as other areas ]. I think you are presuming that there are no Boers in the Cape which is ridiculous because the Boers are FROM the Cape frontier.

The point I try to convey is that the Boers developed there at a time when the Cape Dutch were forming in the Western Cape leading to different ethnic groups [ as Theuns Cloete notes ] who adopted different & rather irreconcilable outlooks. Furthermore you will note that Cloete noted that it was the folks in Cape Town who called him & other Boers "Vaalies" not the BOER descended folks of the Eastern Cape where you live. Remember the Boer descended Prime Minister Hans Strijdom was FROM the Eastern Cape before later relocating to the Transvaal hence he was one of the few Boer descended heads of state or government.

Ron. said...

Therefore of course you would not have clashes with the "Vaalies" because you are part of the same cultural & ethnic group. Hendrik Potgieter is a notable Voortrekker leader who lead a sizable contingent of Boers out of the Cape into the veld but the name Potgieter is actually far more common in the Eastern Cape region than in the old Boer Republics region because a lot of Boers did not go on or emigrate during the Great Trek. Those Cape frontier Boers who remained had descendents who were the bulk of the Cape Rebels during the Anglo-Boer War. My own great grand father was a Cape Rebel Boer from the Eastern Cape region.

No of course the Boers were not "sanctimonious" [ why the strawman? ] but the fact remains that they have often tried to gain independence in Africa while the Cape Dutch have not. This is the crux of why it is so dangerous for Boer people to erroneously think of themselves as Afrikaners because by doing so they are automatically giving the Cape Dutch descendents the power to subjugate them & control their political destiny just as they did all throughout the 20th cent & most notably when the Afrikaner establishment organized & destroyed the Boer movement to restore the Boer Republics.

Now while others have accused the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners of being "sellouts" & "traitors" I have purposely avoided using such charged language to describe them because as I stated before: the Cape Dutch / Afrikaner attitude towards the Boers & independence in general is simply just a different outlook. Which of course is inherently deleterious to Boer aspirations because they do not share the same outlooks. I even noted that I do not think that it is even personal. Because the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners actually think it is quite noble to be loyal to whatever force is in power & to view separatists / sovereignists / independists as the "traitors". While it is true that due to the dominant nature of the Afrikaners that they inherently have the disproportionate power to "sellout" the Boers [ as the Newsguy rightly pointed out ] they only do so because they view the just cause of Boer self determination as radical.

Ron. said...

No the Cape Dutch Afrikaners had an affiliation with the British Colonial Power. Not necessarily with the English folks. They had this association because the British were the power of the region & they had no particular independence plans of their own. Now I am not trying to "make the Boers look better by playing down the Afrikaners". What I am trying to point out [ perhaps quite futilely ] is that the Boers are never going to find the self determination that they have struggled for & sought for at least a couple of centuries now if they remain subjugated by the Afrikaner establishment & if too many of them think of themselves as Afrikaners because the Afrikaner establishment is aligned AGAINST the Boers particularly those Boers who struggle for independence & self determination.

Theuns Cloete was ADAMANT & quite clear about this. Therefore please explain to us how keeping the Boers tethered to this strong political Global monetary force is ever going to help them regain their independence? If the Boers allow themselves to believe they are part of the Afrikaners then the Afrikaner establishment will continue make decisions on BEHALF of the Boers as well when this establishment is subservient to the forces of Global centralization which of course is opposed to ethnic & national independence & self determination.

Now I do not accuse all Afrikaners are being aligned with the forces of global centralization & I have stated in the past numerous times that those who are inclined to are most WELCOME to join the Boers in their struggles for self determination BUT let's not fool ourselves here in thinking that some magic generic White union will be a panacea to the current problems of ethnic / national subjugation when a lot of perhaps even most [ ? ] of the local White population are just not on the same page as the Boer Republicans.

Ron. said...

Viking. I agree with quite a bit of what you said but I disagree totally that the claim for Boer independence is based on a "snapshot of history" because it is really based on about 300 years of history because if you will recall: the Boers have been struggling for freedom ever since they began to trek away from the VOC during the late 17th cent. Not too long after the initial White settlements at the Cape. The various republics the Boers established [ which in fact number up to about 17 not 3. ] were simply a culmination of their struggles for freedom. When they were living as nomads on the Cape frontier during the era of VOC rule: they in fact were living quite independent from the VOC & only began establishing republics when the VOC began to make decisions inimical to Boer survival & when the power of the VOC began to wane on the frontier whose power was always quite weak on the frontier. Those 3 famous Boer Republics might have existed for a relatively short [ is 50 years so short? that's half a cent! ] period of time BUT they were based on a LONG struggle for self determination which preceded them. I also disagree that it is so "hopeless" to acquire a Boer "homeland" & certainly it is not hopeless at all to acquire some form of self determination because as their profile becomes more prominent worldwide [ thanks in part to the Right Perspective radio program which actually INTERVIEWS Boer people - but also the reporting by organizations like Genocide Watch ] the momentum for just such a "homeland" or even Boer Republic restoration of some sort will no doubt grow.

FishEagle said...

Ron, I'm glad you clarified some points for me. Thank you.

A note on my personal history - before we settled in the Eastern Cape my family moved from the Transvaal. Before that we lived in the Cape. Everyone would have to go and investigate their own family history to determine who they are.

You need people to investigate their grass roots if they are going to find their Boer identity. You just need to make it an attractive option for people to make that investigation. But it shouldn't be making a discovery between being Cogjacs or Brandys. Can you see my point? Who's going to want to be confirmed a Brandy?

I'm not going to give you my entire family history here but I'm pretty sure I'm not a Boer, even though I probably have some Boer blood in me. I think everybody must have some.

I think the Transvaal "Afrikaners" are the most awsome people in the world because I relate very well with them. If they discover their Boer identity and use it to further a cause for Boer homelands then I wish them success in their pursuits.

Personally, I've had enough of Africa.

Islandshark said...

Ron never ceases to amaze me with his knowledge of Boer and Afrikaner history.

Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...

FE: It was Vanilla Ice who used the Cognac & Brandy comparison. Which I do not think he meant to use as such a direct analogy as I think he was using it to denote subtle differences. Whether certain individuals discover that they are of Cape Dutch or Boer origin is all rather besides the point because the MAIN point is that there are enough folks who are AWARE that they are Boers & a lot MORE Afrikaans speaking folks who are aware that they are not.

There have always been Boers who were aware of their identity like Robert van Tonder for example & numerous more have been discovering it in larger numbers since at least the late 70s & early 80s & certainly in ever increasing numbers now. One must remember that Boer identity was never really totally lost just that it was subverted & co-opted within a political context.

Thanks Islandshark. This knowledge is just the result of an avid interest in the topic. Which started ironically on the day that I was watching the old Orange White & Blue South African flag lower for the last time via a televised live event & realized that I could not identify those two obscure small [ Boer Republican ] flags next to the British Union Jack. I was intrigued upon learning who the flags represented [ because we really do not learn anything about the topic in public school ] which then led me over the course of the years since to read about as many books & articles I could find on this generally obscure topic.

FishEagle said...

Thanks for your responses Ron.

You are right about VI's comparison. I was just proving that I wasn't the only one that picked up on the different way that you portrayed Boers and Afrikaners.

Here are two comments that you made that seemed to be contradictory. Perhaps if you could explain the context of each comment it would make more sense:

"What I am trying to point out ...they remain subjugated by the Afrikaner establishment & if too many of them think of themselves as Afrikaners"

"the MAIN point is that there are enough folks who are AWARE that they are Boers"

Ron. said...

Those points are not contradictory at all as they both are referring to the same problem of Boer subversion. The first point references to the fact that too many folks of Boer descent are still allowing themselves to be dominated by the Afrikaner establishment & allowing them to have authority over them which comes as a natural result when they think think of themselves as Afrikaners as well. The second point references to the fact that quite a lot of Boers are aware that they are a distinct cultural group who refuse to be dominated by the Afrikaner establishment but due to the fact that the Boers are less numerous - the Afrikaners will have the upper hand by determining the direction of all Afrikaans speakers. Furthermore I noticed that you deliberately omitted the final & salient parts of my sentences from both examples because one can not evaluate proper context by omitting salient sections. Remember also that even Boers who are aware of their distinct identity are still often dominated & subjugated by the Afrikaner establishment because [ as Theuns Cloete pointed out ] the Afrikaner establishment has lots of money & political power [ within the Afrikaans communities ] to impose their agendas while the less affluent Boers are not always in a powerful enough position to counter the Afrikaner domination.

FishEagle said...

Hi Ron, I could have copied and pasted your entire sentences but I tried to stick to the point that there seemed to be contradictions in your comments so I shortened them to include the contradictory parts only. Besides, I did read your entire comments.

Having ass'holes like that Anon making STUPID comments on your posts must have made you weary and suspicious about queries. Please know that I had no motive when I asked my questions other than to understand your viewpoints, which I found to be unique and interesting.

I hope we can agree to disagree on some points. My biggest concern is that we don't need further divisions amongst whites in SA, which is what you may call a typical Afrikaner agenda. I just consider that there are divisions amongst whites between local SAns and first world whites; between English and Afrikaans; and between Boers and Afrikaners. For me having hope for whites in SA means believing that a time will come when all the whites will put their differences aside and stand together against threats from other races. As an Afrikaner I feel no threat from the Boers or the English SAns. I perceive the biggest threat to be from whites in first world countries.

Doberman said...

Very eloquently stated FE.

Ron. said...

Re: the Cognac / Brandy analogy: the problem historically for the Boers is that the term Afrikaner was presented as the Cognac while the term Boer was looked down on. Theuns Cloete notes in the first interview that whenever someone did something "good" they were called Afrikaners but whenever someone did something "bad" they were called Boers as part of the indoctrination to adopt the term Afrikaner & demonize Boer which in turn led to the direct internalization of their own oppression by the Afrikaner establishment. A lot of folks do not seem to realize that the Afrikaner Nationalists were successors to the British Colonial regimes & the predecessors to the ANC neo Colonial regime in more ways than one. The "typical Afrikaner agenda" [ to use your quote ] is actually tethered to the same agenda driven by the White folks in foreign countries which is why I try to warn people about the inherent danger of Afrikaner domination. Because one would basically be empowering the same forces which are working against ethnic & national independence & self determination.