Sunday, April 10, 2011

Theuns Cloete Notes the Basic Difference Between Boer and Afrikaner.

The following excerpt from Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio notes the basic difference between Boer & Afrikaner. The term Afrikaner was used by the establishment / media & politicians in the 20th cent to describe all Afrikaans speakers yet the Boer people had a distinct history & existence long before the Cape Dutch appropriated the amorphous term Afrikaner in the late 19th cent & then later applied it to all Afrikaans speakers in a sharp political context.



The Boer people were & are still overshadowed by the Afrikaner designation.

32 Opinion(s):

mcfearless said...

The boers keep telling people who are not boers until we're left with 5 chumps in khaki broeks and stupid beards who feel strongly about a constantina. The sad thing is nobody gave a fuck in the first place who the "boers" are.

Anonymous said...

.Well I was born here, 1 st generation German descent. My folks came here after the war in 1950 from Germany and settled in Johannesburg. I did my national service in 1972 and then 11 years on the border 3 month camps FOR WHAT?. I attained staff sergeant rank, and now I am bloody wondering why on God’s earth did we capitulate to our enemy the terrorist communist ANC. My damn question is this can any Afrikaner or boer please explain why they allowed this to happen, and when the fuck are they going to work together and saamwerk Huh! For Pete’s sake. I am so sick of hearing this crap, we are Afrikaner liberals and we are boers. Let us all White’s, Afrikaner, boer, English speaking and like myself German all join hands and fight this ANC hellhole and scourge for once and for all. I speak afrikaans fluently as well as German and English. I have done more than my time for this country in the old South Africa and am prepared to help again now, just say the word. I wish the Afrikaans speaking people can get their damn act together for once and for all and let us sort out this corrupt filthy 3rd world banana republic and take it back where it belongs. Wishful thinking hey.! I am going to say this out loud, you Afrikaans speaking people are a bunch of wussies and turncoats and above all, cowards. I fought with you on the border in the SADF and never thought you would capitulate, never. I now know what you are and I will say it to your faces boet. JOINERS and Cowards. Afrikaner, boer, what the hell.

Ron. said...

The above comment sounds a lot like one of those contrived anti-Boer propaganda slogans [ such as "the problem is you Boers can never stand together". etc. ] which Cloete alluded to during one of his interviews with The Right Perspective program. I also disagree with your final sentence as the world once DID express great interest in the Boers & who they were during the era of the second Anglo-Boer War. There were many books & publications published about them & once can still read many of them like the book: Oom Paul's People authored in 1900 by an American journalist. There are still others in the modern era [ like myself & the folks with The Right Perspective radio program to name a few ] who have an interest in learning who the Boer people are. If no one ever "gave a f---" about who the Boers were then others like myself would not know as much as we have learned in our pursuit of wanting to know who they were / are. I know that I for one have learned a lot from other folk's investigations into the matter. Like Professor Wallace Mills / journalist Adriana Stuijt / author Howard C Hillegas / author Oliver Ransford / author Bernard Lugan / diplomat C W van der Hoogt just to name a few. The purpose of clarifying who the Boers are is to empower them & to get them out from under Afrikaner domination.

Ron. said...

The Boers are not Afrikaners in the exact same way that the Acadians are not French Canadians / Quebecois. The Acadians might be French speaking Canadians just as the Boers might be Afrikaans speaking Africans but the term French Canadian is dominated by the Quebecois just as the term Afrikaner is dominated by the Cape Dutch descended population.

Ron. said...

Well Anon. It appears that the folks who ran that war did not quite capitulate from their perspective because as author Dan Roodt noted in his book The Scourge of the ANC: the National Party effectively resurrected the ANC so as to have a "negotiating partner" to turn the macro State [ South Africa is not a country but rather a macro State based on the consolidation of numerous previous polities ] over to a regime which they expected to control from behind the scenes. Which they do to a degree via Sanlam & the Afrikaner Bond. So basically the elite among the National Party / Afrikaner Broederbond sold out the aggregate constituent population they claimed to represent [ welcome to politics ] in order to safeguard their then increasingly threatened existence. This is why they were so fast to throw the Boers in particular under the bus & deny them any form of self determination despite the repeated petitions from Robert van Tonder [ since 1961 ] & Eugene Terre'Blanche [ since 1984 when he decided to get on board the long running Boer freedom struggle ] among others [ like Fritz Meyer ] who have come & gone over the decades now.

Not all folks "allowed" this to happen as circumstantial evidence shows that a lot of Boers & some Afrikaners did try to prevent the handover as noted with the electoral results for the March 1992 Referendum in Northern Transvaal which was the only section of South Africa to vote No on the matter of continuing negotiations with the ANC. It was not so much of a matter of "allowing" it to happen as it was to being outmaneuvered by the folks in the regime with the agenda to commit to the handover.

Remember also that President F W de Klerk fired a lot of Generals whom he feared would have put a stop to him so that act alone rather tells you how the fix was in from the start. When the Broederbond commits to a decision they stick to it whether it was to take over the state & implement their version of Apartheid [ Separate Development of which one of the main architects gave up hope on the government of ever fully implementing it due to a lack of " White sacrifice" to make it work ] or whether to abandon overt control of the State & dismantle Apartheid legislation. Since they wielded so much power [ still do in many respects ] it is no wonder that things changed so fast as they helped to set the rapid pace of the changes.

Ron. said...

Well let's not get caught up in the futile attempts at getting all White people on the same page [ since many are unwilling to give up the South African citizenship which has caused them to be the vassals of the State that they have become ] & focus on getting the independent oriented folks [ like the Boers / Griquas / Tswanas / Zulus etc. ] to stand together for the reclamation of their countries. That has much more power to shatter the macro State than any futile "fight" against the macro State's puppet regime because all this does is get people caught into the trap of thinking that they can fight the new dispensation by fighting against the ANC because the ANC is just a puppet which will be replaced with COPE or whatever else the elite decide to put in place as the latest surrogate colonial regime. The White population simply does not have the numerical strength to mount an effective political opposition to the State's puppet regime but those independence oriented folks of all racial backgrounds have the power to break up the illegitimate macro State based on their past precedence of engaging in freedom struggles & their past recognized legal right to govern themselves within their own traditional & settled region.

Ron. said...

What you appear to miss is that the "new South Africa" is simply an extension of the "old South Africa" only the racial order was reversed [ among other things ] but the oppressive & controlling nature of the macro State remains the same. Asserting that we have to struggle against the macro State's puppet regime just conditions one into thinking that a civil war is an inevitable answer when all State's in the past have ever conveniently USED civil wars to consolidate their power & crack down on their opponents. Randolph Bourne astutely observed that war is the health of the State. Therefore one must be cognizant of
not providing fuel for such a state of affairs as the State would like nothing better than to exploit internal tensions in order to rationalize their elimination of opponents & dictatorial grab for more power.

Oom Koos said...

If this site is going to descend into a load of anti-afrikaner bullshit-speak, well then, quite frankly, let all reasonable people abandon this shitty blog and go elsewhere.

What the hang has pseudo-Boer history got to do with modern SA?

Ron, stick to utter shite; you're good at that - you are clearly a NON-South African - that much is clear to me. Right minded saffers are above the utter KAK you dribble from your poephol, so please, enough of the utter bollox you like to vomit from your tedious guff.

Boers are Afrikaners (hulle praat die taal) duuh!!

Asseblief Ron, take your KAK theories and shove them out of site, out of mind, out of polite company etc.

The Boers are a unique people - but also AFRIKANERS!!! And great pride in that!!

Islandshark said...

@ Oom Koos - do you have anything besides personal attack?

You insult, but provide no facts whatsoever. Do yourself a favour and study the actual history of the Boers and you might understand why the current state of affairs in South Africa today started with the Boers losing their republics and being forcibly included in the macro state of SA.

I could never figure out why my grandmother referred to a piss pot as "koos" - you cleared that up for me today.

Oom Koos said...

Ok, excuse my rant, a coupla dops too many last night...and I got a tad personal. My apologies, and I'm sure Ron's a fine chap.

But is he actually South African? I doubt it, but correct me if I'm wrong.

As for trying to debate with him, nee dankie, I've seen way too many good arguments simply countered by endless blatherings from him before.

Is it better for modern day Afrikaners to stick together, or to separate themselves instead? I think the answer is obvious. BTW, 99% of saffers, regardless of race, understand the term Afrikaner to mean white, afrikaans speaker. In other words, ALL Afikaners as an ethnic group. Coloureds are NOT included in that taken-for-granted understanding, whether they speak afrikaans or not. I couldn't care less what some so-called intellectuals say to the contrary, I refer to the man on the street.

That the Boers are a unique sub group in Afrikanerdom, I'm well aware of. Not all Afrikaners are Boers, but ALL Boers are Afrikaners. Whether based on ethnicity, religion, language, surnames, love of rugby etc., the MODERN day Boer and his non-Boer counterpart have an enormous amount in common as Afrikaners.

Anyway, I thought this blog was about attacking the corrupt and 3rd rate ANC government? That's in the here and now. Debating events of 110 years ago, or more, is pretty pointless as far as I'm concerned, with regards to the intended purpose of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Folks this Oom Koos is none other than Mike Smith aka Uncle Cracker aka Afrikaner. He is a LIAR of the first order as he has definitively shown that he does not know the history of the Boer people and routinely misrepresents and distorts what Ron posts in order to demonize him. Mike / Oom Koos attacks Ron based on the fact that Ron knows a far fuller history of the Boer people than the British and Afrikaner establishment would rather the public know as it threatens their power in the region as the establishment depends on being able to get away with misrepresenting the Boer people so as to counter their legitimate claims to independence / self determination. Ron is not the only person to expose the Afrikaner establishment domination of the Boer people but his interest in learning about and posting about the Boer people inevitably led him to that reality that this Oom Koos would rather remain hidden so that the current corrupt dispensation can remain in place and intact. This is all for naught because the fact is anyone can learn about what Ron posts and writes about as what he reports is all in the public domain.

Oom Piet said...

Oh no!!! You've rumbled me!

Listen up boys and girls - and all other specimens of humanity - I am not an Afrikaner.

I'm an English saffer taking the piss, though my apology for a rather foul-mouthed uncalled-for personal attack is genuine. When I said I'd had a few drinks too many, that was the truth.

However, my (quite reasonable, from my point of view) comments regarding Afrikanerdom are not, I think, totally invalid. Or are only the Boers negatively impacted in the "new" South Africa?

Let me just offer a brief personal family anecdote: though I'm a Rooinek, half my family are Afrikaners from the Karoo (ie Western and north Western Cape). Several of my aunts and uncles settled in both the OFS and Traansvaal (baie groot familie), and they and their offspring remain happily there (ANC notwithstanding) until today. Specifically, in the "Boer" areas of those former provinces.

There has been, like it or not, a substantial intermixing of the Afrikaans-speaking population of SA in the last 110 years. I do NOT suggest that the Boers have lost their unique identity but, that in the new SA, hankering after the defeated Boer Republics and desiring their return, is about as likely as seeing a chocolate spaceship orbiting the Sun. ALL Afrikaners (white Afrikaans speakers) have much in common and need to stand together. All white saffers need to do the same, but the gulf between Rockspider and Rooinek is a lot bigger than the differences between so-called "Cape Dutch" and Boer.

This blog was quite popular some time ago. If you are going to go out of your way to make Afrikaners or whoever else feel unwelcome, then expect the poor following you currently have to continue.

Nuff said.

Oom Koos said...

Oh, hang on, that should have been Oom Koos ... keep forgetting my own name!

(Oom Piet is my fourth cousin, seven times removed).

Ron. said...

First of all Oom Koos there is nothing "pseudo" about the facts & history as outlined here. You can even investigate for yourself. Next. This has everything to do with "modern SA" because "modern SA" has its roots in the very history outlined here that you like to ridiculously label as "pseudo". When the Boer Republics were conquered by the British was that "pseudo"? When the Boers were outnumbered within the general White Afrikaans speaking population was that "pseudo"? When the Boers tried to regain their occupied Boer Republics at various times was that "pseudo"? You have an odd habit of attempting to marginalize the Boers by erroneously asserting that anytime they try to regain their self determination that it is just "pseudo". Or maybe you just like to attack anything that you do not like as "pseudo" in which case the ANC rule of SA must also be "pseudo" to you as well. Odd that you accuse myself of "utter bollox" [ sic ] when I presented links to the sources & in these past specific instances have simply presented excerpts of Theuns Cloete: a notable figure who has been advocating for Boer self determination for 30 years now & could [ among many others ] see that the handover was coming since the 1970s. What year did you start to notice that a handover was coming 1987? 1990? 1993? So spare your attacks against someone who saw it coming decades earlier. Boers & Afrikaners "praat die taal" [ different dialects ] but are as distinct as the Acadians are from the Quebecois. The facts I have presented are not "theories" as they are verifiable by anyone who would take the time to check them out for themselves.

Well at least you admit to drinking which might explain your odd behaviour. The notion that Afrikaans speakers should "stick together" is a clever meme the elite have used since the mid 20th cent to prevent the Boers from regaining self determination. Anyone who has studied the situation closely will realize that by forcing the Boers to "stick with" the Afrikaners will allow the status quo to continue. The notion of Boer self determination is not about "separating themselves" from the Afrikaners [ whom they were never truly a part of in the first place ] but about empowering them & would act as a natural bulwark to counter the ANC regime & current dispensation with. The term Afrikaner was created in order to get Afrikaans speakers to conjure a loyalty to a macro State that the smaller Boer segment had never wanted & in fact fought two wars of liberation against forming. The whole notion of an Afrikaner was about tethering the aggregate Afrikaans speaking population to an unworkable macro State that was designed to dispossess them no matter how much they "stuck together". The Boer people can not find the self determination that they seek while allowing themselves to be subjugated by the Afrikaner establishment as the Afrikaans money power in fact works strongly against Boer self determination.

The term Afrikaner does not refer to a monolithic ethnic group. That is an unfortunate common error some people make due to decades of Broederbond controlled history [ the true pseudo history ] on the matter. The term Afrikaner is a geographical based term [ like American / Australian / European ] which encompasses just about anyone who speaks a dialect of Afrikaans as a home language. You erroneously assert that Coloureds "are not included" while forgetting that the Coloureds were among the first people to call themselves Afrikaners as per the history of Jager Afrikaner. Many modern day Coloureds call themselves Brown Afrikaners or just plain Afrikaners & some are promoting the term Afrikaanse. All Afrikaans speakers will be dispossessed under this new term in the same way the Boers were under the Afrikaner designation.

Ron. said...

The Quebecis & Acadians & could similarly be argued to have "an enormous amount in common" as French speaking Canadians but they are distinct cultural groups just as the Boers are from the Afrikaners. Though a crucial difference pertinent to the modern era is that Afrikaners tend to respect the macro State dispensation & see themselves as a "minority" who must strive for political rights within it through the political party system while the Boers on the other hand - due to their different long independence oriented history - tend to see themselves rather as a nation who do not recognize the macro State dispensation nor its regimes & tend to strive to re-establish independence & self determination outside of the macro State dispensation.

I do not know about you but I know which side I would rather support as the Boers are much more likely to help shatter the oppressive current macro State dispensation while the nomenclatured Afrikaners only wish to support it & its establishment routinely works against Boer self determination.

There is no better way to "attack the corrupt & third rate ANC government" than by supporting the very mechanism which will bring about its demise - ie: Boer Republicanism & other ethnic based self determination. The power of the ANC [ & any other corrupt regime which will follow it ] rests entirely on the apparatus of the illegitimate macro State as created by British Colonial legislation in 1909 & the only tried & effective way to truly ever counter this raw centralized power is to support ethnic based secessionist movements which can reduce & even outright obliterate the ANC surrogate Colonial rule hold on power.

Ron. said...

The Boers are not the only ones "negatively impacted" but they are the among the best hope at reversing & getting rid of the macro State known as South Africa forever. No there has not been "substantial intermixing" to the point where the Boers have disappeared & you subsequently admit such in your next sentence. The Boer Republics will return as soon as the bulk of the Boer people stand together. And you can even count on some Afrikaner & English speaking support. If the differences between Cape Dutch & Boers are not so big then why are the Cape Dutch historically & their descendents indifferent & even opposed to independence? Why are only the Boers ever historically pro independence? This is a fundamental reason why we should be supporting the Boer Republican movement & not the pro status quo Afrikaner establishment a portion of whom only ever dangle the vague prospect of an illusory Volkstaat as a means to pacify & counter the Boer aspiration for self determination.

Oom Koos said...

Disagree with lots of what you say. Luister Boetie, I've already said I'm an Engelsman, or didn't you get that?

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION (honestly, that is): ARE YOU ACTUALLY SOUTH AFRICAN?? It's a simple question.

I will take your word for it. BUT PLEASE BE HONEST!

I do not think you are a native of this soil, but am prepared to be corrected if wrong.

So come on, my China, tell me what it is. I WANT TO KNOW!!

Oom Koos said...

Lest you get spooked by my query, let me explain myself.

You have a HEAD knowledge of South Africa but, in my opinion, no HEART knowledge.

Therefore, all your supposed knowledge is meaningless piffle, as only true sons of the soil are qualified to comment on matters South African related.

However, if you are in fact a saffer, feel free to disabuse me of my erroneous assumptions. (Speak the truth, mind).

Needless to say, I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous said...

Give us proof that their is a genetic difference between the Afrikaner and the Boer, then some people might belief you.

so far you are quacking in the dark.

Place scientific proof.

Ron. said...

Well for one thing I did not say that you were not. But you are certainly protesting a lot now. Furthermore if you are indeed yet another alias of Mike Smith then it looks like you have a case of schizophrenia or something as you have openly asserted to being an "Afrikaner" in the past.

Now you claim to disagree with what I "say" yet all you are doing is disagreeing with the messenger because what you are doing is disagreeing with the facts. I wanted to learn about the Boer people & should not have to endure attacks from you for simply relating what I have learned.

Well I was born in South Africa so I am a South African by birth but I reject the notion of having one's identity shaped by an illegitimate macro State which was imposed by the British Empire after they conquered the Boer Republics & forced them into a unitary State dispensation.

Oom Koos said...

No, I'm not Mike Smith, Afrikaner or whoever else you're confusing me with (and was never a great fan of SA Sucks, either).

Being born in a country (then leaving whilst still a small child), doesn't make you a native of the soil. You have to imbibe the country's culture in order to have a "feel" for the place.

You have head knowledge about SA (to some extent), but no heart knowledge.

Your dreary, dry-bones, rambling pieces lack any emotive feel - and that is not surprising, as you are not South African in the first place.

I've a South African friend born in Peru who left there as a small child; certainly doesn't make him Peruvian.

Ron. said...

Anon. That is a straw man argument because genetics is ancillary to culture & political outlook. Furthermore: it is a documented & historical fact that the Boers are distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners. Professor Wallace Mills notes that the Boers were in fact distinct from the Cape Dutch
& that the Boers saw themselves as such. Click link to read further. This difference was seen all throughout the various elections where Boers often voted one way & Afrikaners voted another way. Theuns Cloete observes how the Cape Dutch have always voted against the Boers. This fact demonstrates that the Boers can not find the self determination that they have been seeking since 1795 if they are continued to be forced under Afrikaner domination.

There is no significant genetic difference between the Quebecois & the Acadians but the Acadians developed into a distinct culture from the Quebecois in exactly the same way as the Boers did from the Afrikaners. Telling Boers to abandon their centuries long just freedom struggle because it is has somehow become "trendy" to identify with everyone who speaks a common language & to support the South African macro State [ complete with the slogan of "proudly South African" ] only empowers this artificial macro State & attempts to rationalize the vicious rhetoric of calling Boer Republicans "radical" or "fringe" when all they want is to be afforded the same right to self determination as afforded to many other peoples / nations. This was something that the Boers even had in the past when they established various Boer Republics - the major ones being recognized by various European governments & that of the
USA. Click link to read further. The Boers are not trying to reinvent the wheel here: they are simply going forward with an old desire for self determination.

There is also little significant genetic difference between Canadians & Americans. In fact the bulk of the English speaking Canadians originally came from Loyalist Americans who were AGAINST the American break with the crown who then moved up north. Yet few people in their right minds would EVER tell Canadians to STOP viewing themselves as distinct from Americans & to fold into the Americans & to become "happy little Americans" forced under American domination. In fact the Canadians often live in total fear of the Americans annexing them & turning their country [ macro state ] into the 51st American state as has happened to the Boer Republics when they were turned into British colonies & later Afrikaner colonies. The whole world recognizes the right of the Canadians to self determination & to be distinct from the bulk of the Americans. No one ever says that the Canadians are being "divisive" for pursing their natural & inherent right to self determination. I for one can not understand why the Boers are singled out for so much opprobrium for simply continuing to pursue their centuries long struggle for self determination.

Ron. said...

The Boers were struggling for self determination LONG before the arrival of the British Colonists & even long before the emergence of the Afrikaners who were made up mostly of Cape Dutch descendents. Why are straw men arguments thrown up over irrelevant debates of genetics [ the false argument often being that the Boers "have to be genetically different from Afrikaners" in order to be "granted" self determination when the only thing that matters is the decision on the part of the people in question. Just like the North American example where Canada exists APART from the USA. Even though they are mostly English speakers from common origins. IE: if the Boers want independence: why must we stop them? Why do we want to dilute their natural strength & inertia by forcing them to remain under the tutelage of the Afrikaners? ] So far no one has ever provided a clear or legitimate answer to those valid long standing questions.

Ron. said...

Oom Koos. Straw man argument from you too because it is precisely a lack of knowledge that has caused the Boers to be as subjugated & subverted by those who often suppress information. Heart knowledge? Are you going New Age on us? I think you are looking for the William Shatner program Weird or What where he covered how organs appear to have their own memories. Unsolved Mysteries covered that topic decades earlier. [ even the SAME cases ] Emotive feel? I did not realize that the sissification of my posts was a necessary prerequisite to posting simple history & facts as per the mandate as conferred upon myself when accepting the invitation to post. Rambling? Surely you must be joking. Folks have openly said that my articles are "eloquent" & educational. This sounds like sour grapes on your part as you are simply against the notion of Boer self determination.

Anonymous said...

@oom Koos or Piet or whatever you’re called
Please read parts of an article NOT by me… By Adriana Stuijt and maybe we can get past the Boer/Afrikaner issue and try to stand together for once…
Boer, Afrikaner Or White - Which Are You? By Adriana Stuijt. People are again losing their ethnic identity and get confused about what to call themselves - Boers, Afrikaners or whites, which are you? They are losing their ethnic identity - and it's not the first time this tragedy is occurring. So who are these people - first called the Grensboere, then the Voortrekkers, then Boers, then Afrikaners - and who again being degraded to "whites" - people in other words, who have no right to live on the African continent. Has anybody ever figured out why so many people have stopped referring to themselves as Boers since 1902 even though they know they were directly descended from Boers? And increasingly one finds this besieged minority referring to themselves in the same racist terms used by the ANC,
namely "whites". Many people not familiar with South African history get confused - And now, these people are again at risk of losing their ethnic identity even further - and thus also losing their rights to remain in Southern Africa as a unique, ethnically different nation. Even those still calling themselves "Afrikaners" are falling victim to this identity crisis, which is being created by the ANC regime. How did this tragedy -- the loss of one's ethnic identity and the loss if the history of your people -- actually come about? As soon as all these people start referring to themselves as "whites" they will have lost all rights to remain in South Africa. We know why their identity is being taken away. But we don't know how these so-called Afrikaners have also actively participated in the steady removal of the Boer nation's identity before these current events. And that's what makes a lot of people confused about their own identity. It's a little-known part of history which started shortly after the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902, when the Boers were a defeated, poverty-stricken people who had been forced off their farms and whose towns had been destroyed by the British.
They were dirt-poor and plunged into an unprecedented famine. Many had to flee to the cities to survive - Up to that point, the Boers had had a rich history and people still find old history books referring to this nation.... As they Trekked, the Boers named the map of South Africa and many of its vegetation and wildlife as well. All these Boer names are now being wiped off the map of South Africa in one fell swoop by the ANC-regime - even though the Boers' official history had ended in 1902, long before the elitist-Afrikaners who ran the secret Afrikaner Broederbond cabal had started apartheid in 1948. Yet this is not the first time that the Boers are facing such an ethnic cleansing campaign by a nation that is hell-bent to remove their very rights to exist in South Africa - this is the third time in Boer history. The first time the British tried to eradicate them from the map of South Africa with their vicious war and their even more vicious concentration camps where many tens of thousands of Boer women, children and elderly starved to death within just a few months. After this first genocide to target the Boer nation, their descendants still managed to cling to their identity for at least another generation - until the secret cabal of wealthy Afrikaners called the Afrikaner Broederbond gained hegemony -- and then took away their identity from about 1933onwards.
TO CONTINUE
Thank you
PastUseByDate

Ron. said...

The distinct nature of the Boers was noted as well in Chapter One of The Great Trek by Oliver Ransford with the following quote.

[ More and more Boers followed the pioneers into the interior where conditions suited them so well that they experienced a minor population explosion and formed the nucleus of a new nation. They were as nomadic as the Hottentots, or as the antelope they hunted. Trekking for them became a way of life. ] Link.

Now if the Boers are supposedly part of the "same" nation as the Cape Dutch then one would expect that Cape Town would be the "nucleus" of this nation. The fact that the Trekboers of the Cape frontiers became the "nucleus of a new nation" & also had "a population explosion" DEMONSTRATES that the Boers are a distinct people / group from the Cape Dutch whom the Boers moved away from starting 150 years before the Great Trek.

Islandshark said...

By PastUseByDate - comment shows up as posted 12 May even though it only came through today - so I'll repost...

@oom Koos or Piet or whatever you’re called

Please read parts of an article NOT by me… By Adriana Stuijt and maybe we can get past the Boer/Afrikaner issue and try to stand together for once…
Boer, Afrikaner Or White - Which Are You? By Adriana Stuijt. People are again losing their ethnic identity and get confused about what to call themselves - Boers, Afrikaners or whites, which are you? They are losing their ethnic identity - and it's not the first time this tragedy is occurring.

So who are these people - first called the Grensboere, then the Voortrekkers, then Boers, then Afrikaners - and who again being degraded to "whites" - people in other words, who have no right to live on the African continent. Has anybody ever figured out why so many people have stopped referring to themselves as Boers since 1902 even though they know they were directly descended from Boers? And increasingly one finds this besieged minority referring to themselves in the same racist terms used by the ANC,
namely "whites". Many people not familiar with South African history get confused - And now, these people are again at risk of losing their ethnic identity even further - and thus also losing their rights to remain in Southern Africa as a unique, ethnically different nation.

Even those still calling themselves "Afrikaners" are falling victim to this identity crisis, which is being created by the ANC regime. How did this tragedy -- the loss of one's ethnic identity and the loss if the history of your people -- actually come about? As soon as all these people start referring to themselves as "whites" they will have lost all rights to remain in South Africa. We know why their identity is being taken away. But we don't know how these so-called Afrikaners have also actively participated in the steady removal of the Boer nation's identity before these current events. And that's what makes a lot of people confused about their own identity. It's a little-known part of history which started shortly after the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902, when the Boers were a defeated, poverty-stricken people who had been forced off their farms and whose towns had been destroyed by the British.

They were dirt-poor and plunged into an unprecedented famine. Many had to flee to the cities to survive - Up to that point, the Boers had had a rich history and people still find old history books referring to this nation.... As they Trekked, the Boers named the map of South Africa and many of its vegetation and wildlife as well. All these Boer names are now being wiped off the map of South Africa in one fell swoop by the ANC-regime - even though the Boers' official history had ended in 1902, long before the elitist-Afrikaners who ran the secret Afrikaner Broederbond cabal had started apartheid in 1948. Yet this is not the first time that the Boers are facing such an ethnic cleansing campaign by a nation that is hell-bent to remove their very rights to exist in South Africa - this is the third time in Boer history.

The first time the British tried to eradicate them from the map of South Africa with their vicious war and their even more vicious concentration camps where many tens of thousands of Boer women, children and elderly starved to death within just a few months. After this first genocide to target the Boer nation, their descendants still managed to cling to their identity for at least another generation - until the secret cabal of wealthy Afrikaners called the Afrikaner Broederbond gained hegemony -- and then took away their identity from about 1933onwards.

TO CONTINUE
Thank you
PastUseByDate

Ron. said...

PastUseByDate. Thanks for your contribution but I doubt this Oom Koos character really wants folks to stand together on the topic of Boer self determination.

I have also linked / sourced to that great article by Adriana Stuijt in the past too & I probably should post it in its entirety on this blog as well as the great open letter that Professor Tobias Louws authored in 2003 which also dealt [ in part ] with the Boers' distinction from the Afrikaners as those articles "should" end the debate. But as "Afrikaner" [ aka Mike Smith ] & this Oom Koos have shown: it will probably not. As they tend to respond with straw man arguments / ad hominem attacks & distortion.

I have amassed a plethora of documentation specifically describing & denoting the distinction of Boers from the bulk of the Afrikaners in my fifteen plus years of researching this topic so it is entirely disingenuous when some [ often agenda driven ] folks ignorantly assert that there is not because the fact is that those who do not recognize the distinction have simply not done their homework.

The following is an old post from my own Boer identity & history blog where I posted about 35 / that's thirty five SEPARATE instances of excerpts from various sources noting this valid distinction. The Noted Distinction of Boers From Afrikaners. It is all very well for those oppositional folks to CLAIM that there is not when I [ as well as anyone else who cares to study Boer history closer ] keep on finding one example after another the more I look into it. Which puts to rest the absurd & bizarre notion that I "have no proof" when my assessments are based entirely on the documented proof.

Oom Koos said...

Anonymous said...

@oom Koos or Piet or whatever you’re called Please read parts of an article NOT by me… By Adriana Stuijt and maybe we can get past the Boer/Afrikaner issue and try to stand together for once…


PastUseByDate? Is that your handle? Let me respond to your opening paragraph.

It must surely be very clear from what I've written that the very LAST thing I'm trying to achieve is for Boers/Cape-Dutch(so-called)/other Whites, or whomever else to be divided!! Haven't I made it clear that SA Whites, especially ALL Afrikaans-speakers, should try and stand together...FOR ONCE?!

If nothing else, it's the propagators of division that irritate and annoy me the most.

The old Boer Republics are NOT gonna come back, however desirable, so a whole new dispensation for White saffers is now the reality. Is that too difficult to grasp?

And the fact of the matter is, it's much easier for English saffers (of which I'm one) to get out of SA than Afrikaners. Therefore, the challenges facing Afrikaners today are true for both the "Cape Dutch" and Boer descendents. Please don't give me this tripe about how the Cape Afrikaners were OK with British rule (if they ever were), and therefore are OK with the modern SA state, enforced upon them by the British.

The British stopped ruling SA a fair while ago, and the modern rulers of SA are very alien to minorities in general, let alone the Whites, and let alone even more-so the Afrikaners.

The SA of today is a very different beast to the political and social dispensation of 110 years ago.

So, yes, I agree, let's try and stand together. And "Cape Dutch" and Boer make more natural allies than English and Afrikaner (though that alliance should be encouraged too).

Ron. said...

The notion that the Boer Republics "are not going to came back" is an ASSERTION & a declaration. The rash belief that they will not come back will make it a self fulfilling prophecy. If the Boers stood together in significant numbers demanding them back: negotiations would soon start to reach some sort of accommodation because their lawful existence predates the macro State later imposed which would lose more of its "legitimacy" & "authority" should enough Boers withdraw their consent to being governed by an illegitimate regime & take further steps at reinstating their former sovereignty over their republics which were internationally recognized as the lawful property of the Boer Nation.

There is your basic oversight. The futile effort of "trying to stand together" with all White people will go nowhere as a lot of White people - probably even most - are not so dissatisfied that they are willing to seek independent oriented secessionist remedies. Whereas the bulk of the Boer people are on board some sort of secessionist proposal. What you forget is that the problem of division is INHERENT & that it is best to navigate AROUND this intractable division & try to focus instead on the group & the ones who are already PREPARED to opt for a independent oriented secessionist plan.

This notion of trying to create "a whole new dispensation for White saffers" will be a lot HARDER to achieve than attempting to restore the Boer Republics for a number of reasons not least of which no one would know where to create it as there are competing proposals. Whereas the Boer Republics are easily identifiable [ though of course some renegotiation of borders will occur ] to which the Boers have lawful claim to & have a legitimate case to reassert their sovereignty over as even Article 7 of the Vereeniging Accord was violated.

The challenges facing the Boers are probably the hardest as the bulk of the poor White population are descended from Boers & their history is being eradicated & targeted much more harshly no doubt due to the inherent rights they have in the region because of it. No. It is not "tripe" that the Cape Dutch [ note: not the Cape Boers as the Cape Boers of the frontier were also often opposed to British rule ] were okay with British rule. Author Mordechai Tamarkin noted that the Cape Dutch were pro British & pro Colonial in his book Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. Professor Hermann Giliomee [ who is biased against Boers ] also noted this fact as well when he noted that they were content under British rule. This pro status quo mentality has remained to this day for the most part even if many of them are also opposed to the ANC but they seek political remedies WITHIN the dispensation.

No. The British [ at least the British based companies / banks ( Barclay's owns ABSA ) / financial institutions ] still run South Africa to this day as the ANC is simply a puppet regime they installed & finance. Remember that even Nelson Mandela himself was exposed as an MI6 agent in 2000 by a fellow MI6 agent named Stephen Dorill in his book: MI6. Fifty Years of Special Operations. Even F W De Klerk was alleged to have been put into power by British Intelligence. The modern rulers of South Africa are STILL basically the same folks who have always run South Africa since it was created. The Afrikaner government of the past - while still a puppet regime despite its nominal political break with Britain - was replaced because it was seen as too independent from the supra power. The ANC is a middelman / puppet regime. The offshoots of Cecil Rhodes Round Table are still very much in control as the true power.

Ron. said...

That's odd: there are 31 [ including this one ] comments here but it says that there are 33 on the front page under the article itself. Unless there are a couple which for some reason have not shown up here but are still counted.

Islandshark said...

@ Ron: Not sure if it has something to do with that ultimate example of white trash, human stupidity and vile psychotic behaviour creature's comments being spammed or deleted.

You know, the demented chicken hanging off the same puppet strings as Julius Malema.