Friday, May 24, 2013

Rebuttal to Mike Smith's Latest Distortion.

 A few weeks ago IslandShark informed me that Mike Smith was up to his usual anti-Boer antics & sent me a link to an article where Mike rehashed old & discredited anti-Boer canards within the comments section. Someone pointed out that Smuts was not a Boer [ as he was from the Cape Dutch population ] which prompted Smith's anti-Boer rant which was full of distortions which in fact had been earlier dealt with at length right here on this blog a few years ago. I might have let this latest rant go if it were not for the fact that Mike promoted the notion that it was none other than myself who made the initial point about Smuts on his blog. I can tell you that it was not me as I have refused to visit Mike's blog for quite some time now. The last thing I read in full was Part 34 of Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box. Which was actually quite a good installment as it was mainly a referral to the book Sell-Out by adv Piet Pretorius who exposed the just how controlled the controlled opposition was. I have only read several articles of that series & not the entirety & neither did I ever make a regular habit of reading that blog too often prior as Mike & I had a final falling out here [ when he was posting as Afrikaner ] as well as within Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box wherein he continued to promote straw man arguments & distortions against Boer identity & myself in particular.

Seeing as he is still promoting demonstrable falsehoods concerning Boer identity & Afrikaner identity as well & accusing me of saying things I never said & considering that a few of his followers seem to think that he is correct in his distortions: it is only fair to set the record straight once again.

The following is what Mike posted concerning this topic.

Ron is that you? We have been down this road before and I am not going down it again.

        I see you still peddle that bullshit that Afrikaners and Boers are different people.

        I see you are still on about Boers being of German decent and Afrikaners from French and Dutch decent.

        Listen pal, Jan Smuts comes from Malmesbury in the Cape, but he was a Boer General on the side of the ZAR.

        How about General De la Rey who had not a drop of German blood, rather Spanish, French and Dutch. Was he not a Boer?

        By your definition the other Boer hero General Louis Botha must be an Englishman seeing that he came from the Natal Colony. But his first and last names are French? Both Smuts and Botha sided with the British against the Germans. In your definition “traitors”, right?

        General Piet Cronje came from Colesberg in the Cape. So he was an Afrikaner and not a Boer?

        How about General Piet Joubert…more French than “Joubert” you do not get…he was from Prince Albert in the Cape Colony. In your narrow mind and by your thick skulled definition he was not a “Boer”.

        And what about General Hertzog? German surname, but born in Wellington in the Cape Colony. Afrikaner? …Or Boer?

        How about General Ben Viljoen who was also born in the Cape Colony…also not a Boer right? Seeing that he has a French surname and was born in the Cape, he was definitely and “Afrikaner”.

        How about General Piet Kritzinger, German surname but he was born in Port Elizabeth, Cape Colony. Was he an Afrikaner or a Boer?

        And then there is General Christiaan Beyers, Boer general and Bittereinder Rebel against the Botha government…born in Stellenbosch, Cape Colony.

        WOW!!! Is that not amazing? Just about ALL the Boer Generals and heroes were from the Cape Colony and therefore Afrikaners. Now who would have thought that?
No it was not I who posted on his blog.

But since I was implicated while he posted even more severe distortions - I will have to respond.  

The following is a rebuttal to his erroneous assertions & distortions once again. 




I never said that the Boers & Afrikaners were altogether different people. I in fact pointed out that the term Afrikaner was a political / generic & arbitrary term which marginalized the Boers as the Boers are rendered a minority under the Afrikaner designation. I have noted however that the Boers are a different people from the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape as Professor Wallace Mills [ 1 ] & Journalist Adriana Stuijt [ 2 ] & Professor Tobias Louw [ 3 ] & Professor Irving Hexham [ 4 ] among others have noted & as the history shows as well. [ 5 ] I never claimed that the Boers are only of German descent as the Boers are descended from other groups as well. Furthermore German roots are part of both the Cape Dutch & the Boer populations. Mike's lie is easily refuted as I have a long history of pointing out the French Huguenot [ & other ] origins of the Boer [ & Cape Dutch ] peoples. One again all he does is throw up discredited straw man arguments & distortions without addressing the fact that the Boers are from the second colony founded on the Cape frontier during the 17th cent. by the Trekboers while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony founded in & around Cape Town. 

1. Quote: [ Trekboers certainly recognized the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British. They had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete. The westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical Afrikaner ‘nation’. ] From: Professor Wallace Mills. The Great Trek. [ stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/6Great_Trek.html ]

2. Quote: [ There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the so called Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the defeat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled." ] From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt post at Stop Boer Genocide frm 2004. [ http://www.stopboergenocide.com/10836266301.html?cc=0.5061473071974908&i=25271082#start ]

3. Quote: [ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identify, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ] From: Professor Tobias Louw. From an open letter he wrote to the ISS dated September 2003. [ web.archive.org/web/20031001202018/rebellie.org/Raaktief/rk_openletter_ISS.htm ]

4. Quote: [ The majority of the original white settlers, known as Cape Dutch, or in frontier regions Boers, maintained a nominal loyalty to the Dutch Reformed Church. ] From: Professor Irving Hexham. Christianty in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. [ people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/ELPHINK.htm#_ftnref41 ]

5. The Boers Documented as Distinct Nation.

Now it makes no difference whether Smuts was "on the side of" the ZAR Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War as he was not from the Boer ethnic group since he was from the Cape Dutch group. Mike's erroneous assertion that he was a Boer for simply fighting with the Boers is classic faulty logic as many different nationalities fought on the side of the Boers but that did not make them biological or ethnic Boers. One does not become a biological or ethnic Boer simply by joining their side of the war. Mike's assertion that De la Rey was not a Boer due to not having German roots is another total straw man argument & of course a total lie as he was born in Winburg Orange Free State. Furthermore just about all Boers have at least some German roots [ as well as French / Frisian / Dutch / Danish  roots ] so his assertion that De la Rey allegedly had none is nonsense & pure conjecture & no doubt a rhetorical device aimed at creating confusion. His assertion that Louis Botha must have been an Englishman because he was born in northern Natal is laughably absurd because a lot of Boers had settled in Natal ever since the Great Trek.
                                            
As a matter of fact Louis Botha was one of the founders of the Vryheid Republic - also known as the New Republic: a full fledged Boer Republic - which was established within northern Natal on land granted to the local & Transvaal Boers by Zulu King Dinuzulu in 1884. This Boer Republic even adopted a Vierkleur designed flag with the blue & green colours switched from the Transvaal Vierkleur layout. No. Louis Botha was descended from a German named Bode. Now I have never denied that there were Boer traitors but Mike likes to hide the fact that there were far more Cape Dutch on the side of the British then there were ever Boers who sided with them during the second Anglo-Boer War. I rarely ever go around calling anyone a traitor. The only person who EVER throws the word "traitor" around is Mike! All I ever see from him is how the Boers are "a nation of traitors" while rarely ever defining his use of the term traitor. The truth is that he defines traitor as anyone who would get in the way of imperial control of South Africa. No wonder he views the Boers as "traitors" because their historical attempts at restoring their conquered Boer Republics is viewed as treachery towards the British created macro State of South Africa. Further: one would think that authentic Boer traitors [ ie: traitors against the actual Boer people & or Boer independence ] would be a boon for Mike's pan Afrikaans Afrikaner ideology since in order for the political ideology of Afrikaner Collectivism to work: the Boers must surrender their political sovereignty & cede their power to Afrikaner domination. Though strictly speaking, the Cape Dutch cannot be "traitors" since they are not even from the Boers BUT due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch: they OUTVOTE the Boers thus their numbers work against Boer self determination. 

The town of Colesberg in the NORTHEASTERN Cape is part of the heartland of the Cape Boer people so Mike's ridiculous & erroneous assertion that this makes Piet Cronje "an Afrikaner & not a Boer" is a total joke! This is yet another example of his shameful straw man tactics of which I called him out on before, but to no avail as he stubbornly sticks to promoting straw man arguments & outright LIES & distortions about what I assert. But since he cannot debate according to the facts, he resorts to distortion & straw man tactics. One again his pathetic attempts fall apart because I never claimed that the Cape Boers were Afrikaners or were not Boers! General Piet Joubert was from the Cape frontier / the NORTHEASTERN Cape where ALL Boers were originally from! Mike is espousing a false dichotomy by claiming that all Caucasian Afrikaans speakers from the Cape are not Boers or are all part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. The Cape frontier was always home to the Boer people. Most of the Cape Rebels were from the Cape Boers of the frontier. I thought I settled this point years ago on this blog as well as within my information packed article of 2011:

The Cape Rebels Were Not Cape Dutch.

I pointed out long ago that JBM Hertzog was from the Cape Dutch population. [ I had to do this because Mike was asserting that "Boer Generals" ran South Africa until the 1940s to the point where it seemed as though he was cackling in his pathetic attempts at reversing the reality that the actual Boers were facing. ] His pathetic rhetorical device of asserting that Hertzog's German surname makes him a Boer is pure obfuscation because the Cape Dutch & Boer people are not determined by surnames but rather by line of descent & shared history. The Cape Dutch & Boers share very little history as they are from different colonies with the Trekboers putting even more space between the two then the later Voortrekkers putting even more space between the two. Just as the Quebecois & the Acadians share a lot of surnames but are two anthropologically different peoples with their own distinct identities. His snarky: "I ask you, who won the Anglo-Boer War?" [ which he used to exclaim in older posts & blogs ] was a transparent attempt at accusing the Boers for political  actions which were not enacted by the actual Boer population.

General Ben Viljoen was a Boer but he persists with his straw man argument that anyone born in the Cape [ even when they are born in the Boer populated region of the Cape ] or has a French surname [ despite the numerous Boers with French surnames! ] is somehow not a Boer. Folks with discernment & any knowledge of the history of the region can see through his pathetic attempts at confusing the issue as he is clearly implying that the Cape Boers were somehow not part of the Boers of the republics or were just part of the Cape Dutch.

Few are buying his ridiculous argument & slight of hand trick that all of the Cape Boers were / are part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. Anyone with discernment can see that Mike's agenda is to get the Boers to forget about their true identity in order to allow themselves to be usurped & derailed by the larger Cape Dutch descendents under the dispossessing Afrikaner designation. He does this in order to dilute the strength of the Boer people, because if every Boer were to stand for independence: he could still OVERRULE them & nullify their position no matter how unanimous their decisions are by claiming that they are all just part of the larger Cape Dutch population as Afrikaners. That is why the Afrikaner designation is so dangerous to the Boer people as it marginalizes their just aspirations by forcing them to accept decisions made by the Cape Dutch population.

The Boer people will never acquire self determination under the Afrikaner designation & HE KNOWS THIS FULL WELL because the Boers are a minority under this arbitrary & dispossessing designation. He wants to convince the Boers that they are all part of the Cape Dutch dominated Afrikaners whose leadership works against any form of authentic Boer self determination.

No one has to "adopt the Boer name"... [ as he asserted ] as  the Boers were simply submerged into the Afrikaner designation at a political level - while never at a cultural level - therefore the assertion of Boer identity does not "adopt" anything new but rather reasserts their authentic ethnic identity. He is well aware that his trick of asserting that the Boers are just part of the Afrikaners DILUTES the natural strength that the Boers would have if they were to disentangle themselves from Afrikaner suzerainty / decisions & political / financial domination. That has been his plan all along... coupled with tarring them & White people in general with the Apartheid stigma & defamation.

The assertion of Boer identity does not cause division in the least simply because all Boers can unite under their authentic ethnic identity but... it is in fact the assertion of the Afrikaner designation which causes division as it forces two different ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to instant friction. The Cape Dutch will always outvote the Boers & he damn well knows this! That is why he propagates the lie that the Boers are part of the Afrikaners so he can STOP the Boers from acquiring any form of self determination.

One must remember that the folks who struggled for & obtained self determination during the 19th cent were Boers [ originally from the Cape frontier ] - not the Cape Dutch. The Great Trek was a movement of the Boer people of the Cape frontier. It was not something that interested the vast majority of the Cape Dutch who could not understand why anyone would want to separate themselves from the Colonial power. 

There is no difference between the Cape Boers & the Boers north of the Orange River but any historian will note that there are huge differences between the Boers & the Cape Dutch. Something that Mike tries to taper over as part of his anti-Boer self determination agenda. Although he himself has on occasion de facto admitted in some of his rants this distinction when he gets riled up over "liberals" whom he never refers to under their actual historic ethnic designation [ though he himself is a confessed "former liberal" & current  neo conservative ie: not a true conservative ] while then living in the heartland of the Cape Dutch in Cape Town.  He is well known for signing articles as coming from Cape Town.

Mike knows the truth & he also knows my TRUE position [ ie: that I know that the Cape Boers are part of the Republican Boers ] because I have posted it on my own blog numerous times & addressed him directly here & on his own blog as well. Therefore there is unfortunately only one logical conclusion to draw from this latest act of distortion & deception. During the debate on Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box he deliberately asserted the Trekboers of the 1600s & 1700s were really the Voortrekkers of the mid 19th century in a futile & very lame attempt at sidelining & obscuring the birth of the Boer people which occurred just a few decades after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck & not during the Great Trek as Mike & some other Afrikaner Collectivist apologists like to claim. Read more at: The Purposeful Omission of a Distinct Nation. 


Mike ludicrously & demagogically accuses me [ behind my back as I was not the Anon poster who kicked off the debate of late ] of divide & conquer when the assertion of Boer identity divides no one because divide & conquer only works when two peoples are forced together. The use of the Afrikaner designation is divide & conquer as it forces two ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to friction. That is why Lord Alfred Milner promoted the Afrikaner designation as he knew it would destroy Boer identity & divide & conquer the whole Afrikaans language group.

Quote: [ The prime representative of the British Empire in South Africa, Sir Alfred Milner, put it this way: "The new tactic (to subjugate the Boers) must be to consolidate the different areas of British South Africa into one nation. Although unification will initially put the Boers into political control of the entire South Africa, it will, ironically, eventually lead to their final downfall."

This was of course precisely what happened - but not until a new name had been developed for the new "nation" which Milner spoke about. They could not continue to call the new nation a "Boer" state, because the Boers had been subjugated. They could not call it a "Cape Dutch" state, as the Dutch colonialists were now British colonialists, and they could not call it a British state, for obvious reasons. The answer then was to give a general term to all White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners".

Although the word originally meant "African" it was politicized by a group of Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers took up arms to fight the British colonialists) in literature of the time. It was then decided to try and blend the Boers into the Cape Dutch and English speaking White populations but calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real ethnic bases. ] [ http://www.arthurkemp.com/whoaretheboers.htm ] From: The Boers of Southern Africa. By Arthur Kemp.

I have never promoted the notion that one group of Boers are better than another group. We know that Mike's former bosses at the Broederbond [ he admitted on this blog to handing out books for them ] do divide & conquer the Boers along contrived political & even religious lines. I publicly disavow any attempt at dividing the Boer people. But one thing is clear: Calling the Boers Afrikaners dilutes the natural strength of the Boer Nation. 

I have never claimed that the Republican Boers were different from the Cape Boers as his recent hit-piece rant post openly asserted. I am well aware that many Boer Generals were born in the Cape. Note that they were born in the EASTERN Cape: the region where all the Boers are originally from & where many remained. As to those fewer Cape Dutch from the Western Cape who joined the Boers struggle for independence: I have absolutely no problem with that at all. If all of the Cape Dutch were like the Boers then this debate would barely even be necessary but his pointing out of the few examples of pro-Boer individuals from the Cape Dutch does not change or negate the fact that most of the Cape Dutch have no interest in Boer self determination & are often opposed to it outright. He conflates [ deftly ] the Cape Boers with the Cape Dutch in the vain hope that you will not notice his deception. 

This tactic of his is tantamount to pointing out the few Americans who supported the Boers struggle for independence as indicative of ALL Americans when that was clearly not the case. The problem with Smuts was not just that he was a Cape Dutch but that he was a British agent. There were two Colonies established at the Cape in the 17th cent. The colony in the west led to the eventual existence of the Cape Dutch while the colony established in the north & east led to the existence of the Boer population. All of the Boers are from the second colony while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony. The Cape Dutch were pro Colonial & pro British while the Boers were anti-Colonial & anti-British. The Cape Dutch had strong ties to Europe [ Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin ] while the Boers had cut all ties to Europe. [ The Great Trek. Oliver Ransford. & The Devil's Annexe. Sidney Robbins page 59. ] This is not "division" [ try to have more than one thought in your head at the same time ] just a geo-political reality that must be taken into account & navigated around [ with no ill-intent towards the Cape Dutch & recognition & acceptance of those comparative few who do support the Boers ] if the Boers hope to reacquire self determination. 
                                                

I have pointed out that the Cape frontier consisted of everything from Swellandam right up to Colesberg. [ & even beyond ]  Read more at: The Cape Frontier: Birthplace of the Boer Nation. Hence my own words vindicate my points in this rebuttal & show Mike up for the liar that he is as I pointed out that the Boers are native to the northeastern Cape region. Thus his constant erroneous assertions that I ever said that the Cape Boers were not Boers is a provable lie. His incorrigible behaviour exposes himself as having an agenda. Mike is playing a mind game with his followers using the psy-op that the Cape Boers are somehow not part of the Republican Boers of the Boer Republics. I pointed out myself [ using Michael Barthorp as a source ] right here on this very blog years ago that there was a lot Cape Rebel activity at Colesberg.

Further irony is that Mike called White Nationalism White Communism when he himself promotes Afrikaner Communism / Collectivism with his forced political association of Cape Dutch & Boer under the Socialist based dispossessing Afrikaner rubric. The term Afrikaner refers to a specific REGIME that was built around a forced political coalition of Cape Dutch & Boer for the specific purpose of gaining control over the South African region. This idea was first pursued in the late 19th cent so there are a few notable Boers like F W Reitz who got on board this dispossessing Afrikaner agenda & called himself an Afrikaner in this pan political context. The Cape based Afrikaners of the 19th cent - mainly through the Afrikaner Bond - were floating the notion of creating a confederation for the specific purpose of controlling the South African region. This idea finally came about with the Afrikaner Broederbond of the 20th cent. 

The term Afrikaner does not refer to an enthnicity as there are at least two involved within the designation. Those who use the notion that some 19th cent Boers called themselves Afrikaners are totally missing some key points. The Boers called themselves such in the context that they saw themselves as Africans part of the African continent. They did not use the term to imply that that saw themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch who NEVER used the term Afrikaner to describe themselves until the LATE 19th cent & only did so in order to promote a dispossessing pan Afrikaans identity in the wake of the gold & diamonds that were discovered in the Boer Republics. People must get street smart about this. The Cape Dutch historically used to look down upon the Boers to the point of ridiculing them for going on the Great Trek but then suddenly & out nowhere just a few years after gold was discovered in the ZAR / Transvaal Republic they suddenly start calling themselves Afrikaners for the first time in their nebulous & obscure history & start referring to the Boers as their "brothers" when prior they wanted nothing to do with them. It is a plain as day that the term Afrikaner was being promoted to DISPOSSESS the Boers out of ownership of their own republics & especially out of the resources found therein. This was not even really a Cape Dutch program because author C H Thomas asserted that the Afrikaner Bond was being controlled from Holland. Remember also that two members of the Society of True Afrikaners [ which was founded in 1875 ] were from Holland. The main political reason why some Boers of the 19th cent were calling themselves Afrikaners was due to the successful but limited effect of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape whose political ideology was starting to get spread into the Boer Republics. Furthermore remember that the Afrikaner Bond began to promote war against Britain at a time when notable Boers such as President Marthinus Steyn of the OVS / Orange Free State & General de la Rey were still strongly against war. 

The notion that Boer self determination "divides" Afrikaners is as absurd as suggesting that Dixie self determination "divides" Capitalists or that Estonian self determination "divides" Soviets or that Croatian or Serbian or Slovenian self determination "divides" Yugoslavians / Communists because the terms Afrikaner / Capitalist / Soviet / Communist & Yugoslavian are political concepts / constructs which were often used to divide & conquer the various peoples who were subjected & subjugated under the prospective terms. It is not possible to divide an amorphous political concept which is enforced in a top down manner. But these political concepts are used to create friction by lumping different people together.

Therefore:

The assertion of Boer identity aims to get out of this dialectical process of Afrikaner domination.   

8 Opinion(s):

Jim Beam said...

I know you did not write the comment Ron because I did. I thought it a bit odd that he lost his nickers in the process but very telling in the end.

Mike enjoys belittling Coloureds. He has a certain panache for it. I have highlighted before how we lost our identities under apartheid when our history was written out of the school books yet the blacks got to keep theirs. Now that might not seem important to you, but it is as you are now losing yours under black rule.

There is lots to learn from apartheid both good and bad but the one single biggest issue we should have learned was never again to erase other peoples identities. See Pieter Marais not the best example of Coloured leadership, now has come to the belated conclusion that Coloureds are not ethno-centric. It appears to have skipped his head that the 'ethno' has been removed long ago when the heritage was squashed.

Learn from others to see where you are heading. As Boers you are still ethno-centric however your identities are now not being erased but clearly being hijacked. As I said before and say again. Your biggest enemies are amongst yourselves and the Jingo's in the country.

As for the comment let me highlight:


1. Just because you fought on the side of the Boers does not make you a Boer. There were Russians, Irish and others on the side of the Boers. That did not make them Boers. Its like putting a Chinese national in France and calling him French.

2. There is no divide and conquer. You cannot divide what was never one.

3. The Afrikaners did not invent Afrikaans and the locals giving up their indigenous languages for it. Afrikaans was low Dutch much like kitchen English.


There we go. The 3 issues that truly piss me off. BTW I have come to the conclusion myself that this hijacking of the Boers identity is orchestrated. I notice Bok van Blerk and Steve Hoffmeyer calling themselves Boers and I can only rollover and piss in my pants in laughter. Notice how he uses Boer history with songs such as Afrikaner Hart?

Good luck mate - you Boers are going to need it!

bryan said...

OK Thanks,good luck to u to.

Islandshark said...

@ Jim Beam - Could you send me your email address? Just leave comment, I won't publish it.

Ron. said...

Glad you came forward Jim as it is a bit disconcerting that whenever someone posts anything slightly critical of the faulty British & Afrikaner narrative or is the slightest bit pro-Boer: they automatically erroneously presume it is I who made the comment. I guess that's the price one pays for making the modest effort I do in trying to inform the public & get the truth out via mainly my blog & others. I know I have done a lot of research & have created a number of articles & posts, but I stand on the shoulders of giants whose own work woke me up in the first place. So attacking myself over the facts I present is rather pointless because anyone else can gather the same information & do the same research I have done & come to the exact same conclusion.

If the Boers & Cape Dutch Afrikaners were in fact all the same or there were no difference: it would make life a whole lot simpler. This is not a complexity I expected to find when I started out in my research a couple decades ago. I was even one of the early supporters of the proposal of Western Cape independence... just to show you that I too was once ignorant of the relevance of the political outlook of the descendents of the Cape Dutch. Anyone with any discernment & political awareness knows that that proposal is doomed as the Cape Dutch will refuse to be cut off from the resources which are mainly found within the northern areas of South Africa. So those who assert that restoring the Boer Republics will be difficult often do not realize that making the Western Cape independent will be equally if not more difficult.

This was not the first time that Mike lost it. The first time he did I was confused. The very first sign that something was amiss was back in 2006 - 2007 when he erroneously but flagrantly asserted that Stellenbosch University was "a Boer Oxford" which is impossible as the Boers' ancestors had left / trekked from the Stellenbosch area by 1700. [ interesting that he chose Oxford. ] He could have called it an Afrikaner Oxford but he chose the inappropriate word "Boer" for some odd reason. All the more odd since later he would claim that the Boers ceased to exist by the time of the Maritz Rebellion. Just as he would often sign off with God Save The Boers while propagating against them. [ Once again: the God Save The... part was interesting & odd. ] I politely called to his attention that Stellenbosch cannot possibly be a "Boer Oxford" citing the reasons I listed here & he promptly returned with a snide: "you Boers are part of an exclusive club"! It was not until he started posting as Afrikaner here that he really let rip his true sentiments - further exposing himself - then later openly on his own blog in Part 30 of The Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box. He was getting ridiculous. He went from: "the Boers do not exist" [ which he asserted on this blog. ] to: "the Boers are Cape Dutch that trekked" [ on his blog ] to: "the Trekboers were the Voortrekkers" displaying his panic at trying to obfuscate & hide the distinct identity of the Boer Nation.


Ron. said...

Jim: That was part of how I cracked Afrikaner as being Mike: over his verbatim attacks on the Coloureds concerning in particular his assertion that the Coloureds "do not speak real Afrikaans". Which is an abrupt way of saying that they do not speak the same dialect as he does. What really exposed Mike as being Afrikaner was his verbatim attacks / straw man arguments & distortions he issued on his own blog under the Mike name that he did here as Afrikaner. He soon admitted to being Afrikaner after I pointed out the his verbatim rhetoric.

The Boers are facing threats from all fronts. They are being persuaded to abandon any identity other than that of being a South African. Not too long ago I came across a website where a White South African was asserting that he sees himself as being part of the "South African majority". One cannot but help wonder how well that naive outlook worked for the German minorities who were victimized during the Nazi era. Or persecuted minorities in many other countries for that matter. I am sure a lot of Jews & others saw themselves as being part of "the German majority" [ German being used in a civil sense of course similar to the use of the term South African, Yugoslavian or Canadian. ] before they were rudely awakened. Comparable in some ways to how the Boers saw & often still see themselves as being part of "the Afrikaners" while its leadership does just about everything to suppress them & prevent them from obtaining authentic self determination.

Response to point # 1. That is what I have been saying for a long time too. I pointed it out in Generals But Not Boer Generals. It was a direct response to Mike's & others' erroneous assertion that Boer Generals were "running South Africa" until the 1940s. One cannot automatically become part of an ethnic group just because you are fighting on their side of a struggle or war.

Response to point # 2. I agree 100%. There is nothing to divide in the first place since the Boers & Cape Dutch have never been "one". It was only an illusion promoted by politicians in order to persuade the Afrikaans speakers to accept their role as the "surrogate colonial ruler" [as a stand in for the British ] of the macro State created by the British with British legislation. The Cape Dutch & Boers both shared a macro State along with Anglophones at a political level [ ie: they were all granted voting rights but under false identities re: Afrikaner... ] but they never became one homogenous group.

Response to point # 3. True again as it was created from a diverse array of sources. No. I think Afrikaans stems from High Dutch or rather Low German. Though one interpretation is that all of the peoples the VOC dumped at the Cape had to learn Dutch & since it was difficult for them to totally abandon their own various languages: they simply brought those influences onto the supposed Dutch that they were mandated to learn. At any rate the confluence of input & influences from the various peoples at the Cape certainly changed it into its own language & created numerous dialects some of which persist.



Ron. said...

Concerning Bok van Blerk's use of the term Afrikaner. This is a complex issue because it can be used in a legitimate sense if one is referring to oneself as being African or part of Africa. It gets problematic when it is being used for political reasons to dispossess the Boers by lumping them in with the Cape Dutch. No wonder those Cape Dutch intellectuals of the 19th cent used the term Afrikaner since it was a term that could bypass the bulk of the Boers' critical factor. [ ie: it was an easy term to use or adopt since the Boers had always seen themselves as African & being part of Africa. ] I am not sure in what sense he uses the term, but from what I have learned, he got into a lot of trouble for asserting & talking about Boer identity during his notable De la Rey song & video.

One of the interesting things I have discovered is that most of those so called Afrikaners who are struggling & or advocating for independence are actually Boers. I cannot tell you how many times someone has said: "I am a Boer" or "I have ancestors that went on the Great Trek" then in the same sentence will say: "I am also an Afrikaner". A lot of them justify this term due to its connotation that it means "African". But what a lot of them cannot or do not notice is that this term is ALSO used by the descendents of the Cape Dutch who are more numerous & who have historically never seen themselves as African or wanting independence or very much outright self determination.

These Boer descended "Afrikaners" struggling for self determination [ often along the compromised Volkstaat program ] are going to have a devil of a time in trying to convince the Cape Dutch in any serious numbers to join them which is one of the main reasons why the British ever labeled them all as Afrikaners in the first place. That's how the Afrikaner establishment always gets away with the notion of painting the Boers in favour of independence as a "fringe" group. Mike always liked to point out the "Boer traitors" as though that negates the numerical weight of the larger Cape Dutch whose political inertia controls the Afrikaner designation & thus prevents any application of Boer self determination.


Ron. said...

The erroneous notion that the Boers are "Cape Dutch that trekked" is about as absurd & offensive as suggesting that the Dutch / Scots / Anglo-Saxons & Scandinavians are just "Germans that trekked". It is quite an affront against Boers to suggest that their long struggle for self determination is secondary to being folded into another ethnic group which has a totally different outlook.

Case in point: if the Boers truly were "Cape Dutch that trekked" then there would never have ever been a single Boer or rather Cape Dutch Republic ever! If it were the Cape Dutch that trekked: they would have brought THEIR outlook [ which was pro-Colonial & anti-independence oriented ] to the frontier. Much as the British & Portuguese settlers did. Mike does not seem to notice this... or rather was just trying to propagate a falsehood in order to obfuscate a relevant distinction.

The whole reason why there ever were Boer Republics or republics at all in the region to begin with stems entirely from the fact that the ancestors of the Boers were from a specific impoverished people who were exiled from Colonial society due to their strong anti-authoritarian outlook & desire for independence which played a prominent role in shaping their anti-colonial & pro-independence & republican outlook in the first place. The Boers have had numerous freedom struggles all throughout their history while the Cape Dutch have had none. That is not an accident. If it were the Cape Dutch which trekked: then there would have been no people with which to advance the notion of political independence as we saw with the Boer people because the Cape Dutch were loyal to the Colonial powers & eschewed the notion of going it alone or secession. The fact that the Boers of the frontier ever established republics / wanted independence & were so anti-colonial demonstrates a fundamental difference to the political outlook of the Cape Dutch population.


Ron. said...

When you think about it: the term Afrikaner is like a ponzi scheme as it is designed to collapse once it incorporates an unsustainable number of peoples from all backgrounds. Everyone thinks that they are the "real" or true Afrikaners while increasing numbers of new Afrikaners of diverse backgrounds increasingly destabilize the entire designation.

One of the posters in the comments section at the original article at Mike's blog for which this article was a response to pointed out that Jan Smuts went to the western Cape & to where he was from in particular - as part of a program to try to start a rebellion against the British during the second Anglo-Boer War. I am well aware of this, but what this poster tellingly did not mention was that Smuts had a difficult time & in fact he had no luck at all in trying to get the people of this area: the Cape Dutch - to rebel against the British.

This was acutely pointed out by author Michael Barthorp in his book: The Anglo-Boer Wars. Barthorp referred to a long hoped for rebellion from the western Cape that NEVER came!!!!! The fact of the matter is that the Cape Dutch had no interest in rebelling against the British despite the best efforts of those who tried to rouse them to rebel.

There were of course some folks from the Cape Dutch population like Danie Theron & C F Beyers who were notable leaders fighting on the side of the Boers [ interesting side note: Theron was raised in the Orange Free State & thus was culturally absorbed into Boer Nation & as such was rather sympathetic to the struggle to maintain Boer independence. ] but those individuals were unfortunately an exception to the rule as most of the Cape Dutch were either pro-British [ many were even overtly assisting the British with their atrocities / helping to round Boer civilians up & fighting against the Boers ] or simply just not interested in independence or self determination.