Saturday, February 13, 2010

"The More Things Change, The More We Remain The Same": Yes Pinky, But Not The Way You Imagine

Related Article:
What Is The Level of Our Commitment: Let's Explore Our Truth

Hat Tip: AM

Earlier I wrote an article, calling for the establishment of a trust fund, to help white victims of crime, to escape their hell and get out of the country, or to provide temporary relief of there dire situation. I mentioned, perhaps in the comments, that there is no such support group, that exclusively assists whites. AfriForum is perhaps the closest, and even then their mandate is very different to what I have in mind. Anyway, the ink was barely dry and I came across this article.

By the way, I strongly resent the title to this article, as it suggests that we whites, once again, refuse to change. In other words, we will not transform.

Please read this in the context of my earlier request. AfriForum will increasingly come under fire, until it is forced to surrender. We need an informal system of being able to offer assistance, without the fanfare. Something akin to an anonymous benefactor.

Pic: Pinky Khoabane

Can somebody out there tell me how AfriForum has managed to get away with being a lily-white (The racist bitch is allowed the use of such terms. Imagine I used "pitch black") organisation that looks after the interests of one racial group in a South Africa that supposedly loathes segregation?

This group, which was established by the trade union Solidarity, tells us in its founding charter that it represents the interests of minorities and not those of a racial group. But a record of its campaigns speaks volumes about its race of choice (No it doesn't. It speaks volumes about your IQ. Coloureds and Asians are favoured under AA and BEE policies. The only marginalised minority are the whites).

Since its inception it has taken on a number of cases on behalf of an exclusively white clientele, including serving legal papers on the Zimbabwean and South African governments on behalf of white Zimbabwean farmers.

It has complained to the University of Pretoria about the language rights of Afrikaans-speaking students, and mobilised communities against geographical name changes.

Where is the Human Rights Commission when you need it? Better still, where are the loud noises that shut down groups such as the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) before it could even open its doors for business because it was deemed racist?

Unlike the FBJ, AfriForum has been allowed to operate with impunity, with human rights activists seemingly accepting their right to assemble with whoever they choose. You will remember that no sooner had FBJ staged a comeback in 2008 than it was forced to shut down on the grounds that its membership was exclusive to blacks and was therefore racist. (Ah, must I spell it out. The FBJ was founded on the basis of race. AfriForum isn't).

What had sparked the saga was an off-the-record briefing it had organised with President Jacob Zuma shortly after he won the much-contested presidency of the ANC. The meeting was open to black journalists only.

White journalists who tried to attend the event were barred, sparking complaints with the commission.

The commission found that the black journalists had acted unconstitutionally by excluding their white counterparts. It also recommended that the FBJ amend its constitution to open membership to all race groups.

Could it be that the difference between AfriForum and the FBJ is that the latter actively excluded other races through its constitution while the former carefully worded its constitution in such a way that it does not pander to racial exclusivity while its campaigns do exactly that? I would be curious to find out. (Actually, what is more curious, is why you think minorities, or specifically whites, do not deserve representation. The FBJ and AfriForum have completely different agendas. AfriForum is fighting for the very survival of white Afrikaners. The FBJ seeks to entrench black supremacy, and to exploit their position of dominance)

Last week AfriForum reared its racist (Racist? How so? Because you say so?) head again in its ongoing battle for the retention of the name Pretoria. Its continued fight for the preservation of apartheid-era geographical names not only makes a mockery of our democracy, but is as telling a barometer of reconciliation in this country as any.

It also gives an indication of the extent to which some parts of white South Africa will go to harbour symbols of that grotesque policy of racial segregation (The name Pretoria, was established long before 1948, so how is it a symbol of segregation?).

Pretoria, which AfriForum is so vehemently defending, is named after Andries Pretorius who, in 1838, led the Battle of Blood River, so named because the river turned red with the blood of 3000 Zulus killed by the Voortrekkers. (You write this in a manner that suggests a cold-blooded slaughter. Hardly; the Boers were massively outnumbered and the Zulus were the aggressors)

When this lily-white group cites lack of public participation as a reason for opposing name changes, you almost want to burst out laughing. (Why, in the name of reconciliation, would you want to deny a minority group its history?)

Public participation, my foot!

Which one of the groups opposing the name changes - be it AfriForum, the Freedom Front Plus, the Afrikanerbond or the Democratic Alliance - consulted any of the communities from which they stole land and changed names in order to assert their dominance in those areas? (When was the sparsely populated land stolen? Are you suggesting it was yours by virtue of the fact that pitch black people occupied the land? What about those tribes that were completely eradicated by marauding pitch black Zulus and Xhosas?) 

Perhaps the Tshwane Metro Council and the Limpopo Geographic Names Committee erred by not opening the discussions to a larger audience, as required by law.

But may I remind those opposing these new names that there is another requirement for the geographic names and places of a democratic South Africa: the names should not be offensive. (Indeed, and I find Tshwane offensive)

The new names are nothing but a break from the policies of a system that was judged a crime against humanity by the United Nations. And let me place on record that, 15 years after South Africa's democracy, this country's heritage landscape is still dominated by English and Afrikaans names.

Changing the names is a vital aspect of restoring the history and existence of the black person in this country. (Restoring the history, what history?)

Black people lived in this country long before 1994, and also long before the arrival of white colonialists. They should therefore be reflected in the country's symbolism. (Yes, but don't cherry pick. Pitch black people existed along the east coast, not in the Western Cape) 

In a week in which we celebrate the turning point of South Africa's history and take stock of how far we have come, the actions of AfriForum stand as a stark reminder that reconciliation is one-sided. (You mean "how far we have regressed")

And that the more things change, the more they remain the same. (Indeed, South Africa is not extraordinary, it will revert to being the same as the rest of Africa) 

Source: Times Live

28 Opinion(s):

Dmitri said...

Having read this article at 07:08 on a Sunday morning, it is a good thing I am not into this Valentine's day thing, because as they say "nou is my moer suur".

The only good thing about this article is that my forefathers kicked some serious arse at Blood river.

Anonymous said...

One of the commenters on the ST website has a point - he says that Pretoria's name should be changed as it's now just a shit-hole and the once proud Pretoria City is no more. Going forward, the pitch black inhabitants can take all the credit for what it worsens into.

Anonymous said...

Vodacompark: World cup stadium: Power failure during Super-14 Game! WC2010, soccer by candle light coming next? See Rapport in Afrikaans, but nothing in the English papers yet. Trying to hide something?

Viking said...

What a bitch. Nice re-writing of history there.
How many people did "chief Tshwane" murder? if he even existed. How would we know, when there was no written history? Or was he the first pacifist king in African history? perhaps he was elected!
Pretoria wasn't named to commemorate any slaughter but to commemorate a great leader.

And back to the old "blacks were here first" argument...
- nicely done, VI.

Anonymous said...

Pinky? (Does that refer to the colour of its feet soles and hand palms?)

eduard said...

Can someone convey to this miserable low IQ'ed uncrowned beast of the field, stooopid dumb kaffir bitch the fact that while our white ancestry were inventing, building civilizations, developing, designing myriads of inventions and exploring and discovering, this kaffir bitch's ancestry were still swinging in trees. Then these pathetic kaffirs went and cut down the trees and destroyed their ancestral records!

Anonymous said...

"Coloureds and Asians are favoured under AA and BEE policies. The only marginalised minority are the whites"

I assume you know that even Coloured law firms in 2004 were forced to find black directors or lose their contracts with the banks.

I assume you know that in 2002 Coloureds where turned away amass for the new positions in the SAPS as it was resevered for blacks in the Western Cape.

I assume you know that even in the baston of liberalism - the Western Cape, Coloureds still have a hard time getting tenders without black directors.

Take any position off from Career Junction which says AA. Make up a CV and tell them you are a Coloured. See if they tell you your demographics does not fit that of what their client wants.

For the past 16 years Whites have been downgraded to Coloured status. For generations you had all the advantages a white skin could bring, now that you share the same dog box as Coloureds you moan and say its only Whites. Think of those who where the dogs bollox under Afrikaner rule and now even today under Xhosa rule are still the dogs bollox. Consider yourself lucky!

This however I found odd in your comments:

"The FBJ was founded on the basis of race. AfriForum isn't"


"AfriForum is fighting for the very survival of white Afrikaners"

So is it based on race or not?

Solidarity was started on race as it was the old White Mine Workers Union. It then morphed and became Solidarity which is much the same as the Freedom Front and Afriforum. Different name and branding but still the same old guard. Still the AB.

So if they are fighting on behalf off the White Afrikaners survival, who is fighting on behalf of the Boers if I may ask?

Islandshark said...

@ Pinky - you've got it wrong. It has nothing to do with race. We just don't want to help ugly f-ckers such as yourself...

Viking said...

@Jim Beam

when more coloured people in the Cape realise those truths, the ANC will not have any supporters left in the WC. Sadly, by then the blacks will be more than 50% and the ANC will stop pretending to be 'for' the coloureds.
I know a couple who are very pro-ANC and of the illusion that the ANC will look after their interests. This needs to change, fast.

Anonymous said...

@Jim Beam. If you want to take on a confrontational approach, by all means.

The coloured reality may be very different to the legislated position. But it is undeniable that coloureds are favoured under current legislation. You may not be black enough in reality, but that is a question of black prejudice in the implementation of ANC legislation. And, yes, the coloureds, tragically, will probably be the biggest losers in this whole affair.

AfriForum's constitution states that they represent minorities; this may well be a guise to defend white interests only. I am not familiar with all there cases, other than some high profile ones. But why is this a problem? Why would you deny Afrikaners the right to have a voice? Perhaps AfriForum isn't the correct vehicle, but that shouldn't make it racist to want to have to protect your groups interests.

As for your Afrikaner/Boer comment; that is just bullshit semantics.

Anonymous said...

@Jim Bean - cry me a river. I was also discriminated against as a white female under apartheid, but I still managed to do pretty well thank you. People with a defeatist attitude don't get far. I distinctly remember that coloreds got jobs ahead of us whites at Grotte Schuur Hospital so please don't talk to me about how your people suffered. A lot of coloreds did well and had/have huge houses and stayed in the best parts of the Cape eg Stellenbosch; Paarl etc. Seems like you have a selective memory.

Anonymous said...


Interesting perspective!

Anonymous said...


You have got to be shitting me.

"discriminated against a white female under apartheid"

I think you have lost touch with reality and what you are actually saying. Read your post again and think about it.

As for the non-whites who had big houses under aparthied. Hey you know who Herman Mashaba is? He was a black guy who became a millionare under aparthied with his hair products Black Like Me.

The big houses you talk about, they were exceptions to the rule and not even close to the base. I almost got the feeling that you would become an aparthied apologist there.

Sometimes I think many Whites are not so much angry about the ANC's gross maladministration, greed, corruption and plain theft. It's the humiliation of having to fall into the bottom sector of what one could call 'coloured class' that angers most.

Hey its only been 16 years, some have had to live with humiliation for much longer. It wont last long in any event as I believe we will get an uprising in the next 3-4 years from under the blacks.

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam, you are completely right about the humiliation that angers us. Our humiliation is intensified by the fact that all over the world whites have decent living standards. I feel we shouldn't settle for any less.

The uprising that you predict in 2 or 3 years time does not interest me, in terms of finding a better future for myself in SA. There have been no discussions in the broader society about the IQ differences between population groups. Until that fact has been acknowledged and incorporated into a peoples' policy making decisions to prevent discrimination against intelligence, I don't foresee any significant changes that will be possible under a new administration. Whatever happens, I am only expecting more of the same crap.

Anonymous said...

@FE. Wow, I see you are off the white pipe this morning. Great comment, and accurate too, albeit hardhitting.

FishEagle said...

@ VI, haha. Just because I argue for the value of faith doesn't mean I won't argue for reasoning either. I wish you could see the balance.

Anonymous said...


"There have been no discussions in the broader society about the IQ differences between population groups."

That would never make the main agenda of any political situation, however a homeland system would pretty much do the same as the above would it not? Hence as I said before, every grouping gets its own territory and limited self rule. It does achieve the very same as the IQ system would it not?

The "One Man One Vote" works perfectly in a homogenous society however South Africa was never one and never will be. Each has to be responsible to thier own.

You don't achieve much in life without trying FE and simply giving up hope without any reasoning does not go well for the future. The next batch of politicians might be open to minority rights.

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam, I agree that a homeland system will work. Alternatively, one could have a meritocratic government, which would achieve almost the same thing. Personally I'm in favour of the meritocratic system because we've already sacrificed so much to get there. The sacrifice of approximately 130 million lives during the First and Second World War, which resulted in the acceptance of the democracy (or communism) in most of the First World, would have been for nothing. I suspect we are going to disagree on this point and I understand that it was not a sacrifice that South African coloureds made. But don't underestimate the First World's will power in that regard. You've witnessed it first hand when whites were forced to give up their apartheid government for a democracy. Personally I don't think any African government is going to be leading the charge for a meritocracy and that's why I've decided to leave. I have nothing to gain by staying here. Your assumption that I've given up or that I haven't reasoned it thoroughly is misplaced.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Islandshark said...

@ Jim Beam - I have to agree with FE in that you can't assume that people who have left SA have given up.

But each person or family has the right to decide what is best for their circumstances and act accordingly.

I do have sympathy for SA coloureds - first they weren't white enough and then not black enough.

Scorpion said...

Out here in the West of Jo'burg Krugersdorp has been renamed to Mogale City, in honour of some black leader hundreds of years ago, who happended to have a few cattle, a clay pot and a grass hut in this area.

All honour to him for the great infrastructure he crea...oh, sorry - he didn't lay down any infrastructure. Well, then - for the schools he built...sorry, I forgot - none of those were build under his rule.
It has to be for the great hospitals then? Oh yes, they still consulted the crazy witch in the hut down by the river for any and all ailments.

Mmm...and then there is Tswane. His architectural visions today stands as testimony...ooops, sorry - I forgot, it was a white man named Sir Herbert Baker who designed the Union buildings the black masses now claim as their heritage...

I always smile at arguments in this direction. Not one single piece of modern technology or convenience was invented by black people. And that is a fact that will never change. Blacks looooove sunglasses, even at night. It is so cool!!! Not to mention cars, and oh goody, cell phones, and oh, ...

White people made this country great. Blacks are 'taking it back' - ironically and sadly, back to the stone ages again.

The day the white man receives the recognition for a great world, let alone a great South Africa he deserves, and stop only being crucified for the horrible past, is the day things will start improving. The country was given to blacks on a silver platter, in wonderful, functioning condition. Take responsibility and show the evil white man that the blacks can do better dammit!!!

But of course, that day will coinside with the first cold day in hell.

Anonymous said...


Now be careful what you wish for when talking about a meritocratic government. The proponents of a "One World Government" are already saying the exact same thing as having the UN as a solution.


I was referring to his last sentence which left me with the impression that he was despondent.

As for being to black and then to white, I would much prefer if Coloureds had been given back their history and identity. One of the main reasons why I like Ron's posts is because he highlights what can and does go wrong when a nation loses it's identity.

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam, that sounds too good to be true. As far as I know, at this stage most people think a meritocracy is still a swear word, especially in an organization like the UN. I tried to have a discussion about a meritocracy on a very liberal blog and my comments were promptly deleted. The equality philosophy is still rooted much too deeply.

My last sentence that you were referring to, and that made you think I was despondent, was, "Whatever happens, I am only expecting more of the same crap." I am despondent about the situation in South Africa. That doens't mean that you can make a deduction that I've given up trying or that I've given up on reasoning. Whether I am right or wrong, I know exactly what needs to be done. But I decide for myself! Nobody is going to lay an obligation at my feet that I have to solve South Africa's problems. South Africa needs to solve South Africa's problems. Right now, I don't feel the slightest bit part of South Africa. No amount of work on my part will ever change that.

To give you some context, I work for the government. I'm the only white in our programme. For the past few years, during the gatherings of about 20 to 30 people during meetings (which the government LOVES so much) I have been the only one with a white face. I have LOADS of experience. The next batch of politicians is NOT ready for minority rights.

Anonymous said...


I wrote a long comment and then I got an error posting. I wanted to include that liberals would never allow such a system. I would however think they would allow a Homeland system. That is what I would think one could get away with.

Saying that however I know not many blacks would take up the offer as the last Homeland system came with a financial tit they could suck dry and be incompetant. I doubt the next one would have it hence they would not take it.

As for an interim administration, in my view it will not be black. It will be white. The West would not allow the tip of Africa to go the way of Somalia and leaving a black in charge would create tribal conflict - they would know that by now. I would take a guess that they would leave Zille in charge on an interim bases.

Just my guess, but pencil it in and lets look to the future to see if all of this pans out the way I think it will.

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam. Sorry to hear about your comment. I hate it when that happens. Ja, let's see.

Viking said...

I agree with Jim Beam, meritocracy is not the way. It smacks of rule by 'experts'; of the same brand as that peddled by EU leaders, who want mindless bore-o-crats to govern by regulation.

There is no criteria to decide who the fittest leaders should be, the American founding fathers knew this, so they spread power as widely as they knew how, and made 'leadership' less a charismatic quality than a figurehead position.

Stripped-down government is the way to go, with 'leaders' who are mere representatives responsible for law and order.

As you've said, homelands are not popular, because the small minds of the UN cannot conceive of any political entity other than the nation-state, even though the city-state survived as a political model for thousands of years.

Give the ANC and their 'supporters' ""back"" the bulk of the land, move all the non-blacks to the Western Cape and break away. Either that or create a federal state (which South Africa as a Dominion was unique in NOT being).

I've only just woken up so sorry if I sound mental

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam, my thoughts have been coming back to this conversation a lot in the last few days.

Something has changed. Actually, I am beginning to feel part of South Africa because I have a grasp of the entirety of the problem that our country is facing. Consequently I'm no longer angry at my (mostly white) fellow South Africans. Hmmmmm....

I think all parents should consider raising their kids in a safe country. I also think people should find a way to keep their options open and find a way to be able to move abroad if and when the shit hits the fat.

But now I would consider returning to SA once I've achieved that.

FishEagle said...