Monday, February 01, 2010

The Struggle For Boer Self Determination & Independence Is Not Division.

During some of the various posts I have contributed here & elsewhere there have been those who sought to impugn or marginalize the discernment & insight I have gained from the many years I have spent looking into & reading up on the Boer people. Westerners often do not realize & even refuse to acknowledge the Boers as a people indigenous to the African landscape who were formed in an era preceding the arrival of the Colonial powers. Certain non-White racial Nationalists can not see beyond the general paleness of their skin as though their colour disqualifies them from being a homegrown people tied to the African continent. Then there are those who ignore the anthropologically distinct origin of Boers on the Cape frontiers & refuse to recognize the Boers as a distinct entity from the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population. 

The advocating of self determination for an ethic / cultural group is not about "dividing" the said ethnic group from any other related ethnic group but rather about empowering that ethnic group in question. All throughout history whenever an ethnic or national group wanted freedom from oppression & to find self determination for itself: they have often had to do so on their own as many others [ even closely related groups ] refused to support them or even refused wanting freedom for themselves. Just as when the Boers were seeking self determination on the Cape frontier & later beyond: the Cape Dutch did not support such moves & refused even to struggle for their own freedom from Colonialism. The long standing anti Colonial outlook of the Boers' & their centuries long struggle for self determination has always been one of their most striking & contrasting features when juxtaposed next to the pro Colonial & anti-independence Cape Dutch / Afrikaner population. 

The pro status quo sentiment of the latter & their modern descendents is the consensus outlook within the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population while a significant portion of the Boer descendents have never abandoned their republican & independent outlook nor their long standing desire for self determination. While there are of course exceptions to this generalization [ ie: Cape Dutch descendents looking for independence & some pro status quo Boer descendents ] due to basic numbers: the Boers [ & others ] looking for independence will always be outnumbered within the macro Afrikaner designation by those who are not in favour of independence or of secessionist proposals. The notion of intermarriage is a moot point because individuals often assimilated into the culture they live among just as no one would dispute that former President Vicente Fox of Mexico is a Mexican despite having an American grand father. When the Czechs & Slovaks opted for independence in 1993 no one asserted that they were "diving" the West Slavs because the point of the secession was not division but self determination. Czechoslovakia was a macro State which lumped two related but distinct groups together. I set out over 15 years ago now to learn about the Boer people in particular [ which by its very nature entails sifting them out from the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population ] & to research their history & the context in which they exist in the modern era. The Afrikaner domination of the Boers is a discernible reality which one inevitably will encounter while investigating the topic & can not be ignored for whatever reason as it plays a significant part in the suppression of the Boer people in their continuous efforts at finding self determination. 

The main reason I ever started pointing out the valid distinction of the Boers from the Afrikaners was due to being constantly exposed to Westerners' total ignorance on the topic & their irritating / unjust & continuous erroneous assertions that the Boers were "responsible" for the behaviour & laws which were enacted in the 20th cent by a people who in fact marginalized the actual Boers This ignorant behaviour is tantamount to accusing the Acadians of passing Bill 101. [ The French language law in Quebec. ] based solely on an erroneous assumption that all French speakers in Canada "must be" Acadian. It is evident that many people have a glaring blind spot when it comes to the actual Boer people because a lot of folks make sweeping presumptions based solely on the fact that the folks who ran South Africa in the 20th cent were generally White & Afrikaans speaking & automatically presuming [ or rather jumping to conclusions ] that these White Afrikaans speakers were all descended from the Boers while never once taking the time to discern that this is mathematically impossible as the actual Boer people have always been outnumbered by the erstwhile Cape Dutch: the Afrikaners of the Western Cape who have had a totally different outlook to the Boers who developed on the frontier.

When I note the Boers as distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners: I am not trying to "divide" [ as though a marginal blogger such as myself even has the power to do so ] them from anything they do not wish to be divided from [ in fact it is totally their own decision even if they should all wish to remain part of South Africa & hope for the best ] because I am trying to do justice to the actual Boer people & their centuries long just struggle for self determination.

The problem is that a lot of people forget or do not realize that the Boers have had to struggle not just against the Dutch & British powers in the past for self determination but they have also had to struggle against the Afrikaner power as well. The first notable example of this was with the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 but the most blatant example of this was during the 1940s when the drive to restore the Boer Republics was popular among the Boers [ massively so ] & was only stopped because the Afrikaner establishment broke it up fearing it as a threat to their control & even later when Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 in order to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics as he felt that they were being betrayed [ 1 ] under Hendrik Verwoerd who created a nominal republic for the macro State of South Africa that exact same year. Boervolk Radio Chairman Theuns Cloete noted publicly that key Afrikaner leaders [ even those who were political opponents ] organized & broke the Boer Republican movement of the 1940s down to nothing. [ 2 ]

Therefore to simply ignore the Afrikaner dynamic in the subversion of the Boer people is to perpetuate a grave injustice against the Boers as the Afrikaner establishment has routinely worked against Boer aspirations of independence & self determination. It has been repeatedly observed that the erstwhile Cape Dutch have never had a struggle for freedom. This is due to the salient fact that they were often quite content with Colonial rule [ 3 ] & could not understand why anyone would want to be independent from the Colonial powers they admired. While the Boers on the other hand have had numerous freedom struggles & have had a strong desire for independence from the start & were formed as a distinct people on the Cape frontier over this independence desire when they trekked out of Colonial society & into the Cape frontier during the late 17th cent & were initially known as Trekboers. The Boers therefore have a long history of anti Colonialism. A sentiment which eventually led to the establishment of upwards of 17 Boer Republics from 1795 to the late 19th cent. When the macro State of South Africa was created & the Boers were subjugated & forced into it: the Boer Republican outlook was soon replaced by the neo empire building of the Afrikaners who institutionalized laws which are often ignorantly blamed on the actual Boer people who had a very minimal role in the implementation of the said laws ergo any conflation of the subjugated Boers with the larger Afrikaners only further perpetuates an injustice against the Boer people who were now under the domination of the Afrikaner network.

No people anywhere on Earth can ever hope to find authentic self determination if they are forced to be tethered to another ethnic / cultural group [ particularly one which is either unsympathetic to them or might even work against them ] even if they might happen to share a language. It is for that reason why there exists separates states / collectivities / provinces for the Germans & Austrians. The Serbs & Croats. The Romanians & Moldovans. The Canadians & the Americans. The Quebecois & Acadians. Etc. Few would tell the Basque people to give up their struggle for self determination just because they are under the Spanish State or have "intermarried" with the Spanish people. The only way for the Boers to find self determination is to do so as Boer people because anything else is just a license to dispossess them further under a macro designation which was only ever used in the first place in order to achieve such a goal. [ 4 ]

Few would assert that the Coloureds are all one nation or not recognize the Cape Malays as a distinct group from the Griquas & recognize that they are both distinct from the macro Coloured population. Few would argue that Xhosas & Zulus no longer exist & that they are all one nation. Despite their common Nguni origins. But for some strange reason there are those who would deny the Boers their distinct nationality & argue that they are not distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaner population.

When Dixie declared independence no one claimed it was "dividing" the North American English speaker. [ The assertion was that it was diving a "union" re: macro State ( which was supposed to be voluntary) but not a monolithic people. ] When the various countries of South America were established no one asserted that it was "dividing" the local Spanish speakers. Cultural groups are organic & are the result of anthropologically distinct histories. The desire of self determination is the natural process of cultural groups to take responsibility for their own well being & to defend themselves from forces which are detrimental to their long term survival.

The homepage of the old Stop Boer Genocide web site specifically noted that the Boers are a distinct entity from the Afrikaners. Therefore no one should have to endue attacks for simply noting what others [ who are more directly related to defending the Boer people ] have already mentioned themselves. These attacks only serve to obscure the distinct struggles & history of the Boer people which is probably the whole point of the cavalier attacks in the first place.

The point of pointing out this valid distinction is not about "dividing" but rather about raising cognizance of the fact that the Boers can not find the self determination that they seek & have been struggling for centuries now so long as they remain under the tutelage of a powerful & well funded Afrikaans speaking network which works hard to keep them on the Afrikaner reservation which works at maintaining the Boers as a colonized people under the suzerainty of the macro State of South Africa & at the mercy of its neo colonial surrogate ruling regime which is in fact tied to the Afrikaner financial [ 5 ] power.

Not enough generations have passed to have merged the two groups as the different political outlooks between the two are still evident. All one has to do is to contrast the sentiments of the mainstream Afrikaans media outlets with that of the actual Boer people. Afrikaner academics even use crafty techniques when they assert that the independence outlook of the Boers "is not within the mainstream of Afrikaner thought." [ direct quote ] Well no kidding genius because the Boers are only a segment of the macro Afrikaner grouping - ergo even if every single Boer were to stand up & say they want independence [ or even just like the colour blue for that matter ] the Afrikaner academics could still claim that Boer thought "is not within the mainstream of Afrikaner thought" thereby marginalizing them as though they are just some fringe movement that "average" Afrikaners need not pay any attention to. Are the anti-Boer neo Afrikaner Nationalists starting to wake up to the danger of the proposed "unity" they seek to propagate? Do they not consider just who will ultimately control such a language based union?

Consider also the fact that if White Afrikaans unity becomes such an "important" political goal: then what is to stop the natural progression & calls for White "unity" / South African "unity" / African "unity: / Global "unity"! [ As is already happening ] Notice more dangers to ethnic / national independence? Do not be fooled that you can call for one type of "unity" & be able to refuse the others because as history has clearly shown [ especially in South Africa ] one call for "unity" will only embolden & "legitimize" [ there is the real danger as even the illegitimate macro State of South Africa has an "air of legitimacy" as a result of just such "unity" behaviour ] other calls for "unity" until everyone will be dispossessed of their inherent national [ or folk ] right to self determination.

Furthermore an eclectic range of personalities & vast array of sources have noted this distinction as well. The following notable folks ALL recognize the distinction between Afrikaner & Boer: Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & Boer Separatist / Adriana Stuijt: a Dutch born former South African journalist / the late Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party & founder of Randburg / William McWhirter of Time Magazine / Noel Mostert former Canadian journalist. Arthur Kemp former South African policeman / author. Fred Rundle long time Boer self determination activist. Malcolm & Debbie Wren of Stop Boer Professor Tobias Louw. Frank / John & Peter of the Right Perspective radio program. Louis Pepler aka Bok van Blerk & Johann Botha commenting on the De La Rey song. [ 6 ] Theuns Cloete notes that: "we are being told that we're Afrikaners & that has been our death". The Unrepresented Nations & Peoples organization has accepted the Boers into the organization & separately from the Afrikaners they accepted into the organization prior further demonstrating recognition of the distinction.

One can propagate the dangerous & insidious meme of "unity" with all Afrikaans speakers all day but what point is there to such a mindless action when such an association will only come to the great detriment of the Boer people [ & anyone attempting to find self determination ] who will be represented by the Afrikaner leadership who are by their very nature totally against any notion of any authentic form of self determination. I have tried to understand what possible benefit could ever come from advocating that the Boers must submit or continue to submit to the Afrikaners just for the sake of a dangerous "unity" with the very forces which work so hard at undermining & subverting Boer self determination. This act simply makes no sense at all & is suicide for Boer freedom. I however do favour unity in the name of Boer independence [ & ethnic / national independence in general ] but one must be careful about simply aligning with everyone just for the sake of increasing numbers when many among those numbers might simply be adamantly opposed to the goal of Boer self determination.

None other than Paul Kruger himself was rather wary of allowing too many of the Cape Dutch into the ZAR as he felt that they were too influenced by the British [ pro British ] & would work to undermine the independence of the ZAR. [ 7 ] Just as their descendents are today too influenced by the current & past South African regimes & could threaten the independence of any future Boer republic.

I remember reading many years ago an informative article on this from a Radio Pretoria news commentary or from another Boer news service website about the danger of a mindless Afrikaner union which noted that the Boers who seek independence must be careful about the non-Boer descended Afrikaners who could be the "albatross" [ their word ] around the neck of the Boer Nation in any reconstituted Boer Republic because they would naturally undermine Boer traditions & would agitate towards the inclusion of all & any other surrounding cultures into the new republic. Therefore the call for this sort of dangerous "unity" is not all that different from the folks who call for a "unity" of all of the peoples of South Africa because in the end the right to ethnic & cultural self determination will be conquered in the face of the union as the majority of the folks within such a union will not favour such self determination.

Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio has noted that the Afrikaner financial elite are adamantly opposed to Boer independence & spend lots of money against it & that they would not want to live in a Boer republic because "they do not accept that they are Boers" [ as Cloete noted ] & would be forced to go back to the Cape & Natal. Therefore to those who falsely accuse [ or rather to the individual who has ] please cease with the shortsighted & erroneous allegation that any recognition of Boers as distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners is "divisive" when in fact any ignorance to or dismissal of such an inherent & documented distinction is dangerous to the cause of Boer self determination. Because the Afrikaner political elite KNOW that Boers are a distinct entity from themselves & work hard & have worked hard in the past at preventing the Boer from reclaiming their self determination.

Just remember that the term Afrikaner is a macro term / label which was applied to all Afrikaans speakers & includes two main ethnicities / cultural groups within the White population in the same way the term Coloured includes numerous ethnicities / cultural groups. The term Afrikaner just means African therefore everyone in Africa is an Afrikaner therefore this term spells even more trouble for those of Boer descent [ & even Cape Dutch ] as it has the potential to dispossess them even further as more & more ethnicities claim the Afrikaner designation.


Quote: [ Van Tonder broke away from the National Party in 1961 because of what he described as its betrayal of the old Boer republics. ]

3. Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin.

Quote: [ 7. The Afrikaners.

Thus at the time of the ending of the Second Anglo Boer War, there were three distinct ethnic groupings amongst the broad White population of South Africa :

(i) the internationally recognized and indigenous Boer people;

(ii) the Cape Dutch Settlers, loyal to the British Empire ; and

(iii) the British settlers, also loyal to the British Empire .

The British Empire realized that it had to bring the Boers under control for once and for all, and therefore devised a plan to neutralize the Boer Republics - a plan to make them join up with the other two White segments of their colonies in South Africa .

The British masters of Southern Africa therefore engineered the National Convention of 1908, which saw the creation of the Union of South Africa. This union consisted of the former Cape Colony , the Natal colony, and the two former Boer Republics . This union was not merely a geographic convenience, but a deliberate plan to try and destroy the independence minded Boers by mingling them with the Cape Dutch and British settlers.

It is worth noting that the British Empire used their technique in other parts of Africa as well - reference can be made to the short lived federation of Nyasaland ( Malawi ); Northern Rhodesia ( Zambia ); and Southern Rhodesia ( Zimbabwe ) to name but one.

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 the White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners". Although the word originally meant "African" it as politicized by a group of Western Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers in the Transvaal 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 British populations by calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real cultural bases.

This then is how the world began to hear of "Afrikaners" - although only 80 years ago there was no such word in the international vocabulary.

That the concept of an Afrikaner is all embracing is underlined by the fact that in 1998 the former Afrikaner Broederbond (now called the Afrikaner Bond) announced that it classified all those sharing a broad Afrikanerism to be Afrikaners - to this end they acknowledged that many Cape Coloureds, who speak Afrikaans and who attend a NG Church are Brown Afrikaners. In reality they are of course correct.

This illustrates the difference between Boers and Afrikaners in a very vivid way: A Coloured will readily agree with the definition that he is an Afrikaner, but will emphatically deny being a Boer. If Boers and Afrikaners are the same thing, why the differentiation in the view of other groups?

By forcing the Boers into the Union of South Africa, the British made them co-responsible for the policy of racial segregation, which had of course been established and legislated by the British colonial government.

The new "Afrikaners" - in fact a coalition of Cape Dutch , British and some Boers - tried as best they could to come to grips with the racial and geographic legacy left to them from the British colonial times - and it was from this disaster that the policy of Apartheid was developed.

It is of supreme importance to note here that the Boers were dragged unwillingly into the Union of South Africa - and at the first opportunity which presented itself they tried to extricate themselves by force of arms. This was the unsuccessful 1914 Boer rebellion, which ended when some Boer war era generals were killed or imprisoned by the pro-British Union of South Africa government.

It is a little known fact that the manifesto which was issued by the 1914 Boer rebellion leaders contained as its primary demand the restoration of the Boer republics and the dissolution of the Union of South Africa.

It is thus unfair of the international world to regard the "Boers" as having been responsible for what happened in South Africa during the second part of the 20th century - the Boers were just as much victims of the colonial powers as were any other indigenous people of Africa .

Milner's words were true - by forcing the Boers into the Union of South Africa, he was forcing them to be subjugated by the broad South African British colony, and this has led directly to the situation the Boers find themselves in today. ]

6. Johann Botha during doc on De La Rey song / video. Quote: [ Inside the group calling themselves Afrikaans a smaller group calls themselves Afrikaners and inside that an even smaller group who see themselves as Boere. These are not necessarily people with Right Wing political sentiments wearing khaki clothes and who want to shoot wildy at people who look different from him. They are people who share a common historic identity. ]

Quote: [ In 1880s the real interest developed, with the Boer rebellion. From then the Dutch began to consider the Boer Republics something like a Dutch colony - not in a political sense but as having a cultural dependency. Many Dutch occupied positions in the Transvaal: the preachers in churches were mostly Dutch, about 20 percent of the administration was Dutch, there were hundreds of Dutch schoolmasters and railways in the Transvaal were run by a Dutch company. The Superintendent of Education was Dutch, as was the Secretary of the Interior and Foreign Affairs. The Transvaal government made the republic attractive for Dutch people. Paul Kruger did not like people from the Cape - he felt they were subjugated by the British, so he encouraged people from the Netherlands to work in the Transvaal as a way to strengthen Boer independence. ]

Post Script. I hope this once & for all sets the record straight concerning this topic.

Download a printable version of the article here.

104 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Now dont lock this topic again. You have hit something of a strange interest so maybe you could answer this question:

The Afrikaner Bond defines a Cape Coloured as a brown Afrikaner however the Freedom Front Plus does not have any coloureds in it as they appeal to white Afrikaners alone. So, do we now have white Afrikaners and brown Afrikaners and if that is so then what it the point of the label when it does not describe a nation as a nation is one who shares the same HISTORY and CULTURE not just language and religion.

Is the term Afrikaner therefore not being used to destroy identity of both white and brown?

Anonymous said...

@ RON... Excellent!!!

This Boer salutes you. Excellent research and good writing.

The problem of the "Afrikaner" designation for the Boers is MASSIVE. There are a lot of Boers out there who call themselves Afrikaners as they have lost touch with their heritage. As a Boer who grew up in Rhodesia, I was one of those people until I recently decided to find out about my family. Ek is nou 'n trotse Boer, nie 'n Afrikaner nie.

I also find myself now longing for the manifestation of a free Boer Republic where we can again live as a man should live with minimal government interference and sane laws. Where each man can live under his own vine and bear arms in defense of his family and possessions.

Exzanian said...

01 February 2010 8:50 PM - Coloureds are free to join the FF+ and certainly to vote for them. Nothing stopping them. Whether they would want to or not is another thing. Freedom of association is the key here. If you see youself as a Boer, you probably are. If you don't, well you aren't.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that there are too few Boers left to pose any kind of problem. The best would be to join with the Afrikaners and white english people and populate the western cape (ultimate goal of self-determination). At the end of the day, the Blacks can't claim the Cape as being their tribal lands - there is too much history proving that they didn't live there when the DEIC/whites arrived. I'm just not sure how viable it would be to have another "Oranje" type compound within SA for the Boers only...

Anonymous said...

Ron, thanks for a great article, as usual. To address an earlier remark; we will not lock the debate, as long as the detractors counter the thesis with a well reasoned argument, and not let it deteriorate into an ad hominem free for all. Gosh, we may even publish the response.

I appreciate Ron's knowledge, and what he shares with us, and at the same time, I understand the bitterness, but that is due to a melding of two debates, when there is only one.

The Boers were a small, distinct group, which became consolidated with a larger, more dominant Afrikaner group. This is the debate that Ron focusses on.

The Afrikaners are unfairly vilified for Apartheid, which generally is understood to include the Boers. This is the broader, second debate.

Ron's efforts to enlighten people as to the Boer history, unfortunately has the undesired effect of upsetting Afrikaners; as it can be construed as an effort to absolve the Boers of any responsibility for Apartheid, and it excludes those Afrikaners that always viewed themselves as being part of a homogenous group, with a colourful struggle history.

A few questions that come to mind; how does one determine whether one is a Boer? Is it dependent on self-classification? In today's world, is the distinction relevant?

Anonymous said...


Yes you can vote for whoever you want however does the political party not at least have to represent you in one form or the other?


"how viable it would be to have another "Oranje" type compound within SA for the Boers only"

Does anyone know where one can view the documents which had been drafted by the then Volkstat Council which was run under Gen Viljoen. There was suppose to be loads of documents. Those documents might give you a good idea as to how viabel it is.

Orania was a good example but there had been under the table disputes I assume as neither Viljoen nor PW lived there which says alot.

Ron. said...

Thanks for supporting this article. I was unsure whether to even compose & post it because I know the points made within can be misconstrued. But I had to finally address the contention made by a previous poster in a recent previous article I wrote on this blog because his contention was one dimensional. I worked on it a few days & could have made it even longer but I figured it was long enough & the necessary points were made. There are quite a lot of angles to this topic.

I noticed someone [ I guess one of the administrators ] has put the word "Boer" in the title. I was thinking about doing that but left it out because the general message would be the same no matter whose self determination one would be talking about. Self determination in general is not about division as the various examples I highlighted [ I hope ] helped to point out. What's the deal with the "read more" link? I guess the article was too long to be left in full on the front page. I was glad & surprised to see that someone has uploaded this entire article on Scribd. That's great!

Anon Feb 1 11:17. I am glad to see someone else realize that the problem with the Afrikaner designation being applied to the the Boers is "massive". Which is tragic in a way because they were always far more "African" than the bulk of those who later began calling themselves "Afrikaners" en mass. Which is part of the confusion associated with this whole thing. I am also glad to see that you are a proponent of minimal government.

VI. I would presume that one could determine whether they are a Boer by being significantly descended from them & have largely retained their culture. Though in fact - as far as I have been able to tell - the problem has never really been "who is a Boer" [ as the media appears to portray the problem ] because the Boers by & large know & have always known that they are Boers - or at the very least - know that they are of Boer descent. Though it certainly is possible that some have totally lost touch with their ancestry & do not know. What the problem is has been the fact that they were conditioned into believing that they are also Afrikaners as though they are just a segment of the Afrikaners & had their unique Boer identity cast aside within the political realm. Adriana Stuijt noted that under the National Party government the Boers "weren't allowed to know a lot of their own rich history and the word "Boer" wasn't used much by National-Party ministers." [ Click here for link. Scroll to comments section. ] Theuns Cloete notes in the first interview with The Right Perspective program that the identity of the Boers was removed in a public context.

Anon. Feb 2 11:17. I doubt whether P W Botha would have never lived in such a place. Do not forget that he was publicly opposed to Boer self determination. Viljoen ultimately abandoned his followers & was instrumental in neutralizing the then proposed secession of the Western Transvaal. He was then persuaded [ if not already on board from the start ] to support an undefined "Volkstaat" concept & to participate in the elections & the new dispensation. The Volkstaat concept was probably never intended to be followed through as seems rather clear that it was a scam to give Afrikaans speakers the hope that they could be granted autonomy or even independence so long as they gave up on immediate secession [ as many were planning on doing in conjunction with a Zulu plan for the same thing for themselves which also went sour ] & participate in the new dispensation. I think the whole Volkstaat concept was rigged from the start.

There in fact are other Orania type places such as Kleinfontein near Pretoria to name one. There will probably be even more in the future & they might even all link up one day to form a non contiguous Boer Republic.

Viking said...

I'm quite sure Kleinfontein was one of the places I visited on my first visit to SA.

Anonymous said...

@Ron. I inserted the Boer in the title. It won't change the message, but is crucial for search engine indexing. I also uploaded to Scribd because that too gets indexed, and spreads your readership. As for the Read More link, it just allows us to shorten longer articles. This is called a jump break; but it doesn't affect readership. We track our daily stats, and visitors per page, and I can tell you that you are right up there.

Anonymous said...


Very interesting points raised - Thanks!

Afrikaner said...

Ron, kindly explain to us the difference between a "Boer" and an "Afrikaner". What criteria do you use? Culture? Language? Religion? Geographical location? If it is at all possible please give us a definition for "Boer" and one for "Afrikaner". I will promise to try my very best this time to restrain myself from calling you a dumb cunt, because I think it is high time that your pseudo-junk history theories are blown out the water. Pity VI deleted my previous comments on the subject when I took you on. Lets see how long he handles my arguments this time before his hypocrisy gets the better of him and he starts deleting again.

Anonymous said...

Three fundamental differences between "Boer" and "Afrikaner":

1. Boers sought independence in "Boer Republics"! Afrikaners did not!
2. Boers included other mother-tongue language speakers, most of whom tried to learn the "taal". Afrikaners include only Afrikaans Speakers!
3. Boers lived in independent States bordering Bantu or mixed-race Nations, such as the Zulu and Griqua. Afrikaners included other ethnicities within their non-independent States!

Anonymous said...

4. Boers had only Afrikaans in their schools of the 8 Afrikaner school in the late 1800's half were English medium.

5. Boers are down to earth people, Afrikaners are condescending and arrogant. (broad statement)

6. As late as the 1970's Boer still spoke an 'odd' Afrikaans as they 'mispronounced' certain words.

Anonymous said...

I suppose I'm all fawked then, with a Boer father and a Dutch mother.

Or am I a real South African Dutchman?

Anonymous said...

I am the anonymous Boer who posted the "three fundamental differences" above. Please ignore the following two anony statements as us Boers do not wish to belittle any other groups in our comparisons with them, but only seek to present who WE are!

Anonymous said...

You do not wish to be associated with the above comments you say? Well you just confirmed Point 5 did you not?

Ron. said...

Now Afrikaner: this is where you distort again because none of things I have posted are "pseudo-junk history theories" & calling the documented points I posted such only proves that you do not want to acknowledge the truth presented & have an obvious anti-Boer axe to grind. I have provided sources & documentation to back up the various points I have made. Therefore your crude accusations [ & petulant insults ] ring hollow because you or anyone can verify what I have posted & learn more by investigating the matter further by at least reading & listening to the various links I have posted.

Theuns Cloete notes that all books written about the Boers prior to the 20th cent clearly make mention of Boers until the Cape Town based Human & Rouseau publishing company along with the Broederbond started rewriting the history of the Boers by calling them Afrikaners - extending all the way to the Boer fighters of the Anglo-Boer War: "As though we suddenly became couch potatoes" as Cloete noted. Cloete rightly notes that most Afrikaners were helping the British & fighting AGAINST the Boers [ link. ] during the Anglo-Boer War but somehow according to your Afrikaner "historians" who rewrote the history of the Boers: they were now suddenly all Afrikaners. How can a whole people be given the designation of another group then get accused of "division" when they reclaim their initial & proper identity? Is it not more than just a little strange that you attempt to justify the expropriation of the Boers' identity by erroneously asserting that the Afrikaner one must continue to replace it? Despite the fact that the Boers did not consent [ en mass ] to this due to their diminishing political influence following the war.

The difference between Boer & Afrikaner is profound & is still discernible to this day because certain Boer characteristics & traditions have been maintained. Such as: the Boers still largely speak the Taal. A form of Afrikaans which was developed on the Cape frontier circa the Trekboer era which historians have later classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans. This dialect might have since been influenced & changed somewhat the by the influence of the Afrikaans as imposed by the Afrikaners but it still persists. The Boers are also much more of German origin due to the fact that numerous Germans settled straight to the north eastern Cape frontier where the Boers developed.

The Boers are even still notable for being a more conservative oriented people while the Cape Dutch segment are quite the opposite & have a far more cosmopolitan reputation.

Providing a definition for Afrikaner is not so clear cut because originally anyone born in Africa of Caucasian & mixed race origin was called an Afrikander then an Afrikaner by the VOC denoting the connection to Africa. The problem with this term was that it began to acquire a political context when the Cape Dutch began calling themselves Afrikaners en mass during the late 19th cent [ during a language rights movement ] at a time when most of the Boers were independent in their internationally recognized Boer Republics. Then after the second Anglo-Boer War the Boers were increasingly being referred to solely as "Afrikaners" by both the British & the new ascending Afrikaner power.

Ron. said...

Of course even in the modern era an Afrikaner is still often viewed as anyone of Caucasian & mixed race origin [ Coloured ] who was born in Africa & speaks any dialect of Afrikaans. Therefore whenever the Boers seek to represent themselves as Boers they are accused of "dividing" the "Afrikaners" [ which is a multi national macro designation ] which is an absurd contention & is tantamount to accusing Canadians of "division" for simply representing themselves as Canadians distinct from the bulk of the North American population.

Ron. said...

Now I was also once about as ignorant as you over 15 years ago concerning this particular topic before I began to look into & research the matter. Which is what I would suggest you do too instead of throwing insults around & using derogatory language just because I have the gall to present some facts on this topic.

Anonymous said...

@ Ron: How does your English boasting regarding your boring history reading about Afrikaner divisions improve conditions for English South Africans?

Afrikaner said...

See, Ron…You effectively comes on here and bad-mouth Afrikaners, calling them traitors and joiners and make out as if the “Boers” are angelic. You basically say that Afrikaners worked against and undermined the Boers and are still doing so. You fictitiously create a group of “Boers” that do not exist and use this cloud of Dagga-smoke you blowing as the basis of your arguments. The fact that these fictitious “Boers” only exist in the Brandy-clouded nebula of your imagination, makes all your arguments null and void.
So it is all OK for you to call me ignorant, petulant and to insult the Afrikaner people, which I happen to belong to, by effectively calling them traitors and backstabbers without your buddy Vinilla Ice deleting your comment. But when I take umbrage and retaliate with full force as my Afrikaner genes forces me to do then I get deleted.
Nevertheless, you have read a few history books and think everyone else is ignorant about history. You are the only one who knows the “truth” and therefore I must be ignorant along with everyone else. You keep on making the same mistake, Ron. You underestimate your enemies. You should rather overestimate them and play it safe.
1. After unification in 1910, the Boers and other Afrikaners migrated and intermarried on a massive scale. There is probably not a single Afrikaner today who do not have a family member in every single province and/or Namibia
2. Afrikaners are the descendants of the Boers and other Afrikaans speaking people who mixed and migrated within the borders of South Africa over the past hundred years. It is even happening as we speak.
3. The Boer republics disappeared, The Boers disapeared and in the last hundred years, the Afrikaner came to be.
4. Today it would be errouness to refer to “Romans”, they are Italians. There are no more “Franks”, they are the French. There are no more Vikings, they are the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes. There are no more Angles and Saxons, they are the English. There are no more Free state Boers, Transvaal Boers, or any damn “Boers”, there are only Afrikaners. Any argument to the contrary is anachronistic, absurd, errouness and false.
5. You wrongly recreate different types of Boers for the Transvaal/ZAR, the Freestate, Cape Boers...then recreate Cape Dutch, and Afrikaners, etc...Then you say that (currently) these groups exist (Yes, in your clouded mind) and that there are (currently) differences between these people, but fail to point out the differences in religion, Language or culture.

Afrikaner said...

6. You go on and even absurdly tries to pretend that the Boer Language is called “Die Taal” (AFRIKAANS for “The language”) and that it is different to Afrikaans. I have never heard such utter nonsense in my life and to peddle this as fact and history is nothing else but insanity. Both the 1933 and 1983 versions of “Die Bybel” is written in one language, AFRIKAANS. There is no Bible written in “Die Taal”. There is only one Afrikaans Dictionary, “Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal” (WAT). There is no dictionary, there is no language known as “Die Taal”. What laughable nonsense!
7. After all this splitting and classification, you still maintain that you are not “Devisive”. You are a laugh a minute Ron.
8. You further neglect to mention the role the Afrikaner movement, Poets and intellectuals (Stellenbosch) played in the establishment of the Afrikaner/Boer culture. Many of these poets were from the Cape and their poems are often quoted by so called Boer Leaders as Eugene TerreBlanche.
9. You claim that the Broederbond was created in the Cape, when in fact they were established in 1918 in Johannesburg, Slam bang in the middle of the Transvaal.
10. The Broederbond was further created by Afrikaner intellectuals to uplift the impoverished “Boers” after the Anglo/Boer war of 1899-1902. After the scorched earth policies of the British. If this Broederbond was the enemy of the Boers, why would they create financial institutions such as Sanlam, Santam, Volkskas(ABSA) etc, employ thousand of Boers and uplift them? Another absurd logic, Ron.
11. Keep in mind that if you believe that farmers(boere) are the core of the Boer People or perhaps the only real Boere, then according to the Agricultural Union, there are only about 13’500 Boere!
When you go study history and all that were hidden to you and all of us, go investigate the Secret List of Boere in the Tranvaal, Free-State and Natal, who received farms for from the British, for assisting the British in the Anglo Boer War!
A secret list that were legislated to stay secret for 200 years!
Who are your Boers now?
12. So why did the “Cape Dutch” Boere not trek? Because a wine Boer cannot so easily uproot his vineyard, pack it on his ox wagon and trek as easily as a cattle farmer can gather his livestock together and trek. Simple actually. But in your “Elitist Boer” mentality, only Beesboere is regte Boere.

Viking said...

@ Afrikaner

You won't be deleted as long as you engage in the issues at hand, as you have done today.

For the sake of broadening the debate, rather than a 1-on-1 scenario, what do you think of the interpretation of Boers as an underclass - Ron does hint at this I think - with "Afrikaners" (under this interpretation) as more of a middle class?
It's a bit Marxist I suppose.

I too have a massive problem with apportioning 'blame' according to ethnic group, and an even bigger one with the idea that those in the past were 'joiners' versus other who represent a purer, more heroic representation of their ethnicity.

Anonymous said...

I have come to the conclusion that the Afrikaners are starting to believe thier own propaganda. After generations of ruling under the National Party they have miscegenated history to the point of no return.

Ron, you have to understand what is at stake here. If your arguments hold then you have to understand that it takes away 'Afrikaner history' as we know it as it was Boer history to begin with. What does Afrikaner history look like - not much different than it would look today - dodgy and full of political lap dances.

The Broederbond helping anyone must be the biggest load of bullshit ever posted on a blog. It was the same numnuts who in 1997 said that the peaceful transition to black rule was because of their influence. Well tickle my nuts as the last I recall South Africans had been sold out to black rule, no minority rights and the BB or AB as they now call themselves still have the balls to say they helped to bring it about.

In my view Ron you have loads of valid points. I hope that the Boers and the Cape Coloureds (Coloured, Cape Malay, KhoiKhoi) in time will be able to recover their identities, freedoms and self respect again. They had been the only two groupings which had lost their identities under aparthied.

As for the Afrikaners, let G-D sort it out.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner is engaging in classic distortion & propaganda because for one: I have never "bad-mouthed" Afrikaners & I recognize this little deceptive ploy for the straw man argument that it is as I have nothing against the Afrikaners. But what you fail to admit is that the whole notion of an "Afrikaner" is nothing but Broederbond / National Party / Human & Rouseau propaganda because there was no such thing as an "Afrikaner" in a political context until it was fictitiously created by a bunch of pro British politicians. Are you not concerned in the least that the very designation "Afrikaner" was promoted by the British in order to destroy the identity of the Boers & to control the general White population by trying to consolidate them them into monolithic structure so as to centralize the decision making power. THAT is the WHOLE point I am trying to get across. Not some distracting & petty Boer vs Afrikaner friction. I also have NEVER said that the Boers were "angelic" & asserting that I ever said such has forever tipped your hand for the Broederbonder Afrikanerbonder you are & has exposed you as a political hack because the issue is not over the general character of the Boers as a whole or as individuals [ as there certainly were & are those who were betrayers ] because the issue & the ONLY issue here is FREEDOM / self determination.

This means that one must be HONEST is assessing the nature of the OBSTACLES to that freedom. What you like to do is to deny & distract people from the well known & DOCUMENTED instances when the Afrikaner establishment has REPEATEDLY OBSTRUCTED THAT SAID FREEDOM. This is not about "blaming" Afrikaners because I have REPEATEDLY mentioned that the issue is not about them as they just have a different outlook to that of most Boer descendents. I know what I am talking about because I have spent years debating with non-Boer descended Afrikaners who have REPEATEDLY said that they do not favour any form of secession or independence & have often used derogatory language to me when talking about the Boers & their struggles for self determination. Sir: a lot of Afrikaners [ as the ones whom I have debated with ] revile the Boer self determination movement & have OPENLY called it nothing "but a Right Wing extremist movement" so I know damned well were they stand on the issue of Boer freedom. [ ie; they are oppossed to it. ] Piet Skiet ALSO noted on the Right Perspective that the Afrikaners do not support the Boers struggle for self determination. "What are you folks doing over there!" [ Piet Skiet quote quoting the Afrikaner reaction to the Boer struggle. ] The problem is not the Afrikaner people [ aside from the numbers as they DOMINATE the Boers under the Afrikaner designation. ] but the forces which control the Afrikaner leadership & the actions of the Afrikaner financial institutions.

The Afrikaners are not consciously working to "undermine" the Boers [ at least most are not ] because most are not even cognizant that there is even a Boer struggle for freedom [ see above for their view of the matter ] because they see everyone as "Afrikaners" who must be "loyal" to the State & view any move which might lead to independence as "extremist". I have repeatedly noted that it is the Afrikaner LEADERSHIP which is working against the Boers. The average Afrikaner does not bother with this issue BUT the weight of their larger numbers DOES work against the Boers because there are not enough Boers to counter the weight of Afrikaner population inertia. Fact.

Ron. said...

There is no doubt now that you are acting in bad faith & are a Broederbonder propagandist because I have quite a few Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners firmly in my camp as they ACKNOWLEDGE the truth of what I & others have pointed out. They in NO WAY think I am "diving" anyone & are firm supporters of the Boer Republicans & their struggle for freedom. The only people who have EVER done the "dividing" were those who broke up Boer Republican movements. This is on the record.

What a joke! You have the gall to assert that I have "fictitiously created" Boers when it was non other than you Afrikaner Broederbonders & British who fictitiously created the Afrikaners mainly in order to destroy the identity of the Boers! This is just too rich. Furthermore: Sir: you know damned well that I am not "creating" anything nor are alone in my erudite assessment of this topic because the fact of the matter is that the actual Boer people THEMSELVES are the ones who are making the points I have related. As well as third party observers who have examined that situation. It is not I who see the Boers as a distinct entity - it is the ACTUAL BOER PEOPLE THEMSELVES & various academics & journalists. I just posted NUMEROUS links pointing this out but you still TELLINGLY come here & ludicrously assert that I am fabricating all this all by my self as though the PLETHORA of documentation & Boer testimonials do not exit in your angry /one dimensional & partisan mind.

There is no "Afrikaner people"! [ at least not in the sense you are asserting. ] That is pure propaganda based on Broederbond fabrication. I find it telling that you claim the Afrikaners are somehow being "insulted" when you turn around & insult the Boers! Just what planet do you live on! Furthermore it is becoming more dubious that you even belong to any Afrikaans speaking people because you have OPENLY used derogatory terms to describe them in the past.

I never once called the Afrikaners "traitors" or "backstabbers" [ I even pointed out here in the past that their worldview is not a personal attack on the Boers - just a different perspective ] so not only are you lying here but you are once again engaging in an old propagandistic technique & trying to distract from the issue at hand by making the debate about myself instead of about Boer self determination. Sir. The genie is out of the bottle so you can distort & attack me with lies all you want but there are THOUSANDS who know the truth just like myself - so if you think you can just trash my character & marginalize me there will by thousands more who will take my place! The average Afrikaner people are not the enemy but its leadership IS DOCUMENTED AS BEING APART of the global financial establishment which works against Boer [ as well as many many others ] self determination.

Ron. said...

The old "intermarriage" stunt is a dog that does not hunt because what amount of "intermarriage" that might have occurred has not gotten rid of the Boer people! Just as the intermarriage in Britain has not gotten rid of the Scottish people. The notion that the Boers just "disappeared" because some might have absorbed Cape Dutch or that some might have been absorbed into the Cape Dutch / Afrikaner is ABSURD on its face & is quickly rebutted by an on ground examination of the matter.

The Boer Republics did not just "disappear"! The Boer Republics were conquered by the British & their Cape Dutch allies & were STOLEN from the Boers. The Boers tried to get them back in 1905 [ Theuns Cloete noted this ] when they contemplated going BACK to war with Britain. Then tried to get the republics back again during the Maritz Rebellion of 1914. Then AGAIN during the 1940s when the Afrikaner ESTABLISHMENT [ not the average Afrikaner so your "Afrikaners are traitors" trick does not work ] broke the Boer Republican movement "down to nothing". [ as noted by Cloete ]. The National Party worked very HARD to SUPPRESS & destroy the character of Robert van Tonder for the "crime" of advocating the restoration of the Boer Republics since 1961 even going so far as to plant Nazi flag waving agitators in his audience. Then later President P W Botha adamantly REFUSED to allow for a "Boer homeland" & was chilly to the notion of Boer self determination.

The Boer Republics might not be independent any longer but they are clearly under South African occupation if you would care to look into how they were conquered & administered under British military rule once they were taken over by the British. Therefore Sir: you can attack me all you want with your baseless LIES & distortion but you can NEVER & will NEVER be able to refute the historical record on this matter of which anyone can access & know the TRUTH about this topic.

Ron. said...

I realized all along that you must have been a staunch support of your point number 4 [ because you talk as though the Boers disappeared when they in fact did not ] but there is in fact no evidence to support your fantastic claims because not enough generations have passed to do what you allege was "done". The Romans disappeared over a process of CENTURIES. The Boers still had their OWN organizations as recently as the 1930s & there is no way in hell that the Boers could have all "disappeared" in the span of just ONE generation [ which is what you ludicrously assert ] because what you are DELIBERATELY attempting to distract people from is the fact that the Boers were only RENAMED! Not ABSORBED! I repeat: the Boers were only RENAMED [ & only by the Broederbond as quitea lot Boers STILL called themselves Boers right into the modern era!!!!! ] they were not all ABSORBED!!!!! Can you "absorb" that fact?! Then you give yourself away again by saying: "damn Boers" which is an expression of CONTEMPT which by now we all knew that you have for the Boer people. Now if the Boers "do not exist" as you & your Broederbonder cronies like to ridiculously assert: then who the hell are all those folks who routinely / openly & REPEATEDLY call themselves Boers? Just a figment of "my" imagination? A figment of their imagination? Sir you are treading closely into insane waters. Try telling that to THEM that they "do not exist". If you even have the guts. But I guess it is much easier to sit behind the comfort of the computer & to disparage & dispossess the Boers than to actually GO VISIT THEM & tell them why they are so "wrong" in their persistence that they still exist. Now after decades of propaganda many might still view themselves as Afrikaners as well but they are still clearly Boer people who have not just disappeared.

Ron. said...

Point 6. It is a documented fact [ noted also by a one Professor Wallace Mills ] that the Boers called their language "die taal" & Boeretaal & to this day many Boers still call their language "die taal". No. The Boer dialect is not "different" from Afrikaans as it is a BRANCH of Afrikaans. Historians have classified the Boer dialect as Eastern Border Afrikaans. There you go attacking me again for simply pointing out DOCUMENTED facts. Please go research this issue for yourself. Though I suspect that you know damn well that what I am pointing out is true but do not as you are on the reconstituted Broderbonder / Afrikaner Bond payroll.

Point 7 is a total joke because you have from day one caused division with your constant attacks on the Boer people & belittling them just for the nerve of sticking to their guns & striving for self determination. I on the other hand have never claimed that the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners can not struggle for their own self determination [ just that they tend not to ] & have never denied them anything which I argue for for the Boers. All I pointed out was that the Cape Dutch have historically NEVER wanted self determination [ as Theuns Cloere pointed out as well ] & this is the TRUE reason you vilify me because you know that if you can convince the Boers to remain on the Afrikaner reservation that they will never find independence & self determination. Because the one thing that clearly annoys you more than anything is the notion that the Boers just might regain their self determination.

Point 8 is all about how the Afrikaner intellectuals deliberately created [ or constructed to use the term used by authors on the matter ] a macro Afrikaner identity in the early 20th cent. This was not a sociological development but rather a civil one with the aim of destroying the Boer i d. None other than intrepid journalist Adriana Stuijt noted that Eugene Terreblanche is confused about his ethnic identity as he often invokes the Afrikaner term. Therefore invoking his recital of this poetry is not a convincing argument against the Boers.

Point 9. No I never claimed that the Broederbond was created in the Cape. Folks this is classic distortion propaganda because this propagandist routinely ascribes things to me which I NEVER said. People can go back & read what I wrote you know. Furthermore: what difference does it make that the Broederbond was created in Johannesburg because Johannesburg was a Cape Dutch [ as well as British magnate etc ] stronghold long before the Broederbond was created. Furthermore the Broederbond had its ideological roots in the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape. At any rate some Boers were involved the creation of the Broederbond as well but that was back when they still thought it was going to help them not harm them. As it latter did.

Ron. said...

Point 10 is classic double think because you neglect to mention that those Afrikaner intellectuals were specifically attempting to co-opt the Boers so that they could be part of the Afrikaner platform & designation. Here is what P Eric Louw noted in The Rise Fall & Legacy of Apartheid on page 58 - 59. Quote: [ Consequently, NP middle-class activists spent much of the 1950s "rescuing" the Afrikaner underclass [ 1 ] by building CNO ( Christelik Nasionale Onderwys / Christan National Education ) schools to teach their children the importance of "own-ness", discipline, Chistian national morality, and a puritan work ethic. Simultaneously, their parents were provided wit jobs and nationalist trade unions to protect and guide them. But, in case this was not enough, legislation was enacted enforcing Calvinist ( antigambling and antipromuscuity) moralities, as wel as petty Apartheid legislation enforcing loyalty to "own-ness". Third early Apartheid involved the widespread demolition of slums. The NP invested considerable energy into the related policies of "orderly urbanization", slum clearance, and migration control. ] ( end quote ) Furthermore: Sanlam only exists to enrich of a few & was only meant to get the Boers out of poverty so that they would not pose as significant a risk to the Afrikaner establishment as they had CLEARLY posed prior. Furthermore Sanlam has made people like Tokyo Sexwale millionaires & it is tied strongly to the ANC regime. Fred Rundle noted this on the Right Perspective program. So your contention that Sanlam & other Afrikaner financial institutions care about the Boers falls flat on its face. Though of course I forgot: you are one of those who believes that the ANC "is good for the" broad White community in general. That is if you are who I think you are. I think I know who you are pal.

Note: 1. Re: the Boer people.

Point 11 is another lie because I never said that either. I & especially Theuns Cloete noted that many Afrikaans farmers are the "worst enemies" of the Boers because many of them are not from the Boer people. Lots of Boers have urbanized [ probably even most of them had ] so the core of the Boers are certainly not necessarily farmers but those folks who are the descendents of the Boers. Also I never once denied that there were pro British Boers but as usual you can not see the forest for the trees. That is all incidental to the LARGER issue of Afrikaner domination of the smaller Boer Nation.

Because the Boers can always deal with & survive traitors among their own but they will never be able to survive the Goliath Afrikaans financial power which can spend its way into subverting the Boer people & marginalizing their just self determination movement.

Point 12 is classic propaganda & a PATHETIC one at that as the folks in the Western Cape NEVER saw themselves as Boers [ perhaps as "boers" ie: as "farmers" but never as the capitalized Boers of the frontier ] & none other than [ probably your close personal friend ] Hermann Giliomee even noted HIMSELF that the term Boer was ONLY ever used among those on the frontier. The Cape Dutch did not trek because they were Pro British & Pro Colonial. This is pointed out EXHAUSTIVELY in the informative book called Cecil Rhodes & The Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. This was also pointed out by your pal Hermann Giliomee. The Afrikaners are entitled to their own identity but so too are the Boers entitled to their own identity as well & folks like you will have to start growing up & let the Boers go & allow them to grow within the context of their own nationality & self determination.

Ron. said...

Furthermore you seem to forget that the Boers struggled whether to trek or not as they were fairly established in the north eastern Cape by the time of the Great Trek & they had to leave farms & houses behind often getting nothing for them so your contention that the Cape Dutch could not trek due to their wine farms also falls flat. The Cape Dutch simply had a better deal under the British whereas the Boers of the frontier were traditionally far more adverse to foreign regimes & bore the brunt of heavier handed legislation. The simple fact that their ancestors trekked into the Cape frontier is testament to their independent nature & if those ancestors never did that then there never would have been any Boer people & consequently no debate today concerning the existence of the Boer Nation. But they did & the Boers came about & they have struggled for centuries for self determination [ & outright had it for approx 50 years ] & no amount of Afrikaner hegemony will ever deter their long running struggle. This is the reality of the situation & ignorantly claiming that the Boers do not exist is just an obvious rhetorical device the establishment uses & have routinely used to subvert the freedom struggle & prevent the dissolution of their macro State which would likely come as a result of an authentic restoration of Boer self determination.

Anonymous said...

Roll up, Afrikaners' & Boers' striptease! Roll up! Laugh a line burlesque! English audience invited, but no comments, nor clapping!

Afrikaner said...

It does not matter what argument I bring to the table, you will make it off as,”Just what planet do you live on!” (Actually it is a question so should have a question mark behind it? Your frequent use of exclamation marks and CAPTAL LETTERS to get your point across is nauseating and bad manners. It is shouting and it puts you in the fanatical branch where the other monkeys are screeching.)
Ron, can you please explain to me what you mean with “Apart” in the next sentence, “The average Afrikaner people are not the enemy but its leadership IS DOCUMENTED AS BEING APART of the global financial establishment which works against Boer”
Do you perhaps mean, “A Part” as in “A part of” or is it “APART” as in “Seperate”? The simple separation of two letters can have a huge impact on what you actually mean.
You babble on...” The old "intermarriage" stunt is a dog that does not hunt because what amount of "intermarriage" that might have occurred has not gotten rid of the Boer people! Just as the intermarriage in Britain has not gotten rid of the Scottish people. The notion that the Boers just "disappeared" because some might have absorbed Cape Dutch or that some might have been absorbed into the Cape Dutch / Afrikaner is ABSURD on its face & is quickly rebutted by an on ground examination of the matter.”
You carry on with your ramblings...” The Boer Republics did not just "disappear"! The Boer Republics were conquered by the British & their Cape Dutch allies & were STOLEN from the Boers. The Boers tried to get them back in 1905 [ Theuns Cloete noted this ]
Please give us more information on who exactly Theuns Cloete is. I have never heard of him. Is “Cloete” a German surname? According to you Boers are German or do I have it wrong? You further go on about “Robert van Tonder” in 1961...Could you please enlighten us to his relationship with one Adriana Stuijt. As far as I know they were in bed together in more ways than one.

Afrikaner said...

You carry on with your ramblings...” The Boer Republics did not just "disappear"! The Boer Republics were conquered by the British & their Cape Dutch allies & were STOLEN from the Boers. The Boers tried to get them back in 1905 [ Theuns Cloete noted this ]
Please give us more information on who exactly Theuns Cloete is. I have never heard of him. Is “Cloete” a German surname? According to you Boers are German or do I have it wrong? You further go on about “Robert van Tonder” in 1961...Could you please enlighten us to his relationship with one Adriana Stuijt. As far as I know they were in bed together in more ways than one.
Let us get back to your ludicrous say...” The Boers still had their OWN organizations as recently as the 1930s & there is no way in hell that the Boers could have all "disappeared" in the span of just ONE generation...”
You are wrong Ron. From about 1903 to 1910 Boers who were upset with English rule emigrated to Argentina, general Ben Viljoen’s crowd to Mexico, some to Kenya and some to the south of the USA (Texas). The Kenyan one returned very quickly.
These die hard fanatical Boers, same as you Ron, emigrated away from South Africa and the core of the Afrikaners. The “Spies and Plessis” program on SABC went and interviewed these “Boers” in Argentina. What did they find? These so called hard arsed Boers who refused to be under British rule went and became subjects of Spanish rule. These Boers who fought so bitterly and whose families where in British concentration camps integrated so well amongst the Spanish in Argentina that hardly anyone today can speak Afrikaans. Only the very old can still speak it to some degree. These Boers who fought for their countries, their Protestant religion and their language are fully Spanish today and are Catholic.
Meanwhile back in South Africa the Afrikaners went from strenghth to strength. They built a fantastic first world country and had nuclear weapons and space programs. Where were the Die hard Boers? Barely scratching out an existence in Patagonia.
Sad that you cannot see that your beloved Boers who are so easily absorbed amongst Spanish were even easier absorbed amongst the Macro Afrikaner population in South Africa. Today there is but ONE. And that is the Afrikaner. They nlive in Cape Town as much as in Pretoria. Some are left and some are right, but at the end of the day we are one people. Whenever a debate rages about the Afrikaners, we should never forget that , although we have different political orientations, although we have different ideas and visions of the future...we are one. The Afrikaner.
I actually welcome people like you, Ron, because your fanatical kind are welcome to leave the Afrikanerdom. We will let you go. Go find your own Boer Republics somewhere in Australia or Canada. In two generations those Boers will be totally absorbed in the next generations. No loss to the Afrikaners. Please, by all and any means separate yourselves from the Afrikanerdom. We welcome and accept the departure of your genes from our core. Good luck to you and your fanatical offspring. You are no loss to us. All you do is strengthen our core of Super Afrikaners: Cheers!

Ron. said...

Regurgitating my own statements is not an effective way to rebut the various points I made. No question mark was required because it was a RHETORICAL question / statement as any fool would know. No. I use capital letters & exclamation marks for EMPHASIS. To sit there & hilariously assert that employing those available & legitimate methods of print communication are "nauseating & bad manners" is supremely ridiculous & most ironic when considering your nauseating & bad manners concerning your denial of observable facts which seeks to dispossess an entire people of their inherent right to even exist & be recognized as a distinct people with legitimate rights to self determination. That should have been "a part of" not apart but the meaning should be quite clear regardless of spelling. I "babble on"? You must be joking! These are just classic stunts that propagandists like you like to use to DISTRACT from the debate by nitpicking over IRRELEVANT minutiae which has no relevance to the topic at hand. Next I am sure you will complain about the font & colour of the print.

I find it hilarious that you feign ignorance concerning who Theuns Cloete is as I am sure you must have a massive file on him as he sure is no newcomer to the scene of Boer Republicanism & independence. Theuns Cloete runs a number of websites most notably Boervolk Radio & was part of the Transvaal Separatists [ which was led by his brother ] from 1983 [ when it was founded ] & was notable during the early 1990s. Cloete was approached by Eugene Terreblanche before the latter had a meeting with the South African State President. Cloete has also looked closely at the history of his people & has come to the SAME conclusion that I & many others had made concerning the verifiable reality that the Boer people are a distinct group.

Now if you had bothered to even listen to the interview with him I have repeatedly posted - you would have learned that Cloete indeed is a German name [ from Kluthe ] as the Boer people have a lot of German ancestry [ Cloete claims that the Boers are "mostly" of German origin ]. No. I do not assert that the Boers are mostly of German decent [ as Adriana Stuijt notes that they are in fact mostly of Frisian origin as she uncovered documentation outlining this in detail in Holland ] but Theuns Cloete does claim this as well as a Canadian Professor named Wallace Mills. Which you must have heard of because saying otherwise would certainly be an admission of bad intelligence gathering on your part. I tend to mention the French Huguenot roots as i have read a lot more on that aspect & can readily recognize the French names of the Afrikaans speakers.

Ron. said...

Robert van Tonder is a fundamental individual as he totally DESTROYS the lie you constantly try to propagate concerning your ridiculous claim that the Boers "no longer exist" due to being "absorbed" BUT van Tonder is WELL known for being a CHILD of BOER parents! Not Afrikaner parents but Boer parents from the Anglo-Boer war era when even you folks admit that the Boers existed. Therefore: how can he be ANYTHING else but a Boer as he had TWO Boer parents? Furthermore he left the National Party in 1961 to pursue the restoration of the Boer Republics due to their betrayal by the Verwoerd regime & the Afrikaner Nationalists. How can the Boers be "one" with the Afrikaners [ which is an absurd contention ] when they were publicly calling for the restoration of their old republics during the 1940s [ & again later ] & therefore wanting to "break away" from the Afrikaners? If the Boers are "one" with the Afrikaners why would the Afrikaner establishment work so HARD to prevent the Boers from reclaiming their republics? One would think that if they were "one" with or the "same" as the Boers then they would have NOTHING to fear in an independent Boerestaat. If the Boers are the "same" as the Afrikaners: then why do the Afrikaners call them "Vaalies"? [ as Cloete publicly noted on live radio air ]. Robert van Tonder: a son of TWO Boer parents who began advocating for the restoration of the Boer Republics in 1961 [ when Verwoerd was busy creating his Afrikaner Republic for the entire macro State of South Africa ] in an era when MOST of the first generation Anglo-Boer War Boer children were STILL alive [ even many actual surviving Boer combatants were ] & continuing all the way until his death in 1999 was a living testament that the Boers did not go away despite the partisan assertions of the Afrikaner Nationalists who simply could not afford to admit that the Boers still exist. As for your subtle insult against Stuijt: I think that speaks for itself & is yet ANOTHER classic propaganda technique aimed at attempting to inject calumny against those who report favorably on the Boer freedom struggle & on those [ like van Tonder ] who advocate such.

The Boer Diaspora you mention [ which left after the war ] was only a very SMALL segment of the Boer people so for you to assert that the Boers "emigrated" is absurd on its face & demonstrably wrong as most of the Boer population remained in Southern Africa. This is yet another sign of your desperation & distortion of the facts because I just caught you trying to imply that all the Boers left Southern Africa after the war when in fact most did not.

The followers of Ben Viljoen eventually settled in Texas & the American south west & they were indeed absorbed into the local American population but your contention for the Argentinian Boers is a total lie! There is still to this very day a significant Afrikaans speaking population there. [ 1 ] Not only can the old Argentinian Boers speak Afrikaans FLUENTLY [ to some degree????? wtf? ] but even most of the younger children can still speak the language. BTW. Since you brought up this topic [ you will be sorry you did now because... ] linguists have studied the Afrikaans spoken in Argentina & have concluded that IT IS DIFFERENT from the Afrikaans spoken in South Africa calling it an "older form of Afrikaans". This is because they are studying the unadulterated Boer dialect which comes straight from the Eastern Border Afrikaans.

Ron. said...


1. Don't cry for me, Orania.

Quote: [ Stuart Graham travels to a dusty dorp in Argentina, where he finds an improbable colony - Afrikaans-speaking descendants of the Anglo-Boer War.

SHE has never been to South Africa and knows little about the country's Afrikaners, but in the windy town of Sarmiento in Argentine Patagonia, Enriqueta van der Merwe sits on her verandah and says proudly, "I am a Boer. Yes, I am Argentine...but I am really a Boer. I was brought up speaking Afrikaans. In my heart, I am a Boer."

Enriqueta's husband, Osvaldo, is loading wood onto a big, blue pick-up truck with a cracked front window. "Osvaldo, kom kuier 'n bietjie," she shouts. "Ons het 'n Suid Afrikaanse gas." (Osvaldo, come chat a while. We have a South African guest.)

The conversation moves to the couple's lounge where they prepare mate. It is Argentina's national drink - a rich tea drunk through a metal straw from a small calabash. As per tradition, the mate cup is passed around the room. "My parents told a story that when the Boers first arrived in Patagonia, they were very thirsty," Enriqueta says. The locals offered them their mate cups, but the Boers said gracias (thanks). If you say gracias it means you don't want any more mate."


Today these Boer descendants speak an older form of Afrikaans, similar to the style used in South Africa in 1902. They often use words like voorgister (the day before yesterday) instead of the modern version, eergister. They have never heard of eina or braaivleis and they enjoy regular Argentine barbecues known as asados. But other cultural aspects, like Boeremusiek, have survived. ]

Therefore your contention regarding the Argentinian Boers is totally debunked as they are still an intact community despite having limited numbers become absorbed into the larger Spanish speaking Argentinian group.

Ron. said...

The following quote from you is classic anti-Boer / Afrikaner chauvinism: [ They built a fantastic first world country and had nuclear weapons and space programs. Where were the Die hard Boers? Barely scratching out an existence in Patagonia. ] The Boers were also "barely scratching out an existence" under your Afrikaner rule either so that point is neither here nor there. This telling line of yours has forever exposed you as a chronic anti-Boer crank.

This further casts significant doubt on your spurious assertion that the Boers were "absorbed" because your classic anti-Boer sentiment - prevalent among you lot - would have PREVENTED the Boers from being absorbed in the manner you assert. Therefore your angry anti-Boer outburst only FURTHER bolsters the very point I was making. This is all rather humorous because while you have nothing but contempt for the Boers [ as is plainly noticeable ] you still refuse to let them go from your Afrikaner clutches. Now if you really do want the Boers "out of Afrikanerdom" why do you work so hard to deny their distinct existence from said Afrikanerdom?

There is not a shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that there is "one" Afrikaner people because a PLETHORA of sources assert the contrary complete with numerous members of the actual Boer people stating that they are not part of the Afrikaners. Even numerous Afrikaners would vice versa tell you that they are not part of the Boers. No. There are not just different political orientations but in fact different anthropological orientations as well. The Boers are a people who were formed on the Cape frontiers which shaped them into a distinct people with a unique outlook to that of the Cape Dutch which was formed in the south western Cape with their own different outlook.

The fact of the matter is & the core problem with you folks is that you will not let the Boers go as you just claimed that you would. Put your money where your mouth is: if you really want to let the Boers go then STOP standing in their way as you have historically done every time they try to stand on their own. Somehow I doubt you will ever truly let the Boers go because without them you folks have no history of your own & would therefore have no legitimate claims to some of the notable regions where your financial power rests.

Ron. said...

There are also those who argue that there are no White South Africans due to "intermarriage" as well [ 1 ] so your denial of Boers based on alleged "intermarriage" is dubious. Because if you give yourself a license to dispossess the Boers of their own identity based on a limited "intermarriage" then you have just given others a license to deny any ethnic distinctions due to "intermarriage"! Think about that for a while because I have also come across debaters who have told me that "race does not exist" & that White people [ which they then strangely & hypocritically identify ] must "submit" to South African "majority rule" because "we are all one"! Therefore going down the dangerous road you are going down will ultimately lead to dismissal of any ethnic & racial distinctions leading to the total dispossession of ethnic minorities in the face of the dominant ethnic political power. The Broederbond took / usurped the Boers & called them Afrikaners thereby fabricating a new group & lumping them in with the Cape Dutch. Just as there are those who are taking / usurping ALL local White people & lumping them in with the bulk of the South African population.


1. SA 'one big family'.

Post Script. Welcome to hell pal because the dispossession you perpetrated against the Boers will be waiting for you folks too when what was done to the Boers will be done against all minorities within the population.

Ron. said...

Now that I have given something to think about which will no doubt cause you to have nightmares: perhaps you will reconsider your cavalier dismissal of the Boers because the dominant ethnic power will & is already demanding the termination of your own ethnic identity as well. What you do not realize is that you TOO will be forced to hand in your Afrikaner identity by the power elite & will be lucky to even be referred to as White South Africans. The day is coming when your own identity will be denied just as you deny the identity of the Boers with such myopic zeal. When you are reduced to being the working class segment of the "South African Nation" [ as the Boers were reduced to being the working class segment of the Afrikaner designation ] & protest strenuously to an unsympathetic South African citizen of non-Afrikaans extraction that you "are a distinct nation / people from the bulk of the South Africans" only to be met with resistance & indifference & even accusations of "dividing the South African nation" you will be haunted by the fact that now you are the one living in the nightmare that you so readily provided for & propagated against the Boer people for so long.

Ron. said...

Just a few more insights. The Boers are often viewed as a tribe & they themselves view themselves as such & as a nation. This by itself automatically means that they are a distinct entity from the bulk of the Afrikaners as the Boer tribe / nation has a PARTICULAR history distinct from the Afrikaners. Just as the Southron views itself as a nation distinct from the bulk of the Americans within the USA. The Afrikaners on the other hand view themselves as an ever changing quasi civil designation which includes all Afrikaans speakers & strives to include anyone who is willing to be assimilated. [ & some not so willing ie: the Boers ] The term Boer is a sociological term describing a particular & distinct group of Afrikaans speakers while the term Afrikaner is a civil term describing anyone who might speak Afrikaans as a home language. When a people have their own dialect / history & culture that by definition implies & overtly demonstrates that they are a distinct nation.

Anonymous said...

"the dispossession you perpetrated against the Boers will be waiting for you folks too when what was done to the Boers will be done against all minorities"

Siener Van Rensburg - Ons het geween nou sal julle ook.

Afrikaner said...

Ron, It is hard to make sense of your ramblings, but I have tried my best so far. If I have to quote every piece of diatribe from you, my own posts will be too long. I am trying to generally follow what you are trying to get across and answer you on it. So let us take stock.
According to me, there once were two Boer Republics, who lost a war against the British, whose citizens became British subject, whose two republics were reduced to mere provinces of South Africa...further these “Boers” over the past hundred years migrated throughout South Africa and intermarried with other Whites, namely from the Cape, Natal, The Freestate, Transvaal and Namibia. In fact most White people in South Africa, migrated, worked, studied, and took life partners throughout the country in the past 100 years. This is not only a simple fact, it is common sense. Today the Boers have been absorbed into the Macro Afrikaner culture and we are all Afrikaners. There are no more “Boers”.
You Ron, deny this migration and intermarriage. According to you it was “limited intermarriage”. According to you, a hundred years ago there were still Boers and there were Cape Dutch. There were also English speaking Whites. These English Whites and Cape Dutch, collaborated in a massive conspiracy to undermine the Boers and prevent them from getting their republics back. According to you, the Boers stagnated, stayed all in one place, married only amongst themselves, studied at their own Boer schools and Boer universities and went to their own dopper Church (Hervormde Kerk). In some kind of time capsule move...there are today, still Boers, Cape Dutch/Afrikaners, and God knows what else you call them.
You accuse me of “Anti-Boer sentiment, when you are the one who resent Afrikaners, calling them “You lot” as in “anti-Boer sentiment - prevalent among you lot”. You resent the Afrikaners so much that you accuse them of a post Boer War genocide against the Boers. You do not name specific individuals, but in your sweeping propaganda statements you scapegoat every Afrikaner under one umbrella, which in my opinion is tantamount to hate speech against Afrikaners.

Afrikaner said...

And don’t bullshit yourself about the Boers of Patagonia. I saw them on TV in many interviews as well as the Spies and Plessis programs. No, Ron, they cannot speak Afrikaans anymore. Only a few can. Most of the children have specific Spanish features and can only speak Spanish.
You further dodge and dive away from the main points I make, with smoke and mirror, straw-man arguments with broad sweeping statements. Firstly you make anything I say off as “Broederbond Propaganda”.
Till this day you could not define a “Boer” or an “Afrikaner”. You could not provide any difference in Boers and Afrikaners, based on language, culture, religion. You come with idiotic claims such as that the Boer language is a different language to Afrikaans, called “Die Taal” when “Die Taal”, also called “Die Soetste Taal”, “Die mooiste Taal” is nothing but AFRIKAANS. This is how Afrikaners refer to their language all the time. You fail to provide any dictionary or Bible written in “Die Taal” to support your claims. Just like any language, Afrikaans has regional differences and accents. The Northern Cape Afrikaans as well as the Transvaal Afrikaans have slight differences in pronunciation or word usage, But just like Queens English and Hoch Deutsch there is Standard Afrikaans. To claim that Eastern Border Afrikaans or Northern Cape Afrikaans is a completely different language is nonsense. It is a mere regional dialect.
You fail to provide any criteria for distinguishing Boers from Afrikaners, today.
Another lie and false claim you peddle is that Afrikaners never sought independence, when the Boers did. So what about the Afrikaner Volkstaat that the Freedom Front Plus promoted in...wait for it...The Western Northern Cape....?
What about the recent one proposed by Dan Roodt stretching from Pretoria to the Eastern Cape? Afrikaners have been pushing for a Volkstaat for many years. This striving for independence is the same. There are no Boers, it is an Afrikaner drive for independence in an Afrikaner Volkstaat. Forget about “Boers”.

Afrikaner said...

Further, please let me know how I should interpret this statement of yours, “Welcome to hell pal because the dispossession you perpetrated against the Boers will be waiting for you folks too when what was done to the Boers will be done against all minorities within the population.”
Is that a subtle threat from you, Ron? Or is it just the mind of a fanatic running away with him?
Let me point out your way of argument at the hand of one of your paragraphs:
Ron says: ”There is not a shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that there is "one" Afrikaner people because a PLETHORA of sources assert the contrary complete with numerous members of the actual Boer people stating that they are not part of the Afrikaners. Even numerous Afrikaners would vice versa tell you that they are not part of the Boers. No. There are not just different political orientations but in fact different anthropological orientations as well. The Boers are a people who were formed on the Cape frontiers which shaped them into a distinct people with a unique outlook to that of the Cape Dutch which was formed in the south western Cape with their own different outlook.”
You make unsubstantiated claims such as “PLETHORA (sic) (note capital letters for emphasis) of sources...but you fail to provide any sources. You write it in CAPITAL LETTERS to give it some legitimacy? You are an idiot Ron.
You say there are “Numerous members” of the Boer people stating they are not part of the Afrikaners. How many are “Numerous”? Ten? Hundred? Who are they? All I see are a few fanatics like you and Dunce Cloette. Name these numerous Boers Ron, so we can see how many support your claims.
You talk about another “difference” in Boer and Afrikaner and that is that the one has an Eastern Cape Outlook and the other a Western Cape Outlook. What are you on about? What is this outlook you refer to? What are the differences? Stop making sweeping statements Ron. Give us facts.
In conclusion. Just like the Boers of Patagonia were absorbed amongst the Spanish in Argentina and disappeared, the Boers of yesteryear were even easier absorbed in South Africa and disappeared. Today there is but one people, The Afrikaners.That is the reality Ron. Deal with it and get a life. If you want to be a fringe nut Boer, then I wish you good luck in your future Boerania homeland. Afrikaners can do without your nutcase genes.

Ron. said...

For someone who posts incomprehensible fact-challenged ramblings you sure do like to accuse others of rambling. There were once not just two Boer Republics but in fact 17 Boer Republics. The "two" major ones were only the ones which were internationally recognized. What you conveniently ignore is that that the republics did not make the Boers: the Boers made the republics. The Boers existed LONG before the various Boer Republics & they continue to exist long after. Wrong. The vast majority of the Boers did not "migrate" throughout South Africa & "intermarry" with other White people. [ why stop at White people? Would not your propaganda be more effective by asserting that they "intermarried" with other peoples as well? It would bolster your erroneous assertion that they disappeared & would do it a lot faster. ] The vast majority of the Boers REMAINED in the Boer Republics region because even your own biased anti-Boer historians ADMIT that the Boers only migrated to the cities [ within the Boer Republican region ] not to other regions in large scale fashion. The Boers moved to Pretoria & Johannesburg in much greater numbers than to cities outside of the old republics. Now it should also be noted that the some Boers actually moved to many other regions all throughout Africa & no one denies that they are Boers or are directly from the Boer Nation. This vicious attack on the Boer people by hatefully & un-academically asserting that they "no longer exist" is a hate crime & designed no doubt to rationalize your continued suppression of them. To mendaciously assert that there are "no more Boers" based solely on an elitist decree made by pro British POLITICIANS exposes you as being in serious denial. No. The Boers were NEVER absorbed & this can be proven by tracing the lineage of most Boers right back to recognized Boers. The vast majority of Boers can be traced back directly to Boer roots which forever destroys your erroneous & hateful assertion that the Boers disappeared because you can even go talk to the actual Boers & they will tell you point blank that they are Boers & are directly from the Boer Nation.

Ron. said...

Now I have already debunked your specious assertion considering "intermarriage" because whatever amount which might have occurred it did not eliminate the ENTIRE Boer Nation. What you conveniently deny is that "intermarriage" leads to ASSIMILATION not hybridization. You are promoting an academically unsound argument that the Boers & Afrikaners conspired to create a hybridized NEW ethnicity based on "intermarriage" while neglecting the on ground realities of assimilation. IE: the children of the "intermarriage" will adopt the DOMINANT culture whether it be a Boer or Afrikaner one. Therefore your so called Afrikaner designation has within it inherent dimensions. This is why there are those who call themselves Boer-Afrikaners: just to illuminate the Boer dimension / component of those "Afrikaners" of Boer descent.

Wrong again. Nothing I have ever posted here has ever been "according to me". See: that it what you deliberately miss & demagogue upon. The fact that 100 years ago there existed Cape Dutch & Boers is a DOCUMENTED fact. The British General Butler noted this very fact in correspondence. The folks of the Western Cape were routinely called Cape Dutch & the folks on the frontier were called Boers. [ 1 ] If there are "no more Boers" why do you cling so tightly to the Boers' history seeing as you could just as easily promote your own history notably the Afrikaans language rights movement. If there are "no more Boers" then who the hell are all those folks who routinely display the old Vierkleur flags & other Boer Republican flags? They sure as hell are not Afrikaners as most of them even refuse to be called such. If there are "no more Boers" then who are all those folks who visit the Voortrekker Monument? I guess they are just a figment of their own imagination then.

1. Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. From: Irving Hexham.

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. ]

Wrong again. The Cape Dutch & the English speakers were not part of a "conspiracy" [ it was not a conspiracy but an openly admitted agenda ] to prevent the Boers from reclaiming their republics but rather it was the British regimes & then later their Afrikaner lackey successor regimes which did this. But once again you attempt to distort by promoting straw man arguments. The average Cape Dutch & English speaker were probably indifferent to the whole thing but their combined numbers within a macro state would naturally work against Boer self determination.

Ron. said...

Once again you are promoting another a priori argument because there never were "Boer schools" or "Boer universities" as the Boers were a largely pastoral people. This is part of the reason why the Boers were co-opted as they would later be "educated" [ propagandized ] in British & Afrikaner schools. The Cape Dutch often also would go abroad for education while the Boers rarely ever did due mainly to their generally poorer status. I do not call them anything. I simply refer to what the historical record notes. Therefore you can try & ignore these facts but any honest history book would confirm these facts. For the record I am not even fond of the names used to describe the various Afrikaans speaking groups as they are incomplete labels open to misinterpretation but one must respect what they choose to call themselves & be true to the historical record.

There were no "Afrikaners" until some Cape Dutch intellectuals began to propagate the term in 1875 back when the Boers were mostly independent in their major Boer Republics. Therefore the term Afrikaner is an artificial term which lumps two distinct groups with different outlooks into the same controllable camp. The historically accurate & verifiable terms are Boers & Cape Dutch even though I noted that they are incomplete terms but are more authentic terms than the artificial Afrikaner designation.

Wrong again. The "you lot" point is specifically directed at you Broederbonder types [ & those who parrot their propaganda so you can not excuse your anti-Boer rhetoric by claiming not to be a Broederbonder ] not at Afrikaners in general. Though on an interesting note it really is only you Broederbonder types & those who parrot their skewed & dishonest accounts who even ever refer to an "Afrikaner" people because most people just call themselves "Afrikaans" & shun the Afrikaner designation. You folks who insist on the existence of Afrikaners are actually in the minority because most call themselves Afrikaans / some call themselves Afrikaners & of course others call themselves Boers. IE: those of Boer descent.

Ron. said...

Wrong again. None other than the intrepid Dutch born South African journalist Adriana Stuijt specifically noted that the Afrikaner Broederbond did engage in what could certainly be called a post Anglo-Boer War genocide because the A B began to rewrite the history writing Boers OUT of it & even prevented Boers from knowing anything about their own post Anglo-Boer War history [ 2 ] so once again it is not I who is stating this but acclaimed journalists. See the knowledge I have acquired did not occur in a vacuum. You like to insinuate that I am some deranged moron who is pulling things out of thin air when in fact I am QUOTING authoritative sources on the topic. [ 3 ] Furthermore the fact that I am telling the truth on this matter is entirely confirmed by your constant strenuous attempts at denying what I post. Because if I was really as out of touch with the facts you would not waste your time in responding. But you know that I am posting the facts [ complete with links to sources for folk to investigate for themselves ] so your only avenue is to attack the messenger in the hope that you can deflate the veracity of the sources quoted.

2. The Subversion of the Boer Republican Movement.

I am reminded of a relevant quote as noted by Stuijt when discussing the Afrikaner subversion of the Boer Republicans which is quote: [ One comment which always shut them up was the question: 'if you don't support our Boer autonomy inside our own borders, why do you support it for every other race in South Africa who have their own homelands"?" ]

3. The Noted Distinction of Boers From Afrikaners.

You want specific individuals? I & Cloete noted the Human & Rouseau publishing co. Furthermore folks like Hermann Giliomée [ whom Stuijt disclosed was / is a Broederbonder ] played a significant part in the modern era concerning this issue as he also purposely rewrote the Boers out of their own history & deliberately claimed the entire Boer Nation under the rubric of Afrikaner. & Dutch / Afrikaner at that - which is scandalous as most Boers are not even of Dutch origin.

Wrong again. I never "scapegoated every Afrikaner" under one umbrella & you can not even point to a single quote I posted which ever could be interpreted as such. Then you have the gall to assert "hate speech"! When you are the one spewing hate speech against the Boers! My my my how you are grasping at straws now because you simply do not have a leg to stand on concerning your hateful claims that the documented & provable Boer people "no longer exist" so you turn it around & claim hate speech against a macro group which truly does not exist in the manner your assert. The entire argument you promote & erroneous assertions you make is hate speech against the Boers.

The whole topic of the Argentinian Boers is not even relative because any group which migrates abroad will inevitably start to became absorbed into the dominant culture BUT it is quite telling that most have not & if they could remain intact then there is no rational reason to assert that the Boers could not also in their own backyard against somewhat more favourable conditions.

Ron. said...

Then this gem "specific Spanish features" which are not defined. Regardless the Argentinian Boers are only now within the current generation starting to become absorbed into the larger Argentinian population.

Now look here: I have addressed every single damned erroneous point you make but for the tenth time you accuse myself of "dodging" your alleged "main" points. This is obviously yet another propaganda technique aimed at trying to marginalize the responses I posted.

The fact of the matter is that all you have asserted is directly from Broerderbond propaganda especially the erroneous notion that there are "no Boers" & that there is "one" Afrikaner people or that there is even an Afrikaner people at all. Tell us where ARE your Afrikaners? Can you tell us how they differ from the Afrikaans? Where would one find Afrikaners? Do they have their own territorial space? What language do your Afrikaners speak? What makes someone an "Afrikaner" when there are only Afrikaans speakers? How are the Afrikaners so different from Afrikaans?

I defined a Boer in previous posts but just in case you missed it. A Boer is an individual of Trekboer / frontier descent who speaks a version of Eastern Border Afrikaans & whose ancestors are renown for attempting to struggle for self determination. Obviously it is that last fact which riles you because you would just prefer that they abandon their struggle for self determination. An Afrikaner is a political designation started by Cape Dutch intellectuals in the late 19th cent & applied by politicians onto first the Cape Dutch population then later onto the whole of the Afrikaans speaking population. If this is not clear enough for you than you are simply further exposing yourself as a demagogue & distorter.

Once again you promote another a priori argument by asserting that there must be a significant difference in language & religion to ascertain a difference in culture. The Quebecois & Acadians similarly share virtually the same language & religion but their different histories made them into different peoples. Just as the different histories of the Boers & Afrikaners made them into different peoples. The Quebecois & Acadians have also intermarried but no one would insanely assert that there are no more Acadians or Quebecois. The Canadians exist independently from the Americans yet no one would ridiculously assert that the Canadians are "dividing" the Americans. Most Boers trace directly back to Anglo-Boer War era Boers [ just like the Robert van Tonder example who was only one generation removed as he was a son of Anglo-Boer war era parents ] therefore the assertion that the Boers "disappeared' is countered by the genealogical evidence. No. I did not say the Boers speak their own language. I noted that they speak their own DIALECT of the macro language which became known as Afrikaans. Just as the various Coloured populations also speak their own dialects of Afrikaans. You are arguing against the historical & observable facts. Therefore either you are failing to actually read what I post or are deliberately misrepresenting my posts because I sure as hell never claimed what you assert I claimed. BTW anyone can read these posts you know so perhaps you should find a more legitimate tact than constantly ascribing things to myself which I never said.

Ron. said...

Well I provided a list of features distinguishing Boers from Afrikaners. Now I realize that this is just another propaganda technique aimed at tiring myself out because you are attempting to get me to respond REPEATEDLY to the same questions over & over while IGNORING the content therein.

What a supreme joke. The vast majority of the supporters of the Afrikaner Volkstaat are directly from the Boer Nation & the Freedom Front Plus [ or as Fred Rundle calls it: the Mulder Plus party ] only promote such an idea in the Western Northern Cape [ no not just the western portion of the Northern Cape province ] due to its low population. Furthermore the Northern Cape has historically been home to a segment the Boer people as the northern most segment of the Trekboer migrations occurred there & two Boer Republics were established there: the Stellaland Republic & the Goosen Republic. Once again you promote pure straw men arguments because every time you try to assert an Afrikaner example you end up only referring to the actual Boer people. Furthermore: the whole notion of a Volkstaat is nothing but an ANC scam / ruse which was only ever propagated & proposed to General Constand Viljoen in the first place in order to prevent the secession of the Western Transvaal which was imminent in 1994. Since it served its purpose no one is willing to follow through on this empty promise but the Freedom Front Plus continues to lie to its supporters as though the proposal has any chance in hell when it resides solely at the discretion of the neo colonial power.

The fact still remains that the vast majority of Afrikaners [ ie: those of Cape Dutch descent ] do not want freedom & independence & this is routinely confirmed when they vilify those who do seek independence & show up at Boer marches & rallies only to "boo" the participants. As they did during the Boer march of November 2006. Though as I noted previously this is not universal as there are numerous Cape Dutch descended individuals who refer to themselves as Afrikaners who also support independence & even Boer self determination.

Dan Roodt is actually one of those folks of Boer descent who refers to himself as an Afrikaner. So once again you cite another Boer even though he rejects the Boer designation. No. It is not that the Afrikaners are even authentically pushing for a Volkstaat [ which is designed to fail & be controlled by the ANC ] What you forget is that the whole notion of a Volkstaat was just a cynical ploy the ANC & political establishment dangled in front of the public as a means to distract & subvert them because while you all fight over a dubious Volkstaat [ which will never materialize because it is based on a false promise ] which will only ever be controlled by the South African regime - the true struggle for self determination will get co-opted & outright ignored. This is the whole point. I am so glad to see you ADMIT that you want folks to "forget about the Boers" [ Cloete warned that this is exactly what the so called Right Wing Volkstaaters & political establishment want: to "forget about the Boers" ] because by doing so it plays right into the hands of the ANC whose little Volkstaat scam is aimed at subverting & destroying any chance of authentic self determination.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner quote: [ Is that a subtle threat from you? ]

Man are you dumb or are a demagogue because the "threat" is not from myself. There you go AGAIN distorting what I posted. The point is that you are ushering in a hell because you are empowering forces which will dispossess you & your artificial designation the SAME way you folks dispossessed the Boers & stole their identity. This is a warning - not a "threat" - that you are enabling those who will totally dispossess all minorities because you would not stand up for the Boers so how in the world are you going to prevent happening to you what happened to the Boers. I find it all a bit alarming that you think I have the power to do what is going to be done to you by the State & the regime you empower with your hateful rhetoric.

The Freudians will have a field day in examining why you routinely like to distort what I post & demonize myself & project onto myself facts which are noted by OTHERS. I think they would classify you as a narcissistic paranoid which would cause them to wonder if maybe there might not be a reason for your paranoia. IE: Perhaps you really are at the forefront of suppressing the Boer people & see bogeyman "Boer avengers" to be afraid of around every corner. Perhaps you should assuage your conscience by quit suppressing the Boer Republicans & quit propagandizing against their inherent right to self determination.

Afrikaner quote: [ but you fail to provide any sources. ]

Well here is one at a history site.

There are many sources which do in fact note that there is not "one" Afrikaner group.

[ IN RECENT YEARS, historians have commented that Afrikaners were far from being one people. It is misleading, they say, to speak of ‘the Afrikaner’ or the ‘volk’ as if white, Afrikaans-speaking people were one, uniform mass. For at least 150 years, Dutch-speaking South Africans were divided, scattered and unaware of national unity. It was only when a systematic effort was made that national consciousness became widespread. In the nineteenth century, for example, settled Boers and townspeople in the Western Cape, differed greatly from the Voortrekkers (who themselves were not a united movement — many parties had split up to trek in different directions). Even in the Boer republics there were divisions between rich and poor, landowners and bywoners. ]

Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State.

Numerous Boers do not view themselves as part of the Afrikaners. Theuns Cloete. Fred Rundle. Robert van Tonder. Dirk van Tonder. Professor Tobias Louw. [ 4 ] Edwin Leemans: Boerevolk liaison to the media. Dr. Lets Pretorius: Boer Freedom Foundation. TRP caller Henry Pinkham. [ 5 ] Danie Theron: Boer Nationalist. Ebert Myburgh: Student. Pieter Grobler: student. Christo Burger: speaker. [ 6 ]

4. Open Letter to the ISS from Profeessor Tobias Louw.

5. Noted during his calls to the Right Perspective program. Pinkham along with Cloete also note the Afrikaner domination of the Boers.

6. The Future of the Boer.

Once again engaging in ad hominem attacks against myself only vindicates the points I raise because if I really was an authentic "idiot" then you would not waste your time attempting to distract from the facts. No one would invest so much time if they truly though they were responding to an "idiot". The fact of the matter is that you are terrified.

Ron. said...

The Boers of the Cape frontier developed an independent outlook which was notable in their distaste of authority & their desire to get as far away from the VOC as possible. American author Joseph Stromberg noted that the Boers lived in a state of "ordered near anarchy" on the frontier. [ 7 ] In stark contrast to the Cape Dutch whose lives were far more regimented. The Cape Dutch were strongly pro Colonial while the Boers were anti Colonial.

7. The Journal of Libertarian Studies.

What a joke. You are the one who routinely makes sweeping statements even going so far as to assert that the Afrikaners are "also" looking for independence when in fact the vast majority of those so called Afrikaners are directly from the Boer Nation.

I can not believe how you conclude with one of the most brazen lies you have ever uttered as the Boers of Argentina sure as hell were not all absorbed [ you probably did not even know the definition of this term until I introduced it into the discussion ] & sure as hell did not "disappear"! Anyone can read the article I linked to to verify this so your credibility is forever shot & it was not too strong to begin with as you base your argument on a pack of lies based on Broederbond distortion. You are presenting an erroneous & DANGEROUS assertion by claiming that the Boers "disappeared" because the evidence is all around to verify the contrary as all one has to do is actually investigate the matter. The Boers exist & you must deal with it because claiming everyone as an "Afrikaner" is delusional based denial & when the Boers are free again one day in their own republics I bet you will be in front of the news cameras denouncing them as "extremist nutcases" [ as you just did here ] & urging sanctions against them & I bet you will even still be claiming them as "Afrikaners" but will be lying about them to the world & working as per usual to deny them their inherent right to self determination.

Ron. said...

The Afrikaner designation was designed to neutralize the Boer people by linking them with the pro British Cape Dutch population. Therefore whenever the Boers have tried to find self determination during the post Anglo-Boer War period: they have been routinely but erroneously decried as an "extremist" branch [ as Afrikaner demonstrated so well here ] of a non-existent monolithic designation. The recognition of this basic historical occurrence is not about assigning "blame" to the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners nor any ethnic population group but about recognizing the inherent problems associated with conflating an historically independence oriented people with a larger anti-independence oriented pro status quo oriented population.

Anonymous said...

...and it's about now we wait for Afrikaners response.

In as much as I, and I am sure many others, have learnt a lot from the exchange, surely it is time to agree to disagree?

Viking said...

I don't like closing threads - not even sure I know how! lol
but broadly, I agree with VI, there seems to be some argument for allowing self-identification here.

And what's with all the 'pro-British' Cape-Dutch business? As a British person I can't help being offended in a way by the derogatory meaning implied here. Surely in an early 19th century context this has a specific meaning other than, say, 'selling out'.
I mean, I am broadly pro-American, which doesn't diminish anything else I am. As Mark Steyn says, when you know who the boss is, you learn his rules and get along.

The history of the Cape can be likened to the (early) history of New Orleans in this context, where a variety of flags were flown over the period of a century or so - Spanish, French, British, American, but where people just got on with things and survived.

Afrikaner said...

OK VI and Viking, I can understand your frustration so far. Allow me my last word in a series of posts then I will conclude. You can allow Ron to leave his closing argument as well and then close the thread. Here goes...
No VI, You are wrong. I will never compromise when I am right. I will never agree to disagree either. I will keep on, until this divit head gets it in his skull that his invisible friends the Boers, is a figment of his imagination. In the last hundred years the Boers have been absorbed not only in the greater South Africa and Namibia through migration, but have also been absorbed into the people who are today called, The Afrikaners.
Any denying of that is subjective pseudo history and contemptuously rejectable nonsense.
Viking, you are right. Just as you feel offended by Ron’s constant blaming of British and Cape Dutch, Cape Afrikaners of today feel offended by his constant referel and pushing into a box of his ramblings.
In the mind of Ron, the mind of a Rightwing nutcase, time stood still since 1903. No Boer migrated away from his “Plaas”. No Boer married outside of his “Dorp”, The Boers still speak the same “Boeranikaans” as 100 years ago. There are still Boers walking amongst us today. How you distinguish them from hardcore Afrikaners is beyond me. Nevertheless...
Ag please Ron, you sound like a stuck record. All you can do in every paragraph is calling me a hateful Afrikanerbond Propagandist. A demagogue and distorter. Narcistic paranoid. What nonsense. Phone the AB head office at “Die Eike” and ask them how many Afrikanerbond propagandist they have on their payroll and then you can back and tell us where they told you to get off. HAHAHA. What gibberish. You sit behind a fence and throw mud hoping some will stick. Typical propaganda technique when you realise your arguments are all baseless and holds no water.
Let me point out a few of your other propaganda tricks, that of gross generalisation and sweeping statements. I quote you in the numbered points below with my comments behind it in brackets.

Afrikaner said...

1. The Boers existed LONG before the various Boer Republics & they continue to exist long after. (How long is long before and long after? How long is a piece of string Ron).
2. The vast majority of the Boers did not "migrate" (How much or what percentage is “The vast majority).
3. The vast majority of the Boers REMAINED in the Boer Republics region because even your own biased anti-Boer historians ADMIT that the Boers only migrated to the cities [ within the Boer Republican region ] not to other regions in large scale fashion.(Ron I have evidence from one primary school ( I am on the school board) in a small coastal town near Cape town where we recorded in the last three years an average of 11 families a week moving from The Freestate and Transvaal to the Cape. That is one town Ron. Imagine the others. Your Boers migrated and are still migrating to the Cape. Here in the Cape I am surrounded by Vaalies and Vrystaters. Fuck man we are overrun by your Boers).
4. The Boers were NEVER absorbed & this can be proven by tracing the lineage of most Boers right back to recognized Boers. The vast majority of Boers can be traced back directly to Boer roots. (Wow, are outdoing yourself. So many sweeping statements peddled as fact in one sentence I have never seen. Never? Proven? Where is the proof? Who are the “Most Boers” and “recognized Boers” you are referring to? All ten of the nutjobs? How do you recognize a Boer? Khaki clothes? Veldskoene? Comb in the sock? As far as I know the people you refer to have one ID document that says SA citizen. Theye speak Afrikaans and Afrikaans is their mother language. They are Afrikaners. Where is the Boer ID’s, Boer Birth certificates, Boer Passports, etc? How many people do you want to restart one of your 17 Boer Republics with?. You acknowledge that out of the 17 only two prevailed for a short while. If the other 15 Boer Republics could disappear so easily, then why not the other two? Oh yes, I forgot...the actually did. Where in existence for about 40 years and then gone. Just like the Pathagonian Boers are today gone ).
5. did not eliminate the ENTIRE Boer Nation. (OK Ron, who did it not eliminate? Who are the ones left over? How much is “ENTIRE” and how much of this “ENTIRE” (note the capital letters to imply emphasis and therefore “Fact”) Boer Nation are still around? Are they card carrying members of “The Boer Nation”?)
6. The whole topic of the Argentinian Boers is not even relative because any group which migrates abroad will inevitably start to became absorbed into the dominant culture. ( “Any Group”, Ron? One moment you acknowledge that the Boers of Argentina were absorbed and the next moment you say they stayed intact? What about the Jews, Ron? Wherever they went, they remained the Jews and stayed intact. 5000 years of worldwide migration, the Jews are still here and the Boers disappeared after 50 years. Seems like you can learn something from the Jews about not integrating, intermarrying and being absorbed)
7. The fact still remains that the vast majority of Afrikaners [ ie: those of Cape Dutch descent ] do not want freedom & independence & this is routinely confirmed when they vilify those who do seek

Afrikaner said...

independence...(Who are these “Vast majority Afrikaners, Ron. What baseless nonsense when in a recent “Beeld Newspaper” poll (11 Jan 2010)the Afrikaners overwhelmingly supported an Afrikaner Volkstaat, Read Praag for instance).
8. ...there are numerous Cape Dutch descended individuals who refer to themselves as Afrikaners...( how many is “numerous”. Who gave you the authority to classify anybody as Cape Dutch, Afrikaner or Boer?)
9. the Boers of Argentina sure as hell were not all absorbed [ you probably did not even know the definition of this term until I introduced it into the discussion ]... (see Ron, there you do it again. You underestimate me. I have even been to Argentina and visited these people. Have you?)
OK, enough of pointing out your usage of generalisations and broad, sweeping statements. Let us look at some of your other comments.
1. About intermarriage, you tried to lay words in my mouth I never uttered “Why stop at whites...etc?” No Ron, I never claimed Afrikaners massively intermarried or even mysogenict with Blacks or coloureds. If that was true they would have looked like the people from South America. Your Boers in Pathagonia did, that is why their features are distinctly Hispanic Mulato today and they look different to us Afrikaners in South Africa. We had APRTHEID remember.
2. I do not know what you mean with Afrikaans people as distinct to Afrikaners. I know there are in some debates a question “What is an Afrikaner?”...This is a Communist tactic to undermine Nationalism. It was used in WWII to ask, “What is a German?”. Coloureds can never be Afrikaners, because they cannot speak the language properly, and they do not share the culture or religion (Calvanistic Protestant). Like Dr Alan Boesak, Coulords send their kids to English schools, bring their kids up speaking bad English, bad Afrikaans and perfect Gangster language...And then want to claim to be Afrikaans??? Stuff that. When Couloureds start showing an interest and sending their kids to Afrikaans schools and Afrikaans Universities and start FIGHTING for Afrikaans, we might consider them as useful allies who speak the same language as us, but that is a hundred years away. At the moment all I can say is that coloured have their own Culture (malay, Khoi, and others), The have their own religions (Charasmatic Christian, Roman Catholic, Islam) and their own Cape coloured Afrikaans, that a normal Afrikaner can listen, understand some words, but will have difficulty in understanding the context.

Afrikaner said...

As a Nationalist I fully support the right of Cape coloureds to rule themselves, either in a representative way or totally independent. If “Boers” existed” I would even support their right to rule themselves. And if you and the eleven people you mention in your post wants to claim independence then be my guest. Eleven people hardly consists a nation. My own Afrikaner extended family is much larger. But please... I am not clinging to people like you. If you want to leave the Afrikanerdom, be my guest and leave. We will happily ostracise you from our genepool.
3. About people visiting the Voortrekker Monument. Ron I am an Afrikaner. My history includes that of the Boers of 150 odd years ago. Every time I go to Pretoria, I make it a point to visit that shrine, the Voortrekker Monument. I have visited the Battle fields of the Boers. I even took my family there. I even took them to the site of Blood River, travelling 20km on a dirt road between Vryheid and Dundee. I have pics of every time I visited the Voortrekker monument, (Three times in total)...probably more than the “Boers” who live in Pretoria and call themselves “Boers”. Yet I am today an “Afrikaner”. Writers and poets like D.F. Malerbe wrote books about my family. I am probably more genetically related to the Boers than you, or any of the eleven “Boers” you mention above, yet I acknowledge the fact that today there is only one people...The Afrikaners of South Africa.
4. Adriana Stuijt. I do not want to libel her, because she is doing some good work at the moment. You still have not answered me on her relationship with Robert van Tonder. Adriana was a medical journalist for the English Newspaper Sunday times. What exactly a medical journalist is and what such a person reports on is a bit vague. Nevertheless it seems that when she became a reporter for the Sunday Times, she had no qualms to receive a salary from the Liberal, English speaking bosses who were forever dead set against the Afrikaner and the NP. During the NP government she was a staunch anti-Apartheid supporter. Who is she working for now? Sorry but I have difficulty in accepting her as a crediblhave difficulty in accepting her as a credible White Rightwing source today.
5. You mention a quote by her, “I am reminded of a relevant quote as noted by Stuijt when discussing the Afrikaner subversion of the Boer Republicans which is quote: [ One comment which always shut them up was the question: 'if you don't support our Boer autonomy inside our own borders, why do you support it for every other race in South Africa who have their own homelands"?" ]....Simple Ron, Boers do not exist anymore, we are the Afrikaners today. And BTW, it did not shut me up, did it?

Afrikaner said...

6. About the differences and definitions of Boers and Afrikaners...Your explanation is just that...yours. It is no official explanation by any credible historical source. But let us look at it. You definition of a Boer, “A Boer is an individual of Trekboer / frontier descent who speaks a version of Eastern Border Afrikaans & whose ancestors are renown for attempting to struggle for self determination.” Well Ron, The Afrikaans Language has changed a lot in the last 150 years. No language is stagnant and the various dialects of Afrikaans enriched the language to what it is today. The Afrikaans used to translate the Bible in 1933 (the first Afrikaans Bible) is not the same as the one used to translate the Bible in 1983/84. The language developed and got richer. The “Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal” is a work in progress. The “FAK sangbundel” (Federasie van die Afrikaanse Taal) includes all the ancient Afrikaans and Boer songs and tunes. It is also a work in progress. It even includes “Die Stem” as well as the Freestate and Transvaal national anthems. So that leaves your claims that the Afrikanerbond and Afrikaners had an “Agenda” and that Adriana says that “the Afrikaner Broederbond did engage in what could certainly be called a post Anglo-Boer War genocide because the A B began to rewrite the history writing Boers OUT of it & even prevented Boers from knowing anything about their own post Anglo-Boer War history”, null and void. The FAK was started by the AB and was inclusive in every aspect. The history of the Boers were taught from primary school level right through every grade up until university level during the National Party years. Your claims that Afrikaners tried to write the history of the Boers out is nonsense and you know it. Go check those old school history books and go check the books now. The matric History book today make a one and a half page mention of the Boer war. The Afrikaner Bond actively distribute books free of charge (donations are welcome) to schools documenting the history of the Boers and the Afrikaners today. I know, because I personally hand delivered these books (by Dr Jackie Grobler, senior lecturer of history at the University of Pretoria) at five different schools in my area.
7. So lets look at your differences again. You say the Boers are trekboers from the frontier. So the Trekboers from the frontier trekked from the Cape. So the Boers are Cape Dutch who trekked. So because some moved and some did not that makes them separate people? Absurd, because those same people trekked to Patagonia, trekked back to the Cape, some stayed in Transvaal and Freestate and some are still trekking today all across SA, back to the Cape and even abroad to Australia, Kanada etc.
8. Speaking “The Taal” I have already debunked, because “Die Taal” is a reference to Afrikaans, used by Afrikaners to describe their language. “Die Soetste Taal”, “Die Mooiste Taal”....There is only one language today called Afrikaans, taught at university level and in which the Bible has been translated twice. There is no language, no dictionary and no Bible written in “Boerassic”.

Afrikaner said...

9. About the Boers being of mostly (another of your vague statements)German decent. Ja, Kruger and Maritz are German surnames. But General Viljoen, De la Rey, De Wet, Botha, etc ...even Roodt, Terreblanche...are French and Dutch. In fact when you objectively research your beloved Boers, you will find that the Boer heroes came mostly from Dutch and French backgrounds than German, mmostly because of the animosity of these people against the English from wars fought in Europe. But like a drunk Hotnot you fall from one side to the other and support your Boer heroes like Botha the one day and then Maritz who was killed by Botha the next. As a matter of fact. I today have a German surname. My mother was French on father side and Dutch on mother side. I speak Afrikaans, English and German. I was born in South Africa, raised in Namibia, moved back to the Cape, studied in Johannesburg (amongst others)....What am I Ron? I will tell you what I am. I am an Afrikaner.I probably have a clearer genetical record than most of your so called Boers. I have a real German surname that one does not have to alter like your Theuns Cloete. How many of your so called “Boers” from German heritage can still speak German? No Ron, Your German Boers were fully absorbed in Afrikanerdom(Again) and can speak only Afrikaans.
10. Why was the Vow of 16 Dec 1838 drawn up in Dutch and not German? You are disenfranchising all Afrikaners from Dutch and French decent who fought at Bloodriver.
11. So does Someone`s political view, be it what it may, Conservative or liberal, change his Nationality? Absured.
12. When I studied in Denmark I came across people like you Ron. I came across people who still calls themselves “Vikings” after a thousand years. Fact is that the Vikings disappeared quite quickly after the introduction of Christianity and they became separate nations who tody call themselves, Danes, Norwegians and Swedes. They have not forgotten nor denounced their Viking history, but fact is that today they are Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. The same way Afrikaners have not forgotten nor denounced their Boer past, but fact is that time and history have moved on and today their is only one nation, The Afrikaners.
13. Your next claim is .... “The Boers are even still notable for being a more conservative oriented people while the Cape Dutch segment are quite the opposite & have a far more cosmopolitan reputation.”....Ok so let us look at what one of your Boer Leaders, Lets Pretorius believe....

Afrikaner said...

14. You basically claim that the Boers were victims of Afrikaners, even stating that there were no Boer schools, universities etc, as pointed out by myself, but you forget, Ron that every single prime minister of the union of South Africa from 1910 to 1948 when the Nats took over was a Boer General. I will name them. General Loius Botha, General Jan Smuts, General james Barry Hertzog, General, Field Marshal Jan Smuts again. Every Prime minister after 1948 up until 1994and every state president was an Afrikaner of Boer decent. Malan, Strijdom , Verwoerd, Vorster, Botha and de Klerk. State presidents like Marais Viljoen, Diedericks, even Heunis...were all Afrikaners from Boer decent and ...grip on to your seat....they were all Afrikaner Broederbonders. This actually show the majestic flaw in your argument that Afrikaners dominated Boers and tried to subvert the Boers. Quite the contrary. It proves Boer Domination of politics in South Africa since the end of the Boer war...since unification in 1910. These Boer leaders tried to unite the Afrikaners across SA. These Boer descendents handed the country over to the ANC, not the Afrikaners, or the English speaking South Africans. Your beloved Boers Ron.
15. Ron, I will be watching you from now on. I will be monitoring your crap history you espouse on various forums. I will close for now, but I am looking forward to your next post. I will take you on can bet on that.

Afrikaner said...

About Lets Pretorious....

Lets Pretorius and his followers allegedly believe that the God of the Bible is not the real God but only an underling to the real God of the Voortrekkers and Bloodriver. He allegedly also believes that only him and his followers are real Boere.
Are you one of his group?

Thanks Vanilla Ice and Viking for allowing me my five cents

Ron. said...

Claiming that the Boers are "invisible" is laughable in the extreme & has forever exposed your delusional denial. Your spurious claim that the Boers were "absorbed" is totally countered by the fact that most of them can be traced back to Boers from the Anglo-Boer War era & beyond. Once again you are distorting what I posted as I am not "blaming" the British or the Cape Dutch for anything. The British ran the Cape & the Cape Dutch they ruled were pro British. This is a documented fact. They later conquered the Boers & forced them into a macro State which was under British then later Afrikaner [ Cape Dutch ] [ heads of government of Cape Dutch descent were: Jan Smuts / JBM Hertzog / Hendrik Verwoerd (born in Holland) / John Vorster etc. ] The fact that you see "blame" is telling because these are FACTS not a blame game. Tell us what is the "blame" for? Well well well: the fact that you accuse myself of being "a Right Wing nutcase" just proves what I have always suspected about you & proves that you do not read anything I post because both Cloete & I have warned about the Right Wing subversion of the Boer Republican movement. I never said that time stood still since 1903: but you dodge & dive away from the salient fact that the Boer people did not just get up & disappear because they had children & their children had children & they did so without losing their own culture. Now you can complain all you want about being exposed as a highly probable Broederbond propagandist but you know what they say about ducks. No. I never denied that their language changed as ALL languages change over time but spare us the bullshit that they simply stopped having any influence on the propagation of their own existence. See: you like to obtusely & insultingly argue that the Boers suddenly stopped existing in 1903 as though their defeat by the British somehow opened up a huge black hole which pulled the Boers out of this plane & dumped them God knows where & then suddenly the Cape Dutch began mating with whatever Boers were left producing a bastard offspring you nuts refers to as Afrikaners as though the Boers stopped having children & stopped transmitting their own culture & dialect.

The fact is that your assertions hold no water because they are not even based on any observable or verifiable facts & you never even cite a single source for your assertions while I at least cite sources to which your only argument is to "poison the well" by lambasting their character. Are you sure you are not a Black Nationalist I was debating with last year? Because you sound EXACTLY like him. His response was ALSO to lambaste the Boers as "Right Wing extremists" despite the fact that they only want self determination & are routinely scuppered by the true Right Wing [ & other ] extremists. I have to wonder why you sound so similar to a Black Nationalist.

Ron. said...

Response to your points.

1. The Boers exited as a people since at least the 1700s & are from the Trekboers. The Boers continue to exist today as they did not stop having children or die off or get "absorbed" to the point where there are no more Boers. You dodge the fact that Robert van Tonder was straight from a people even an intellectually perverted propagandist like you has to admit were Boers. If two ducks have a offspring: they are not going to produce a dog. But in your outrageously biased world two Boers can not produce another Boer because the calender changed to 1903 as though that date killed off all ethnic groups & ushered in the Utopian age Afrikanerania whereby all peoples & ethnicities were suddenly named after the African continent.

2. The vast majority means just that. Looking for an exact percentage would require a survey or examination of the matter. Something you would definitely oppose as it would further expose your anti-Boer nonsense for what it is.

3. What you are doing is conflation because I am certainly not talking about the "last 3 years" in which indeed Boers [ & other South Africans for that matter ] have been moving around in greater numbers. I was referring to the 20th cent when you folks created an Afrikaner group on paper.

4. Most Boers means exactly that. Get a dictionary if you are still confused. Recognized Boers means those Anglo-Boer War era Boers whom you did say you recognized as Boers. But then that 1903 black hole opened up & pulled them out of known existence - if I correctly follow the gist of the bullshit you assert. How do you recognize a Boer? How do you recognize an Acadian? You are using a non sequitor because how do you recognize the ethnicity of any person? Get a life.

This just proves that you adhere to a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of the term Boer. You ask where is their Boer ID: but those are all civil documents. The term Boer is a sociological term not a civil one. Whereas the term Afrikaner is a quasi civil term which was used to suppress the Boer [ & Cape Dutch term for that matter ] term. You are clearly under the misimpression that Boers can only exist based on civil documentation which states them as such [ or are more likely clearly understanding what you are doing ] when that notion is ridiculous on its face because a people do not stop existing just because civil structures change. Did the Amerindians not exist before birth certificates confirmed their existence? Once again you are promoting a spurious argument.

The term Boer exists independently from civil structures & will outlast the South African State itself as it denotes a particular ethnic group.

5. Well it certainly did not eliminate Robert van Tonder. Which is why you goons used to like to beat the crap out of him. Folks this is the sickness of these control freaks on display because if you do not agree with their dictatorial madness that the Boers "do not exist" & should not strive for self determination: they come & beat the living crap out of you. There is something quite Orwellian & Twilight Zone like about the manner in which they conduct themselves on this matter. [ One can almost hear Rod Serling stating: " Consider if you will a place full of Boer people but where it is illegal to refer to them as such & where one risks repression & even bodily harm for even daring to talk about self determination. Let us take a look at the case of a one Robert van Tonder. A Boer who 'was not a Boer' to those in charge... " ] Card carrying implies civil connotations. The term Boer is a sociological term. Not a civil term like "South African" or for that matter Afrikaner. Which just means African ergo everyone in Africa is an Afrikaner.

Ron. said...

6. No. I noted that they are only "starting" to became absorbed but the vast majority [ look it up in the dictionary ] have not as they continue to exist as & self identify as Boers. What a joke: there are few authentic original Jews left anywhere due to fact that they have largely died out. The folks calling themselves Jews today are a combination of a religious designation [ ie: non ethnic based ] & those who converted en mass during the post Christ era particularly by the tenth cent.

7. The Afrikaners I speak of are folks like you who think that any form of independence is "treason" & "extremism" [ you admitted as much ]. I already told you that the so called Afrikaner Volkstaat is a monumental hoax aimed at subverting authentic self determination. So you can cite all the skewed polls you want but the option they are favouring is not true freedom & independence. Which is the whole point of the proposed Volkstaat. This so called Volkstaat will be controlled entirely by the South African regime in ways worse than the old Bantu homelands were ever accused of. Look it up.

8. Ha ha ha ha ha! What a supreme joke! Who the hell gave you the authority to declassify the Boer people & to stick them among an artificial designation? Furthermore you lying demagogue: I noted that they were Cape Dutch descended . I did not call them outright Cape Dutch.

9. I doubt that you went anywhere near Argentina because your open DISDAIN for the Argentinian Boers & the Boers in general is well documented & on the record. As usual you forget that folks can READ what you wrote in the past.

Ron. said...

Response to the other points.

1. Well in fact a little book called Herkoms van die Afrikaner by a one J A Heese published in 1971 publicly notes that the White Afrikaans speaking people absorbed a limited amount of Indian / Malay & Khoi. [ appox 5 - 7 % ] What a joke to accuse myself of being "a Right Wing nutcase" when your entire paragraph makes you out as one by inferring that our ancestors were all 100 % White. Argentinian Boer population: "Hispanic Mullato"? What an insult! The Argentinians are from Italians / Spanish & Germans.

2. The point was why do you call yourself an Afrikaner when there are only Afrikaans speaking people? As Afrikaners only exist on paper & were never the result of an organic ethnic group. Most Afrikaans speakers call themselves "Afrikaans" people not Afrikaner or Boers. When foreigners ask what one is most Afrikaans speakers say: "Afrikaans". What a joke! You use this exact communist tactic to undermine Boer identity & Boer Nationalism. But your labeling myself a Right Wing extremist only exposes your far left tendencies. Which are implicit in your anti-Boer denunciations. Coloureds can "never" be Afrikaners?! This proves that you are totally deluded because there is nothing you can do to STOP them from calling themselves Afrikaners. This was the main point of the latter section of this article: that as more & more other ethnicities claim the Afrikaner designation: all White Afrikaans speakers will become further dispossessed. Can not speak the language "properly"? Are you sure you even want to go down that road because the Dutch routinely claim that YOU can not "speak the language properly"! [ even though it is rather a different language ]. The Cape Dutch elite even accused the Boers of not "speaking the language properly"! back in the 19th cent.

What you overlook is that as more & more Boers reclaim their stolen identity they will eventually gravitate towards independence & self determination. Therefore despite all your denials that the Boers "do not exist" ultimately it will make absolutely no difference at all to the lives of average Boers whether you recognize them or not as they will naturally gravitate towards freedom despite the attempts to repress them.

3. The Voortrekker Monument was actually built as part of the program to expropriate the Boers' heritage as it was used as part of a larger teleocratic program but it ultimately is a monument to Boer Republicans: the very people you despise. There is something rather perverted about how you visit this "shrine" while dispossessing the descendents of the people the monument commemorates. I would say that you should either start respecting the Boer Republicans or stop going to their shrine / monument. But I bet that Masonic "eternal flame" put there by your bosses connects you to the structure in ways you would rather not want the folks here to know about. You engage in pure conjecture by parroting the Afrikaner Nationalist bullshit that there is only "one" Afrikaner people because massive numbers of folks from both Boer & Cape Dutch descent [ as well as third party observers / reporters ] would openly dispute that & back it up with verifiable documentation.

Ron. said...

4. Too late! You libeled her when you made that offensive insinuation against her. Only just "some" good work. Good grief she does A LOT of good work in getting the truth out & in great volume. Then you attempt to libel her again with your second sentence. Grow up man. Stuijt was indeed an anti-Apartheid campaigner but back then most journalists were & the manner in which Apartheid was practiced did not make it hard for them to be so. You have to cut her some slack as she has had an awakening that the new regime is worse than the old one [ they were both bad just that the current one is worse & gets away with their repression under the false guise of "democracy" ] & has always been pro Boer. [ whom the Apartheid regime was repressing as well. ] Do not forget that her views on both situations are consistent as she has always been for the underdog. One can feel sorry for how she is perceived by different folks because while you do not think she is Right Wing enough others think she is too Right Wing. Which is all neither here nor there because the issue is not about her alleged political views but about the reports she brings to the world. Furthermore the whole Right vs Left charade is false paradigm the elites use to enslave the masses by distracting them from the fact that both sides are controlled by the same high finance forces.

5. Pure bullshit & you know it. If the Boers "did not exist" then why the hell are they fighting so hard [ as they have been all throughout the 20th cent when they were not supposed to have "existed" ] to find self determination? If they are all just "Afrikaners" then why do they work so hard for freedom? I have a strong feeling that you were probably one of those hecklers who derided the Boer Republicans at that meeting. Or are certainly cut from the same cloth. The fact that the Boers struggle so hard for self determination & fly their historical Vierkleur & other Boer Republican flags is on the ground evidence of the existence of the Boer Nation.

Ron. said...

6. No. It is not just "my" definition as it is an historically sound & accurate definition. Because even your Broederbonder pal Hermann Giliomée grudgingly ADMITS that the Boers developed on the Cape frontier just as Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit also noted on page 1 of: The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity one of the books his did on the Boer Diaspora. The language has indeed changed just as English has but no one would deny that the English no longer exist. The Boers' dialect was never an official language [ just as the various Cape Coloured dialects never were ] so you are beating a dead horse attempting to dispossess the Boers of their old dialect because it was never standardized like your Afrikaans dialect was. The Afrikaner Broederbond clearly had an agenda! How else could such a small group come to rule all of South Africa? Null & void my ass! The Afrikaner expropriation of the Boers' inheritance was part of the agenda to co-opt them & is a specific complaint raised by Theuns Cloete. Wrong. The National Party only taught a very selective history of the Boers as they had to reformulate it & repackage it in order to conform to an Afrikaner agenda. That is why they rarely if ever talked about the Trekboers & why you never learned about Coenraad Du Buys whose exploits put many of the hardiest Voortrekkers to shame. Conquered people [ particularly when they are part of the demos ] have to be taught about otherwise they would not be effectively co-opted. Wrong. The Afrikaner did in fact write the Boers out of their own history when they began calling Boers & people like Paul Kruger "Afrikaners" when [ as Stuijt notes ] he only ever referred to himself as a Boer & was on the record as being wary of the Cape Dutch. You know damn well that this is true but continue to cover for the enemies of the Boer Nation. The Boers' history is only being used to bolster the Afrikaners' agenda as Cloete himself publicly noted! He also noted that the Vierkleur is subjected to the very same problem: ie: Afrikaner appropriation. Teaching a limited version of Boer history is meaningless when you are actively subverting the Boers & their struggle for self determination.

7. This just proves that you have absolutely no understanding of who the actual Boers are or are purposely conflating them once again because the Boers were never from the Cape Dutch. The Boers got started during the late 1600s from the Trekboers who occupied the north eastern Cape frontier. They came about as a people BEFORE the Cape Dutch coalesced into a people in the south western Cape & came directly from the poor peasants who could not survive in Colonial society. Ergo: they were not from the Cape Dutch but are from the impoverished folks who trekked out. Furthermore: numerous German settlers settled directly in the north eastern Cape region during the 1700s: [ where the Boers developed ] becoming quickly assimilated / incorporated into the emerging Boer Nation.

8. Their language was never official so you gain no points here. Furthermore I was informed that the British prompted the Cape Dutch to promote "Afrikaans" as official as a way to isolate the Afrikaans speakers from the Dutch who were starting to show a greater interest in the region after the first Anglo-Boer War. Therefore even the language you promote was devised by the British regimes as part of a plan to isolate & control the local macro White population.

9. I never said Louis Botha was a Boer "hero". He was part of the pro-British administration. Which is no wonder he killed Boer Irredentists. Now this German ancestry is not always seen through the names as not all the German arrivals were men. Figure it out. The VOC altered the Cloete name so it is petulant to blame him for the spelling.

Ron. said...

10. This is a total non sequitor because the German language was not relevant after their children adopted the taal / Eastern Border Afrikaans. The Afrikaners did not "fight" at Nacome River. The Cape Dutch had contempt for the Boers' struggles [ just like you do ] as it was only the Boers who fought. Disenfranchising?! What a f---ing joke! There you sit disenfranchising the ENTIRE Boer Nation with this anti-Boer tripe then turn around & have the gall to pull a stunt like this. One again you promote yet another straw man argument because I never denied their French / Dutch & other roots. Furthermore no Boer is of full German / French or Dutch roots as they are a composite of numerous roots.

11. The point was that the Boers are by far more conservative in their outlook.

One only has to recall how the most unreconstructed Boer region - the Northern Transvaal was the only region to Vote No in the 1992 referendum on continuing negotiations with the ANC terrorist organization.

12. Wrong. The Afrikaners [ ie: those of Cape Dutch descent ] have no "Boer past" & to suggest such is nothing more than ethnic colonialism. No there is not "one" nation. Just as there is also not "one" North American English speaking nation.

14. This just proves that you do not know a damn think you are talking about because the vast majority of South African Prime ministers were not of Boer descent as they were of Cape Dutch descent. Jan Smuts was of Cape Dutch origin. JBM Hertzog was of Cape Dutch origin. Both of these folks "slipped in" [ to use Cloete term referring to this ] to the various Boer Republics as pro-British double agents. D F Malan was of Cape Dutch origin. Hans Strijdom was one of the few ever of Boer origin but he was killed by the Afrikaner establishment [ as Cloete credibly asserts ] when he started talking about restoring the Boer Republics. John Vorster was of Cape Dutch descent. Then of course there was Hendrik Verwoerd who was not of Boer nor Cape Dutch descent as he was from Holland. The fact that you could call him a "Boer" forever proves that you do not know what the hell you are talking about at all. You must be that ignorant poster at the old SAS blog who called Verwoerd "the last conservative Boer prime minister" when he was not even from any of the local White population. The only South African leaders who were of Boer descent were Louis Botha / Hans Strijdom / P W Botha & F W de Klerk who is half Boer & but also half Cape Dutch.

This forever proves you are a liar of the worst sort because you DELIBERATELY accused & claimed that Boers ran South Africa [ just like Black Nationalists do! ] when in fact the Cape Dutch ran South Africa & the only time an authentic Boer ever did - he was soon killed in office! [ or at the very least died in office four years in which was not long. ] The flaw with you is that you just do not even adhere to the facts.

Ron. said...

The Afrikaner establishment subverted the Boers at every stop. Stuijt noted that the Broederbond made sure they never rose too far up in the political order. Cloete notes how the Afrikaner establishment organized [ this included Malan & Smuts & Hertzog who were all Cape Dutch ] & broke the Boer Republican movement. The fact that you could outrageously assert that a clique of "Boers" [ who I thought you said did not exist! ] ran South Africa is the most bold lie & outrageous example of the lengths you will go to just to defame the Boer people. Furthermore the Cape Dutch would never have consented to being ruled by Boers & the fact that there are more Cape Dutch than Boers & the fact that the Cape Dutch were / are more politically connected than the impoverished Boers means that the Boers could never have had a chance of ruling as such but the Cape Dutch on the other hand sure did.

Sir: You are a disgraceful liar! The Afrikaner Broederbond made the decision to hand the macro State over to the ANC while SCORES of Boers were trying to restore the Boer Republics.

15. Is that a "subtle" threat from you punk ass?! Look here asshole: I know that you have been watching me for years because you admitted such earlier. So what have you got planned stalker? Are you going to assault me like you folks did to Robert van Tonder et al? Also I know who you are Deon. So I have been watching you too. Since you just issued a bonefide threat I have passed on your suspected & probable identity onto others. I will continue to expose your lies to the world.

As for you final post: you have an odd habit of closing with the most bizarre bullshit ever! Understand something here punk: your attempts at disparaging the Boer Republican movement by spreading ridiculous rumours about some of its more marginal supporters is only reveling your desperation. I barely know about Lets Pretorius [ I only ever heard of him through the Right Perspective ] & am not affiliated with his foundation [ or any ] at all.

BTW Deon: you never did disclose what your close relation to Gilimoée was.

Deon: you had the nerve to assert that "someone was lying to me" back on another forum in some sick demagogic stunt & I initially though that some was lying to you but you just proved particularly with your latest post that you are an arrogant liar & a demagogic distorter of the worst sort. There is hardly even any point to debating with someone like you as you totally disregard the facts in your rather irrational zeal at subverting the Boer Republicans.

Folks this liar has just tipped his hand to who he is as he has had repeated run ins with myself on various other sites in the past & all over the exact same issue: the vehement denial of the existence of the Boer Nation.

Ron. said...

Viking. What I meant by pro British Cape Dutch was that most of the local population was pro Colonial & its leaders were elite collaborators [ as Stuijt / Cloete & others have pointed out ] with the British Colonial power. There is not meant any disrespect to the local British origin population.

Anonymous said...

@Vanilla Ice

Could you PLEASE stop your buddy ron. AKA Lets Pretorius booring us further and posting hysterical hate speech on your blog?

"Is that a "subtle" threat from you punk ass?! Look here asshole: I know that you have been watching me for years because you admitted such earlier. So what have you got planned stalker? Are you going to assault me like you folks did to Robert van Tonder et al? Also I know who you are Deon. So I have been watching you too. Since you just issued a bonefide threat I have passed on your suspected & probable identity onto others. I will continue to expose your lies to the world." - ron.

BTW... I am wondering about the silence of Adriana Stuijt.

Viking said...


having read and re-read that statement I am assuming ron. meant 'the legal establishment' when he says "others". At least I would hope so, but that's how I read it. No threats of violence are entertained here, from anyone.

secondly, A.S. rarely if at all comments on this blog.

fuechs said...

BTW... WHO is this "Deon"?
The quotation of ron. is clearly addressed at him.
Does ron. believe the real name of "Afrikaner" is Deon?
Whatever ron. really meant or not he sounds to me as a hysterical loser... too boooooring.

Viking said...

I have no idea!

Viking said...

I have to say, Fuechs, as a lover of history, questions of identity are often very subjective. They're definitely not boring to those who feel their identity under threat

Anonymous said...

Bloody brilliant reply Ron. VI, dont close this thread as it is very educational. History will always be contraversial because it has been twisted so many times.

@Ron, I think the Broederbond idea is to destroy not only Boers but also Afrikaners. This in my view is not about culture or identity but about money and control. You can only have control when nobody has an identity. As I said before on this blog, payback is going to be a bitch as the Afrikaners are going to backstab each other.

If you look at the effort being put in by the Broederbond you will not how all Siener Van Rensburg's visions have become -- Afrikaner even though he was a Boer and so was Paul Kruger.

South Africa in the future is looking interesting as not only do people hate this multicultural rubbish but some people are starting to ask hard questions with regards to thier identity. The internet and blogs like this have given everyone a platform to air their views.

Barend Kruger said...

"Elke Persoon moet in elke geslag, 'n bewustelike keuse van Volkskap uit oefen"

"Om 'n Afrikaner te wees, hoef jy nie eintlik iets te doen nie, jy word as 'n afrikaner gereken al doen jy niks."

"Om 'n Boer te wees, moet jy aanspraak maak op grond van jou geboorte, jou taal, jou kultuur, jou godsdiens, jou geskiedenis, ens., maar daar word die belangrikste bygevoeg nl. Jy moet in jou hart 'n besluit neem: dat jy 'n BOER is, Wil wees en Wil aanhou wees."

Pieter Bruwer - Vir Volk en Vryheid bl.83

Barend Kruger

Viking said...


Just take your own advice, hey?

To reiterate, personal attacks are not constructive.

Anonymous said...

"Om 'n Boer te wees, moet jy aanspraak maak op grond van jou geboorte, jou taal, jou kultuur, jou godsdiens, jou geskiedenis, ens., maar daar word die belangrikste bygevoeg nl. Jy moet in jou hart 'n besluit neem: dat jy 'n BOER is, Wil wees en Wil aanhou wees."

-- Bliksem! Nou praat die manne reg.

Viking said...


get in touch with one of us, won't you?

Ron. said...

Fuechs must certainly be some sort of troll poster. Or probably an alter identity of Afrikaner because he makes the similar baseless assertion regarding Lets Pretotius. I would not be able to recognize this Pretorius fellow if I should happen to bump into him in person. For the record: I began promoting the Boer Republican movement LONG before Lets Pretorius ever came onto the scene & to this day I still do not know too much about him as I only heard about him through the Right Perspective program. Considering some of his alleged political & religious views [ which in fairness I have not been able to verify or authenticate & probably should take with a grain of salt considering the source ] I certainly do not agree with him on certain matters. Pretorius is not the only figure in the Boer Republican movement but all of this odd unfounded attention to him suggests to me that he must having an effect against the establishment. I do not even support the concept of even having a declared leader [ though I understand Pretorius was "elected" ] as the best strategy has always been a leaderless resistance in order to ensure better success & to prevent infiltration & control. "Hate speech"? Now you really must be Afrikaner in disguise! What a joke because virtually everything he posted WAS certifiable hate speech but when he is called on it I get accused of hate speech! Are you sure you do not work for the State? You use the same rational. Afrikaner openly accused & blamed the Boers for running both the Broederbond & South Africa when any fool can do a quick search to verify that this is an outrageous lie! Why is it okay by you to blame Boers & never be guilty of hate speech? When he lied about the ethnic origin of South Africa's past Prime Ministers: he went right over the top in his outrageous distortions. Call this debate what you want but I doubt anyone finds it "boring". This assertion of course is yet another propaganda technique aimed at marginalizing the posts. Viking is right.

I also just wanted to point out to readers that Theuns Cloete contacted me a few weeks ago concerning the post I did on the December 16 gathering at the Voortrekker Monument as he wanted to contribute to the debate / discussion & that I have also since invited him to debate here but unfortunately he is not online very often & I have not heard from him since. Therefore I have no idea if he will contribute a post.

Anon 1:24. I appreciate your informative contributions. [ that is if you are the same "Anon" Boer who has posted before ] & am glad you appreciate the response I generated. I just wish you could choose a name for yourself so we can distinguish you from other Anon posters. I agree that the Afrikaner Broederbond is also trying to destroy the Afrikaner identity & one way they are doing it is by expanding the definition. Folks like Afrikaner either do not see or want to admit that due to the artificial nature of the Afrikaner designation : it is subject to change on the part of those who created it [ in a political context ] in the first place. Furthermore I should point out that the first time the term Afrikaner was ever used in an overt ethnic political context it was being used to describe a group of mixed race Griqua related folks under the leadership of a one Jager Afrikaner. This was done long before the Cape Dutch intellectuals began to appropriate the term for themselves then later apply it to all White Afrikaans speakers. Later still the term now encompasses anyone whose native language is Afrikaans. Therefore with a history of such a fluid description it baffles as to why anyone would cling so tightly to any rigid definition of the term because whatever definition one would cling to will sure to become obsolete [ like old computers & computer software ] - especially in the face of the changing demographics of those who will claim the Afrikaner designation.

Ron. said...

Anon 1:24. I too noticed how that television doc on Siener van Rensburg [ as hosted oddly by non other than Max Du Preez! ] called this undeniable Boer an "Afrikaner" but it is all part of the propaganda which recast historical Boers as "Afrikaners". I am glad to see others who are so awake about this. I invite you to contribute more of your perspective & about what you know concerning this topic.

Ron. said...

This rancorous debate is so unnecessary because freedom is not a zero sum equation because Afrikaner & some others act as though Boer self determination will come at a price affecting their own lives. The only people it could ever conceivably affect are the handful of Statist control freaks who do not want to lose what influence they have in a continued macro State which is an unfortunate why for them to look at things as they should instead try to gain their own independence from the State & acquire their own self determination.

fuechs said...


OK, you deleted my message to ron. whether I did not call names in that like he did repeatedly above, just searched a bit in the Internet after him and mentioned his dead blogs and his divisive postings on other blogs.

Honestly I cannot understand why you are here so fascinated from his ancient views, ensuring him that publicity on your blog what he could not gain anywhere since about 2006. I also have the impression that you strongly protect him against other people who vainly try to debate with him.

Ja, ron., rush to daddy! Touch him via e-mail! Hahaha...

Anonymous said...


I am Anon 1:24 and some others above that. Here is my take on what I see.

For so long the Boers have been oppressed but from where I stand I also see the Afrikaners are about to be sold out by their own. From where I stand I believe that Siener Van Rensburg gave these warnings to Boers that they must be aware of what is coming.

The problem is that many right wing Afrikaner groups have taken this to be a call for arms even though it is not. It does not even speak about Afrikaners but Boers however it is being used as a rally call which I think will place many Afrikaners and Boers in the firing line. I have no issue in dying for a cause, but I do have an issue with dying for a lie.

As much as Boer history has been hijacked by the Afrikaners, it is the Afrikaner leadship over the past 5 generations who have lied to their own people and who will leave them up the creek without a paddle much like Future Worries De Klerk and Past Worries Botha.

Everyone deserves the right to an identity. The Boer and the Afrikaner should never be seen as one group as much as a Cape Malay, KhoiKhoi, Griqua, Coloured should never be lobbed together for convenience either.


Ron is correct when he says that the Boers spoke a different dialect. The Boers dipthongs were wrong. In other words it sounded as if they were mispronouncing the words compared to normal Afrikaans. We are talking about the late 1970's here which was not long ago. I am not a Boer nor am I an Afrikaner - I am a Coloured who grew up amoungst you lot as my mother had a business in a white area. Now, if I can tell you that there was a difference in language between you lot and you can't - then you are living in denial.

It seems odd that the argument that the Afrikaners did not hand over the country to the ANC but Afrikaners of Boer descent. That argument would not be able to hold a pisspot of water and to me looks much like there are elements in the Afrikaner community who are hellbent on villainising the Boers. Whenever it is negative, its Boer. When its positive its Afrikaner.

Its like the old BOSS trick. The idea being to create a monster out of one group so that nobody would want to belong to that group. Hence you eliminate that groups strength. It's and old bloody aparthied trick. Make people feel embarrassed for being Boer so that they will program themsleves to think they are Afrikaners. Its wrong!

"Here in the Cape I am surrounded by Vaalies"

Afrikaner, you might just as well call them 'white kaffirs' as that is the connotation that 'Vaalies' has. Even in the 70's the Boers despised that term.

"When Couloureds start showing an interest and sending their kids to Afrikaans schools and Afrikaans Universities and start FIGHTING for Afrikaans, we might consider them as useful allies who speak the same language as us, but that is a hundred years away."

Do you really think that the ANC would take away Afrikaans out of Coloured schools? Not in my lifetime son.

As I have said before on this blog under an anon tag and I will say it again, I am no alley to the bloody condescending Afrikaners but if push comes to shove I will dig my trenches with the Boers.

Nuff said!

Islandshark said...

@ fuechs: Try to grow up, will you?

Your very scientific conclusions about ron and dead blogs and whatever else you seem to conjure up don't impress anybody.

Your comments prove the major shortfall of the internet, which is signal-to-noise ratio...

fuechs said...

Please excuse "infantile" European me but I have some questions.
Do you "Boer Republicans" (I wonder how many is that "LOT" of you) really believe when it comes to final extermination of SA Whites by the blacks they would make any difference between Boers, Afrikaners, English speaking people and not-black-enoughs?
Do you not think that White Unity would be the best defence in case instead letting drag you into useless internet debates about issues which are not relevant anymore?
Do you not think that ron and his likes show you Boers as ewig gestrige, intrigant and arrogant fanatics to us very few Europeans who would like help Whites in SA to survive?
Because it is all about SURVIVAL and not descent.

Islandshark said...

@ fuechs:
Maybe genius can explain to all of us what the purpose would be in uniting with people who previously stabbed you in the back.

Shall we ask FW and Roelf to join this Boer-Afrikaner united front?

You should direct your question about savages discerning between Boer, Afrikaner and others when targeting them in anti-white hate crimes to liberal Afrikaners - they are the ones believing that with enough effort you will eradicate mud hut mentality, even though centuries of history taught us otherwise.

Anonymous said...


Who told you that the enemy was black? The enemy has no colour. This is not about black or white. This is about right and wrong, money and control. Who rewrote history for the last 100 years? Then again who took over the reins now...

Crime in South Africa? Why don't you blame the liberals who brought the mess about. Soft porn on television, gay marriage rights, abortion on demand, political correctness. Using such programs as Sevende Laan to set an agenda for propaganda that single families are the in thing and that miscegnation is good for society.

Miscegnation is the very thing we talk about here today as miscegnation destroys identity, it destroys culture and traditions - it destroys nations! Yet the liberals don't see it that way.

Criminals and gays have more rights than anyone else as their rights are extensively entrenched in the Constitution. Where are minority rights? Now don't refer me to that urine stain in the Constitution called Section 235. That was a dummy for you whites (Boer, Afrikaner & English speakers)to suck on when you got sold out. So who is the real enemy?

On one forum someone called the blacks in South Africa - sprinkaaner. Meaning they swarm, destroy and then move on to the next patch of land or country. They are actually wrong. The real locusts are the liberals who swarm in with their politically correct bullshit then much like SA when it all falls apart they bugger of to the next country to spread mayhem. Look at the liberals in the UK, they all wanted open door policies then discovered to their horror they would need to live next to hostile Muslims. Off they buggered to the EU and started their crap there again.

The enemy Fuechs is not black and outside the gates, the enemy is inside and it has no colour. The biggest enemy we all have Fuechs is an enemy called - IGNORANCE.

This is why I applaud Ron for writing the posts and going into great depth about his reasoning and questioning history as we are suppose to repeat it. Someone once said that you can swim all day in the sea of knowledge and still come out completely dry.

Lets not leave this blog dry!

Afrikaner said...

Hi Jim Beam. Let me tell you what the difference is between Afrikaans and what coloureds speak...

Kyk hie my broe, djy praat nou djou kop se kak oor wat hier gediscuss worre. Het djy miskien nog van daai nwata tapes met die verkeerde pronunciation vannie diftonge? Wat djy eintlik mean is dat die Transvalers spriek die e-tjie met die kappe-tjie op vakeerd yt. Djy kry my broe, die een wat soe lyk (ê). Het djy al gahoor wanner hulle praat. Vra bietchie die Tranvalers om die sin te repeat, “Ek val op my bek en breek my nek”...Die Transvalers sê, “Ak val op my Bak en breek my Nak”. Apart van daai, is hulle se language die selle as onse s’n. So gaan kry djy eers vir djou a education voor djy djou eie frulaties hier kom maak, becauswaai dit lyk my djy is lankal nie vol van Afrikaans nie. Dit smaak my djy het djou skoolgeld opgavriet...

Now to you as a Cape coloured that will not be too difficult to understand, but to a transvaaler it will be almost a complete foreign language. The expressions and idioms of the coloureds are so different that White Afrikaners can hardly understand or follow it. However the difference between the various Afrikaans dialects spoken by Whites in SA is miniscule. Even the English from Durban, Port Elizabeth and Observatory in the Cape or Jeppe in Jo’burg, have different pronunciations, but they all speak English. We do not refer to it as Eastern Border English or Natalian English...please get real.

You know full well that your Cape Coloureds cannot speak Afrikaans properly, that is why you all pretend to be English when you speak to whites. But when you are alone with each other then that Mannenberg slang comes out hey? Dan slaat daai Gam sommer ordentlik deur. Think I don’t know. You send your kids to English schools so others will think you are not so low class as the rest of the coloureds who speak coloured Afrikaans. You coloureds are ashamed of Afrikaans, and being Afrikaans, but are first to cry that Whites do not want to accept you as Afrikaners. Start standing up for Afrikaans like Christo van Rheede, then I might take you seriously.

As for the term Vaalies, it is no derogatory term. It is a humouristic way, a term of endearment, of referring to our brethren up north, the same way they refer to us as Capies, although the word Capie in the Cape refers to Cape Coloureds, but to Transvalers, Capie refers to all Capetonians. The term “Blikore” for the Freestate is in the same category. In fact the term “Boer” is a derogatory term used by the Cape Coloureds to refer to Whites and also to the police. It is the term Cape Coloureds use to refer to Whites when they actually want to call us Niggers”. I even once had a Pretoria Afrikaans women tell me straight to my face, with disgust, that she resent the term “Boer”, that she is no “Boer”. She does not work on a farm, she said,...She insisted that she is an “Afrikaner”.


Ron. said...

Well Feuchs: First of all the various blogs I made were about cataloging the various data I acquired concerning the Boer people & the main reason I did this was to set the record straight among my North American friends / acquaintances. Furthermore many folks kept telling me over the years to document or write down the vast information I have come to know on this interesting topic. There really is an interest [ as small as it is though ] in the truth on this generally obscure but fascinating topic.

Afrikaner said...

@Jim Beam, Cont...

Exactly what you call the “villainising (sic) of the Boers” is what Ron is doing about Afrikaners. His vilification of the Afrikaner is his agenda to make other Afrikaners join the Boers through feeling guilty to belong to this “Evil group” of “Broederbond Afrikaners”. Please if you cannot see that, then you are stupid. The Boers have no numbers and no members. He wants Afrikaners to join his cause so that a Boervolk that does not exist, can be created. Ron is playing on the psyche of people to want to belong to a group. It is one of our basic instincts and by vilifying Afrikaners he hopes to win them over to his crazy cause. Everything immoral and negative is the fault of the Afrikaners and everything moral and positive is the Boers. Typical divide and conquer techniques of a mad-man.
I am glad that you have decided to dig your trenches with the Boers. Are you also like Ron seeing the Afrikaner as the enemy? You refer to them as “bloody condescending Afrikaners”, Good. I like to know who my friends are and who are not.
Just ask yourself why Ron is so vehemently against the term Afrikaner. I will tell you why...Amongst the Afrikaner intelligencia there is currently a debate raging about who is an Afrikaner and if coloureds are also Afrikaners. Many coloured academics and clerics including Alan Boesak, Christo van Rheede, Jakes Gerwel, etc are debating this. The Afrikanerbond, The ATKV (Afrikaanse Taal en Kultuur Vereniging), the FAK (Federasie van die Afrikaanse kultuur), etc all opened their membership to Cape Coloureds. There are currently several Cape coloureds in the Afrikanerbond. People like Ron are getting the shits about that, because no way do they want “Hotnots” to be part of the Elitist Boers. That is why Ron and the Boers want to separate from the Afrikaners. That is why he is so on about Cape Dutch and Cape Afrikaners, because these elitist Boers see the Cape white people with their laid back and relaxed attitude as beneath the soles of the Boers. They actually see no difference between Brown “Hotnots” and “White Hotnots” and to them Cape Afrikaners are nothing but “White Hotnots” who cannot play Rugby.
My stance on the issue is honest and my personal stance. The cultures of Afrikaners and coloureds are too far different. Even the religions and the languages are too different for the Coloureds ever to be an Afrikaner or an Afrikaner ever to be a coloured. The coloureds can call themselves whatever they want, but they will never be Afrikaners. At the most an Ally of the Afrikaner and at worst, an enemy. Your choice.

Ron. said...

I was never interested in gaining "publicity" & do not promote my blogs much [ as you will notice ] because the point of them was just to document the facts - not to become a sensation. So your assertion asbout me is dead wrong. I have OFTEN struggled over whether or not I should go more public like Cloete does or be forceful in promoting the blogs & information I have obtained but my friends & family are rightly worried about the imminent consequences of such a path. Furthermore: I hate publicity & am only a contributor here because Doberman ASKED me to be! I even LEFT this blog in Jan 09 but Doberman asked me back AGAIN so I re-accepted in Jul 09. He wanted me to present a Boer perspective & that it what I have tried my best to do. The reason why I do this is because I got fed up with all the constant ignorant assertions & lies I was often hearing from Westerners who simply never looked into the matter. They would often assert erroneously that the Boers were "fighting for the gold" / "started Apartheid" / "stole land" / "are Europeans" / "are vehement racists" / "are rich overlords" which of course are all dead wrong & or gross exaggerations & if you would actually read what I posted there at my blogs you would notice that I debunked those Western assertions with various sources.

Ron. said...

The motivation for my various blogs was simply to set the record straight about the Boers & to counter the various lies told about them. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in dividing those who are SERIOUS about independence & self determination. I have NEVER promoted one group or organization over another nor do I lambaste others as I strongly believe that all like minded independence oriented folks should co-operate. Which is why I can not understand why anyone would trash bash or suppress the Boer Republicans [ as you folks do ] who have been looking for independence since at least 1795. As everyone can tell: I am fascinated about the Boer people because they are unique in many respects particularly being the only Caucasian derived people who have most tried to find freedom in Africa & being truly of Africa in ways most of the other White groups never attained. You can imagine my shock when I discovered that some of the worst haters of the Boers were Afrikaners whom I once thought should have been pro-Boer as I too was brought up on a version of history which implied as though all the Afrikaners came from the Boers. Finding out about this aspect was a painful awakening because I was among one of those folks pushing for the secession of the Western Cape back in 1995. As I once ignorantly thought that most local White people [ Afrikaans & English & even the Coloureds ] would want independence. It was a rude awakening to discover that the most anti-independence oriented White people live mainly in the Western Cape: the very place for the proposal I & others were then supporting. Therefore the proposal was unworkable due to this problematic dynamic. It was not until many years later that I discovered & learned of the valid & poignant reasons why the population there was anti-independence oriented: mainly because they never historically has a desire for freedom / independence & self determination.

Islandshark said...

I suggested to Ron a while ago that he should write a book on the history of the Boer, such is the extent of his knowledge.

But what would I know? My ancestors only arrived at the southern tip of Africa in 1689...

Ron. said...

Now I started learning about the Boers a bit earlier in 1994 after I watched the old South African flag being officially lowered for the last time via live television broadcast & realized that I could not identify the Boer Republic flags in the middle - which I then did not know them as such as I had no idea about those flags at the time & you can imagine my shock when I first learned that the Boers once had their own republics: something I still try to inform Westerners about. I began learning about the fact that the Boers are a distinct entity from the Afrikaners back in 1997 while researching the matter at the local library & discovered the historical Trekboers & all that that entailed. I began to publicly promote Boer Republicanism later in that year & I debated the matter on the internet for the first time in 1997 on various forums. Those North Americans I debated with will remember. When I hear the nonsense that I am "diving" [ which is only a recent assertion as no one ever said that for close to ten years! ie: 1997 - 2007. ] people it annoys me to no end because those who make such accusations either have an agenda of control & are being malicious or simply do not understand that it will be impossible to get independence for all White South Africans at once because the math & general temperament among most is simply against it. Just investigate it for yourself. I took a long hard look at the problem & realized that the people who most want independence are overwhelmingly the Boers or those of Boer descent. All the various data shows this & even Terreblanche's organization had the most support among the population of the old Boer Republics. Furthermore the Boers are an indigenous people who have the most right to self determination out of all the other White groups. Therefore the solution is a no brainer. IE: Allow the independence oriented Boer people to gravitate towards independence & or restore their old Boer Republics. You folks who campaign against this are destroying your own futures because as none other than former Prime Minister Hans Strijdom was purported to have said: restoring the Boer Republics "is the only solution to the southern tip's (South Africa's) problems". [ He mysteriously later died soon after that. ] I have since realized that those who talk about "White unity" are being extremely disingenuous or are ignorant of what that entails. IE: remaining tethered to the forces of the global financial power which will NEVER allow White folks to secede. You folks who call for such never seem to be cognizant of the fact that forcing all White people under one umbrella will have a debilitating effect as it will dispossess all of them due to the nature of its leadership which is intimately & intricately tied to the global elite financial power.

Ron. said...

The very same power which has been working against the Boers & independence in general so please get smart about this & think your emotional rash decision over. There is no time to screw around because global powers are seeking to totally destroy the region.

I first pointed a bit of this out in the comments section of SAS which was soon turned into an article / post in its own right called: The Voice of Reason [ a title Dark Raven gave it ] which was well received except for this same "Afrikaner" person who for reasons which still remain mysterious does not want the independent White folks & Boers in particular to find self determination.

Jim Beam. I agree totally with all your comments & you are certainly a very insightful person. You hit on exactly what Theuns Cloete noted too. Which is that he also mentioned that whenever something good happened it was attributed to Afrikaners but whenever something bad happened it was attributed to Boers. We all just saw Afrikaner's trick copying this above when he blamed Boers while denying that they even exist. I like you names for F W & P W. Siener van Rensburg warnings I believe were always meant to alert the Boers to what was coming so that they are prepared & not caught off guard. The whole notion that some view it as a call to arms is probably spook directed propaganda aimed at making Boer secessionists look dangerous. I am glad to see you as an ally of the Boers & I sincerely believe that the Boers could & will have lots of allies when the time comes because numerous other ethnic groups ALSO want their freedom & self determination.

Fuechs: It is all about survival & it will surely not come if all White people are forced to submit to the treacherous leadership tethered to the global financial elite's power. The power which is selling us all out. That is the danger of your mindless so called White unity. For the life of me I can not understand why all freedom oriented White & even Coloured peoples are not supporting the Boer Republicans because the Boer Republicans are the force which will set us all free. Think about this for a while because the solution to South Africa's problems really does start with the restoration of the Boers Republics [ as Robert van Tonder fought so hard for ] or some form of Boer self determination.

Ron. said...

Thanks Islandshark. I will try to but it is quite time consuming. I think you could write a book too if you might happen to know a bit about your first ancestor who settled in the Cape. Judging from your surname he was probably a French Huguenot. Which is an aspect I have learned quite a bit about having read a book & various informative articles on this rather interesting topic.

Ron. said...

Well Afrikaner you are wrong once again because I have never promoted the criteria you claim I promote because if you did your history you would know that the Boers have long ago absorbed small numbers of Khoisan etc. The problem here is that the term Afrikaner is an artificial term which was promoted to destroy the identity of the Boers & that it lumps Boers in with those who were never part of the Boer Nation. The Boers can not find freedom or self determination if they have to continue to submit to dictates of another ethnic group.

Islandshark said...

We're not accepting further comments on the Boer vs Afrikaner debate. I think the relevant parties have stated their case and it's time to move on.

Viking said...