Thursday, March 11, 2010

Former Apartheid Spy Appointed to Head UN Climate Change Effort

Hat Tip: LIME

This week, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa’s tourism minister, was nominated to head the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC). Van Schalkwyk is a former apartheid operative who bartered his way into the black majority government by helping it smear its democratic opposition. He is a statist bureaucrat who is one of the most unpopular political figures in the new South Africa. He is just right for the job.

There is no one better to put in charge of the entire political enterprise of climate change as it is collapsing amidst failed negotiations and accusations of fraud. Van Schalkwyk will be sure to hasten the end. He did the same when he took over the rump of South Africa’s National Party, the party of apartheid, and led it to crushing defeat. He gave up and joined the African National Congress (ANC) government in return for his ministry.

That was bad news for South Africans, as Van Schalkwyk encouraged other politicians to defect from the country’s leading opposition parties to join the corrupt and hegemonic ANC. (An angry public began referring to those who crossed the floor for political favors as “crosstitutes.”) But it is good news for critics of the UN climate change bureaucracy, who now have a target who personifies everything there is to dislike about the system.

The worldwide “consensus” on climate change is unraveling amidst mounting evidence that the UN and senior scientists manipulated the data to suit their predictions of rapid warming and their prescriptions for drastic intervention in the global economy. It is, of course, true that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” that helps warm the earth; it is true that we have pumped more of it into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

It is also true that there is evidence of increasing average global surface temperatures over the same time period, and reason to believe that trend could continue over the next century. But it is also true that there are other factors affecting global climate, including some that reduce temperatures. And it is also true that our most sophisticated computer models cannot predict how warmer temperatures will affect our climate in the future.

That wasn’t good enough for those eager to create a sense of alarm. They projected worst-case scenarios and tried to convince the world that the potential costs of future warming far outweighed the costs of shutting down whole industries. They never explained whether climate change could actually be reversed; they did not need to, as long as they could scare people enough to avoid having to answer tough questions.

Now, after more than a decade of temperature stagnation that the models failed to predict, and the publication of e-mails suggesting that leading scientists conspired to silence skeptical colleagues, the questions are impossible to avoid. Government-led efforts to control emissions, such as cap-and-trade, “green jobs,” and “weatherizing” homes have also been exposed as rent-seeking cronyism rather than sound policy.

Enter Van Schalkwyk. He was given the ministry of environmental affairs and tourism in 2004 despite having no prior background or interest in environmental science. He has retained his cabinet position and made a name for himself in the international climate change community through his talent as a deal-broker and his shrewd sense of political opportunity. The occult world of climate change negotiations will suit his skills perfectly.

Though ridiculed as a political leader, Van Schalkwyk is among his country’s most competent bureaucrats. Yet even he cannot save the UN’s climate change framework–and he may not care. He may simply follow the example of fellow South African Richard Goldstone, who was appointed to the apartheid bench and later re-cast himself as a human rights icon, leapfrogging up the UN bureaucracy from one failure to the next.

Those who still place great store in the UN’s climate change efforts are deeply worried about Van Schalkwyk’s appointment. “The UNFCC post must be headed by someone of integrity, and that’s not a characteristic associated with Van Schalkwyk, thanks to his chequered career as an apartheid student spy and a man who sold out his political party for a junior cabinet seat,” said Patrick Bond of South Africa’s Centre for Civil Society.

The truth is that no scientist or policymaker of integrity would want the job. The science is a mess, and the policy disagreements between developing and developed countries are intractable. President Barack Obama could not solve the UN’s climate change troubles, and neither will Marthunus van Schalkwyk. But Van Schalkwyk will be content to sit atop the rubble as the edifice crumbles. He has done it before–and done it well.

91 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Wow - see what riches and honor kissing up to your enemies and selling your soul to the devil gets you? This guy is a useless piece of traitorous white trash who would sell his mother and kids for a piece of gold.

Anonymous said...

When this twat was electioneering in Windsor East some 20 years ago, I met the little turd hanging up election posters on the corner of Republic and Judges. He was dirty, unshaven and wearing "I gotta turd in my tracksuit pants" trousers. I commented on his disheveled appearance, his comments were equally grubby. Seems he has finally found his place in life..

XYBØRG said...


Ron. said...

Looks you beat me to posting this. I bet he can not be too pleased with being called an "Apartheid spy". Then consistent with the logic he must be being sent to "spy" on the United Nations.


Turds usually flow to sewage pits.
Marthinus will fit perfectly.

Baas said...

"Pielietjie" LOL

Afrikaner said...

Hey Ron, Wasn't this traitor born in Pietersburg in the former Boer territory? Did he not matriculate there and did he not study at RAU in the Transvaal, (former Boer territory)

Ron. said...

Afrikaner: you just prove once again that you are a total anti- Boer Republican propagandist shill because the fact that there are Boer descendents who are "traitors" does not discredit the just cause of Boer self determination as you are clearly insinuating. President P W Botha [ a Boer descendent - one of the few who ever ran South Africa but who identified as an Afrikaner ] was NOTABLE for betraying the Boer people most notably when he met with TerreBlanche & outright REFUSED to consider their demands for Boer self determination.

Ron. said...

Another point you forget is that educational institutions everywhere conditioned people out of their Boer identity in the first place so it matters not that he was "educated" in a former Boer Republic because those institutions were just as guilty of promoting Afrikaner Nationalist propaganda. A lot of Boer descendents have been instrumental in preventing Boer self determination [ often mainly due to being propagandized out of pursing it ] but that is not the most salient issue as the most salient issue is the fact that they will never find the freedom they seek so long as they are tethered to these very "traitors" [ to use your term ] who are in turn tethered to the Afrikaner establishment which is in turn tethered to the trans-national financial power which works AGAINST Boer self determination. Throwing up Boer descendents who work against Boer self determination is not a legitimate argument against Boer self determination & is analogous to asserting that Americans are not entitled to self determination due simply to the fact that Benedict Arnold & other traitors existed among their ranks. I notice you seem to be arguing that all Boer descendents must be behind the struggle for Boer self determination in order for it to be legitimate when forgetting that only a very small percentage of Americans were behind the struggle for their self determination yet that did not negate it. Furthermore: most of the Boer population purportedly does in fact support some form of Boer self determination.

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

Furthermore this just proves how successful the Afrikaners were in colonizing the Boers: a point you denied even occurred. Now since you have chimed back here once again over this topic I will post my response to your final post in the discussion which was closed.

Just a quick conclusion / response to Afrikaner's final post of which I did not get time to do before the discussion was closed.

I have no interest "making" Afrikaners join the Boers. They are welcome to if they want to but most will not want to. Just another straw man from you. The Boers have no numbers? The Boers are listed at 1.5 million. I am not "vilifying" Afrikaners or anyone. I am just pointing out that the Boers can not find the self determination that they seek so long as they are politically tethered to the Afrikaners. I am not interested in demonizing anyone but that is all you ever do. Pointing out the valid / authentic & salient fact that the Boers are under suzerainty not just from the South African State apparatus but also within the artificial Afrikaner designation is not about "vilifying" or demonizing anyone because the goal is freedom & survival. Which will never come about so long as the Boers remain passively under any form of domination.

I am not trying to make anyone "belong" to a group. I am trying to help get the Boers [ an established group regardless of whatever name is attached to them ] some self determination. The fact that the term Boer was unfortunately turned into a "derogatory" term by some non White folks & applied to White folks in general does not deter from the fact that there is an authentic & actual Boer people descended from the historical Boers the world recognized.

I am not against the Afrikaner as they are welcome to choose their own path & destiny & make their own choices regarding their own future & self determination. I am just arguing that the Boers have this same right to do so as the distinct ethnic / cultural group that they are. The Boers are not the "elitists". They are trying to get out FROM the elitists. Furthermore your analogy with the Vikings is dead wrong because the Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were quasi pirate explorers who came from various Scandinavian peoples. The Boers were historically recognized as having spoken a different dialect. Historians & authors - not I - have classified it as Easter Border Afrikaans. I posted a link to this fact. Afrikaans once had several dialects. Johann Botha [ from the De la Rey song / video doc ] noted that it is one's own personal business whether they view themselves as a Boer. Furthermore the State nor any other organization has no place in dictating to anyone what one's identity should be or what one should refer to one self as. After all is said & done none of us has any right to tell the Boers [ or anyone ] that they "do not exist" or do not have the right to refer to themselves by their historically accurate designation. For the record again: I do not want division. I want to respect the Boers' cultural identity & their centuries long struggle for self determination.

Deutscher said...

Would you please define the aims of the "Boer Republican" movement if there is any? How many followers and supporters do you have already? ...´cause I could not find anything in Google.

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

Deutscher. Surely you jest or have never heard of the AWB / the BWB / the Boerestaat Party / Die Korrier magazine [ link. ] / The Boer Freedom Foundation. / Professor Tobias Louw of the Cultural Justice Foundation. Robert van Tonder. / Fritz Meyer / Dirk van Tonder. / Eugene TerreBlanche. Pieter Du Toit. Danie Theron. etc. etc. etc. All of the above personalities & organizations are Boer Republicans as they are all self identified Boers who are all in favour of Boer Republicanism & at least some form of Boer self determination.

Deutscher said...


Let me take a look at your “self identified Boers who are all in favour of Boer Republicanism & at least some form of Boer self determination”…

AWB = AFRIKANER(!?) Weerstandsbeweging ; still about 5000 members according Wiki.
I am not going to say anything about their openly masonic symbols and the rumours about that clown CIA/MI6/NIA mole ET. To me ET is symply ridiculous, would not even call him a disgrace to the Afrikaners because of his entertaining worth.

BWB was the paramilitary arm of the AFRIKANER Volksfront, dead now.

The Boerstaat Party died with Robert van Tonder. This Coen Vermaak is another clown with weird views… as for example he is supporting the views of Thabo Mbeki on HIV/AIDS. I could not find out how many members they still have… how well their Identity Books (each for Rand 50,-) get sold.

Boerevolk Freedom Foundation
I remember very well of their so called “Boere Sovereignty Declaration” from 2006. Much hot air from Lets Pretorius and Riaan Smith about an independent homeland… just to forget it a little bit later. What they really did: they managed a meeting with some ANC officials and gave them a written statement… probably the comrades used it as toiletpaper. Or is there any achievement of that declaration today? Please correct me, if I am wrong!

Fritz Meyer is to me an unknown person but his name is definitive German. Zuwanderer?
Dirk van Tonder… is he that guy who makes his “last stand” here?

Pieter Du Toit and Danie Theron might be both good Boer patriots but sorry, Ron, I am tired from looking for nothing.

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

First of all while the AWB has the term Afrikaner in it [ obviously to attract as many Afrikaans speakers as possible ] its membership is composed overwhelmingly of Boers who all call for the restoration of the Boer Republics after being influenced by the late Robert van Tonder who was advocating for Boer Republic restoration since 1961. Furthermore I am fully aware of the valid allegations against TerreBlanche as an intelligence mole [ who was recruited early on according to author Peter Stiff ] but your question was who are the Boer Republicans & he would qualify as one due simply to the fact that he is a Boer who calls for the restoration of the Boer Republics - just as many other do & have done in the past.

Robert van Tonder noted during this interview who the Boer Republican & Boerevolk are.

Concerning Masonic symbols. Well the Voortrekker Monument itself is loaded with them as well [ so is it then no longer a Boer Republican monument? ] but one can not throw the baby out with the bath water.

No you are wrong the BWB was the para-military arm of the Boerestaat Party. Robert van Tonder noted this himself. I would hardly call it "dead" but it is certainly not as active as it was before [ once again van Tonder noted that they were fairly underground ] - but them again it is not exactly wise for such a group to go around boasting about its existence when they are better off remaining underground as they have always been more so than the state controlled AWB. Furthermore the Afrikaner Volksfront was once AGAIN choc full overwhelmingly of folks of Boer descent. The term Afrikaner was & is still used by a lot of Boers because they were propagandized into viewing themselves as Afrikaners as well & the term Boer was [ which Adriana Stuijt notes was not used much by National Party ministers. ] Stuijt also notes that the Broederbond imposed the term Afrikaner onto the Boers. Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & of the former Transvaal Separatists also noted [ during a Right Perspective interview ] that the term Afrikaner was IMPOSED onto the Boers particularly after the Human & Rousseau publishing co began to rewrite Boer history turning it into Afrikaner history when in reality the Afrikaners [ Cape Dutch ] at the time were fighting against the Boers as per their then pro Colonial outlook.

No you are wrong again. The Boerestat Party did not die with Robert van as his son Dirk van Tonder took it over before being led by Coen Vermaak. One again you fail to think critically about his controversial statements [ which are designed to be as such ] because the reason why Vermaak issues "weird views" is in order to get publicity for the Boerestaat Party just as Robert van Tonder did to an extent as well. It is a form of guerrilla information war. At any rate there is actually a legitimate debate raging within the scientific community whether HIV is the direct cause of AIDS so he is not pulling things out of thin air as he is apparently copying the position of the dissenters.

Ron. said...

Now you misrepresent the Majuba Declaration because Pretorius himself noted on the Right Perspective that they are not struggling for an "independent homeland at this stage" as it will come later. The point of the Declaration was to simply notify the regime via a formal meeting that they are taking the STEPS necessary to become sovereign. What you forget is that these things take TIME as the Boers have been periodically struggling for the restoration of their Boer Republics since the 1914 Maritz Rebellion / then again during the 1940s only to be stopped by the Afrikaner establishment & for some form of Boer self determination since at least the first Boer Republics on the Cape frontier back in 1795. Therefore it is unrealistic of you too presume that is supposed to happen overnight. But anti-Boer Republican folks like you make it harder for them to regain self determination by propagandizing against it when they could use all the support that they can get. Though it could happen practically overnight if enough Boers were to stand together.

Fritz Meyer was the founder of a major Boer settlement at Balmoral [ Boere Republiek Kooperatief Beperk ] east of Pretoria in 1997 which was aimed at achieving Boer self determination. He also sent a notable open letter to the British High Commissioner at Pretoria in October of 1997.

Fritz Meyer purportedly died in or before 2002. As reported by the Southern Cross Africa web site.

What you forget is that many Boers have German names [ if often respelled just as numerous French names were respelled by the VOC - no not ALL French names as many did retain their original spelling like Terreblanche / Du Toit / Theron[d] etc. BTW. The book Ces Francais qui on fait l'Afrique du Sud by Bernard Lugan notes that the Meyer surname was among one of the French Huguenot refuges who settled at the Cape so it is possible Fritz Meyer is from the French Huguenot progenitor.

I think you just betrayed your lack of knowledge on the history of the region.

Ron. said...

The following link goes to a video featuring Fritz Meyer when he was interviewed by Louis Theroux in 2000 wherein he notes himself that Eugene Terreblanche did the just Boer Republican cause "a lot of harm". Therefore other Boer Republicans are fully aware of the trouble Terreblanche has caused for their just movement.

No I do not think so. Dirk van Tonder was the son of Robert van Tonder who took over the leadership of the Boerestaat Party & was interviewed by Louis Theroux [ for his Weird Weekends doc ] in a quasi hit piece documentary called Boer Separatists back in 2000. Pieter Du Toit / Fritz Meyer / Eddie von Maltiz [ a self identified Boer & original leader of the BWB who left the Boer Republican cause & embraced the new South Africa ] - interviewed here by Louis Theroux. / & Eugene TerreBlance were all interviewed by Louis Theroux.

Pieter Du Toit was the founder of a Boer autonomous settlement at Owendale on the edge of the Karoo Desert. Danie Theron was interviewed [ along with some others ] in 2005.

The thing about you is that you go out of your way to deny the existence of Boer Republicans when they are all around - some even setting up various Boer settlements aimed at achieving self determination - & while not always prominent in the media [ surprise ] they are certainly by the same token not exactly hiding out neither.

Ron. said...

Those who propagandize against Boer self determination have yet to provide a legitimate argument against it but often throw up straw man arguments & make excuses for why they should abandon their centuries long & just struggle for independence & self determination.

Anonymous said...

Yawn! Have read your endless diatribes (Ron) from time to time. Though English South African here's my two cents worth.

I am not an expert on SA history but am an enthusiastic scholar of the Boer Wars. (My sympathies have always been with the Boers). Christiaan De Wet referred to the "Cape Dutch" as Afrikanders in his Boer War autobiography (old term usage for Afrikaners) but also used the same term for the Boers! In other words, he recognized that the Boers and "Cape Dutch" were intrinsically the same people.

Indeed , his disgust at the "Afrikanders" supporting the British clearly shows his annoyance that blood was betraying blood. Of course, if anyone has any knowledge of the Boer War (2nd Boer War) they will know that the overwhelming sympathy of the "Cape Dutch" was for the Boers. Now, why would that be, especially considering that the Cape Dutch had been living quite harmoniously under British rule for almost a century?

Also, why did the Boers pursue a policy of trying to foment a rebellion within the Cape Colony? The simple reason was because they took for granted the pro-Boer sympathies of the Cape Dutch. The uprising never happened, but that is understandable - most people don't leave their comfort zones, no matter what their personal views are.

In describing the Afrikaners and the Boers I would postulate an analogy between the Jews and the Hebrews of old. That is to say, whilst all Jews are Hebrews, not all Hebrews are Jews. In the same way, all Boers are AFRIKANERS but not all Afrikaners are Boers. Lets be clear, whether in SA or not most people refer to Afrikaners or English as WHITE South Africans with respect to home language. Therefore, Boers are Afrikaners - please, let's not talk nonsense on this matter.

As has been stated before by others, if you take the surnames of the Voortrekkers and Boers of the two short-lived Boer republics, the names reflect typical Afrikanerdom - Dutch, French Huegenot and German.

Ron, you seem to be on a mission to point out the differences between the Boers and Afrikaners and , I'll agree, they do exist, but the similarities are far more profound: the shared ethnic and cultural identity (as stated), Calvinistic Protestantism and shared common language - dialectical differences are common to ALL languages.

Also, with the union of SA in 1910 and the migrations of the 20th century, intermixing and intermingling amongst white SA in general, and Afrikaans SA in particular, has been commonplace. I do believe the Boers maintain a cultural identity still, but not to the exclusion of their wider Afrikaner identity.

The problem I have with your endless (and interminable!) ramblings is that it comes across as the polemic of a pseudo-religious cult - and not the REALITY of modern, beleaguered, white SA.

Afrikaner said...

Well said anonymous 11:35

Here goes again. I want to know why I am being censored when I speak the truth?

To the Administrators...Please explain why so many of Ron’s comments are deleted. Please let him speak freely and show his true colours. Let the whole world see his rabid foaming at the mouth, Boer fixation and fanaticism.

To Ron

1,5 million Boers? Where did you suck that figure from, or shall I rather not ask? Who made them Boers? Are their names somewhere on a Boer census I am not aware of? Absolute nonsense from you once again Ron as Deutscher points out. There is almost nobody calling themselves “Boers” anymore. Just a handful of crackpot idiots like yourself.

Your anti Afrikaner hate speech is again self evident. Accusing Afrikaners of "colonizing the Boers". The British Ron...The British annexed the Boer Republics and made it part of the Union of South Africa. You are not only twisting facts here, you are lying outright. You are a Boereverneuker and a liar Ron. Along with your jobless buddy Theuns Cloette who shamelessly requested illegal donations directly into his ABSA bank account with no fundraising number. You are simply here to “Blog-bait” and draw readers to the Boervolk Radio lame-ass site so that more dom “Boere” can be conned out of their money. I am busy putting a blog together that will expose you for who you really are. I am watching you pal.

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

Well both of you are engaging in more twisting once again. First of all even the book: The Story of the Boers was calling the macro White Afrikaans communities Afrikanders as well as that term was used to describe all those who were born on African soil including mix race groups but as you ADMITTED the Boers are a distinct group from the bulk of the Afrikanders & Afrikaners. There is considerable disagreement that the Boers are the "same people" with the Cape Dutch" & academics have outright noted that the Boers ARE NOT THE SAME people with the Cape Dutch because the Boers formed on the Cape frontiers long before the Cape Dutch coalesced in the west. Professor Wallace Mills notes the following.

[ this came to be the major assertion of Afrikaner nationalists in later generations. F. van Jaarsveld challenged this idea in the 1960s in The Awakening of Afrikaner Nationalism; he was roundly denounced for this heresy and there were demands that he be fired from his job in the Univ. of Potchefstroom for Christian National Education.

- he argued that a sense of ‘national identity’ was very little or not at all developed; Trekboers certainly recognised the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British;

- they had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete; the westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical ‘nation’. ] End of quote.

From: Professor Wallace Mills.

The following is from the South African history web site.

[ 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. ]

From: Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State.

Ron. said...

The following is from the intrepid journalist Adriana Stuijt aka Censorbugbear concerning this contested topic.

[ There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the so called Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the feat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled."

Strangely back then, people who looked down on the defeated Boers were referred to in the news media such as The Star of Johannesburg as "racists" who should make an "effort at reconciliation". However most of the "reconciliation" came from the side of the defeated Boers who had to find a livelihood as working-class workers in the mines and factories of the cities. They were forced to relinquish their identity indeed as the Afrikaners of today are now being forced to start referring to themselves as "Afrikaanses" - people who speak Afrikaans, a term which was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak.

See how history repeats itself? ]

End of quote.

From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt at Stop Boer Genocide forum.

Ron. said...

The following is more from the knowledgeable Adriana Stuijt from African Crisis.

[ Date Posted: Sunday 07-Oct-2007.

Pertaining to Afrikaan. This word is used in DUTCH to denote someone from Afrika. The very earliest Cape of Good Hope residents after 1652 who started using the Afrikaans language in books and newspapers referred to themselves as "Afrikaanders' and this referred to both whites and mixed-race people. They did this to differentiate themselves from the higher-classes who spoke and wrote only what was referred to as 'high-Dutch" and looked down their noses at people who spoke Afrikaans. The word Afrikaander in fact was 'invented' by these very first Afrikaans-language writers who were muslim slave-descendants and who translated texts from the Q'uran in Afrikaans. The very first book ever published in Afrikaans therefore was the Q'uran. These people themselves referred to themselves as "Afrikaanders". This later became "Afrikaners" and does still refer to Afrikaans-speakers to this day - and does not indicate their race.

However the Boers who trekked away into the hinterland, never referred to themselves as "Afrikaners" even though they accepted that the spoke "Afrikaans", they continued to read the Bible in high-Dutch at church services. It's all rather confusing but it has to do with the fact that the Afrikaanders at the Cape and the Boers have different histories because one group moved away and founded several independent Republics while another group remained in the Cape while also fighting for their language-rights - and this language they shared was Afrikaans.

For a while people in the Transvaal and Orange-Free State Republics were independent and referred to themselves as "Boers' even though many weren't farmers. Many also referred to their language as die Taal or Boertaal. The Boers have always viewed themselves as different from the Afrikaners at the Cape. After they were defeated by the British, the Boers suddenly were no longer allowed to refer to themselves as Boers, but were forced to join the ethnic-identity of the Afrikaners of whom many had fought with the British and many of whom were given farms as a reward. These Afrikaners generally dominated in the Afrikaner-Broederbond and were very insistent on always suppressing the Boer identity and also the Boers' history. ]

End of quote.

From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt at African Crisis forum.

Ron. said...

The following is from the Boer Patriot Professor Tobias Louw. Who was also on the Right Perspective program back in 2006.

[ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identify, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them.

The ISS should take note that the Boers never wanted a singular state with a single government ruling all the peoples of the sub-continent. The Boer Republics were taken from them with violent force. Even the terms of the peace treaty of Vereeniging in 1902 stated unambiguously to see to the restoration of Boer independence as a people before any political rights be bestowed upon the African peoples.

But we Boers are not colonialists or imperialists. The Boers never engaged in any "Christianizing" mission work to convert the heathens as did the American, Scottish and German missionaries. Our forebears wisely thought it best not to interfere with those values and views that other people cherish and hold sacred. The Boers made no bones about the fact that they were not great supporters of the capitalist system, as it was seen to be nothing else than another form of Imperialism. No wonder then that the Irish, the Russians, and so many others from Europe joined in the defense of our freedom. The Boers never sought to "civilize" and "develop" other racial and cultural groups from a position of cultural superiority. The Afrikaners tried it for many ears, and failed dismally in more than one way.

Take note that the Boers today have good reason to be immensely frustrated and angered. We have not only lost all forms of the partial self-determination we previously enjoyed, through the treacherous dealings of Afrikaner politicians, but have lost virtually all rights to make a decent living and bringing up our children with good values and good learning. All indications are that the marginalizing of the Boer will only get worse under the present regime, which is regarded by us as illegitimate.

Even Afrikaners hostile to the Boer aspirations, like the well-known historian Prof. H. Gilliomee, has stated that De Klerk shamelessly broke his promises and public commitment to counsel with his people about changes to be introduced into South Africa and it is openly admitted that during the vote of 1994 the count of the vote was stopped midway and the ANC declared the winner, and that De Klerk's National Party was given extra percentage of the vote for allowing the ANC to be declared the winner. ]

From: Professor Tobias Louw: a Boer patriot. From an open letter he wrote to the ISS dated September 2003.

Ron. said...

What you are doing is inferring that wartime propaganda can be taken at face value because of COURSE many Boer Generals will be trying to promote a kinship with the Cape Dutch in order to solicit their support. Just as they often did with the Dutch / French & Germans in their struggle against the British Empire. What you are conveniently forgetting is that the term Afrikaner MARGINALIZES the Boers because the Boers are the SMALLER segment of the Afrikaner population. Also you conveniently forget that the term Afrikaner was promoted by the British in order to destroy the identity of the Boers as Alfred Milner himself noted.

No. The vast majority of the Cape Dutch were indifferent & pro Colonial & this & is noted in Cecil Rhodes & the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. There were of course many who were sympathetic towards the Boers but most of those who participated in the war were on the side of the British.

The only pro Boer sympathies in the Cape were among the Boer population of the norther & eastern Cape. There were much fewer Cape Dutch who sympathized with the Boers because they were pro Colonial. The uprising did not happen because they were content under British rule [ as Hermann Giliomée himself noted ] & could not identify with the Boers' desire for independence.

Another bad analogy because most modern Jews are not even from the Hebrews as they are from the Ashkinazic Jews who are descended from the Khazars that converted to Judaism en mass during the 7th cent. Boers are Afrikaners in the same way that Xhosa & Zulus are Afrikaners too because what you also conveniently forget is that the term Afrikaner just means "African" & does not & has NEVER referred to a single ethnic group because it referred to Cape Dutch & Boer & Coloured population groups early on & was / is a GEOGRAPHICAL term. What you try to do is pass of the term Afrikaner as though it refers to an ethnicity when it has ALWAYS only referred to people in a general sense who were born in Africa & spoke Afrikaans. The Boers & Griquas are distinct ethnicites under the Afrikaner designation. A designation which was ABUSED in the 20th cent when it was usurped & used in order to destroy the Boers' identity because the term Boer was removed [ publicly ] & only the term Afrikaner was allowed.

The major Boer Republics existed for 50 years & 50 years is not "short-lived". Furthermore the first Boer Republics date from 1795. Now you are twisting again because there is no such thing as Afrikanerdom because it was a MANUFACTURED political regiment which deliberately lumped the Boers in with the Cape Dutch. The whole agenda of Afrikanerdom was to hijack a limited & formulated version of Boer history & attach it to a teleocratic agenda directed by the Cape Dutch. What you forget is that the whole point to the term Afrikaner was to capture the macro State from the British. But since there is no way that strategy can ever recapture the macro State: it is has outlived is "usefulness" & of course came at the great expense of the Boer people who lost their identity in the face of the Afrikaner agenda to control the artificial macro State as created by Britain. Therefore you cling to an outdated platform.

Ron. said...

The problem with you is that you hype up the superficial similarities because the Quebecois & Acadians have a lot of superficial similarities but they are in fact a distinct group from the Quebecois just as the Boers are a distinct group from the Afrikaners of which I am glad to see you admit which is all I am saying. I am not saying there are no similarities but the differences which exist are profound as they go to the heart of the different political outlooks. Few Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners would ever view secession or independence as a "legitimate" avenue to redress their concerns while most Boer descendents do & have historically seen secession & independence as a legitimate avenue towards their right to self determination.

Furthermore: if the Boers are so similar to the Cape Dutch Afrikaners: then why are there not more Cape Dutch Afrikaners supporting the Boers? Think about that. They do not have a "shared" cultural identity because the Boers' cultural identity was shaped on the Cape frontiers & their nomadic pastoral lifestyle while the Cape Dutch cultural identity was shaped by their "higher" / more urbane / & Colonial culture. No amount of intermixing has eroded the Boers to the extent that they are no longer distinct from the Afrikaners & you admit as such. Furthermore: there are those who deny that White people in general are a distinct entity from the bulk of the South African population & they similarly assert the line that this is due to intermixing so I find it alarming that you can so cavalierly condone the blurring of Boer identity in the face of those who are attempting to blur White identity in general because if you allow this blurred definition of Boers to stand than you automatically give folks the license to blur White identity & dispossess ALL White people in South Africa with similar reasoning you use to dispossess the Boers.

But what I have pointed out is that it is a reality because it is an academic assessment of the matter & there are numerous folks who refer to themselves as Boers & insist that they are not Afrikaners. I think it is in all of our interests to do these folks justice because as I said before: as the Boers go so do the rest of us. If we do not stand up for the Boers them who in the world is ever going to stand up for the rest of us. Therefore: let's support those of us who are trying to find self determination & not attack them just because they [ rightly ] view themselves as a distinct entity from the rest of the White & Afrikaner population.

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

Afrikaner: I deleted my posts because I did not post the links right & I want them to work after all when I post. True colours? This is rich coming from someone who promotes an anti-Boer agenda with the zeal of a religious cult. The only one foaming at the mouth here is you as you have never given a legitimate reason why the Boers must abandon their identity which was formed in hardship on the Cape frontier nor why they must all of sudden now abandon their centuries long struggle for self determination.

The article called: New Coffins, Old Flags, Microorganisms And The Future of the Boer. by Jan Stürmann from Pology noted the 1.5 million figure. This just proves that you do not read the articles I post here as I posted the entire article here back in November of 2009. This also shows that you do not read my own blog as I posted a link to it in my latest post.

Now I find all of your anti-Boer nonsense rather illuminating because if you think you can deny the Boers their inherent right to their own cultural identity - how are you going to stop those who are trying to deny the Afrikaners their right to their own cultural identity because as you will recall: the Afrikaner designation is artificial & was started as a geographic designation but at least the Boers cultural identity is sociological & rooted in a long history. The Afrikaner term is quasi civil & subject to change & refers to anyone who speaks Afrikaans while the Boer term is applied to a specific group of people descended from the pastoralists of the Cape frontier.

Ron. said...

Now you are the last person to accuse anyone of anti-Afrikaner "hate speech" [ ? ] [ only Leftists decry "hate speech"! you have exposed yourself again. Furthermore: what "hate speech"? Produce a quote. ] because you deliberately used derogatory terms to describe Afrikaans speakers. I on the other hand have never attacked the Afrikaners the way you attack the Boers.

The fact that the Afrikaners colonized the Boers is not an "accusation" it is a confirmed historical fact because the Boers were stopped from referring to themselves as Boers [ at least publicly as Adriana Stuijt notes that they do so privately ] & had their dialect removed from the public sphere & were put under the the sway of Afrikaner organizations after their own Boer organization were broken up & Afrikaners gained control of the Boer Republic region. If that was not colonization then I do not know what is. The British annexed the Boer Republics BUT they recruited & put Afrikaners into political power. Remember: they promoted the artificial term Afrikaner & put only pro-British folks in power. The Cape Dutch Afrikaners filled this role in a much greater ratio thereby leading to the Afrikaner colonization & domination of the Boers. This is not rocket science here & is on the historical record.

I find it absolutely hilarious & hypocritical that you can so boldly accuse myself of "lying" when YOU are the one who ROUTINELY lies & twists in order to demonize & marginalize the Boers so as to protect some apparent empire you project as though you have. I sir have provided links & sources to the various FACTS I have related here while all you ever do is lie / attack & distort.

Ron. said...

A HA! Folks This Afrikaner fellow has just forever EXPOSED himself & is not who he appears to be! There was a German based Youtube poster [ who created his account "Fischadler1" on the VERY DAY he posted his FIRST adversarial comment on one of my Youtube videos at a time of heated exchange Afrikaner & I here at this blog ] who used the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE WORD FOR WORD [ including the odd "Boereverneuker" term ] that this alleged Afrikaner has just now used here!!!!! This is important because this "Fischadler1" was ridiculously asserting the Boervolk Radio was a "charity" [ it is not a charity] & was calling for Thuens Cloete to be JAILED! Cloete who has spent his LIFE struggling for Boer self determination. Folks this Afrikaner is nothing of the sort & is in fact a German national.

Click to view his Youtube profile.

Now look here Afrikaner / Fischadler1. Not only are you busted as a German national but as I told you before: I am not interested in promoting Boervolk Radio because what I am interested in was promoting an AUTHENTIC voice of the Boer Patriot movement & to help to get the truth out about the Boer Nation.

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

Now it all makes so much sense because Afrikaner [ who is now exposed as not even being one ] once said that his surname was German & spelled in German fashion [ of which few Afrikaner & Boer German surnames retained their original German spelling ] & his maniacal denial of Boer self determination was so over the top & seemed rather odd that someone who alleges to have some Boer ancestors would be so incredibly anti-Boer. I was wandering why he always made such audacious attempts at stirring the pot & attempting create a distracting debate around an Afrikaner vs Boer war when the issue at hand was Boer self determination. This appears to have been his attempt at polarizing more Afrikaners against those Boers who struggle for self determination.

Anonymous said...

@VI, Viking... PLEASE! HELP!!!
Stop this endless brabbling of Ron, repeating always the same fanatic nonsence!

Viking said...

Here we go again:

"the so called Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the feat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, "

"elitist collaborators", hey? Hardly the stuff of history-writing is it?
The call for self-determination loses some of its moral authority when couched in such hyperbolic language.
Did all the trekkers regard those who stayed behind as elitist, imperialist stooges or is there some thread of opinion that allows for alternate historical choice-making?

Why does everyone who doesn't support the activities of certain proto-South Africans have to be a collaborator, traitor or 'joiner'?
The majority of then-South Africans saw things differently as they should today.

Ron, this is not an attack on your point of view, just on the language of the source you used for purposes of illustration.

My advice to you is, beware - don't take the bait all the time; Your opponents don't necessarily want a reasoned debate.

Afrikaner said...

Hehehehe. Ron, you make me smile. Is that your best attempt? Allow me to continue in Afrikaans.

Kyk, swaer, jy het tot nou toe nie een van my argumente aangevat nie en ontwyk die heel tyd die punt van jou kriminele bedrywighede om geld uit mense te kry in die vorm van donasies op Boervolk Radio. Sies man, skaam jy jou nie om so op die Afrikaners se patriotisme en angs te speel nie? Jy gebruik die volks trots en patriotisme sowel as die dood van 3000 wit boere om te speel op die angs van niksvermoedende Afrikaners en om hulle uit te buit vir geld en donasies. Ja, Ron, jy is ‘n Boereverneuker wat hierdie blog gebruik om mense te lok na Boervolk Radio. Ek sien dat nadat ek jou speletjie aan die kaak gestel het, is die ABSA rekening nommer en ander inligting van Boervolk webtuiste verwyder. Toemaar, screenshots is reeds geneem deur myself en andere wat dit aan my gestuur het, onder andere vanuit Duitsland en Amerika en geen poging van jou om hieruit te kom gaan help nie. Jy weet goed dat die vraag om donasies in Suid Afrika onwettig is sonder ‘n geregistreerde nommer. Jy hoef niks aan my te verduidelik van welwillendheids organisasies (charities) nie. Verduidelik dit aan die polisie se eenheid van kubermisdaad.

Jou lamsakkige poging om samesweringsteorieë te skep spreek boekdele vir jou gebrekkige intelek. Slegs ‘n paar weke gelede het hierdie einste blog ‘n pos gehad oor idiote wat met samesweringsteorieë voorendag kom.

Jou einste belaglike samesweringsteorie oor Afrikaners en sogenaamde “Cape Dutch” wat Boere ondermyn is hier ter sprake. Loutere bog, twak, snert en onsin.

Jy kon ook tot nou toe nie verduidelik hoekom die sogenaamde Boere hulsef ‘n organisasie vorm en dit dan die Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging noem nie. Weereens is jou eierdansie kenmerkend van iemand met gebrekkige argumente wat in ‘n hoek gedryf is.

En nee, ek is ongelukkig nie ‘n duitse burger nie. Wens ek was. Ek is so Afrikaans soos kan kom. Ek het egter vriende reg oor die wêreld wat jou ook dophou en met wie ek gesels. En nog ‘n ding. Ek is beslis nie anti-boer nie en erken ten volle die geskiedenis van die boere en hul asimilasie in die breë afrikaner gemeenskap sedert 1903. Ek is wel anti-kakpraters soos jy.

Now you can translate that if you want...

Viking said...


stay on topic please pal.
The second one got through only because I didn't understand it!

Islandshark said...

@ Afrikaner - I suggest you think carefully before you throw threats around here, especially when you are obviously confused about certain identities and people you reckon are one and the same.

Ek kan vir jou iets in Afrikaans, Duits of Frans ook sê - maar ek mors nie tyd met kabouters nie.

Anonymous said...

@ Afrikaner

I note you like to play the player and not the game when things don't go your way and your rebuttal takes a knock.

Grow up!

Theuns BoervolkRadio said...

see previous........

It is rather strange then when one starts looking at the Afrikaner Bond which was formed in 1882 and the policies and bedfellows they had, it does seem they were not pro-Boer, but pro-British and thus assisted the British in killing 50 % (half) of the TOTAL child population of the Boer people, furthermore when they regrouped(so-called) in 1919 as the Afrikaner Broeder Bond, they refused ant Boer from joining them, only Afrikaners were allowed. (today they are again the AB and not ABB)
Oom Paul Kruger and Pres Steyn, both warned against the AB and did not want anything to do with them, as Oom Paul said "they want us to become another people/identity(Afrikaners)"

Nevertheless, I do not want to and am not going to be drawn into your war and cussing etc as in previous posts in various threads/blogs, of discrediting the Boer people, may you enjoy it and open the eyes of more Boers who still think they are Afrikaners.

I would though want to say to all and especially those, who may be Boers, but still believe that they are Afrikaners, as they were taught this since 1910, wake up and join your fellow Boer and again be Proud to be a Boer.
(if anyone can assist with our own Boer media, please do contact me)

Remember that in the coming struggle, it wil not be the Boer who regains his freedom, it will again be the Afrikaner who wil lead all into yet another new RSA, but by combining a lot into one group. Thereafter wil come the real struggle of the Boer people to survive.
This time without the Afrikaner
I love the song "Bye Bye Afrikaner" and play it regularly on Boervolk Radio.

Yes one day enough people will realise the need for an own Boer Media, but today non, not one of the conservative or rightwing groups are willing to stake their future on this, probably as some say, whether for insult or to try prove their own points, but yes those leaders are not really Boers, many say so, and so do politicians say a lot to draw the crowds and X.

Boer greetings
Theuns Cloete
Boervolk Radio
Tel: 012 - 743 - 5486

Theuns BoervolkRadio said...

Hi Afrikaner

I have just been notified by a fellow Boer and friend now working on contract in northern Africa regarding your comments on ILUVSA.

I do not know the person Ron, but have seen a lot of his postings on the internet, they are all correct in my opinion.
Thank you Ron.

I think you should get your facts straight and then run to the police, unless you are one yourself you need not run, just do it.

The ABSA account info had been removed by me well over 2 years ago and now there is a PayPal Donation button, so you can put that in your report, seeing that you must be blind having not seen it recently.
Getting me out the way, be it by jail, death or whatever you may be up to or considering, will not end the Boer cause, nor does it frighten me, someone else will surely carry on.
But if you want any more info regarding older webpages that may have been changed or edited by me, please feel free and I will supply them.

Back to the Boer vs Afrikaner discussions.

There is more to reading a book than to just reading the printed words.

Most(probably 90%) books written by English writers during the years 1900 and 1914, and some thereafter also do not refer to the Afrikaners as having been the ones fighting the Boer wars, but many of them draw an explicit line between the Boer and Afrikaner, the Afrikaner they normally refer to as the Cape-Dutch, as did General Butler.
Gen Butler who was made Governor of the Cape-colony while Milner went to England to arrange the war. Butler wrote, the problem is not the 'Uitlanders', it is the gold & diamonds, then he added the following "there are 3 peoples(as the British call a volk, which you probably translate to nation) in Southern Africa that can and will never be able to stay together as one, they are the British, Cape-Dutch and the Boer"

You see the books written in Afrikaans, which you have been probably been reading are mostly, more than 90% of them, if not 99%, printed and distributed in Cape Town by Humann & Roussouw.
These books when it is about the Boer war start off on page one and sometimes till page two with the terminology of the Boer who fought the war, but then the rest of the book tells a hogwash story of the Afrikaners fighting the war.
Then ons has those books which were not printed and EDITED by the Cape-Dutch, and they all say it was the Boer. continues ......

Anonymous said...

Anon from 16/3 11:35 - is this discussion still open? If so, then I would like to make a few further comments.

As stated in my previous post, I am no expert on SA history but have made a reasonable study of the Boer Wars. Therefore, with some exception, I shall try to stick to that subject matter.

The Cape Dutch were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Boer cause during both Boer Wars - to try and pretend differently is simply to ignore history. Afikaners who fought on the Boer side slotted in quite naturally (including many senior commanders), as opposed to many of the foreign volunteers for whom a general mutual dislike existed between themselves and the Boers. Whilst the number of "Cape Rebels" were never very many, and certainly more Cape Dutch fought on the side of the British, by War's end there were many National Scouts (Boers) fighting against their former comrades.

The English speaking Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians were overwhelmingly pro-British; this we know. The Boers tried to foment a rebellion amongst the Cape Dutch because they KNEW of their sympathies for the Republican cause, even if not desiring it for themselves. As a generalization that is simply the truth.

Furthermore, the leeriness of the Cape Dutch towards the British authorities began before the 2nd Boer War. At the time of the Jameson Raid several years before the war, most Cape Dutch were content to be British subjects, have portraits of Queen Victoria above the fireplace etc. etc. but the Raid changed all of that. Now, considering that the raid was about the Uitlanders - and therefore the British - gaining control of the old ZAR, why should the Cape Dutch have given a fig? Simple answer, they identified far more with the Boers than with the British.

The assertion has been made that the Cape Colony raids conducted by the Boers were aimed only at the Eastern Cape (from whence the Trekboers originated), but that is not true. Raids were also conducted in the Western Cape right up to the West Coast itself (some Boers fired a few rifle-shots at British ships in harbour and claimed to have fought the only naval engagement of the Boer War!). Also, whether in Natal or Cape Colony the Boers all had similar experiences of finding sympathetic farmers if they were Dutch, Afrikaans, whatever, when needing to rest and resupply and, likewise, surly and resentful farmers if English speaking. A generalisation - but generally true.

By the way, Christiaan De Wet wrote his Boer War autobiography post-war, so the idea that he was trying to elicit Cape Dutch support for the Boer cause by referring to Boers and Cape Dutch as Afrikanders, doesn't hold water.

The comment is repeatedly made that the Cape Dutch conspired with the British to put an end to the Boer Republics - but I can't find any evidence of that. What I do know is that the British, or at least many of the influential figures within the British Imperial hierarchy, wanted a confederation of the SA states - the two Boer Republics and the two self-governing Crown Colonies.

The reason for this was as a result of big-power politics between Britain, France and especially Germany. A recently united Germany was clearly the new big kid on the block - and Britain felt it's hegemony threatened. Bear in mind that this was during the period of the European powers scramble for African colonies. Even between Britain and France tensions nearly sparked into war in the very late 19th century. Germany, of course, had a colony smack bang on the border of the Cape - worrying stuff for Britain. The British Imperialists wanted control of the whole of Southern Africa - hence their desire to confederate SA and put an end to the cosy relations between Germany and the Boer Republics. (cont...)

Anonymous said...

(anon cont...)
There were obviously financial interests involved as well (gold) but I don't see how that has got anything to do with the Cape Dutch - and every conspiracy theory I've come across on the matter never links them to it. Would there have been some Cape Dutch desiring confederation? No doubt, but that doesn't prove wanting to support the British or hostility toward the Boers - some might have considered it a natural evolution for the country.

As for the Boers being culturally different to the Cape Dutch, yes - fair enough, their different experiences and lifestyles would have made for different world-views. However, the American pioneers who settled the West in the latter 19th century would also have had similar differences of outlook to their Eastern cousins - does that mean they were entirely different people? Don't the descendents of both East and West (USA) see themselves as comfortably American? (Specifically WASP)? Also, simple fact of life, the modern world - whether in USA or RSA or any other developed society, has blurred a lot of the old cultural distinctions.

The comment is made that the Boer republics were not short-lived, and that they lasted 50 years. Well, actually they lasted slightly less than 50 years but, more to the point, 50 years for a nation-state sure ain't a long time!

As stated previously, my sympathies were for the Boers in their wars against the British - and I get annoyed by revisionists who try to make them the villains in these matters. However, the Boer Republics were apt only for a brief period of history, the ZAR was a shaky enterprise for most of it's existence and a return to a kind of Boer Republicanism of the 19th century is simply NOT realistic today!

Unfortunately, I feel that those who are banging the Boer Nationalist drum are wedded to an ideological stance from which they cannot admit any retreat from, lest by removing one or two bricks the whole edifice come crashing down.

I, however, have no ideological position on the matter and therefore DO take on board sensible arguments and information.
e.g. in one of Ron's previous statements (forget when) he stated that Afrikanerdom had usurped Boer and Voortrekker history for the wider Afrikaner history. When I read that I thought: hmm, yes - that's probably true - never considered that before.

However, was that a policy of trying to rubbish the Boers, or was it more a policy of trying to create unity amongst non-English speaking whites (to use a neutral terminology)? The Union of SA was a reality created by the BRITISH - surely it was sensible to pursue harmony rather than discord due to the fait accompli the Boers AND Cape Dutch found themselves in?

When I was at school (English speaking) there were endless history lessons about the Great Trek especially, plus Boer Wars etc. all highlighting the heroism and toughness of these people. Now tell me: if the history had rather rubbished the Voortrekkers and Boers of old, or simply ignored them, wouldn't that have been a lot worse? (cont...)

Anonymous said...

(anon cont...)
I'll say this again simply because it's true: when people in SA or outside thereof refer to Afrikaners or English, they overwhelmingly refer to White SA with respect to home language - never mind what some academics are on about (like the "race is a social construct" argument, except most people don't see it that way).
Therefore, ALL Boers are Afrikaners (they speak Afrikaans!) but not all Afrikaners are Boers. I'm well aware that even the modern day Boer retains his own culture and identity - though it has blurred to a large extent in the 108 years since the end of the Boer War.

Boers, like the Cape Dutch, have Dutch, French and German surnames. The language they speak is Afrikaans (the "Taal" Ron refers to would have been a frontier form of grammatically simplified Dutch - and is either not spoken today, or hardly spoken). The Boers might have had more Germanic ancestry in their genes than the Western Cape Dutch (I really don't know) but no two groups of geographically distinct peoples - especially pre-20th century - would have been entirely racially amorphous (BTW, at least SOME of the voortrekkers hailed from the Western Cape). In addition, a shared following of Calvinistic protestantism.

So then, shared ethnicity (largely), language and religion (again, largely) plus the realities of modern SA and the shared history of the 20th century (the old SADF being an obvious example) makes for more common ground amongst Boers and Afrikaners than that which would divide them.

If, however, one is committed to an ideological position, then reason and necessary compromise tend to fly out the window.

Boer self-determination might be desirable but it's not likely, to say the least, and surely ALL White SA should try to find common ground, not just so-called Boer and Afrikaner? (I'm not a White Supremacist, in case it comes across that way - maybe I should change that to: all minorities and progressive Blacks).

Lastly, please do publish this - I've spent yonks of time writing this (typing ain't one of my skills) - and, unlike some, I'm not wedded to my keyboard!

Ron. said...

First off I would like to say that I am so glad to see that Theuns Cloete has decided to participate in this discussion as he would definitely be more knowledgeable about this topic than I. True: we do not know one another but we have from time to time exchanged e-mail correspondence. You are most welcome Theuns. It is serendipitous that I even know what I know because this topic does certainly appear to be one which is often suppressed. I started figuring this topic out for myself back in 1997 when I first learned about the Trekboers while reading about them in a book. I also later learned as well about how President Kruger [ & President Steyn ] did not want anything to do with the Afrikaner Bond in a book called the Anglo-Boer Wars by Michael Barthorp. When I heard you for the first time on the Right Perspective [ a program I was only made aware of because the Newsguy dropped a line about it in a Stop Boer Genocide discussion forum ] I found that I could follow & already knew most about of what you were talking about & thought that it would be great to have this interview go up on Youtube with some images for educational purposes. I wish I could get the time to do the same with the other two ones you did as well. I also hope that they will have you back again sometime. I find you to be one of the most authentic voices of a straight forward unadulterated Boer perspective because even many Boers often have been influenced by an Afrikaner perspective & unconsciously perpetuate their own marginalization. Such as waving the old Orange / White & Blue flag being a most notable symbolic example of this. I hope we will hear more from you now.

Viking. That was a direct quote from Adriana Stuijt because this Afrikaner poster likes to act as though I am pulling things out of thin air or am name calling. I realized a long time ago that he does not want a reasoned debate but there is an injustice in just letting his vicious lies hang around uncontested & unaddressed.

Islandshark. When some rancorous folks loose the debate [ like this Afrikaner fellow ] they feel as though there is nothing left but to resort to threats. Cloete is right: this will only wake more people up. It after all played a part in waking myself up as well.

Ron. said...

Anon. The term Afrikander & Afrikaner are geographical terms meaning someone who is of Africa so of course Boers / Cape Dutch / Griquas etc would be considered "Afrikanders" in the same broad sense that Quebecers / Canadians / Mexicans & folks from the USA can all be regarded as Americans & North Americans in particular.

Perhaps I am failing at articulating the problem here. When the Cape Dutch usurped this term & began to use it in a political & exclusive context from 1875 onwards - then later applied it to anyone who was White & Afrikaans speaking: it led to the direct marginalization of the Boers because the Boers were now under Cape Dutch domination due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch. This is tantamount to telling Canadians that they are all "Americans" now & only Americans because this would of course make Canadians a marginalized entity under the American designation. Regardless even if some Canadians [ for the sake of argument ] might also see themselves as Americans.

Folks from the USA "own" the American designation due to their larger numbers just as the Cape Dutch descendents "own" the Afrikaner designation. Therefore all of this minutiae over how some Boers might also see themselves as "Afrikaners" / Afrikanders losses the plot & misses the point pertaining to the fact that they are only a marginal segment of the macro Afrikaner designation. The French speaking population of Quebec faces this EXACT same problem with the term Canadian. While Quebecers are also Canadians [ & are in fact the original Canadians ] the problem they often have with being referred to as Canadians is that it marginalizes them & makes them a minority within the Canadian designation.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner: I am not associated with Boervolk Radio so your bizarre attempts at drawing myself in to your antagonism with it is a total fail & pathetic. I can see as plain as day that you are just trying to get Cloete arrested on trumped up charges like you folks have done to - or have tried to - many other folks who talk openly about Boer Patriotism & Boer Republican or just the simple fact that there still exits a Boer people / nation. Now if you even bothered to listen to the third interview Theuns Cloete did with the Right Perspective you would know that he does not even invoke those farm murders as he noted that not all the killed farmers are Boers. Even Stuijt noted that if Robert van Tonder was not already dead that he would probably be in prison on trumped up charges. Lack of intellect? What a joke! That does not even deserve a response. Sir I have not "created" or fabricated a single thing & the fact that you never back up any of your charges with counter evidence speaks volumes. The fact that the Cape Dutch dominated Broederbond dominated the Boers is part of the historical record. I already explained why the organization was called the Afrikaner Resistance Movement. As most Boers were conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners [ in a political context ] as well then to spin their wheels going nowhere. Of course you are anti-Boer - we can all read what you wrote. You will just not admit that the notion that the Boers "assimilated" into the Afrikaners is total nonsense. Because who were the folks calling for the restoration of the Boer republics during the 1940s? What population group swung the 1960 referendum on becoming a republic in favour? The Afrikaners of the Western Cape were much more evenly split while the Boer descendents of the former Boer Republics voted overwhelmingly in favour. Did you not notice the clever Afrikaner establishment trick at pacifying the Boers with that act? If the Boers no longer exist then why is there a long running Boer independence question? Who are the folks who fly the various Vierkleurs & other Boer Republican era flags? What a joke because you are the one spouting utter kak. Quite honestly I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point because the debate is just going in circles now.

Deutscher said...

@Theuns Cloete

Just a question about that PayPal account of you.
How did you manage to set up one? ...because you cannot have any for RECEIVING money.

You, as a South African citizen, only can have a PayPal account for s e n d i n g money from your confirmed SA bank account.
For setting up a PayPal account for receiving donations (as you said above) you must have a confirmed bank account abroad, for example in the USA, which is pretty ILLEGAL in the RSA.

That makes you a criminal and the police very interested in your person.

Anonymous said...

@Anon from 16/3 11:35
Well said!

Deutscher said...

@Theuns Cloete

I am going to continue my first Re to you…
I opened your rabid & unashamedly anti-Afrikaner where I see that you not only set up a PayPal account on your where you busy try to collect some US$ from stupid peoples Visa/Master/Euro/American Express/Maestro/Solo cards but you also carefully keep hidden your US bank details where all the money should go to.
Why, if “everything is legal”?
Maybe people who donate to your private account are stupid enough not to ask any questions what a jobless person like you used to do with their money but I am hopefully that the SA police would ask you soon.

You are a scammer, sir!


Afrikaner said...

Na, was haben wir den da? Ein mehrsprachiger Inselaffe. Leider bin ich nicht beeindruckt. Tut mir wirklich leid. Ich würde mich ja geistig mit dir duellieren, aber wie ich sehe bist du unbewaffnet.

@Jim Beam
See Jim, it is OK for Island Shark to call me a „Kabouter“ . It is OK for you to tell me to „Grow-up“, It is OK for Ron to accuse me of anything from a Boer Hater to an Afrikaner bond collaborator and talking „Kak“, “rancorous”, etc…But the moment I retaliate then you want to hypocritically tell me to stay on topic and not to insult. Tell me something Jim. You are a coloured right? Why should I take you seriously? The Whites never took the coloureds seriously during Apartheid and now the Blacks do not take them seriously either. What have coloureds actually done for Afrikaans? What have coloureds actually done for Afrikaner self determination? Or “Boer” self determination for that matter? It seems to me that the coloureds shame themselves for the Afrikaans language, because they try to raise their kids English. How many Afrikaans schools are there on the Cape Flats? NONE. Now you want me to ally with you lot? Sorry pal. Start coming up for Afrikaans. Start speaking it properly, then maybe I will take you seriously.
Now you can carry on and say something nice about my mother, like you coloureds normally do. I like observing the various evolutionary levels of the people of South Africa.

@ Theuns Cloette
You actually do not have to explain anything to me, Theuns. Save it for the Cyber Crime unit of the South African Police and the South African Revenue services. Just kindly answer me this…1) Are you currently unemployed…2) Are you soliciting donations on your Boervolk Radio site? 3) Do you have a registered fundraising number to solicit donations as required under SA law (Non-Profit Organisations Act)? 4) Do you keep record of all donations and do you pay tax on it?

Sorry but the Song Bye Bye Afrikaner is not known to me. Can you please supply us with the lyrics, because I am interrested in all anti-Afrikaner hatespeech? Seeing that you take such joy in singing and playing it loud, you must surely HATE Afrikaners.

Afrikaner said...

Ag Please Ron. Calling some of the Afrikaners of today, “Boers” is like calling some English speaking South Africans, “British”, totally absurd.
The word “Afrikaner” does not have the same meaning in Afrikaans as it has in German or Dutch. “Afrikaner” specifically refers to White Afrikaans speaking South Africans from West European descent (according to Jaap Versveld of the GHA). Therefore coloureds can NEVER be Afrikaners, just like Mexicans are not Spanish although they speak Spanish. The Boers of a hundred years ago intermarried and migrated across South Africa that today they are one people. The Afrikaners. That is a fact you cannot deny. The Boers of yesteryear have been absorbed and disappeared. The few who dress themselves up in Khaki and flies the Vierkleur reminds me of battlefield enactments by crackpot Old Ballies who have nothing better to do. These “Boers” have nothing better to do than to drink Brandy and Coke and then go and vandalise street name signs.
Further…So who is lying now? First Theuns says he doesn’t know you, then you say that you know him and have exchanged emails with him ??? Further I did listen to his interview, and it reminds me of the incoherent ramblings and stuttering of a drunk. So much so that I wonder if he does not actually have an agenda to make the “Boers” look stupid and ridiculous. Answer my question on the figures of 1,5 million “Boers”. Where do you get that figure from?
Further I have quoted many sources, including Prof Jackie Grobler who wrote a book telling the story of the Boers, their history and that of the Afrikaners. This book was distributed to White Afrikaans schools in the last two years free of charge by the Afrikanerbond. The reason was that the Anglo Boer war was reduced to one and a half pages in school history books under ANC education. This throws your idiotic conspiracy theory of the AB undermining the Boers out the window. The Afrikaner Broederbond was formed in 1918 to uplift the impoverished Boers after the Anglo Boer war. This they did successfully by forming banks such as Volkskas (ABSA), financial institutions such as Sanlam, Santam, etc. The name change came in 1994. They considered what the purpose of the Afrikaner Broederbond was, whether they have succeeded in this purpose and whether it was still necessary to have such an organisation. The purpose was to uplift the impoverished Boer/Afrikaners after the war, make them economically strong, unite them as a people and make them militarily and politically strong. This they have achieved at the time, but the thought was that they could easily lose that position. The policy of the AB is currently not one of seeking a homeland (a view I am personally opposed to), but one of “Afrikaners should find their own little niche in the New South Africa.” The Freedom Front Plus, the FAK, the ATKV and some 50 other Afrikaner organisations do not support a homeland for the Afrikaners.
Personally I would prefer a WHITE homeland for all the Whites of SA. English and Afrikaners. Boer and Brit…and German, Dutch, French, etc who wants to settle in SA. Whether that is possible or feasible is debatable.
A while ago this website published an article about crackpot conspiracy theorists. I suggest Ron, you go read that article…

Anonymous said...


As I told you before Afrikaner, I don't care much for the Afrikaners. I have written about that before. We might have the same destination and idea as to minority rights but it does not mean we will ever hold hands. We are nothing more than 2 roads running parallel to each other.

As for the statement:

"How many Afrikaans schools are there on the Cape Flats? NONE."

Most of the coloured schools on the Cape Flats are Afrikaans. I would know and said that before to you. As for your stereotypical view of coloureds, that's ok. You need to get out more.

Ron. said...

Anon: Just noticed you other responses: you are confusing a quasi civil & outright geographical term with a sociological one. I explained how many different peoples in the North American continent can see themselves as Americans but it lumps various homegrown cultural groups together.

Furthermore those Americans who settled the West did develop into a distinct people from those in the east. No: only the popular culture has "blurred" distinctions because at the end of the day local peoples are still practicing their local customs.

50 years is long enough but the Boer people / nation itself is centuries older. Well no one is advocating a return to 19th century Boer Republicanism but simply a republicanism which is being afforded all the time to other ethnicities & nationalities around the world. When East Timor became independent: did you accuse them of returning to an outdated republicanism? When Montenegro became independent a few years ago did you accuse them of the same return to outdated republicanism? I am only advocating for the Boers for the same right to self determination as afforded to other national groups.

Quote: [ e.g. in one of Ron's previous statements (forget when) he stated that Afrikanerdom had usurped Boer and Voortrekker history for the wider Afrikaner history. When I read that I thought: hmm, yes - that's probably true - never considered that before. ]

This is the crux of the problem. How could you have never considered this before?! Because this is the MAIN problem facing the Boers. When Afrikanerdom usurped the Boers & when the Afrikaner establishment repeatedly prevented the Boers from regaining their self determination: this led to tyranny [ just see how they treated the Boer Republicans! ] & became the major problem with the Afrikaner domination.

Ron. said...

No. It is not a matter of "rubbishing" the Boers but simply a matter of co-opting them so that the Cape Dutch could prevent the macro State from breaking up as it almost did during the 1914 Maritz Rebellion. The Afrikaner establishment did not want a rerun of that - though it almost did happen once again during the 1940s. Whether some Cape Dutch have a low opinion of the Boers [ some certainly do though ] is irrelevant to the fact that the Cape Dutch HAD to co-opt them because they required their numbers as part of an Afrikaans speaking coalition in order to outnumber the English speakers within the political realm. This was the political strategy they pursued in the face of finding themselves in a macro State they shared with English speakers & Boers. The appropriation of Boer history was simply a strategic tactic they used in order to capture the State & perpetuate their power.

But is WAS quite bad because you were only taught a revised & formulated version. First of all: are you even aware that the Cape Dutch run Broederbond controlled Afrikaner Nationalists in fact CREATED the term "Voortrekker" & "Great Trek"?! Those terms were NEVER used by the actual Boers in the past. The term Voortrekker is especially insidious because it implies that the Boers who trekked were just a bunch of "pioneers" when in reality the Boers who trekked were overwhelmingly from the Boer community of the northern & eastern Cape frontier. This was part of the Afrikaner appropriation of Boer history. Furthermore the Great Trek was taught only because the Afrikaner Nationalists used it as a convenient agitprop to justify their teleocratic agenda. The Boers were still struggling against this Afrikaner establishment agenda during the time frame when the Broederbond was rewriting & appropriating Boer history. I bet you never learned about the Trekboers in school. It does not take a genius to figure out why because then the Afrikaner Nationalists would be ADMITTING that the Boers are a different & distinct people formed on the Cape frontier AWAY from the bulk of the Afrikaners.

I notice a telling blind spot with you on another topic. While you do not subscribe to the notion that race is a social construct you do subscribe to this this very thing when it comes to the Boers. The Boers are an anthropological / ethnic entity who are not part of the bulk of the Afrikaners. The term Afrikaner means "African" & as such everyone in Africa is therefore an Afrikaner. The term Afrikaner has no relevancy in describing distinct ethnicities within it because throughout history the Cape Dutch / Boers / Griquas & Baasters have all been called Afrikaners. Just as the Scots / English & Welsh are all still often called British. The British term is analogous to the Afrikaner term because both terms are too general & vague to tell us much about folks within those macro designations.

Ron. said...

The Boers never spoke Dutch because the language of the initial arrivals was a form of High Dutch / Low German which a one A M De lange called Frankonish. [ No not Frankish: Frankonish. ] O good grief. Racially amorphous? Look. The Quebecois & Acadians are also very similar to each other sharing the same language & religion but just as with the Boers & Cape Dutch: history has made them into distinct peoples. Some of the Voortrekkers [ an artificial term created by the Afrikaner Nationalists ] in fact also came from the English speakers BUT the vast majority of the Voortrekkers came from the Boers.

The problem with you is that you have a massive blind spot regarding the Afrikaners in general & the untenable notion of White "unity" in particular because the vast majority of the local White population has no desire for the sort of absolute independence oriented self determination as sought after by the Boers. Most White folks are happy to support political parties like the DA or the FF+ & refuse to question the legitimacy of the macro State & would therefore never pursue the "scandalous" [to them ] notion of secession or even self determination.

Consider this too: even if by some miracle all White people stood together for self determination. Will the Boers & other subgroups ever be allowed to gain their own self determination or will the macro White population be lorded over & oppressed as they were by the old Broederbond? It looks like a case of trading one form of tyranny for another. When I see people talk about an illusory White "unity" my danger alarm goes off because it seems they are just wanting to use the numbers of the macro White population for a narrow agenda run by elitists which will ultimately still deny the Boers [ & others ] authentic self determination.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner: You start as usual with a faulty premise because there are no "Afrikaners" in the exclusive sense you attempt to project because the term Afrikaner is an artificial African descriptive geographical term which includes numerous ethnicities & national groups under one amorphous banner / designation. The term British is exactly analogous to the term Afrikaner because the term Afrikaner describes two main White groups & at least 3 or 4 distinct mixed race groups. The term Afrikaner was only USURPED by folks who gave it an exclusive & ideological based definition relating to White Afrikaans speakers but that is a total delusion & abuse of the term! Just because some ideological professor & ideological Afrikaner Nationalists before him gave the term Afrikaner a narrow & exclusive definition does not negate from the reality that the term Afrikaner in fact encompasses mixed race people as well as it always did & continues to do. Just as an ideologue can state that only folks from the USA "are Americans" but that does not negate the reality that Canadians & Mexicans are Americans [ North Americans in particular ] too. The term Afrikaner was NEVER defined in the manner you advocate it as until a bunch of ideological Cape Dutch intellectuals began to propagate the term in such a manner from 1875 onwards. Prior to that anyone born in Africa was an Afrikaner [ in a loose general continental sense ] & a group of mix race Afrikaas speaking folks were proudly known as Afrikaners. What you are doing is promoting a narrow & rigid definition of the term Afrikaner because there is no way you can deny the existence brown Afrikaners or stop them from referring to themselves as Afrikaners. To AB eventually would like to see all races become Afrikaners so as to perpetuate their political power.

There is not a shred of evidence to support your hateful claim that the Boers "disappeared" because their descendents exist as testament countering your assertion. Even your Anon buddy ADMITS that the Boers continue to exist as a distinct entity from the Afrikaners. You expose yourself again by demonizing & marginalizing those Boers who take pride in their heritage & fly their historical / cultural flags. O so now you are saying that they must put up with the renaming of their towns & streets? Folks I do not know how many of you have just caught what Afrikaner did here as he openly derided the passive resistance some Boers have taken to resisting the changing of their street names. Therefore he basically tipped his hand to defending the practice of renaming streets & towns.

Cloete & I do not know each other as we have never met & are not acquaintances but of course we have exchanged a few e-mails. I find it interesting that you can disparage him the way you did because I wonder how well you can speak in a language not native to you as he had to for the show.

Well well well. I see here that you really do not read what I post or are just playing a sick game aimed at tiring your opponents out because I did in fact answer your question pertaining to the 1.5 million figure in the previous post dated 17 March 2010 13:27. Here it is again: New Coffins, Old Flags, Microorganisms And The Future of the Boer.

Folks you have just witnessed a classic propaganda trick this Afrikaner thug has used in the past because the old "answer my question"! stunt [ in the face of having answered his question! ] is a classic propaganda trick propagandists use in order to make it appear as though their opponents are avoiding a question.

Ron. said...

No. Their mentioning of an edited version of Boer hist only BOLSTERS the Afrikaner appropriation of Boer history because they are only distributing a REVISED & FORMULATED version. It does not tell the whole TRUTH & omits key historical facts. Which is the whole point of their version. No it is not a "conspiracy theory" & any thinking person can recognize that the term "conspiracy theory" is thrown around at opponents in desperation when you are unable to counter the documented facts.

No. The Broederbond was founded to empower an ideological based corrupt political elite who only used the nonsense reasoning of "uplifting the impoverished Boers" [ who I thought you said stopped existing in 1903! ] as the pretext to co-opt them & impose their agenda & hegemony onto the whole Afrikaans speaking population. All of those financial institutions you mention are under Afrikaner control & totally work against the Boer Republicans.

The whole point of the Afrikaner Broederbond was to empower a select Cape Dutch elite & to take over the British created macro State under the rubric of Afrikaner Nationalism. Afrikaner Nationalism was destined to implode because as those financial institutions created an Afrikaans Bourgeois class: the necessity of Afrikaner Nationalism was questioned & ultimately dismantled. [ P Eric Louw. The Rise / Fall & Legacy of Apartheid. ] Yet this is the SAME Afrikaner Nationalism that you assert must be reinstated & recycled. So we can all go trough the whole cycle again which is designed to end in a dead end. This is precisely why you promote this nonsense because you want to distract peoples [ the Boer people in particular ] from working towards self determination.

O so I see. Citing a hit piece against folks who pursue & expose the truth & government malfeasance are now brushed of as "conspiracy theorists". I would suggest that you actually read the articles I link to instead of playing propagandistic games such as the "answer the question" routine when the question has already been answered multiple time here on this blog alone.

Furthermore: you rationalize the lack of Cape Dutch support for the Boers by claiming that they did not want to upset their comfort zone while forgetting that the Orange Free State Boers ALSO did not want to upset their comfort zone by entering the war but ultimately did so. The OVS Boers did not fight during the first Anglo-Boer War [ so does that mean they are not Boers as you would try to claim? ] ( though some OVS Boers did fight in an unofficial capacity on the side of the ZAR ) but fought on the side of the ZAR in the second Anglo-Boer War due to a military treaty signed between the two republics.

No. What is absurd is insisting that the Boers are not entitled to their own identity or to work for self determination.

Anonymous said...

"Afrikaner thug" who is "playing a sick game" (Ron) is that OK?
Isn´t this HATE SPEECH?

Deutscher said...

How should anyone take you seriously ever? You got the number of 1,5 Million Boers from the “Travel and World Cultur” Pology Magazin? Hahaha… You are a Joker, Ron.

What does qualify Neil Schwartz or the photographer-journo Jan Stürmann as a credible source to you? Not to speak of your another “most credible” source, the liberal, always “underdog supporting”, anti-apartheid “medical journo” Adriana Stuijt who (politely said) seems to have a huge dualism problem with the German roots of the “underdog” Boers nowadays.

This piece “New Coffins …”, dated to 2005, goes on...
“The Boers hope that private all white towns like Orania, or Kleinfontein, 30 km east of Pretoria, will serve as seed-crystals for a future homeland. Today, 300 residents live in Kleinfontein… when asked how long it will take to grow into a homeland, town board member Jan Groenewald admits ‘not in my lifetime’.”
HOW MANY “BOERS” did move really to the Kleinfontein – Orania area since 5 years, Ron?
How many “Boers” are there really?
How far got that “Boer think tank Studiegroep vir Eietydse Geskiedenis” of the drunk, old, teetless “Lions” with their downtown-pub Homeland project?
So far as I know Christo Burger moved to the USA a few years ago, actually he mails just some prayers to a few online friends time to time.
As I said in my above comment… I can look and look for but nothing is there to find such as a “Boer Republican Movement”. Except a very few extremists & fanatics like you who give Boer/Afrikaners a bad name. Maybe it is your true agenda… to let appear your people ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is going to agree in this thread as everyone is fixed in their way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with that.

The time will arrive when this conversation will make more sense. Until then it is like bashing a dead horse.

Ron feels that the Boers must decide on their own destiny. There is nothing wrong with that. How many at the end of the day will push for it - time will tell.

Some Boers want to break free from the Afrikaner umbrella they have spent a lifetime under. Others wish the Boers to remain as is. We are not going to find solutions here ever, however as I said when the time comes - and it will come. People can decide for themselves.

Let me just add that if Afrikaners can't so much as even see the possibility of Boers wanting to break away on an internet blog, good luck to them in real life as it going to create sparks like no other.


I don't think Ron makes the Boers look ridiculous. I think those who wish to deny the Boers their own identity or for that matter existance to appear ridiculous. The 'push' has not come as yet as the heat in the kitchen in SA is not hot enough as yet. The time will come when people will move and invest in private community projects. The heat has not come yet - hold on!

Anonymous said...

Ron, I don't have your staying power when it comes to typing, but even so, here goes.

How could I not have been aware that the Afrikaners usurped Boer history? I'm English SA and therefore had little interest in Nat Party propaganda during school years. My interest only picked up many years later, after leaving high school and completing national service.

My knowledge of SA history could be a lot better but, as stated before, I have been an enthusiastic scholar of the Boer Wars. I listened to the whole Theuns Cloete radio interview on Right Perspective and read the stuff on-screen.

He distorts the role of Afrikaners in the Boer War to be that of desiring an end to the Boer Republics. He refers to the fact that many Afrikaners fought against the Boers, but fails to mention the very many BOERS (National Scouts) who also fought their very own kith and kin. As a matter of fact, Christiaan De Wet considered the National Scouts to be the single biggest reason for the failure of the Boer cause! One has to digest all history, the good and the bad, and not just the bits we like.

As for forging a collective Afrikaner identity, I see nothing conspiratorial about that. On the contrary, it made sense. Take language for example: even in the Boer Republics there was not exactly one form of Taal - and throughout SA different versions of Dutch, High Dutch and Afrikaans existed. Formalising the different languages into a coherent whole was surely needed. Besides of which, now that the Boers speak Afrikaans, are you suggesting they turn back the clock?

The rise of a shared Afrikaner identity was probably necessary after the union of SA - which effectively was a British creation.
Promoting the deeds and doings of the Boers by Afrikanerdom is understandable (though somewhat disingenuous) for several reasons:
1)privation and struggle of any people brings about a sense of national identity - why ANZAC day is important to the Aussies and Kiwis for example.
2)Cape Dutch history is a bit er.. boring (don't take offense if from the Cape - I'm technically half Afrikaans, and from there).
3)The Boer War and it's aftermath had helped polarize English and Afrikaner throughout SA - not just in the Boer Republics (enforcement of English language etc.).

The Boer Nationalists, like yourself, are keen to stress the Germanic ethnicity of the Boers - well, according to the Right Perspective interview data the Boers are one third Dutch, one quarter French and the rest mainly German. In other words, they are less than half German! And from the horse's mouth too!

As any Boer War aficionado will know, the French, German and Dutch governments (amongst others) were very sympathetic towards the Boers. Partly as a result of seeing Britain humiliated, but also, I'm sure, because of blood and colonial ties. I mention this to simply point out the shared ethnicity that the Boers and Afrikaners have together. It exists - deal with it! Also, if these self-same countries were sympathetic towards the Boers, would that not have influenced the local Cape Dutch as well? (cont...)

Anonymous said...

(anon cont...)
I checked your link for the 1.5 million Boers - not very convincing to say the least. But, anyway, even if true (though I doubt it) how many actually live in the former Boer Republics? As we all know, the new "Great Trek" is either to the Western Cape (the irony of it) or to English speaking countries abroad, including...why, the very enemy itself! England!

Fact of the matter is that the modern Boer youngster has, for the most part, a far more internationalist world-view than existed during the laager years of Afrikaner nationalism (including the Boers). Whether that's good or bad is, of course, debatable.

I don't want to keep banging this particular drum, but let me repeat AGAIN what I've said before: the term Afrikaner refers to a white South African's home language - that is how just about everybody sees it in SA, and how anyone with at least some knowledge of SA abroad also sees it. Academics can argue the toss as much as they like, but I refer to the man in the street. Boers are uniquely and proudly Boers, but they are also Afrikaners!

Let me take a simple example of very natural Afrikaner/Boer co-operation: the Springbok rugby team. On the face of it not important but, as we all know, actually very important for Afrikaner/Boer SA. During the apartheid years, and hence Afrikaner Nationalism, the people most discriminated against regarding selection to the national squad were English-speaking whites. I don't believe there was any discrimination regarding Boers or other Afrikaans speakers. There was a conscious pan-afrikaner brotherhood, in other words and, as far as I'm aware, that still exists today (just for the record, the ill-will by SOME segments of SA society towards the Springbok name and emblem are far more about bashing the Afrikaners/Boers than anything else - I'm a "Soutie" but luv the Boks).

There is much more to be said, but I am fed-up with this merry go-round. Let me just finish by saying what I've said before: there ARE differences between the Boers and Afrikaners, but that which would bind them together is greater, in my opinion, than that which would seperate them.

In an ideal world, Boer self determination MIGHT be desirable but, sad to say, the world is a very un-ideal place.

Ron, I wish you all the best, but would advise against getting too caught up in far-right politics.

Alles van die beste.

Anonymous said...

So what?

Ron. said...

Anon. I rightly called this "Afrikaner" poster a thug because he has openly issued threats [ against Cloete & myself in particular ] - some of which have been prevented from showing up here by the moderators & has openly threatened on a public Youtube account to JAIL both myself & Thuens Cleote over absolute bullshit regarding his opinion of Boervolk Radio. Why is it all right for him to attack anyone he pleases but when I or others call him on HIS hate speech: I get called a hater. Let's try & remember who started all this nonsense in the first place. This thuggish fellow has left unsolicited attacks & hate speech on this blog [ & against myself personally since 2005 ] numerous times.

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

Well impugning the source of the data is not a legitimate nor credible or even effective rebuttal to the said information supplied. Where is YOUR data demonstrating the population of the Boer people? Why do not you supply us with data concerning the population of the Boer people? Sitting on your ass & complaining [ rather pathetically too one might add ] abut the source just dos not cut it because if you do not like the findings made by the source then REBUT it with figures from another source. Furthermore it should be pointed out that variations of this number has been noted in other places as well.

Well it looks like you have shown your true colours by attacking Stuijt because no one has done more to get the truth out about the situation in South Africa & the genocide taking place against Afrikaans speakers more than her & few have done it longer so you are tipping your hand that you are not happy with her actions & reports. Furthermore you totally fail to see the value of having a "liberal" on the side of getting the truth out to the wider world. What source would you prefer: someone from the "far right" whose politics would distract form the facts of the situation? Basically you are arguing that "liberals" should not cover this situation. Consider for a moment that if more liberals actually covered this situation in the honest way she does then the whole world would know by now.

Regarding the German roots of the Boers. Stuijt explained that most of those so called "Germans" were also in fact Frisians as they were from region of the modern north western German State.

Once again you are arguing a non sequitur because it makes absolutely no difference at all how many Boers moved to the areas reserved for self determination because most simply can not or will not move to them. What you conveniently forget is that the Boer Republican movement is bigger than the few settlements of those who are striving for TERRITORIAL self determination. The struggle for self determination takes many OTHER forms besides staking out a territory & trying to turn it into a independent state or autonomous region. There is quite a bit a of static & one dimensional thinking from you on this. Another important point you conveniently forget is that Boer Republicans can not exactly go around boasting about there aspirations for self determination as it automatically attracts the unwanted attention of the State & those who are paid to subvert such a movement. Therefore they often remain silent about it - just look at how Bok van Blerk aka Louis Pepler was treated with suspicion as Boer Republican sympathizer for simply writing a song [ a damned song for heavens's sake! ] about the Boer people during the Bitterender phase of the second Anglo-Boer War. There is no surprise that anything that smacks of Boer Republicanism is frowned upon & viciously attacked because the ruling elite have a lot at stake at maintaining the territorial integrity of the macro State of South Africa as they always have had.

Ron. said...

I have no idea what you are inferring in you final statement because I have spend years rebutting anti-Boer hit pieces like the Boer Separatists episode of 2000 of Weird Weekends with Louis Theroux. I was the one who posted all those critical comments on the Google video of the program until Google decided to remove the entire video. I was the one who posted all those critical comments on the Youtube equivalents until Youtube removed the videos. [ some of them are up again from the BBC Youtube account]. I was the one who posted all those critical comments trying to set the record straight amidst a see of anti-Boer vitriol on the "Theroux Meets Boer Leader" videos until ALL the comments were suspiciously removed. I was the one who set the record straight concerning this topic at until they removed ALL my comments then DISABLED my account & banned myself from posting there because I exposed how the Boers were being systematically demonized by the media. I have spent years exposing how the media is distorting the Boer Republican movement by showcasing the most extreme & radical advocates of it. So I sure as hell am not trying to make them look ridiculous when it is the MEDIA which does a strenuous job of that. I am certainly not trying to win a popularity contest because I have taken abuse from all sides: angry misinformed Westerners / angry Black Nationalists / angry pro-British Empire advocates & of course angry Afrikaner Nationalists as noted on this blog. Just for the "crime" of trying to present an accurate & authentic account of Boer history & Boer aspirations.

Ron. said...

Now onto Anon 4:24. I think you are distorting Cloete's opinion as he notes that those Afrikaners were working on behalf of the British because the Afrikaners [ & even some British ] initially wanted to have a confederation with the Boer Republics. Which would have been a much better system than the unitary State that was adopted & imposed. I am well aware of the Boers who fought for the British. The irony of their [ Boer "joiners" ] reasoning was that they felt a prolonged war would totally destroy them so they joined the enemy in trying to hasten an end to the war. The very bother of Christian de Wet: Pieter de Wet was a prominent "joiner" who ended up fighting on the side of the British. But I think you miss the broader point being that the Cape Dutch were inherently pro Colonial while the Boers were inherently anti-Colonial & the reasons the "joiners" emerged is quite a complicated one & not as cut & dry as one might think.

The notion that anyone "forged a collective Afrikaner identity" is pure Broederbond propaganda because the reality of the situation was that the Cape Dutch elite simply usurped a limited version of Boer history then used it as a convenient narrative to capture total control of the macro State created by the British. There was in fact NEVER a collective Afrikaner identity outside of the political realm as it existed only on paper. This just proves how strong their own propaganda was because too many people still think some sort of collective Afrikaner identity was created when nothing of the sort happened as it was only ever a sort of coalition. Much like the pan Slavic coalition of the former Yugoslavia but when that macro State began to dissolve: the old ethnic identities prove to still be relevant. I never said that it was conspiratorial because it happened out in the open for one thing BUT most Boers were too poor & political marginalized to truly resist the emerging Afrikaner Nationalist dialectic & power.

But you miss the point. The standardization of Afrikaans only happened because all of the Afrikaans speakers were now under one macro State. But you promote an a priori argument because while the Boers speak "Afrikaans" they in fact still really are speaking a direct descendent of their own dialect which was formed on the Cape frontier. Just as the Acadians speak North American French similar to the North American French of the Quebecois BUT in fact still speak their own dialect of French as the Acadians have some different words & expressions / pronunciations etc. as the Boers do in relation to the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners.

The macro State of South Africa was a British creation BUT it was totally inherited by the Cape Dutch Afrikaners & some pro-British Boers. Now you are getting into the reason why I ever started trying to educate about the distinct identity of the Boers because a one Uncle Cracker aka Mike Smith repeatedly would erroneously assert [ on his old SAS blog ] that "the Boers won the Anglo-Boer War" due SIMPLY to his IGNORANT belief that "Boer Generals" were running South Africa when in fact two out of three of those so called "Boer Generals" were from the Cape Dutch population group & the ACTUAL Boer people were totally marginalized under the larger number of the Cape Dutch descended population.

Cape Dutch history is "boring" to use your word because they have never have to struggle for freedom the way he Boers have had to all throughout their existence. Though the Cape Dutch were the ones who started the Afrikaans language rights movement in Paarl.

Ron. said...

For one thing I would not call myself a Boer Nationalist as nationalism can end up becoming an ideology unto itself which can end up working against the liberation of the group it is often invoked in trying to help. I think of my self as a supporter of Boer Republicanism because republicanism is an ideal dispensation for self determination & is not as problematic of a runaway nationalism which can turn into an oppressive cult.

Well unfortunately I wrote the video data before taking into account the Frisian roots & therefore overemphasized the Dutch roots. Furthermore I was using data that referred to the White Afrikaans speaking population in general but the Boers do have more German roots due simply to the fact that a lot of Germans settled straight in the north eastern Cape frontier were the Boers developed.

The Boers do not share an ethnicity with the Afrikaners because that too is based solely on Broederbond propaganda which was only ever used to ensure the macro Afrikaans [ re: Broederbond ] control of South Africa. Seeing as the Afrikaans speakers are no longer the surrogate colonial power of the region: there is no further political nessessity to continue promoting the Broederbond nonsense of an alleged "shared ethnicity". The Boers & Afrikaners are related ethnic groups as the Quebecois & Acadians are but they are not both the same group.

First of all the link is quite accurate because 25 % of the total White population trekked out of the Cape during the Great Trek & when you factor in those Boers who remained in the eastern Cape then the 1.5 million number looks about right. Furthermore: who says that the Boers have to say in the old Boer Republics regions to be Boers?! There are Boers ALL OVER AFRICA & much of the world now.

I do not dispute you definition of Afrikaner - because it did after all get started in a political sense after an Afrikaans language movement in 1875 BUT you must not be blind to the fact that the term Afrikaner as used in this context is totally artificial & is in the process of crumbling as many Cape Dutch descendents REFUSE to be called as such [ preferring the generic "Afrikaans" ] & many Boer descendents are reclaiming their old designation in increasing numbers. So in a few decades one will be hard pressed to find any folks who refer to themselves as "Afriakners". Let's also not forget the increasing mix race numbers of folks reclaiming of the term Afrikaner. Folks like you are living in the past & are clinging to an OUTDATED Afrikaner Nationalist / 1950s era definition of the term Afrikaner.

I think your example of rugby is disingenuous because you miss the whole point. Even in Canada the sport of hockey transcends whether one is English speaking or French speaking. Furthermore: you just prove one of the main purposes of Afrikaner Nationalism: to politically wed the Boer with the Cape Dutch.

I do not think you understand the danger facing the Boers. This is not about what "unites" them with or what "separates" them from the Afrikaners because the issue here is that the actual Boer people are naturally subverted under the dominant numbers of the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners. Just as the Southron people are within the United States as they are outnumbered by the Northerners.

Now this is where you promote another misunderstanding. I am not interested in the least in "getting caught up with far right politics" because the far right has been instrumental in subverting the aspirations of the Boer Republican movement. The far right is often attempting to usurp & direct the Boer Republican movement which is why folks like Louis Theroux can so easily run to South Africa & do his infamous hit piece on it without much effort. The struggle for Boer self determination transcends & is much bigger than far right politics which is just a distraction.

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

None other than Theuns Cloete himself noted on the other interviews he did with TRP that the far right / so called conservatives are EVEN MORE DANGEROUS than the left because they pretend to want to help the cause of self determination while often subverting it & making it look ridiculous. Cloete also noted that political parties will "have to be banned" if the Boers get their freedom back because "the Boers will not remain free for long" with there tactics. You really must listen to the OTHER two interviews he gave to the TRP. I know you have already heard & watched the first one but I will provide all three links.

The first interview of Theuns Cloete with TRP.

The second interview of Theuns Cloete with TRP.

The third interview of Theuns Cloete with TRP.

The notion that the Boer Republican movement is a "right wing movement" has always been one of the biggest misunderstandings about the Boer Republican movement because as none other than Willem Ratte astutely observed political leanings are incidental to the struggle at hand which is freedom & self determination.

The Boer Republicans Transcend Right Wing Politics.

Few truly bother to examine this topic beyond the media framed skewed parameters because the truth is often nothing like the propagated distortion.

FishEagle said...

Anon 4.31. Well said.

Deutscher said...

See... I know that trying to discuss the "Boer" issue with you won´t lead to anyway. Only a last note from me regarding your so often quoted source, Adriana Stuijt. The link below clearly shows her true face, how much she hates everything German. If it´s true that the Boers are about 50% from German descent, then this woman must really hate Boers too, despite her Boer genocide displaying internet activity.... or she is a deeply disturbed person without any credibility.
Read her true views and think about...

Ron. said...

There is just no convincing you of the facts because when I posted the link to the 1.5 million figure: I knew right away that you would come back here disparaging the source because even if the most trusted academic or even if God himself were to cite a figure: you would predictably come back here & attack the source just as a matter of rhetorical reflex.

Well Deutscher: it is all rather hypocritical to see you feign concern for the Boers when your anti-Boer rhetoric is on the record. I also find it telling that you attack Stuijt & seek to sow division among those who expose the growing Boer genocide. Extrapolating her comments regarding Hitler & the Nazi era regime is not quite the same as insulting the average German.

There is just no escaping the fact that the term Afrikaner [ as used in the political / ideological / exclusive context it was ] was MANUFACTURED in 1875 by Cape Dutch intellectuals [ & later propagated by the Afrikaner Bond ] & its main purpose was to establish an Afrikaans language hegemony within a then proposed confederation or unitary state: of which the latter was ultimately adopted after the second Anglo-Boer War.

The notion that the Boers were all absorbed into the Afrikaners is such an outrageous lie & was only ever punted & asserted here by Afrikaner because I first pointed out that the Boers were not absorbed but simply renamed under a designation which lumped them in with the erstwhile Cape Dutch population. All he did was reverse my original point in a pathetic & ineffective attempt to counter my point. Now: it is mathematically impossible for all of the Boers to have been absorbed because not enough time has passed to have done so & folks like Robert van Tonder were descended EXCLUSIVELY & only from Boers. What he does is take a narrow / exclusive & ideological definition of the term Afrikaner & propagates it as though it has any relevance today because the term Afrikaner is changing & was NEVER used in the manner he uses it until the 1930s. This rigid ideological definition of the term was only used for about 30 to no more than 50 years before it began to fall apart. How then can anyone still cling to this outdated definition / version of the term in the modern era which has changed it & how in the world is 30 - 50 years enough time to have caused an alleged "assimilation" into non-Boer descended Afrikaners? No one ever has an answer for that because it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to absorb the ENTIRE Boer nation within the span of 30 - 50 years or even within 100 years for that matter. Not enough generations have passed in order to even make that assertion feasible let alone possible. Furthermore his scenario of one-way assimilation into Afrikaners totally ignores those Afrikaners [ & others ] who have been absorbed during the same time frame into the Boer population.

Those who deny the existence of the Boers are playing into genocidal rhetoric because the denial of an entire people always makes it easier to ignore or marginalize the genocide taking place against them [ as Greg openly does ] because enemies of the Boers often erroneously assert that "there are no Boers" ergo also proclaim: "how can there be a genocide against Boers when the Boers do not exist"! This is some very sophisticated psychological warfare going on here against the Boer people / nation.

Afrikaner said...

@ RON...

You say, "Now: it is mathematically impossible for all of the Boers to have been absorbed because not enough time has passed to have done so."

Well if you are going to make wild statements you will have to prove it. Let us see your mathematical ability. How much time exactly is necessary for absorbtion?

And yes you are absolutely right. There is no genocide against "Boers". There is a genocide against "WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS".

The section of the Whites being disproportionately targeted are the White Farmers (English and Afrikaans). The word farmer is translated into Afrikaans as "boer". Conveniantly Ron uses this misunderstanding of "boer" and "Boer" to proove a genocide against the "Boervolk" (which does not exist).

Ron. said...

Now as usual you distort as I even specifically noted that many - perhaps even most White farmers are not Boers. You have a bad habit of ascribing things to myself which I never said. The point I was making was that it easier for people to deny genocide when terms are being defined out of existence. This is not just happening with the term Boer but ALSO with the term Afrikaner & White South African in general as I linked to an article which openly inferred that White South Africans are not distinct from the bulk of the South African population. Therefore people assert "there are no White South Africans" [ as they assert that race is alleged to be a "social construct" ] ergo they state "there is no White genocide". Are you getting it yet? If you can define the Boers out of existence the way you do then you will never be able to & can not stop anyone from defining White people in general out of existence. You are blind to the danger facing you with your anti-Boer rhetoric. What has happened to the Boers is a portend to what will happen to the larger White community which could have been prevented if more people had stood up for the Boers before the genocide moved on to the larger White population.

Though there is in fact a more profound genocide occurring against the Boers for the simple reason that they are generally much poorer & have historically been marginalized by the ruling elite who have tried to define them out of existence since the 1903. Just as you do. Do not forget that 50 % of the Boer child population died in the concentration camps so the Boers have always faced a much harsher & stronger genocide. It will even be easier for folks to deny the White genocide because White people "are not native to Africa" whereas the Boer are native to Africa & predate the notion of a White South Africa which is a Colonial based term. Therefore: dispossession of the Boers [ which you bizarrely advocate ] will make the larger White dispossession a cake walk because White people are not seen as "legitimate" [ due to the effective rhetoric used against them as such ] whereas the Boers have a strong history in Africa & are uniquely an African people in ways the other local White population never attained.

Not enough time has passed because every single Boer has to be absorbed or marry into another group in order to disappear when this is clearly not the case as most Boers have continued to marry other Boers & the Boer people / culture has remained intact. The Boer culture is what you folks used to rationalize your power so if the Boer really did disappear then who the hell who all those folks [ descendents of Voortrekker Boers ] who you corralled at the Voortrekker Monument when it was inaugurated in 1949? If the Boers "disappeared" or were "absorbed" there should not have been a single person [ of Vortrekker descent ] at the event. The Boers did not stop reproducing after they were conquered therefore the Boer people still exist & no amount of denial & erroneous assertions can change that fact.

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

That should have read: "whereas the Boer are native to Africa & predate the notion of a White South African which is a Colonial based term." Forgot the n in African.

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

I find it odd how you accuse myself of making "wild statements" when I am just reporting the verifiable facts yet YOU are the one making wild statements when you erroneously assert that ALL of the Boers were "absorbed" when it was IMPOSSIBLE to have done so in such a short time frame. Produce the evidence to support your wild & baseless claim. My God man. There are STILL Portuguese Africans even though they have been in Africa ever since the 1500s & lost their own governments 35 years ago & should have [ by your own flawed logic ] been absorbed into the macro White population by now.

Pressures on the Portuguese to assimilate have been & are stronger than on the Boers yet they also still exist as an intact & distinct community. The Boers were only renamed as part of a POLITICAL based coalition. But they were not absorbed en mass into the Afrikaners.

The following is a relevant quote from Mark R. Kreitzer. South African Tragedy Restored? Contra Mundum. No. 5 Fall 1992. Which he point blank notes that the Afrikaners were a coalition of two distinct peoples.

Quote: [ Note I have deliberately been using this dual name for the descendants of the original Dutch settlers. At the present time, the use of the name Boer (i.e. 'farmer') is regaining popularity among secessionist minded Northerners. The Boer/Afrikaner people is actually an increasingly unstable coalition of two closely related peoples, similar to Judah-Benjamin and Israel, living in the North and the South of the country. ]

Link to text.

I also find it odd how you deny that there is a genocide taking place against the Boers [ which is a term for the people who developed on the Cape frontier & not merely a term to denote farmers ] but then talk about a general White genocide when it is the Boers who are most facing the consequences of the genocide. Furthermore: there is a genocide taking place against all the peoples of Southern Africa which is the prime reason why the extremists were routinely put into power all across the continent.

Anonymous said...

You really enjoy masturbating your troubled mind in public. Do you?

Ron. said...

First of all I am just ANSWERING questions & rebutting various erroneous points within the context of a DEBATE while all you ever do is insult & threaten. Furthermore: anyone can go back & see who started this because all I did was comment how van Schalkwyk would probably not like the title of the article then out of blue Afrikaner [ & or you ] pounces on me introducing an UNRELATED topic to the discussion. Calling my sanity into question for simply responding to your posts is nothing but the desperate act of a rogue who can not articulate an effective or legitimate response nor rebut the responses I posted.

Anonymous said...

Adriana Stuijt doesn't hate everything German. Her words were twisted on that African Crisis post about Hitler vs Mugabe. Everyone climbed into her for a fight. That's nothing unusual on blogs, by the way.

Ron. said...

Twisting people's words is what they do as a mater of debating tactics. Just look what those same folks did here on this post.

Anonymous said...

And not so happens))))