Talk:Afrikaners/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Article discussion before cleanup
With reference to Boer "...many Afrikaners view this as a derogatory term," many Afrikaners still refer to themselves as Boers. The educated Afrikaners call themselves Boers, while the working class Afrikaners tend to call themselves Boere. The previous sentence is nonsense. Boere is the Afrikaans plural for boer, boers is the English plural for a word taken from Afrikaans.
Also, " after being the first people to employ guerilla tactics" is incorrect as the term guerilla (spanish for "little war") dates back to the tatics employed by the Spanish who fought against the French regime instituted by Napoleon Bonaparte in the Peninsular War (1808–1814). Therefore, the if anyone, it would be the Spanish to be ther first people to employ guerilla tactics.
Great Trek
The main causes of the Great Trek were not slavery.
The only language allowed to be spoken by government institutions were English.
The british government abolished slavery but you could only claim your compensation for the slaves you freed in Britain.
The British government weren't protecting farmers on the border of the Cape colony from attacks from Xhosas.
- Hi. See my note to you on your User talk page.
Thanks for changing the page I appreciate it a lot.
There is a history book(Short history of South Africa,MASKEW MILLERS). It descibes most of South Africa's history from 600 B.C. to 1880. It was published in 1909 so it's copyright has expired. There should maybe be a seperate article about the great trek and the events leading to it.
Aa (27/01/2004)
I didn't change the page, someone else did. You can see exactly who made what changes to an article by following the "Page history" link down the bottom of any article. --snoyes 01:32, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is a whitewash of history to pretend as if British insistence on equal legal treatment of all regardless of race had nothing to do with Boer discontent. History should be about all of the facts, unflattering or otherwise, otherwise it is little more than group hagiography. Race had a great deal to do with the desire on the part of the Voortrekkers to escape the reach of British authority, and to leave out this fact is as egregious an omission as a Confederate history skipping over the "peculiar institution."
By the way, there eventually was a British indemnity paid to slaveholders who couldn't go to London to ask for it, even if it happened only after some years delay.
response:
The british did not treat the boers fairly. They suppressed their language, culture and belief. It should then be noted that the British were racists. Boers were not treated equally in the eyes of the law as British.
8 Xhosa wars on the border is more than enough reason to move away from English rule.
You should guard against changing history to fit stereotypes. QWERTY
Reposte:
The British treated the Boers as fairly, if not more so, than it did in any of the other dominions of colonisation. For example Malta. There was no wholesale suppression of Boer culture, a point illustrated by its survival to this day. What the British did, was set up a system of courts/schooling .etc in their favour i.e. in English. In itself, not a problem, as the liberal nature of the laws enacted by the colonial government allowed allot of scope for themaintainace of a boer lifestyle (Can't remember the exact page reference, but it's in James Lawrences 'Rise and Fall of the British Empire - he cites the law specifically). The British were not racist, simply culturalist - believeing their way to be the best way [YOU JUST GAVE A PARTIAL DEFINITION OF RACISM BY THE DRIVAL YOU WROTE IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE]. Nothing unusual, given the standards of the day. Boers were entitled to equalprotection under the law, which is more than could be said for the Blacks under the boer sponsored apartheid system.[THIS SENTENCE CLEARLY STATES YOUR PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING BY APPRORIATING BLAME TO A SINGLE GROUP OF PEOPLE]
But I digress.
If anyone needs to avoid fitting history into stereotypes, it's you my friend. Perhaps a more thorough (and impartial) reading of your history books will furnish you with a more....worldy appreciation for the issues concerned.
Regards,
Mark
Afrikaners' ancestors.
To Psb777 who deleted the portion noting the Indian admixture of Afrikaner's ancestors & commented "Afrikaners of Indian extraction/admixture?" in the edit box. There is in fact a growing record of evidence uncovered by researchers which has found that some of the early White settlers miscegenated & intermarried with some Indian slaves. In fact the Indian genetic element is most likely the largest percentage of their partial non white genes. Some related excerpts concerning this follow.
-
The next largest group of slave spouses were from the Indonesian Archipelago (22.5 percent) and 15.2 percent of the slave wives were from India, all from Bengal.
The first slave to be freed at the Cape was Catharina Anthonis, who was born in Bengal, and liberated because Jan Woutersz from Middelburg wished to marry her - this was on 21 May 1656. Another slave Maria van Bengal, was a slave of the sick comforter Pieter van der Stael, she was sold into freedom 6 July 1658 to be married the 21 July to Jan Sacharias. "A dropsical Bengalese woman married to a Netherlander and with the consent of the Commander.
According to some scholars on slavery in South Africa, the number of slaves from India exceeded those from Indonesia or Africa.
The Dutch settlers married some Indian women. There was extensive miscegenation and many settlers, in their old age, formally married their mistresses and baptised their children. As a result, numerous Afrikaner families can trace their ancestry to Indians and perhaps half the Coloured people have Indian ancestry.
And the Indians were also the most prominent in the slave resistance and revolts.
I hope that the Afrikaners will rediscover their history so that we in India can establish fruitful relations with them.
From: http://anchosting.unwembi.co.za/un/reddy/nehrulec.html
Note: even former President F W de Klerk apparently notes in his autobiography that he himself has an Indian ancestor.
-
Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688. Like many Afrikaners he has a skeleton in the closet--one of his 18th century forebears was the daughter of an Indian slave.
Therefore noting the partial Indian admixture of Boer / Afrikaners is only intellectually honest when taking these findings into consideration.
I am sorry to have put you to so much trouble. Please re-include the fact I culled. If you don't I certainly will. Paul Beardsell 08:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For an Afrikaner to have Indian blood running through his veins is no stumbling block at all.
It's the British blood content that makes my blood freeze.
The Afrikaner whites have no racism tendancies, rather a total disgust in their British ancesteral heritage.
We do not like to be ascsociated with them, they are a people of contempt with no regard to lesser nations, people, even God.
They are the true racists, completely biased. I think the Irish might aggree here. I feel I am more tham qualified to say this, my surname is KENT. Unfortunately half of "Great Britain" is named after me, God forbid!! :))
Admixture
Why this insistence on noting that only "some" Afrikaners have non-European blood? Perhaps we should say that not all Afrikaners have any German blood? Or French? Certainly no one is rushing to point this out. Paul Beardsell 00:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I note that the Scottish are allowed to "join the ranks" yet only a very small percentage of Afrikaners can claim any Scottish heritage - a much smaller percentage than those with some non-White "admixture". Paul Beardsell 00:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sources for 5-7% non-white admixture: [1], [2], [3] (written by Xed)
I am much happier with the opening paragraph now but still it is possible to gain a false impression. But (I guess) the Scandinavian proportion is far below 5%, probably 1% at best, and the Scottish proportion must be far below that, tiny. Paul Beardsell 22:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Notable Afrikaners
The section "Notable Afrikaner" should include following personalities (and respective "links"):
- Christiaan Barnard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Barnard
(first in heart surgery)
- Frederik Willem DeKlerk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Klerk
(ended Apartheid)
- Hendrik Frensh Verwoed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Frensch_Verwoerd (creator of Apartheid)
There are many others including some Nobel Prize winners. (11/03/05)
One wonders whether Verwoerd can be considered an Afrikaner, even with all the conflicting definitions bandied about. He wasn't born in South Africa, and neither of his parents were Afrikaners. At best, he became a "naturalised" Afrikaner. 203.51.114.232
Afrikaner vs Boer.
I noticed that someone has redacted / removed the section noting the cultural & historical differences between the Afrikaner (a pan Afrikaans designation which covers disparate groups) & the Boer. This is an important & significant section which must be included in order to better illustrate the cultural & historical diverseness & intricacies of the Afrikaner group.
Furthermore: in the list Notable Afrikaners, Paul Kruger is right at the top when in reality he never referred to himself as anything other than a Boer in all of his correspondence & was very distrustful of the Afrikaners (ie: the Cape Dutch) as he felt that they were too pro British. Remember: President Kruger allowed a number of Dutch (from Holland) to immigrate to his country as he preferred them over the Cape based Afrikaner who he felt were too closely allied with the British & would therefore be a potential compromise to the independence of the Transvaal Republic (also known as the South African Republic).
The Voortrekkers would similarly not be considered real time Afrikaners (as they existed 100 years before the emergence of the label) as they were the descendents of the Trekboers of the eastern frontiers whose ancestors had trekked away from the Cape Dutch (the ancestors of the group which lead & formed the Afrikaners) beginning in the 1690s & throughout the 1700s.
The Boers had a distinct culture & proud history with their own dialect (noted as Eastern Border Afrikaans) & republics before the emergence of the Afrikaner designation which was mainly Cape based (ie: descendents of those who did not trek into the interior) & ended up absorbing a great number of the Boers of the former republics.
Would some add Anton Rupert to this list?
OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.
{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}
For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .
- Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Alaln Boesak and Ernie Els
- Alan Boesak is not an Afrikaner, he is a Coloured.
- Ernie Els is an Afrikaner
DEFINE Afrikaner please. I would say 1) in South Africa 2) Speak Afrikaans as your first language. What does race have to do with it?
An Afrikaner is a white person who speaks Afrikaans as his or her first language and was born in South Africa. I'm sorry but you can lay claim to Afrikaner land and property but one thing you can't take away is the heritage from them because it just isn't feasible. You can call yourself Afrikaner all you want, it doesn't change anything about how you are perceived amongst Afrikaners. And I'm not trying to be a "racist" asshole here, but even though I am white if I were to immigrate to South Africa and even if I learned Afrikaans I would be welcome to my fellow white people but they would never consider me an Afrikaner either. You have to fulfill all of the criteria to qualify both heredically and culturally. 84.160.239.19 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Boers/Afrikaners as a distinct and endangered minority group
In recent years, Boers and Afrikaners have had their populations murdered by racist black africans in the streets and on farms. The situation is similar to that of Russia where racially motivated criminals target blacks, in South Africa and Zimbabwe they target whites, Afrikaners especially. Group rapes and murder, mostly linked with robbery or actions in retaliation for apartheid have increased, with I believe nearly 2000 dead just on the farms, from ghastly attacks involving torture and lynching. This should be shown in this article as afrikaners are a small ethnic group especially in the continent of Africa whose numbers increasinly dwindle, because of the color their skin.
The Government has taken an anti afrikaner stance as well in South Africa and Zimbabwe trying to cover up racial murders and play down the lack of safety for these individuals, Mugabe actually espouses their seeing it as the "last stage of revolution." While the south african government dedicates very little money to the investigation and catching of farm murderers and anti white racist groups in South Africa. Coupled with Affirmative Action in a country where Boers and Afrikaners exist as a small minority (less than 10%). This is an important issue that shouldn't be missed in this article. I recently contacted the Stats SA board with my question : Why on your site does it say Underestimate of White Population. Now they say 9%. The reply from a representative stated that Stats SA didn't count white farmers or whites that did not lived in private communities. In fact they report the actual white (mainly Afrikaner) population to be 13%-14%. A cover-up attempt by the government, in my opinion to show that blacks now have supreme control over afrikaners.
Information on Afrikaners who have migrated to Europe
I am curious to know the number Afrikaners who have migrated to Europe and the treatment they receive there. I know that in the Netherlands many feel discriminated against. Are there many that have moved to France, Britain, Germany, and other countries?--Sir Edgar 01:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been told in the past that there are just under 500 000 Afrikaners who are living in London England alone. This seems to be a huge amount of those who have emmigrated from South Africa & a rather odd place considering the adversarial role the British played against the Boers in the past. Ron7
That's a huge number! I have noticed meeting more South Africans lately. But I can't imagine that large of a group of people coming to London and it not being reported by the press. What gives? Is there any way to verify these numbers? I wonder how to get immigration figures...--Sir Edgar 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hailing from Germany I can tell you this: Welkom en Duitsland! 84.160.239.19 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Mag wel ook in Nederland hoor. Wij zijn ook Boeren geef hun 'n stoel Toverprins
POV notice
I really need to be convinced that the Afrikaner vs. Boer section is based on true fact rather than "original research" and/or after-the-fact interpretation of history. For example, I cannot see how a peace treaty can be interpreted as officially acknowledging the Boer identity. Furthermore, there isn't currently (and I doubt if there ever was) seperate "Boer" and "Afrikaner" groups in the white Afrikaans-speaking, because of intermarriage, etc. I certainly would not know if I am a "Boer" or an "Afrikaner" or an "Afrikaner-Boer" or a "Boer-Afrikaner", etc. Maybe the distinction is all in one's own perception. In which case Afrikaner is the right term and should be used as per the Wikipedia policy of using the most widely-used name and Boer should me mentioned only in the context that some Afrikaners refer to themselves as such because of (perceived) historical reasons. I have therefore added an NPOV tag.
Also see:
- Don't insert your own opinions, arguments, or experiences
- Write from a neutral point of view
- Check your facts
- And say where you found them
Elf-friend 10:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The tag in unnessary as the section in question was created merely in order to show that there are still many who have continued to call themselves Boers & why that is. The section attempts to outline the cultural & historical distinctions between the Afrikaner (a pan Afrikaans label) & the Boer of trekker descent. The various Conventions between the British & Boers is a defacto international recogition of the Boer identity as these are official documents which signify that the British were officially dealing with Boers & not Afrikaners who at this point in time only numbered among those Afrikaans language promoters of the Western Cape who were formerly known as the Cape Dutch. The Afrikaner designation was Cape based while the Boer designation was applied to those who had long since trekked from the Western Cape into the expandinding frontiers.
I shall explain further.
The Boer identity was internationally recognized by virtue of the fact that the various agreements were made between the British & the Boers. It was called the Anglo-Boer War after all. The Afrikaans speaking inhabitants of the Western Cape were only just starting to refer to themselves as Afrikaners during this time period & had not begun to absorb the republican Boers of trekker descent in the north & east who were only known as Boers thus there were certainly at least two distinct White Afrikaans speaking groups. The inhabitants of the Boer Republics & the eastern regions of the Cape were self identified as Boers not Afrikaners. As a matter of fact President Kruger felt that the Cape Afrikaners were too pro British at the time & might compromise the independence of the Transvaal Republic if many emigrated there. The whole world itself knew of the Boers (& their identity as such) at this time as well due to the British imperialism in the region.
< continuation. >
Then, with the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley and gold on the Rand, the struggle for South Africa’s mineral wealth began. Gold and Workers described the causes of the ‘Second War of Independence’, the Anglo-Boer War. Its outcome was that the British, and the English-speaking mine owners, were to control the growing capitalist economy on the Rand.
But not all Afrikaners shared the same history. In the Cape, many were urban professionals, while even the farmers had more in common with Cape English settlers than with the children and grandchildren of the trekkers who had left so many years earlier.
Afrikaner nationalism began to take off after two wars of independence against the British in the Transvaal. During the second war (the Anglo-Boer War) the British ‘scorched earth’ policy —burning down Boer farmhouses to prevent them from providing shelter for Boer soldiers — and the herding of Boer women and children into overcrowded and unhygienic concentration camps, where thousands of children died, left deep scars in Boer consciousness for many years.
There are indeed still distinct cultural groups between Boer & Afrikaner. Though it has certainly been diluted during the 20th century due to a slight synthesis between the two but relevant nonetheless as there are many who refuse to be called Afrikaners & have continued to self identify as Boers. The term Boer was applied to those who were & are descended from the Trekboers & the Voortrekkers & those who set up the various republics. While the term Afrikaner on the other hand is a pan Afrikaans term which is Caped based (ie: those who are descended from those who did not trek) which only started being widely used beginning in the 20th century & was applied to anyone who speaks any dialect of Afrikaans regardless of historical or cultural differences. To use an analogous example: not all French speaking Quebecers agree to being called Quebecois as many still prefer the term French Canadians or simply the original (from the 1600s) Canadiens.
A recent example of the expressed distinction between the Afrikaner (a pan Afrikaans label) & the Boer -generally those who retained their trekker descended based culture & dialect- follows.
- Having been falsley accused by media of unbecoming conduct, intollerance and many other unflattering traits for many years, we Boer people have develloped a fair degree of aversion towards the general media. The Boervolk has been unfairley associated with the worst that political partys, political organisations and the Afrikaner, which is totaly a different species, can offer.
The confusion arises from the fact that many Boers of trekker descent have since been co-opted into the specific Cape based Afrikaner designation as first advanced by the Reverend S J Du Toit & Gideon Malherbe (the original promoters of the Afrikaans language at a time when most Boers referred to their language as "die Taal" - "the language") beginning in 1875 & later exploited by Afrikaans nationalist politicians & intellectuals like D F Malan from 1933 onwards most of whom (including the three aforementioned persons) were from the Western Cape. Therefore while a great number of cultural Boers might no longer call themselves Boers (as many were raised to think of themselves as Afrikaners in the spirit of pan Afrikaans unity as promoted by notable leading & political Afrikaans nationalists & intellectuals during the 20th century) many though still refer to themselves as Boers & demonstrate enough cultural distinctiveness to be noted as a separate cultural group within the broader Afrikaans speaking group. The Boers of trekker descent spoke a dialect which has been classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans while the Afrikaans speakers of the Western Cape spoke a dialect of West Cape Afrikaans & slight differences in pronunciation & lexicon still persist.
... and some of the Voortrekkers probably still saw themselves as Dutch and some didn't bother labelling themselves at all. And some had a foot in both camps ... like Jan Brand, who was a President of the Orange Free State (and thus undisputably what you would call a Boer) but whose father (Sir Cristoffel Brand) was knighted by the British and was thus undisputably "Cape Dutch", if not completely Anglicized.
Look, even to state that there were two strongly/strictly-defined etnnic groups - "Boere" and "Afrikaners" - in the past is already a bit tenuous, but I have no problem if the historical distinction (such as it is) is stated.
But to apply this label in any formal manner in moden times is just not correct (although a person may call him/herself what he/she wishes, of course). Even if there were ever a distinction between the two groups, internal migration, intermarriage and the changing/evolution of language and culture has completely erased that.
In my own experience, almost all Afrikaners these days (if they wish to label themselves at all) use the term "Afrikaner" or (as I do) use "Boer" and "Afrikaner" as synonyms. Those who wish to label themselves exclusively as "Boer" are to be found mainly (exclusively?) on the right-wing and the article should thus mention that as well, if we need to mention the modern-day usage of "Boer" at all. Elf-friend 09:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I do however agree with much of what you wrote & know there are even those who refer to themselves as French Huguenots even though they speak Afrikaans & might only have a surname which testifies to their French heritage. Labels certainly can be subjective, but the point I was stressing was that not all of the Boers agreed to become known as Afrikaners (as it was Cape based) & there are many who still refer to themselves as Boers & do not want anything to do with the Afrikaner designation. While there are certainly many who identify with neither designation or who are a combination of the two the fact remains that the two main designations within the White Afrikaans speaking population is still that of Afrikaner & Boer with the term Afrikaans Speaker becoming a growing third.
I would not in fact undisputedly call President Brand a Boer as I am aware that he was from the Western Cape & served in its Parliament. Remember: the Orange Free State had much closer relations with the Cape for much of their history & only started having closer political affiliations with the Transvaal Republic after President Reitz took office. This is one of the reasons why the Orange Free State was considered a more moderate Boer republic. I am also aware that there were many civil servants & even some Cabinet members in the Transvaal Republic who were straight from Holland. This was due to President Kruger's distrust of the Cape Afrikaans people as he viewed them as being too pro British.
The fact of the matter is that the Boers did not all stop referring to themselves as Boers & many Boer descendents are reclaiming the term in the face of awakening to their cultural roots. While the term Afrikaner dates to as early as 1707 it was sporadically used & was not widely used until after the Anglo-Boer War when the Afrikaans speakers in the Cape began to use this term as a device to politically unite the Afrikaans speakers of the newly united macro State of South Africa in order to dominate & outmaneuver the English speakers within the political realm as they knew that the combined number of Afrikaans speakers was greater than the number of English speakers, but the Cape Afrikaners by themselves were not much more than the English speakers. But by co-opting as many republican or Trekker descended Boers as possible, they knew they could achieve a sort of linguistic hegemony within the political realm by augmenting their numbers through the simple device of referring to all Afrikaans speakers as Afrikaners. This though did not change the fact that a small but significant number retained their original designation.
opinion
I think that many descendants of dutch settlers who have settled in cities identify differently than what I have heard called trekboere, or those settlers who went on the trek.. also, there are those who identify strongly as boer. Notably those who have reccently moved to knysna from gauteng. There are also "coloureds" who consider themselves as afrikaner by nature of their mother tongue.
Adding to the topic of opinion. "The Boers won the first war, but lost the second after being one of the first people in modern times to employ guerilla tactics" I don't think that that's very accurate due to the fact that the United States implemented those tactics during the Revolutionary War and the Native Americans also used those tactics many times as well. It sounds like the Boers thought of the idea of guerilla tactics. Just a personal opinion. -B.
Boer versus Afrikaner
The author of "opinion" makes great points. This is the crux of what I have long since been pointing out. Those who remained in the Western Cape -& those who mainly lived in the cities- did not identify themselves as being Boers (yet it was mainly their descendents that coined & controlled the mass use of the Afrikaner designation) while those who were the descendents of the Trekboers (also known as border farmers) & the later Voortrekkers were the ones who considered themselves Boers. The term Afrikaner was gaining popularity among the Afrikaans speaking inhabitants of the Western Cape during the late 19th century when an Afrikaans language movement had started with Reverend S J Du Toit & Gideon Malherbe at a time when the inhabitants of the Boer Republics were known as Boers. The other point I have been making is that while a significant number of Boers became co-opted & even assimilated into the Afrikaner designation (which was Cape based) a notable number did not & have continued to refer to themselves as Boers. BTW: it is incorrect to call them simply the "descendents of Dutch settlers" as they are descended from French / German / Frisian / Flemish / Walloon & others as well.
Furthermore I am not stating that there were or are strictly defined "ethnic" groups between the Afrikaner & Boer designations (as they are descended from the same general roots), just rather clear cultural differences which in fact began in the 1690s & throughout the 1700s when the Trekboers began trekking eastwards away from the Western Cape. The cultural gulf became much more pronounced during & after the Great Trek which exhibited a general fissure between the Western Cape Afrikaans speakers & the Boers of the eastern frontier over the Great Trek & British colonialism in general as the vast majority of Voortrekkers were of Trekboer descent from the eastern Cape frontier. Though as I also stated earlier: much of this distinction has eroded to a degree during the 20th century but not to the point where there are no discernable differences to note.
I am not content with the line which states that those who consider themselves Boers are on the "right-wing" as this has a one dimensional & even POV connotation. It might be better to state that many who do tend to be more conservative, but in reality those who consider themselves Boers cuts across the political spectrum.
Furthermore: the numerous Boers who have immigrated to the Niassa province of Mozambique have gone on the record referring to themselves as Boers. Also: The Boer Diaspora community in Argentina -which was established there in 1903 by those who refused to live under British rule after the Anglo-Boer War- by all accounts still refers to themselves as the Boers of Argentina. This community still speaks Afrikaans but Spanish as well.
- Very good points made here. It would seem more apt to describe the Boere as a section of the Afrikaner people (who are part of the so-called Afrikaanses community in southern Africa, etc...) as a traditional cultural self-designation. Often rural descendants of the Trekkers, conservative in lifestyle and in worldview. The epithet "right-wing" gives the reader the impression that these people are are unproportionately active in the political scene, and exclusively "operate" on one wing. It might also be interesting to point out that it was not the speech of the Cape Dutch and the Cape Coloureds that eventually developed into the standard literary language of Afrikaans, but rather it was the speech up in the inependent Boer Republics on the "eastern frontier". I also think there should be a separate section or article for the diaspora, not just in the Anglo countries but the established communities in Argentina, as well. I can provide maps! (If only I find out how to submit my files). //Big Adamsky 14:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The Boer Republics were to the north & east of the eastern frontier. The eastern frontier was the expanding eastern Cape region. The areas beyond the Orange River (which were beyond the eastern Cape frontier) is were the Voortrekkers established their republics.
To upload the maps you have, just click on the Upload file link to the left of the page. So long as the images are in the public domain.
Perhaps one of the reasons as to why the dialect of the republican Boers became the standard literary language of Afrikaans was due to a demographic population shift within the White Afrikaans population -likely sometime from the late 19th century & into the 20th century- as I have noticed that about 56 % a plurality of all Afrikaners now live in the Gauteng province (where the old Boer capital Pretoria & the then fast growing mining town of Johannesburg was /is located) when during the ninteenth century the Boers of the Republics were only about one third of the total White Afrikaans population.
Therefore it would appear that Cape Afrikaans arrivals's children -who relocated in the now Gauteng province- would have ended up adopting the local Voortrekker descended / republican Boer dialect as a result of being educated in the local schools in the then Transvaal province. There certainly does appear to have been a much larger number of Cape Afrikaners who relocated to the Gauteng region than republican descended Boers who relocated to the Western Cape region.
Correction. According to the statistics there appears to about 33 % of all Afrikaners -one million- living in the Gauteng province, but there are only about 500 000 living in the Western Cape which would translate into about 17 % of the total Afrikaner popultion. Therefore: it seems that there was indeed still a larger amount who moved to Gauteng -part of the then Transvaal- during the late 19th century into the twentieth century than those who moved from the Transvaal to the Western Cape. Perhaps many of those who of have recently emigrated from the country are from the west.
POV Notice for Orania paragraph.
There should be a POV notice for the final paragraph in the Today section dealing with Orania as the author of the paragraph is stating a personal opinion & an unbalanced point of view when he states that the town represents "a revival of Apartheid practices" despite the fact that the town has not passed a single public law resembling Apartheid as the town is owned by a private company which in fact is acting in accordance with the Constitution.
Furthermore the notion that racial separation will be enforced is purely a personal opinion & mere speculation because the fact of the matter is that a number of Afrikaners have openly expressed that they are not opposed to members of the Afrikaans speaking Coloured communities from living there. There are for example many Griquas who have been living in the Northern Cape region for generations.
The purpose of Orania is to create an Afrikaans consolidation in the region in order for Boers & Afrikaners in general to acquire a place where their culture & language can be protected by virtue of the fact that they would constitute a majority of the population in the region.
Religious data list
I have removed the list, presented without context, which purports to give the numbers of Christian Afrikaans people living in various different countries, and posted an explanation on User talk:218.111.4.176. My rationale is that in at least some cases the data is seriously out of date (for example, I don't think there has been a substantial population of Afrikaans-speaking people in Angola since before the Second World War (not unless you count the SADF... ); I suspect the figures for Zimbabwe date from before 1980). In addition, the site given as a reference appears to need registration and a sign-in in order to verify it. Humansdorpie 18:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Essentially the same and mostly redundant material in Boer. Makes more sense to merge it here and redirect Boer to Afrikaner. -- P199 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oooh, this is a difficult one. Weak oppose. Although boer has a much more limited use today, and could be summarised in the Boer section of Afrikaner, there is still a clear distinction between those who'd call themselves Boer (and the historical use of the word), and those who'd call themselves Afrikaner today. There still exists a large amount of historical information that could be added to Boer, which doesn't necessarily make sense under Afrikaner. But again, this is a bit subjective and speculative, and I do need to declare my bias, being an Afrikaner (and not a Boer). dewet|™ 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Response to P199. I disagree that the Boer article should be merged into the Afrikaner one for the obvious reason that these two terms are not interchangable. The Boers have a long & distinct history separate from the Afrikaners.
I disagree because the Boers are a unique & distinct cultural group with their own unique history which is different from the Afrikaner. Remember a great number if not most Afrikaners are not descended from the same cultural groups & history as the Boers are while there are many people who have continued to refer to themselves as Boers all throughout the 20th century when many other Boers were co-opted or assimilated into the Cape based Afrikaner designation following the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War.
The term Afrikaner is a pan Afrikaans term which was arbitrarily applied to the various groups among the White Afrikaans speaking population after the Anglo-Boer War by the ruling elites which effectively lumped the Boers in with their estranged cousins -who were not historically known as Boers- of the Western Cape. While the term Afrikaner was coined as early as 1707 is was not used on a grand scale until after the founding of an Afrikaans language movement founded by members of the Cape Dutch community of the Western Cape & most especially after the Anglo-Boer War when the Boer culture was severely disrupted & almost wiped out.
There are numerous people who continue to self identify as Boers & are culturally distinct from the Afrikaner. The Afrikaners of the Cape even fought against the Boers of the Republics during the Anglo-Boer War. The dialect of the Boers differs slightly from the language of the Afrikaans speakers in the Western Cape & has been classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans or East Cape Afrikaans. As it was developed on the eastern Cape frontier away from the White Afrikaans inhabitants of the Western Cape. A number of Boers still refer to their language as "die taal". The Afrikaners have also historically tended to be neo colonial or have supported the various colonial powers while the Boers (descended from those who began trekking away from the west beginning in the late 1600s) were anti colonial / anti authoritarian & had developed an independent culture & desire for independence quite early on. The Afrikaners -then known as the Cape Dutch- of the Western Cape often ridiculed their rustic cousins of trekker descent (Boers) thinking that they were less civilized for treking eastward & inland away from the established cities.
There are many Afrikaners who would never agree to be called Boers while at the same time there are many Boers who would never agree to being called Afrikaners. Recently a number of Boers presented -on a number of occasions- the South African President with the Majuba Declaration which aims at getting the government to recognize the Boer nation as a distinct nation in accordance to the Constitution. The Boers were recognized as a distinct nation by a number of countries around the world in the past.
There is confusion over this issue to some extent as a result of the fact that a number of those of Boer descent had been brought up to see themselves as Afrikaner due to the then emerging political dominance of the Cape based Afrikaners in South African society but as stated above a significant number of Boers did not become assimilated into the Afrikaner designation & continued to retain their culture. The Boers have their own culture / history / dialect & flags which is distinct from that of the Afrikaners. The Boers also tend to have a different outlook than the Afrikaners particularly among those who are considered to be more traditional.
While I don't agree with everything Ron7 says above (especially the modern-day distinction between "Afrikaners" and "Boers"), I do think there is enough historical material to justify a seperate article. In other words, oppose. Elf-friend 07:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (Who is both an Afrikaner and a Boer.)
However, upon reflection, I do think there is a case to be made for most of the info from the "Afrikaner vs Boer" paragraph to be moved to the Boer article ... and then section that article of between historical usage and modern usage ... so, I'm going to be bold (or rather kragdadig) and do just that ... Elf-friend 07:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What has..
What the H has happened to this article? Half of it is gone? �Dr.Poison 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a big problem here
I find both the discussion here and the main article exceedingly frustrating:
Anyone suggesting that there is such a thing as a separate Boer Nation from the Afrikaner, needs seriously and urgently to bring evidence of this mystical new nation to suddenly grace the pages of the encyclopedias of the planet. Certainly millions of Afrikaners would be hugely surprised to hear that an entire nation has been living in their midst and they never knew about it.To me it sounds more like someone desperately seeking to actively divide and ridicule the Afrikaner nation that is already desperately suffering in South Africa. I can only speculate as to what the motives behind such an act could possibly be. The term "Afrikaner" has no deeper or lesser meaning than the term "Amerikaner", meaning a person that has thrown in his lot with his new continent, rather than with Europe. This was used in reference to people with a European heritage, as opposed to indigenous people, and dates back to the 1700's, whether used continuously or not.
The entire discussion on Boer vs Afrikaner is harming both Wikipedia and the Afrikaner. Certainly it is not in the interest of either. The word "boer" means "farmer". Many Afrikaners were, and still are, boere (the plural form). During the Apartheid era, many black people referred to the South African Police as the "Boere". This certainly was meant on a derogatory fashion. The term was certainly used in the 19th century, such as in referring to the "Boere Republieke"(Boer Republics) or the Boereoorlg (Boer War).
However, to attempt to now create two fictitious nations, "Boere" and "Afrikaners minus Boere", seems both sinister and wilful in the extreme. The Afrikaner is busy being actively ground into the dirt by the present government of South Africa, and yet some find it necessary to dream up this kind of divisive stuff to ruin that nation further. It simply boggles the mind.
I think that, if someone reads Wikipedia, they need to see an article on the Afrikaner that is (1) complete, and does not stop in the middle of nowhere as it does right now, and (2) does not create confusion on the matter of what the nation is called and (3) does not split hairs as to slight differences in dialect between the Cape and Gauteng
--24.81.64.198 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Harry
The evidence of the existence of the Boer nation is exemplified in the fact that there are numerous people who have continued to refer to themselves as Boers all throughout the 20th century & even now as well as the fact that there are discernable cultural distinctions.
I am not attempting to divide but am pointing out the fact that there has always existed inherent divisions among the White Afrikaans speaking populations as the historical record clearly shows.
There are numerous people who consider themselves to be Boere & refuse to be called Afrikaner as they view the Afrikaner as a group which works against their interests & does not necessarily share their culture. What you seem to forget is that the Afrikaner designation was used to grind the Boer cultural identity into the dirt at the beginning of the 20th century & beyond. People calling themselves Afrikaners were mainly from the western Cape & aligned with the British & fought against the Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War.
While it is true to state that the Boere are Afrikaners in the sense that they are Africans: the fact of the matter is that the Afrikaner designation was popularized & initially used by what were termed the Cape Dutch in the late 19th century & imposed onto the Boere in the early 20 century after the Anglo-Boer War as a means of creating a sort of Afrikaans political unity in the face of British hegemony in the region.
Not all Boers went along with becoming part of the Afrikaner designation. The most recent example of evidence of the continued existence of the Boer Nation was exhibited this past March 4 2006 during what was called the Boer Women's Protest March in Pretoria in which a group of Boer women on horse back carrying the various Boer national / republican & cultural flags of the past along with numerous Boer men marched along Church Street to the Union Buildings. The Boer protest march was done in order to raise awareness concerning the farm murders & attacks as well as to hand deliver what is called the Majuba Declaration to a government representative which in part calls on the South African government to recognize the Boer nation.
Picture of the march with most of the Boer national / republican & cultural flags in the shot.
While many self proclaimed Boers appear to be part of irredentist or self determination movements: the fact of the matter is that there are still many Boers who are not & simply consider themselves Boers as part of a cultural designation.
Pictures of the Boer march in Pretoria.
The following text is from the Stop Boer Genocide site found at this link.
- There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the socalled 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?
There is also a shortwave radio program out of New York called The Right Perspective which regularly has guests on during its "Hello Africa" segment who refer to themselves as Boere.
The following is a link to an installment of the progam in which the invited Boer guest named Fred Rundle partially explains the difference between the Boer & the Afrikaner.
Link to podcast of the segment.
Perhaps a number of Afrikaners might be surprized to learn of the continued existence of the Boer nation but the fact of the matter is that there are those & have always been those who have continued to consider themselves to be part of the Boer nation.
Goed zo Toverprins
- I do find it mildly amusing that in this debate we have an Anglophone Quebecer quoting a Dutch journalist, while neither of them are actually a member of the ethnic group under discussion ... Elf-friend 10:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I am in fact partially descended from Afrikaans speaking French Huguenots from the Cape & the "Dutch journalist" lived in South Africa for many decades & was married to an Afrikaner.
- My gut feeling about the whole issue is that the divide between "Boer" and "stay-at-home-on-the-trek Afrikaner", is a small minority view within the Afrikaner ethnic group as a whole. It does seem to be punted by some extreme right-wingers, but even some of those choose not to bother with the distinction (eg: see the opening page on boer.co.za. I think, though, it would be best if someone could find some actual sociological research on the distinction within the group: It seems likely that *someone* would have looked into it during the apartheid years, when a kind of "Afrikaner consciousness" prevailed. (I agree there's a problem: The problem is an insufficiency of verifiable support either way.) -Kieran 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the distinction pre-dates the Great Trek. The Boers living in the eastern Cape frontier (where most of the Voortrekkers came from) had long established a distinct an independent Boer culture that was different from the Afrikaans speakers who remained in the western Cape who were for the most part loyal to the colonial powers & disdained the independence of the frontier Boers.
The notion that this distinction is "punted by extreme right-wingers" is a ridiculous assertion when considering the fact that the Afrikaner designation was imposed onto everyone by what could certainly be labeled "extreme right wing" Afrikaners from the National Party as well as the then secretive Broederbond.
The reasons as to why it was not "looked into" during the Apartheid years was due to the fact that the Afrikaner was in control then & an Afrikaner consciousness (as you correctly observe) predominated which marginalized Boers & the Boer consciousness. The Afrikaner nationalists even wanted to replace the national flag with one which did not have the British flag on it as well as without the Boer Republics flags.
Two cents from an Afrikaner-Boer
I am an Afrikaner who descends from Boer fighters in the Anglo-Boer war. I was born in the Free-State and today reside in Pretoria. The term "Afrikaner" re-emerged as an umbrella description to unify the Boere or Trekboers with the Cape-Dutch (those who remained behind during the Great Trek), after the estblishment of the Union of South Africa. The first time the term "Afrikaander" was used by a Dutch Burgher, in the Cape Colony, to describe himself, was recorded in 1697.
The descendants of the Boers who appreciate their heritage still fondly refer to the term Boer. The conservative Afrikaners like to use the term Boer, as it seperates them from their more liberally inclined cousins from the former Cape Colony, and it relates to the pre-Apartheid, Republican Afrikaners, who they wish to cherish. The term Boer relates in the same fashion to the term Afrikaner, as the term Bavarian would relate to the term German. I hope that this helps, please refer to my discussion under the heading "Definition of Afrikaners". Gemsbok1 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Black "allies" during Anglo-Boer war
The article refers to the Boers having black "allies". There was however no treaty or informal agreement as required to create an allegiance between the Boers and the different Bantu tribes in South Africa at the time. Bantu labourers did assist the Boers by supplying food or tending to the farms and even setting up camp for the Boer fighters, but they did not bear arms on behalf of the Boers. The Zulu tribe even attacked a Boer Laager near the end of the war, killing 58 Boers. Several Bantu tribes also assisted British forces in finding fleeing Boer commando's, women and children during the guerilla stage of the war. The British did intern a large amount of Bantu people, but it was probably more due to the fact that the British had to destroy the Bantu livelihood in cattle, to keep it from the fighting Boers. If the Boers were able to establish an allegiance with the Bantu tribes at the time, they probably would have had a better chance at beating the overwelming numerical superior British forces. Gemsbok1 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Definition of Afrikaners
The first paragraph of the article describes Afrikaners as "South Africans". Even though this may have been true prior to the independance of Namibia in 1990, this is incorrect today, as many Afrikaners today are found in Namibia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia and Nieu-Zealand.
I would propose a more fitting definition or description for Afrikaners as being: "Caucasian descendants of European settlers arriving in modern day South Africa after 1652, whose mother tongue is Afrikaans, subscribes to the Christian Protestant religion and identifies with the Afrikaner culture. They include subgroups such as the origanal Boers and Cape-Dutch, who became unified after the formation of the Union of South Africa" Gemsbok1 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you did a great job too on the clean up & liked the opening paragraph you posted. Though I not sure that the Boers & Cape Dutch could be calssified as "sub-groups" as much as simply being the original distinctive groups which were formed as a result a differing ways of life / trekking patterns & cultures.
Cleaned up page
I have cleaned up this article, as requested and reworked the contents into the format as prescribed by the Ethnic Groups WikiProject. Feel free to ad onto this stub, as many subheadings still needs to be filled. Please discuss any additions, objections or improvements in each category as indicated. The old discussions are listed at the end for completeness sake. Please advise if they may be deleted. -Gemsbok1 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Hi Gemsbok, good work done on the cleanup! I'm glad to see a more logical format introduced.
However, I have serious doubts about the classification introduced in the article (Boere/Cape Dutch/Afrikaanses) ... there are no such officially recognized subgroups, and neither is there an officially recognized supergroup such as Afrikaanses.
(As a matter of fact, compared with many other ethnic groups, the Afrikaners have a remarkably homogenous culture and language.)
Yes, I know that there are some people who prefer to be called Boere, but in the modern sense, I have only come across the term Cape Dutch being used in a pejorative fashion by those who claim to be the former. Also, while there are certainly other groups who use Afrikaans as a first language, as far as I know there is no officially recognised group called Afrikaanses.
As a fairly young people with a complex history, I think the final state of classification of Afrikaners is still in a flux/in development. As such, we should limit the article to classifications that are generally, preferably academically, recognised. Anything else borders on original research being included in Wikipedia, which is really not the place for it.
One other thing ... do we have reliable sources for the 300,000 Afrikaners in London claim ... I have heard this figure as well, but never seen any real backup for the claim of such a large number?
Vriendelike groete, Elf-friend 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- While there is controversy & uncertainty as to whether the term Cape Dutch was "officially recognized" there is no controversy or uncertainly concerning the fact that the term Boer was indeed officially recognized as well as recognized the world over. The redaction of the mention of the Boer & Cape Dutch components ("sub-gorup" as Gemsbok1 put it) to the Afrikaner designation smacks of censorship.
- Historically there might have been a slight cultural and linguistic difference, although it surely must have been less than that of, for example, two neighbouring provinces in the Netherlands, where the respective groups can barely understand each other's dialects.
- I have no problem with those two (possible) subgroups in a historical context being mentioned in the text, although I think the issue of two distinctive subgroups (apart from geographical location) is debatable, taking into consideration the intermingling of the two groups (many of the Voortrekker and Boer leaders were from the group you would classify as Cape Dutch, for example), etc.
- But a mention in the opening paragraph is really too much prominence to give to this issue, especially if it serves to suggest the current existence of two distinctive anthropological subgroups. Those that currently prefer to be (exclusively) called "Boer" are primarily political "conservatives". Let us mention the historical context and usage, let us mention the modern usage of the word, and move on. To keep pushing the view of a modern-day split between the two (as distinctive subgroups or seperate people/nations) just plainly ignores the facts on the ground.
- And if we are adding subgroups to the Afrikaners, what about Transvalers, Vrystaters, Namakwalanners, etc.? If a case can be made for making Boere and Cape Dutch distinctive groups, then surely a case can be made for these as well ...
- Regards, Elf-friend 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Ron, yes, the term Boer is known worldwide. I can even add another example, the Swahili word "kaburu". But is there any evidence (except from your own theory that treaties signed by the ZAR and the OFS equate recognition of them as a people)? I would dearly like to see references as to how to the inhabitants of the ZAR and OFS referred to themselves (personally, I think they still saw themselves as Dutch). And I would even more dearly like to see any scholarly research quoted on the issue of any past or present anthropological groupings. Elf-friend 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What you refer to as "different dialects" in the Netherlands is in fact two different languages -ie: Dutch vs Frisian. Frisian is not a "dialect" of the Dutch language (if this is indeed what you are referring to), but in fact a separate language. Similar to how French & Provencal are separate languages which arose independently of one another. On an interesting note: many of the arrivals in the Cape -who would go on to form the Boer & Afrikaner people(s) were speakers of Frisian & some of the French Huguenots from Provence & Lange d'oc -such as Pierre Joubert / Jacques Theron / Estienne Terreblanche / Jacques Malan / Pierre Sabatier / Jean Roux & Pierre Le Grange were most likely speakers of Provencal as it was the main language spoken in the regions they originated from.
- No, I do know the difference between Dutch and Frisian, having lived in the Netherlands for 5 years and being fairly fluent in Dutch. I am thinking more of the dialect they speak in the Limburg province, for example, which is quite difficult for a speaker of standard Dutch to understand. Elf-friend 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well the only Boer leader who I am aware of who was from the Cape Dutch grouping was Johannes Henricus Brand: President of the Orange Free State. Possibly & probably even Piet Retief might have been as well as he was born in Stellenbosch & described as having an urbane polish. (by author Oliver Ransford though he too confuses the Afrikaner & Boer terms) [4] But for the most part the Boer leaders were from the group which began trekking eastwards from the 1690s into the 1700s.
- I think you can add Piet Uys to that list as well ... he was born in Swellendam. Elf-friend 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well this is where it starts to get more complicated. Remember: Swellendam was one of the first Boer Republics - set up in 1795 - & was still populated by many people who considered themselves Boers during the time of Piet Uys & the Great Trek.
Though many Boers do however see themselves as a distinctive group. This goes much deeper than "political conservatives" as it speaks to a cultural group which was formed from the hardships of their experiences on the expanding frontiers -from the nomadic Trekboers to the established Grensboere & most notably with the Voortrekkers. Those who are descended from the Cape Dutch however have had a different history & different experiences. While many have since identified with the Boers' histories: it still does not change the fact that it is not their own. I realize however that the chasm is not as large in the present as it was in the past.
This was mainly due to the 20th cent Afrikaners co-opting much of the Boer history as their own.
Just remember that it was generally those of Cape Dutch descent (along with those Boers who worked against their independence & aligned themselves with the British) who were in control of the Afrikaner designation particularly during most of the 20th century. It is for this reason why I think Paul Kruger would be shocked to know that an (on-line) encyclopedia has a picture of him under the term Afrikaner. His picture would more accurately belong in the Boer section. I can only imagine what he would think considering how much he distrusted the then emerging Afrikaners centered in the western Cape as he viewed them as too pro British.
Perhaps a case can be made for your suggestions concerning the Transvaalers / the Vrystaters & so on, but the fact of the matter is that a greater difference exists between the Boers vs the Cape Dutch than the differences between the various regional Boers.
Well it is not "my theory": the fact of the matter is that the treaties were signed with the leadership of the then emerging Boer Republics. These treaty signing acts are considered a de facto recognition of the Boer people under international law. Just as signing a treaty with any cultural group is a de facto recognition of them in law. The treaties were signed with the purpose of granting the Boer people the right to govern themselves north of the Vaal & Orange Rivers.
If the treaties do not recognize the Boers: then just who were the British recognizing as being independent within the regions stipulated? It appears that you imply that the British were "only" recognzing the independence of the Boer government: but the government -which was composed of Boers (though interestingly not exclusively)- was a legal representative of the Boer people within the two said regions.
- The country was recognised as being independent. In principle that means all the inhabitants of that country. Although I'm sure the black people living in the territories concerned weren't consulted and didn't have any vote or say in it, they were also in principle independent of the British government, being the inhabitants of an independent country.
- BTW, do you then see Texans as a seperate cultural group because Texas was once a republic? Elf-friend 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There are in fact many who do appear to see Texans as being a distinct cultural group.
The assertion that they saw themselves as "Dutch" is countered by the fact that the Boers are not exclusively Dutch but are an amalgamation of many different national origins such as French / German & Belgian to name the 3 next most largest national origins. Their Dutch ancestry accounts for just under 40 % of their origins. Most of the Boers -at least a significant amount- from the eastern Cape & beyond the Orange & Vaal Rivers identified themselves as Boers. The only times they referred to themselves as "Dutch" was when some of them tried to play up their partial Dutch connections during their struggles with the British. The ones who saw themselves as being "Dutch" were by far the Cape Dutch who were centered in the Western Cape. Those on the frontiers had long since considered themselves a new homegrown group.
- But then you also say that it was the Cape Dutch who coined the term Afrikaner? Certainly they also then saw themselves as being non-Dutch? And remember the people of other origins were basically assimilated into the Dutch/Boer/Afrikaner community. Elf-friend 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This is where it gets complicated again. The Cape Dutch might or might not have seen themselves as Dutch (as they were indeed an amalgamation of different national groups) but one thing appears to be clear. They did not form as distinct nor as separate (if even at all) an identity as compared to the Boers of the frontiers (even when the frontiers were closer to Cape Town) & tended to be loyal to the colonial powers.
While the term Afrikaner was used sporadically since the late 1600s: it was not widely used until after the Anglo-Boer War & was promoted much more by those who were once known as the Cape Dutch.
While numerous Boers were later assimilated or co-opted into this designation: the fact of the matter is that those of Cape descent tended to be more influential within this designation due largely to their larger numbers.
This appears to be the main reason as to why some Boers are reasserting the designation of Boer. Many continued to refer to themselves as Boers throughout the era of Afrikaner ascendancy in the region. This goes beyond political conservatism since there are still numerous conservative Afrikaners who refuse to ever be called Boer.
No. The Cape Dutch did not coin the term Afrikaner. What they did was use it (or at least attempted to use it) as a means of uniting the various disparate White Afrikaans speaking communities into a single cultural / political designation.
This was done in order to dominate the English speakers within the policial domain.
I do not think that they are "anthropological" grouping as much as they are simply cultural groupings. Somewhat akin -though not exactly- to the difference between the Quebecois & the Acadians. Both groups are French speaking with slightly different dialects. Both groups live in different regions (some overlap in the Gaspé) of Canada. Both groups' ancestors are mainly from France. But both groups have distinct & different histories even down to adopting different flags.
While many Canadiens (as the Quebecois or French Canadians were then called) could sympathize with their Acadian cousins when they were forcibly removed by the British in 1755 (just as many Cape Dutch might have sympathized with the various plights of the Boers, but many also did not): the Canadiens (proto Quebecois) could not accurately be described as being part of the same cultural group as the Acadians. Just as the Cape Dutch -at least most notably during the past- can not accurately be described as being part of the exact same cultural group.
- Well, your opinion is not ompletely as bad as I thought then ... :-) Elf-friend 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope this clarifies things.
Language
I know that Afrikaans, not Dutch, is only official in South Africa, but many "Afrikaners" can also speak Dutch, especially those of single Dutch ethnic origin. Standard Afrikaans itself is considered more mutually intelligible with Netherlands Dutch than are other Dutch dialects in Flanders or Suriname. I also question whether all European South Africans of non-British origins who speak Afrikaans or Dutch would consider themselves to be an "Afrikaner". This makes me believe that although in some ways they are a clearly distinct culture, Afrikaners do not follow the definition of an ethnic group. 65.92.94.115 09:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There are not likely to be many Boers or Afrikaners of "single Dutch ethnic origin" as they are generally a rather homogenous amalgamation of the various ancestral groups. Whatever the various segements might call themselves: they are indeed a distinct ethnic group in much the same way that the English became a distinct ethnic group when Angles, Saxons & Jutes amalgamated (with a slight admixture of Celtic) with one another on British soil. Similar also to how the original French ethnic group came about as a result of the amalgamation significant portions of Gaulish, Latin & Frankish groups.
- I am an Afrikaner, and I can follow Dutch only with the greatest difficulty. Our unique geographical isolation from Europe, as well as our ancestors including French Huguenot, German, Walloon, Scandinavian, Celtic, Malay and Griequa people, definetely causes us to be a distinct ethnic group. We have traditions and a religious believe system that has developed entirely independent from the European influences such as the Enlightenment. --Gemsbok1 11:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
An alternative view: I am also an Afrikaner, and like most who consider themselves members of this group/nation/whatever, can hardly claim to be of "single Dutch ethnic origin" - I don't believe I've ever met such a person, and I know many "Afrikaners". (Let's avoid further discussion on this annoying Boer/Afrikaner subject :-)) I can read modern Dutch with no difficulty (17th century Dutch requires more effort), and I correspond regularly with Dutch speakers in Afrikaans, who write to me in Dutch. Granted, this regular correspondence, and an conscious effort on my part to read Dutch, certainly contribute to ease of understanding. Certainly, the written languages are mutually understandable by "educated" (I'm skating on thin ice here) Afrikaans and Dutch speakers, subject to the usual caveats about "false friends" - words which appear similar, but with different meanings - and substantial differences in grammatical rules. I should, however, point out that, like most people who received a secondary education at an Afrikaans-medium school in the 1970's, I had to read some Dutch textbooks during my final year. These books typically had annotations and footnotes to assist the Afrikaans reader.
I also have no difficulty following Dutch radio broadcasts. However, I have difficulty following the casual conversation of, say, two Dutch speakers, and I have had at least one Dutch speaker confess that she has had the same difficulty following a conversation between Afrikaners.
Having said that, I don't see what bearing similarity in language has on separate ethnic identity. Which definition of "ethnic group" did you have in mind? Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are all pretty similar, but the existence of separate Norwegian, Swedish and Danish nations (or ethnic groups) is generally accepted. These people probably have much more in common culturally than the Afrikaners and the Dutch. Much the same can be said of, say, Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan.
Afrikaners can not be compared in the same way as those groups since Afirkaners are a much more ethnically heterogenous group made up of different European (and other) stocks. Most "Afrikaners" I have spoken with have varying ancestries although the majority have at least some degree of Dutch/Flemish ancestry (and there are also many who are of single or primary Dutch/Flemish ancestry). You are right though that similarity in language may not have much bearing on ethnic similarity. Danish and Swedish may have similar languages and cultures but they are ethnically different groups. Afrikaners again are a broad group with various cultural and ethnic elements, so of course as a whole their culture would be more different from Dutch than Danish is from Swedish. Danes and Swedes are however more homogenous ethnic groups with each having a more distinct common ancestries. 69.157.126.241 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I can't speak for what others would like to call themselves. The safest thing I can say is: "An Afrikaner is someone like me." HeervanMalpertuis 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
On being an Afrikaner...or, perhaps, NOT?
Like most Afrikaners, my ancestors of mixed Dutch-French-German extraction. They stayed behind in the East Cape at the time of the Great Trek, but fought in the "Boer War" on the "Boer" side. In WWII my grandfather was very nearly interned for his intense Afrikaner nationalism. Ultimately his Mauser rifle was impounded. So much for where I come from.
It would now mystically appear that I (or my ancestors) suddenly do not have a culture or ethnic group, because some folks now suddenly maintain that, to be a "Boer", one's ancestors had to have been on the Great Trek. At the same time, these (presumably Trekker descendants) would have me believe that my ancestors had to have been from the West Cape to be "Afrikaners" ("Cape Liberals"). This is truly very inventive. Some pictures of some extremist folks dressed in ludicrously anachronistic garb, that more than 95% of Afrikaners would simply laugh and shake their heads at, will not influence those Afrikaners to redefine themselves to suit this extremist minority, or to fit i with the revisionist view of that minority expounded on above.
By this exceedingly peculiar definition, the Americans (Amerikaners) who moved to the West of the North American continent from the East, somehow instantly became another nation (of no known name, but possibly "Farmers/Boere"(!))and were not "Amerikaners" anymore. Presumably, by that logic, the term "Amerikaner" would therefore now have to be reserved for Liberal New Englanders. Just as Americans would find that obviously ludicrous, the staggering majority of Afrikaners would find their own cultural redefinition proposed above ludicrous.
So, maybe there is indeed a peculiar little huddle of extremists somewhere in South Africa that would like to see themselves a nation all by themselves, but I cannot believe for one second that any entity that takes itself seriously, will rush to enter the newly formed minuscule nation "Boer" under "B" in an encyclopedia, and attempt to differentiate it from "Afrikaner" under "A". It makes as much ethnological sense as entering "Farmer" under "F".
If I am then so uninformed that I never knew about this whole nation in my midst, and I am NOT an Afrikaner, then our revisionist contributors owe me, and many hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners like me, an explanation of who we are and why our forefathers fought with theirs against the British.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Elf-friend : 10:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
--24.81.64.198 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Harry
Section on religion has serious shortcomings
At the time of writing this, the short section on "Religion" contains factual errors. The statement
- "Throughout its colonial history, the Dutch Reformed Church (or DRC) weighed heavily in favor of the apartheid policies promoted by the Afrikaner-dominated government."
is nonsensical and contradictory. The "colonial history" effectively ended in with the Union in 1910, the "Afrikaner-dominated government" presumably refers to the Nationalists, who were in power from 1948 to 1994. The statements about white supremacist interpretation of the Bible is also wrong - I do not believe that this was part of mainstream Dutch Reformed theology, which has a long history of mission work in Africa, and doesn't explain why the Dutch Reformed church has a substantial presence amongst black South Africans today. It flies in the face of other evidence, such as the Boer prisoners-of-war who saw the need for mission work in Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) and persuaded the western Transvaal Synod to establish a mission in that country, which I believe exists to this day.
None of this is to deny the role that the church played in supporting or condoning the policy of apartheid, but hopefully this will be done in an unbiased and factual manner. HeervanMalpertuis 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, if we delete the word "colonial" and if we replace "the Afrikaner-dominated government" with "most Afrikaners and other white South Africans" you would agree entirely? Paul Beardsell 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Afrikaner Diaspora Deletion
The following I have removed from this section:
"Socialist economic policies, reverse racism stemming from a form of government imposed ultra-affirmative action, and high crime rates are often cited as reasons for this new migration."
If these things are often cited, then kindly cite them.
Fine Spread
Surely the more important reasons were that for many years Afrikaners controlled the country. Agriculture - the boers were farmers afterall - and later politics and economics. Farmers and towns to support farmers. Then police, lawyers, courts. Administration. I think to cite the Great Trek now is far too late. And the Great Trek numbers were actually quite small! Also, that Afrikaners were spread finely because blacks (that's what is meant by non-Afrikaner labourers) (heck, there weren't any white labourers in South Africa) are spread finely seems an extraordinary argument to me, even if it is correct: Anybody would think, reading this, that Blacks were treated like a natural resource to be exploited! - Paul Beardsell 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Afrikaners were finely spread across South-Africa even before it became a Union in 1910. It was the Great Trek that resulted in the founding of most of the towns in South-Africa that were outside the Bantu, Khoi-San or Griqua and Indian areas (to refer to all these groups as merely "black" is somewhat of an over-simplification). I agree that the sentence may seem a bit harsh, but the abundance of unused land as well as a good supply of indigenous labour did not provide any incentive for the Afrikaners to stick together in one specific area. - Gemsbok1 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The main picture...
I must say I have been rather uncomfortable with the first picture (in the box) for a while now. First of all, it *is* a good pic in some respects & the girl is very cute. However, I am Afrikaans & (safe for 2 brothers-in-law) so is my whole family (who, incidentally, is rather traditional), but I have never seen anyone in an outfit like that. (I've seen pictures, never seen actual Afrikaners wearing anything like that). So... I'm wondering, isn't the pic somewhat inaccurate? Doesn't it represent Afrikaners' past, not the present or the future? Shouldn't we have a picture of a "typical" Afrikaans person, in everyday circumstances, in the year 2006 instead of a modern Afrikaner acting out a (largely mythical) past? Mikker (...) 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are plenty historical evidence and pictures available which proof that there is nothing mythical about the Afrikaners' past. I do however agree that the picture does not represent the modern clothing that Afrikaners wear from day to day. A picture of Charlize Theron was previously entered, but one of the administrators removed the picture, stating that it's usage was not Fair Use as per the Wikipedia policy and constituted a breach of copyright. I see that the trend with these Ethnic groups articles in wikipedia is generally to show photo's of historical figures or people dressed in historical attire. I edited the description of the picture to address your concern.-Gemsbok1 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- The point I was making was that all peoples, throughout time, have made up myths about their past, and we Afrikaners are no different. Sure, there is plenty of evidence for some of this past but several of the more, how shall we say?, heroic incidents & stories are largely mythical glosses on actual events. (Again, as most nationalistic tales are. Compare the Americans or the Serbs or the British, etc.) That aside, if we can find a free pic of a typical Afrikaner somewhere would anyone object to it replacing the current one? (We can move the pic of the girl down). Mikker (...) 20:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with moving the girl down to say the "Culture" section. --Gemsbok1 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Classification
Aside from the problem with weasel words (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) this section does not cite any sources or explain the historical limit of this classification which is no longer relevant. Is it perhaps a joke or a hoax?
Aside from these glaring problems, the main issue regarding "classification" (white + Afrikaans = "Afrikaner") is not even mentioned as if it is a commonly accepted classification or "ethnic group". The main problem with this assumption or classification however, is that according to the article on ethnicity a shared language and race does not constitute an "ethnic group". In modern times "Afrikaner" can at best be described as a "cultural group" that possibly also includes aspects of religion and cultural traditions in addition to language and race. The other concern is the political nature of the term that meant different things at different historical periods. --Deon Steyn 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I rewrote this section to be more accurate and balanced. --Deon Steyn 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved the rewritten section here for justification of statements before it replaces the section in the main article. See "Text under discussion" below: -Gemsbok1 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Text under discussion
___________________________________________________________________________________________
<--The term Afrikaner has different meanings according to the historical context[citation needed]. The classification of people into an Afrikaner ethnic group is also dependent on the historical period and quite problematic in a modern context.[citation needed]
Historical
As described earlier in the article the term was first used by the early Dutch colonists at the beginning of the 18th century. Clearly they could not constitute a distinct ethnic group at that time, because they were still ethnically Dutch and later French and German before they formed a homogenous group.
Over time this group formed a distinct cultural identity with shared language (Afrikaans), religion and identity, distinct from their original respective ancestors as well as later British colonial powers.
- Cape Dutch
A term used by the English (with no Afrikaans equivalent)suffering to Boer in the Cape
- Boers
An ethnic group in South Africa
Modern
Currently it is difficult to classify anyone as an Afrikaner [citation needed] – whether as ethnic or cultural group – based solely on a combination of language and race. Even if a person is of obvious European descent and they speak Afrikaans as a first language, it is almost impossible to claim a large genealogical link to the original Afrikaners of the Cape Colony or the subsequent ethnic group due to intermarriage with other European settlers[citation needed], especially the large number of British descent.
The population of white or European Afrikaans first language speakers are also far from homogenous with regard to religion, politics or cultural practices [citation needed].
Even the Afrikaans historian, Hermann Giliomee, described the classification as: (Afrikaans) "enige iemand wat lief is vir die land en wat lief is vir Afrikaans" (English: "anyone who loves the land and who loves Afrikaans"). [1] --> ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
The above text does not provide citations for five sweeping statements, which forms a unilateral declaration that Afrikaners do not exist as an identifiable Ethnic group today. The writer of the above text therefore ignores the generally accepted fact in South Africa where even current president Thabo Mbeki refers to Afrikaners in speeches to parliament, refer Pres. Mbeki speech. The writer of above text must first provide Sociological citations for his statements, which I as an Afrikaner do not agree with. The writer also do not consider the naturalisation of traditional English South Africans as Afrikaners when they intermarried and adopted Afrikaans as mother tongue together with the Afrikaner culture.
The following links are citations of external sources, other than the speech of President Mbeki, who also believe that the Afrikaner ethnic group does in fact exist:
The above citations, which are only a small and very incomplete list, proves that "Afrikaners" is a commonly accepted classification of an ethnic group.-Gemsbok1 10:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- First off, please familiarise yourself with some standard Wikipedia practices, notably:
- Discussing a good faith edit before reverting it.
- Manual of style guidelines for talk pages: Help:Talk page
- As for the last edit, it replaced completely unsubstantiated (without cited sources) claims that the current Afrikaner population is divided into two groups ("cape dutch" and "boers"). Secondly, nowhere in my edits do I claim that there is no group as "Afrikaners" whether it is ethnic or cultural. I simply clarified that it is not a simple question of being "white" and "afrikaans speaking". If you refer to your own external sources you would see they further qualify add certain religious affiliations and according to the last census there was 2,5mil white Afrikaans first language speakers, but only 1.5mil white members of the Dutch Reformed church (language unknown). It has to be made clear that this is not a typical "ethic group" such as "Serbian" that can be distinguished by langue of "african american" that can be distinguished by race, but a combination of factors including: genealogy, race, language and religion.
- I have attempted to bring balance and neutrality to this section, perhaps we can add more, but please discuss first. No one is trying to deny the existance of this group, merely trying to clarify it's complicated definition. --Deon Steyn 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah well, you did not discuss the previous edit compiled by myself and Elf-friend before changing it. You will also find plenty of discussions around the matter in the archived talk page.
- The article on ethnic groups clearly states that "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community."
- It is therefore clear that the classification of ethnic groups is much more complex than you let it on to be, according to your statement "It has to be made clear that this is not a typical "ethic group" such as "Serbian" that can be distinguished by langue of "african american" that can be distinguished by race, but a combination of factors including: genealogy, race, language and religion."
- It therefore seems that all ethnic groups are classified by the combination of factors that you refer to, which nullifies your argument that Afrikaners are not a "typical ethnical group". I therefore suggest that you study sociology before you state what a typical ethnical group looks like or not.
- With regards to your reference to the Dutch Reformed Church, I suggest that you note that a common religion is cited for ethnic group classification, not a common denomination. I am for instance not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, but I am a Christian.--Gemsbok1 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Afrikaners as an ethnical group is way too distinctive for you to label all white South Africans with Afrikaans surnames as "Afrikaners". I grew up in Bellville and our neighbours' son had Afrikaans surname just because of 1 father from 1 generation, all other generations were Flemish and also had Flemish surnames. He even looks Flemish, but spoke Afrikaans. So can you really call him "Afrikaner"? His name is Werner Greeff. Why provide scientific citations (as you ask) when this example proves to you that "Afrikaans + White = Afrikaner" simply does not work.WickedHorse 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- All white South Africans with Afrikaans surnames, who speaks Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who identifies with the Afrikaner way of life, are by default Afrikaners. Some may even have English, German, French or Flemish surnames. Afrikaners share the same genetic code as the North and Western European ethnic groups of today, these groups therefore only need to make the cultural shift to become Afrikaners or any one of the other groups. Follow the genetics, and you'll find that Afrikaners, Dutch, Germans, English, Flemish and the French share the same genetic make-up. Between all of these peoples, the dividing line is what they do during every-day life. I did not ask for broad scientific citations, I asked for sociological citations. --Gemsbok1 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Even with the most accurate sociological citations, neither myself or you would know what Okkert Brits's mother tongue is or whether he really identifies with the Afrikaner way of life. The same for all the other people you blindly categorise into "Afrikaner". And according to you, a person from the Western European ethnic groups merely has to associate with the Afrikaans culture to become an Afrikaner. What about "mother tongue" and surname? You contradict yourself. --WickedHorse 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- So now you, Gemsbok1, change your tune again and you qualify the group "Afrikaner" with "Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who identifies with the Afrikaner way of life". This basically then comes down to a choice and canyou enlighten us all as to what exactly the Afrikaner way of life is? As for not being a typical ethnic group, I stand by that claim, because the majority of ethnic groups have a much clearer definition than things like "identifying with a way of life". --Deon Steyn 05:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I still stand by the definition given, i.e. an Afrikaner is someone from European ancestry, who speaks Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who associate with the Afrikaner culture (commonly known as the Afrikaner way of life). My previous statement above about racial ancestry focused on that area only, not the entire definition. You may refer to the "Culture" section to find some detail about the Afrikaner culture. How is the English people's definition clearer than the Afrikaner one, Deon Steyn? WickedHorse, I know as a commonly known fact about celebrities, that Okkert Brits's mother tongue is Afrikaans. Please indicate the people I classified as being Afrikaners, who you can prove does not fit the definition. --Gemsbok1 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Going on current definitions of "Afrikaner", the onus is on you to prove that Okkert Brits's mother tongue is Afrikaans and that he associates with the Afrikaner Culture. Unless you cite personal interviews from media references or other similar reliable sources, you are purely speculating these people's "Afrikaner" ethnicity, and must have a third agenda as Deon Steyn has speculated. Nevertheless, in the absense of proof provided by you as explained above, I will start removing all of the people in the Category:Afrikaners from that category unless properly proven by explicit sources in each and every article about the person, starting as soon as I get time. --WickedHorse 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is – as you have admitted – that a person should associate themselves with Afrikaner "culture" so you can not simply use race and language to label someone as "Afrikaner". Your second argument comparing "Afrikaner" to English people is not a valid one either, because the one is much younger and started off as a combination of several diverse ethnic groups, apart from that it is a group closely associated to a nationality which is another important difference. --Deon Steyn 06:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have acted in good faith when I compiled the category for Afrikaners. If you delist anyone from the category without citing proof as to why they are not Afrikaners, I will argue vandalism on your part and ask for arbitration from wikipedia. You cannot force your one sided relativism view of the Afrikaner people and culture like this. You are not acting in good faith towards Wikipedia and merely using it as a mouthpiece for your current political views. The Afrikaner ethic group is in exactly the same situation as the Welsh people, Xhosa people, Zulu people etc. with regards to the anomalies that worry you, you are therefore welcome to place your arguments in the Ethnic groups article where these global issues can be discussed. -Gemsbok1 07:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please note etiquette and guidelines for Talk pages, by occasionally indenting response (see Help:Talk page). So you are saying that you are allowed to make unsubstantiated claims and if anyone changes that, they are vandals? In that case, please also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism. As for the Afrikaner ethnic group being in "exactly the same situation as the Welsh people, Xhosa people, Zulu people", this is a false notion, because they are very different in terms of the different defining characteristics:
- histories ("Afrikaner" is shorter)
- politics (Afrikaner; first use was political, subsequent connotations)
- even genetics ("Afrikaner" mixture of several European groups... mostly)
- language (3.5 mil coloured Afrikaans first language speakers, only 2.5 mil "white").
- So please stop pretending that this is a straight forward simple ethnic group like any other. I'm not saying there is no such group, all we are trying to say is that:
- it is a complex definition
- in some cases, it should be seen in a certain context.
- This is how Wikipedia is supposed to represent a NPOV by showing all sides and facets.--Deon Steyn 08:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Deon Steyn summed it up pretty well. Gemsbok1, would I be correct in saying that you want to assign people on Wikipedia to a certain category without proof that, according to the definition on the Afrikaner article, they fit that definition, and then when someone wants to remove it from the category, they are the ones that must submit proof that these people do NOT belong to the category? It does not work like that. Please refer to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We can discuss it further on the Category_talk:Afrikaners page, but I will proceed with the removals unless properly cited. You seem to think that I may have other reasons for doing this (political, personal views, etc) but I assure you that I merely want these actions to adhere to proper Wikipedia standard procedures, nothing more, nothing less. Can you give me the same assurance? --WickedHorse 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- May I just add that you don't get non-white 'Afrikaners'/'Boers' etc. because thats just nature/common sense. Its similar with other ethnic groups, A non-hispanic white cannot have a black mother? If an Afrikaners and a non-white engadged in a relationship their offspring would be non-white, therefore not Afrikaans. I don't see why it's so hard for some people to just accept that this is just how our country and our culture works??--Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see where this discussion is taking off to? An afrikaners is a white, afrikaans speaker (or former afrikaans speaker), who has 100% heritage and genes from Europe, and has love and compasion for Southern Africa, most notably South Africa. Note that when I say 'European', not 'Dutch' is because French, German and Dutch have all mixed together to form this delightful ethnic group. Which is why an Afrikaner can have a Dutch, German or French name. English is also common because Afrikans-English inter-marriage rates are common (an example is my father). Someone can also have an English surname too because of this. But, in general: an Afrikaner is am Afrikaans speaking white South African of 100% European origin. --Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
White nationalism - Do Afrikaners exist?
The statements made in the "White Nationalism" section were deleted as no cited references were given. Furthermore the "White Nationalism" section implied that the term "Afrikaners" were only recently being classified as an ethnic group in order for them to be able to claim ethnic separation. This is nonsense, as the Afrikaners were recognised as an ethnic group by independent parties long before Apartheid came to an end. I cite the following independent sources as proof of the existence of the Afrikaner ethic group:
- Strategyleader on Afrikaners
- Countrystudies on Afrikaners
- Southafricanhistoryonline on Afrikaners
- Pres. Mbeki speech
- Institute for Security Studies on 'VOLK' FAITH AND FATHERLAND
Agreed on your comments here. But Deon Steyn has made an interesting point that seem to (theoretically) describe exactly what you are trying to achieve (I am speculating here). I would not be surprised that the part is reverted again tomorrow and he comes back with full references (addressing your first problem) and rewording the part (adressing your second problem). We shall see. --WickedHorse 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments, User:Gemsbok1 and please refrain from once again deleting or reverting sections conflicting with your view. Nowhere did that section state that there is no such ethnic group as Afrikaner. It merely shows the – sometimes political – motives, context and history of some of the very strict pseudo-scientific definitions of this "ethnic group". It is common knowledge – explained in the very references you cite – that the term "Afrikaner" has been used and changed at different times to suite different purposes. In Chapter 2 of of your last reference (Institute for Security Studies on 'VOLK' FAITH AND FATHERLAND), [5] it clearly states how the "National Party" sought to unite politically diverse group by a "three-pronged strategy to promote and establish Afrikaner nationalism and to promote a separate Afrikaner identity by creating consciousness among Afrikaners based on their language, religion and traditions" in the first half of the 20th century.
- A neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia and we must guard against bias – or worse yet – subtle political undertones. I say this now, because I notice a worrying trend whereby certain editors are trying to steer a group of articles in a particular political direction. I fear that not all editors are aware of the related pages and do not see the full context when only looking at one or another. The pages in question are (apart from this one for Afrikaner):
- Volkstaat, currently not balanced and closely related to this page
- Category:Afrikaners, seeks to appropriate people for the group
- List of notable Afrikaners
- Crime in South Africa
- South African Farmer Murders, currently under review
- There seems to be an effort to allign these pages in subtle ways to suite a particular point of view and other editors should please take note and beware. --Deon Steyn 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, it seems that you want to change all articles not showcasing your view. Secondly, I never said that there were no political connotations to the Afrikaner term, I emphasized that I did not agree with your political view of the term. Your effort at extreme cultural reletavism is obvious in your statements, so do not even try to pretend as if you are presenting a neutral point of view. I have been editing the Afrikaner and Volkstaat articles to get rid of a extremely biased and sometimes racist right wing view, but some of those views are applicble therefore none with references were deleted. I did not contribute in any major way to the List of notable Afrikaners, or the Crime in South Africa article. I did start the Category:Afrikaners and used the already populated List of notable Afrikaners as a guide to add the individual articles to the category. If a trend develops in certain articles and these trends are referenced to valid sources, you should consider that they may contain the truth. -Gemsbok1 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, I would think that all editors want should correct all articles that are biased, not neutral or not balanced. I don't have any political affiliation and I don't have any political view of the term, I merely pointed out that the term has certain political connotations and in some circles it is used as a political tool. This trend found in most "Afrikaner" related articles most definitely does not constitute either a truth, a representative view or a historical fact. So please, let us all get the full background and balanced views from all sides. --Deon Steyn 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Post Apartheid
The South African referendum, 1992 was held on 17 March 1992. In it, South Africans were asked to vote in the last tricameral election held under the apartheid system, in which the Coloured and Indian population groups could also vote, to determine whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by then State President F.W. de Klerk two years earlier.
This should be re-written. It sounds like the Coloureds and Indians would have voted in the referendum. That is wrong, only white citizens where allowed to vote in national referendum. Dr.Poison 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually this could be wrong, since 1984 Indians and Coloureds were given the right to vote. However, weather they were accepted into this exact referedum is another question.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
- -->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Problematic
I think that, for the sake of objectivity, it should be stated in the article's introduction that 'Afrikaner' is a highly problematic term for which several conflicting definitions currently exist.
- Don't know who posted the above, but yes, in principle I would agree with that. --WickedHorse 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Typical Afrikaner
I've included a section on what a lot of people think of as a typical Afrikaner, as being overweight and uncivilised because it's necessary to remove this prejudice, considering Apartheid is 13 years behind them. I followed the style used in the hillbilly page on wikipedia and if someone wishes to remove it please do tell me why.
82.2.88.225 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to be rather filled with overgeneralizations and it's not very NPOV.. ~
"(The Afrikaner just want to be left alone. They dont care much for different cultures. However this has changed dramatically over the last few years as more and more young Afrikaners had to go overseas, because they were to white to apply for jobs in South Africa"
That looks very POV to me, so do the others..... 217.39.175.141 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Boer
I know that strictly speaking the term Boer is applied to farmer or 'peasant' but all the 'Afrikaners' I've met, and that's probably about 7 or 8, have referred to themselves as Boers, perhaps we should have a seperate article for Afrikaners and Boers, but include most of this one in the Boer one because Boers are whites whereas 'Afrikaners' include elements of the coloured community who consider themselves Afrikaner.
If someone could tell me why certain 'Afrikaners' find the term Boer offensive please do tell me, it only means peasant in the sense that it means common people.
P.S. I've used Leonard Van Os.' Self- Taught Afrikaans to get these definitions I'm sure wikipedia has some fluent Afrikaans speakers to please correct me.
86.27.49.214 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Boer is a very ambiguous term (the article covers that rather well). Afrikaners often jokingly refer to themselves and each other as "boere" (plural of boer), and most will accept the term if it is used by another ethnic group. The term is never used formally where "Afrikaner" is meant. However: The term can easily be taken or mistaken as an insult, often leading to flared tempers. Compare with "nigger" (sorry if that offends anyone. if it does, I give them permission to call me a boer.) An example is a piece of graffiti next to a road in Johannesburg: "kill the boer." It Should also not be confused with the real meaning of the word (farmer). From your happy Afrikaans friend, Goldfritter 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best usage is to restrict 'Boer' to historical contexts, eg Boer Republics, and to use Afrikaner in present-day contexts. Perhaps a better analogy would be to place 'boer' to the same category as 'negro' — a once-neutral term the use of which today is deprecated and may signal a certain mind-set in the user. I don't dispute that in South Africa, in slogans as 'kill the boer', the term is being used like 'nigger', but on the whole I think the analogy to 'negro' might be more accurate. Rexparry sydney 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The term Boer is not as ambiguous as is suggested above as it refers to a specific cultural group which was -as the Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit notes[1]- formed on the frontiers of White settlement & on the outskirts of civilization. The problem is that this term was somewhat conditioned out of the consciousness of many Boers in favour of the term Afrikaner (which was initially propagated by the White Afrikaans speakers of the Western Cape) as part of the attempts of the Cape based Afrikaners to co-opt the Boers after the second Anglo-Boer War.
The Boers & those who initially propagated the term Afrikaner were historically two distinct peoples / groups until after the second Anglo-Boer War when many Boers were too destitute & politically weak against the ascending political power & greater numbers of the Cape based Afrikaners -where many began also to move into the former Boer Republic regions further blurring divisions. The Boers were smaller in numbers which was the main reason they were marginalized (& thus the term "Boer" as well) by the Cape based Afrikaners who were then able to more easily promote the term Afrikaner as being applicable to all White Afrikaans speakers.
The Boers were conditioned to stop viewing themselves as Boers as part of the effects of the Western Cape based Afrikaner Nationalism which sought to politically unify the White Afrikaans speakers mainly in order for the Cape Afrikaners to "legitimize" their hegemony in the new British created unitary State & to united against British power.
Note.
1 Brian M. Du Toit. The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity. Page 1.
There is often an erroneous presumption that the term Afrikaner & Boer are interchangeable but that is due directly to the facts as mentioned above since it only became that way over time after many Boers were conditioned since very young to view themselves as Afrikaners -due to the re-writting of Boer history in which Afikaner Nationalists replaced the term Boer with Afrikaner- when the Afrikaners (as a political label) were basically initially the Western Cape Afrikaans speakers who do not share the same history or struggles as the Boers & also often worked with the British (the Cape was long under British colonial rule) due to their closer association with the British colonial power.
Say, I'm a Boer and an Afrikaner and I use the terms interchangeably and I don't take offense at either. Invmog (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I cannot agree more, and Afrikaner is actually a rather derogratory word in my family, because we've never used it. There is even an infobox on Afrikaans wikipedia which translates : This user is a boer (I for one use it).Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Afrikaner Nation
Perhaps we should have an article emphasising that there is an Afrikaner nation, more so than one of English- speaking South African whites who still have ties with Britain. The fact is that they are a large group of people (at least 2,700,000) and have been seperate from Europe for at least 200 years. They have a different culture, a different language. I've heard ignorant people say if they're forced out of Africa one way or another that they'll be coming 'home'? It's not like they've been on holiday, they've had probably 8 or 9 generations at least who've been born there (more for some of the original Dutch settlers' descendants) born and raised in Africa.
They have a nation because:
- They have a history together, they're bound as an ethnic group by hardship, wars and a common culture
- Their own language
- A clearly defined homeland, which they recognise as where they come from
- No ties outside of Africa for most of them, other than commercially
- A culture seperate from that of their ancestors in Holland, Germany, Belgium or France
So if someone with more knowledge of their culture than myself could start an Afrikaner Nation page it would be productive in my opinion.
BOV1993 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Any such discussion or information would relate directly to this page and would not require a separate article. As for what constitutes an "Afrikaner", well that has also been thrashed out extensively on this article's talk page (see the archives) and is also covered extensively in the article. The fact is, there is great debate on what constitutes an Afrikaner ethnic group (if one could define such a group). In any event, adding the nation suffix would do nothing, but evoke 'white supremacist' language and notions. --Deon Steyn 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
White supremacist notions, I have the feeling I've dealt with you on the Battle of Ventersdorp page, I'm sorry but you have no grounding to say it. You're arguing on an informative encyclopedia that we shouldn't have an article on what, for an entire country, is a very serious issue, because someone may, possibly say something out of line?
As for what an Afrikaner is, it's plain and simple, an Afrikaans- speaking descendant of Europeans who journeyed to Africa, notably Dutchmen, Franks, Germans and Frisians, who identifies themselves as an Afrikaner. This has already been said on the article.
82.14.64.128 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Factual Changes to Blood River Section
I changed the estimated number of Zulu slain during the 1838 battle from "10,000" to "3,000," to reflect the number commonly quoted by various sources, e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Du Toit (2005:20)[6], etc.
Of more concern, I am puzzled by the extended discussion of the conflicts with the Zulu in an article dealing with Afrikaner ethnicity. All that needs to be done here is to point out the function of the 1838 event in the origin myths of Afrikaner ethnicity.
I recommend moving both this section and its verbatim repetition in the Great Trek article to the Battle of Blood River article. →Sorry, forgot to sign earlier: DocDee 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Should more images be included?
As a member of that malleable, elusive and historical construct "Afrikaner" (:/) I find myself uncomfortable with the images at the top right of the article that purport to represent "Afrikaners."
- In the first place, the gallery excludes more recent exemplars.
- In addition, the four figures represent historical conflict with various sectors of the broader South African population (the Zulu, people from British descent).
- Third, all persons represented opposed, to varying degrees, the legal equality of those in the population who were not directly descended from European ancestry.
My point is that we should not hide the broad spectrum of political stances and historical actions of those who claim to be Afrikaners. It is important for historical accuracy to show Afrikaners who did not conform to the racial prejudice which, for many Afrikaners and for so long of our history, was central to Afrikaner identity.
Should the images not also include people like C F Beyers-Naudé, or André Brink, or Breyten Breytenbach, or Carl Niehaus, or Max du Preez, who chose to side against the racial prejudice of their fellow Afrikaners? DocDee 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely Racist
Spelling
Does anyone know the origins and distinction of the most-used spelling Afrikaner and the alternative, lesser-used spelling Afrikaaner, which occurs in some dictionaries and older texts? Should the alternative spelling be given in the article or is it deprecated? Rexparry sydney 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would include it as a parenthetical at the beginning of the article. And from what I see in the OED, it looks like it was the original spelling (from usage and from etymology). Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Response: Setting the Record Straight.
No Afrikaans is not close to standard Dutch as it did not develop from Dutch but from a Franconian dialect which was infused with & significantly influenced by Malay -adopting its grammar syntax & numerous loanwords- & influenced by French (adopting its nasalization of vowels & the double negative) / German / Portuguese & certain Khoi words. Furthermore: most Afrikaans speakers have great difficulty in understanding Dutch & vise versa. Even a Dutch documentary on South Africa was in Dutch subtitles[1] when the Afrikaans speakers were featured.
- Is Afrikaans not a creole of Dutch?
In the late nineteenth century, when most research on Afrikaans was based not on empirical, historical and etimological studies, but rather on the personal opinions of famous scholars, Afrikaans was regarded as a creole of Dutch. During the early twentieth century, however, several Dutch, German, English and South African scholars spend years studying early manuscripts, Netherland dialects, and modern linguistic theory, and were able to prove that Afrikaans is indeed not a creole, but a full language in its own right.
Some of the most favourable and valuable academic materials were published in Dutch and Afrikaans, but one or two books with less favourable opinions were written in English. Since English is far more widely understood than Dutch, many English speaking people read only the English books proclaiming Afrikaans to be a creole, thereby resulting in the worldwide mistaken belief that Afrikaans is indeed a creole.
Is Afrikaans not merely a simplified version of Dutch?
If you believe this, you might as well believe that French is a simplified version of Latin. While it is true that to the casual observer Afrikaans might look and sound like a watered down version of Dutch, Afrikaans actually boasts many linguistic features not found in Dutch at all. In fact, you might say that modern Dutch and modern Afrikaans are both dialects of late medieval Dutch.- Afrikaans, the modern version is more than merely a Dutch derivative as some would suggest.
Inextricably linked for the last century with the development and application of apartheid within South Africa, the immense reach and value of this language has often been overlooked within the wider political climate.
While the Dutch, who arrived in South Africa in 1652 and established a colony in Cape Town, are largely credited with the birth of the language, the version spoken today is an accumulation of many other influences. The Dutch dialect established after 1652 incorporated terms and phrases handed down from sailors who had been shipwrecked off the Cape coast after it became clear that the horn of Africa presented another viable trade route. These phrases, of both english and portuguese origin, soon found their way into the dutch dialect.
In addition, the language took on a more oriental flavour with the arrival of a slaves in the Cape, primarily of Malay extraction, but also from other eastern regions and nearby African islands including Madagascar.
This spiced the language considerably, and when the accents, dialects and phrases of the original inhabitants of the land were added to the mix, it became evident that Afrikaans was a completely different animal to its Dutch parent.
The Hottentots, original Koi inhabitants as well as the Xhosa and the Zulu people all contributed in their fashion to the language as it spoken today.
From this, three main dialects emerged, Cape Afrikaans, Orange River Afrikaans and Eastern Border Afrikaans. The Cape dialect is mostly enfused with the language spoken by the Malay slaves who worked in the Cape and spoke a form of broken Portuguese, the Orange River dialect developed with the influence of Koi languages and dialects developed in the Namakwaland and Griqualand West regions and the Eastern Border Afrikaans evolved from the settlers who moved East towards Natal
from the Cape.From:
- This unique language "just grew" from the soil of South Africa. In the human melting pot of the Cape it was inevitable that, from the original Dutch spoken by the first settlers, a colloquial form would be evolved by people such as the Khoikhoi and slaves from Malaya, Indonesia, Madagascar and West Africa.
These diverse peoples all needed to communicate and a modified version of Dutch, with many words from the other languages, was used as a language common to all. It developed further as Huguenot settlers added words and altered the sound of other words.
The struggle to gain recognition for Afrikaans as a written language was directed and carried out from Paarl. The Language Route centres on Dal Josaphat where a number of farms and buildings are to be found in which many of the events relating to the struggle for recognition of the language and the First Afrikaans Language Movement took place.- Erroneously some have claimed the Afrikaans language to be the language of the 'Baas'. Afrikaans is the result of bringing together the East and the West, the North and the South. It was and should be the language that celebrates our cultural diversity rather than the language of exclusion. On the other hand those who attack Afrikaans is attacking not the language of the white man, but also the legacy that our slave stamouer have left behind in the development of this language.
The Taal movement—Afrikaans.
- the main leaders in this movement were the Du Toit brothers in Paarl. Afrikaans (at the time almost always referred to as ‘die Taal’—the Language) was a spoken, not a written language. It was a simplified version of Dutch which probably had originated among the slaves and/or Khoikhoi servants. Because young children were raised mostly by nannies, this was the language most whites learned first . Over many generations, the Taal was usually the first language of young children. Dutch remained the official language of government and the Dutch Reformed Church and thus it had to be learned later. Dutch was the written language.- Towards the end of the nineteenth century, however, a political party known as the Afrikaner Bond had been started in the Western Cape. Its publication Die Afrikaner Patriot made a small and shaky beginning, read mainly by the less well-to-do rural readers whose home language was not Dutch but Afrikaans, sneeringly referred to as the patterjots by Dutch speakers.
Afrikaans was not a systematic language. Dialects differed widely — at the beginning of the century, for example, six dialects existed in the Cape province alone. Furthermore, Afrikaans had an unfavourable image for wealthy Boers. It was associated with both colour and class; the middle class regarded it as a kombuistaal — a ‘kitchen language’ to be used when addressing servants or farm labourers. Generally, the poorer the community, the more its Afrikaans differed from the ‘purer’ version spoken in the Western Cape. For example, the language spoken by the poorer peasants in Namaqualand caused concern:
In (this area) one finds the weakest Afrikaans. Ignored by Church and State, these people have been in constant contact with Griquas and Hottentots, who speak a low semi-barbaric form of Afrikaans. We must make a distinction between civilised Afrikaans and the language of the street, playground and servants.
Afrikaner intellectuals worked very hard to ‘clean up’ Afrikaans —they appropriated the language developed by the ‘coloured’ lower classes and claimed it as their own, ‘white’ language. They removed black and Malay as well as English influences; for example, many southern Nguni words, which had entered the dialect in the Eastern Cape, were replaced by Dutch words in the new dictionaries devised by teachers and academics, to reinforce the idea that Afrikaans was respectable and ‘white’.
On the Rand, where the dominant language of an industrial society was English, working-class Afrikaans was riddled with English-based words. For example, the Afrikaans Garment Workers Union magazine Klerewerker (which promoted the use of Afrikaans) adapted many words derived from English — they used words like ‘werkendeklas’, instead of ‘arbeidersklas’. They also included creative new uses of
words, like brandsiek, which was used to describe a ‘scab’, a person who broke a strike by working. But these were lost as they arose out of working-class experiences, and were excluded from official recognition by the middle-class compilers of Afrikaans dictionaries, and magazine and book editors.- Afrikaans as a lingua franca in South Africa: the politics of change.
Afrikaans has been a lingua franca throughout its existence. Its early development took place mainly in and around Cape Town, in a situation of intensive language contact between indigenous Khoekhoe, Dutch settlers, and slaves. Since most people learned it informally, often from other non-native speakers, and since the Cape was relatively isolated from conservative linguistic influences, the language changed a great deal. Until the late nineteenth century, there was no concerted attempt to regulate it. It does have less prominence in public life, but is still being used as a lingua franca.
Print ISSN: 0165-2516
Volume: 2006, 01/2006
The White Afrikaans peoples do in fact recognize that they are ethnically distinct from other Africans (though most White / Black & Coloured Africans in fact share Khoisan genes[2] furthermore they are all indigenous but none are aboriginal as the aboriginal Khoisan peoples were displaced & hunted down by invading Bantus) but the fact of the matter is that this does not negate the fact that they are an African people as they developed as a people & as a culture on African soil. There was no Afrikaans culture in Europe before it was developed on African soil.
The European origins is in fact distant & this is on the historical record. Most White Afrikaans people have ancestors that go back for 355 years (& beyond to thousands of years when factoring in the Khoisan element) with generations of forebears having been born lived & died in Africa & never having gone to Europe. The alleged "significant migration of the later centuries" was mostly that of the British who formed their own distinct English speaking community with very little actually being absorbed into the White Afrikaans peoples. The VOC had stopped legal immigration in 1707. There was a trickle afterwards but it was relatively small scale to which the arrivals were absorbed into the established White Afrikaans communities. There were a number of Dutch immigrants brought out during the 19th century to the Transvaal Republic as President Kruger did not like the Cape Afrikaners as he viewed then as being to pro British.[3] But the majority of the Boer & Afrikaners peoples were & are descended from the original arrivals of the 17th cent.
- Afrikaner
The Afrikaners are the descendants of the Dutch and French Huguenots who settled in southern Africa from the 1600’s. They are also commonly known as the Boers[4], which means “farmers” in Afrikaans.
Later British settlers prompted them to move further inland, where, isolated from their European influences, they Africanized and developed their own culture and language. The Afrikaners have also been called the white tribe of Africa. Their language is Dutch of origin and structure, similar to the Flemish. It is also influenced by African, Portuguese, German, French and Malay languages. In 1925, Afrikaans was
declared the official language of South Africa besides English. The Afrikaners, or Boers, have a rich mix of cultures in their blood: one estimate has 40% Dutch, 40% German, 7.5% British (mainly Scots), 7.5% French and 5% others. The word Afrikaner was first used in 1707.Also.
Afrikaner.
From: A Dictionary of World History | Date: 2000.
Afrikaner (or Boer) A member of the White Afrikaans-speaking population of South Africa. It is used particularly to refer to the descendants of the families which emigrated from the Netherlands, Germany, and France before 1806.Wrong. Black Africans are relative new comers to Southern Africa as they came & displaced the aboriginal yellow-brown skinned Khoisan people who inhabited the Southern half of Africa for thousands of years. The White people displaced the Khoisan peoples in the Western Cape (absorbing many & also producing various mixed race groups such as the Griquas) as the Black people did not inhabited the Western Cape when the White people first arrived & did not migrate to the Western Cape in any significant numbers until well after the British ruled the Cape.
Now you contradict yourself as you admit that the White Afrikaans peoples have been in Africa for close to 400 years yet deny that they are White Africans. Then you lie asserting that "very few" can trace their ancestry to the original settlers when in fact most White Afrikaans people do go back this far as noted in all the historical documents on them & all one has to do is to look at their surnames to see quick proof of this. Most of the White Afrikaans people's surnames go right back to the 17th cent.
Quote: < . The cultures and peoples which constitute Afrikaners are almost entirely European >
Wrong. The White Afrikaans people did not exist in Europe & only came about on African soil as a result of amalgamating with the various cultural groups brought there by the VOC. The White Afrikaans culture is an African culture just as the White Americans are an American culture. Historians have noted that they broke their ties to Europe early on & the first trekking Boers in particular who moved away from colonial society beginning in the late 17th cent lived as nomadic migrating farmers co-opting & adopting much of the Khoisan way of life[5] in order to survive as a class of impoverished pastotalists. The Boers lived in total isolation to Europe & Europe only began to take notice of them around the time of the Great Trek & particularly during the second Anglo-Boer War.
Quote: < culture, language, ancestry, religion, all trace to the primary origins of Afrikaners: the Netherlands >
Absolutely Wrong! The Dutch component to their ancestry is only about 35 % of their origins & much of that was in fact Frisian.[6] The French Huguenot refugees who were sent to the Cape comprise of about 25 % of their origins [7] & about 35 - 40 % of their origins is of German origin. There were even more Germans than Dutch among those who were initially sent to the Cape. I do not believe it! -you actually contradict yourself again by saying that their "primary origins" are Dutch then later admit in the same paragraph that they are only about 35 % of Dutch (which is mostly Frisian) origin. Now you can not have it both ways.
Quote: < Dutch culture and language again also had the largest impact. >
An absolute lie! None other than the Dutch tyrant Jan van Riebeeck -who forcibly removed the ancestors of the Boers & Afrikaners & dumped them at the Cape- even noted in his own personal diary his DISTAIN for the immigrants he sent to the Cape noting that they did not speak Dutch as they spoke a Franconian dialect.[8] Dutch culture HAD NO significant impact on the emerging White Afrikaans peoples since they were not even significantly composed of Dutch origins & neither did they ever speak the Dutch language!!!
Quote: < In addition, the comments of some of these authors is ridiculous. >
Now you are making an erroneous JUGEMENT call as the EXCERPTS I posted of certain knowledgable authors (they examined the entire continent in question: what the hell have you ever examined on Africa?) is clear academic peer reviewed proof of the fact that the Boer people -in particular- broke all their ties to Europe when they began to forge a homegrown African identity / language & culture.
Quote: < If the Afrikaners had "broken all ties with Europe", how come they retained their European and Dutch culture and language and their religion, including before the British even arrived in South Africa ? >
Now this is getting into complicated territory as it illustrates the cultural differences between the neo colonial Cape based Afrikaners & the anti colonial & rustic Boers. The point is that the Afrikaans peoples broke their connection to Europe & have even been called an "orphaned" people by the Afrikaans authour Brian Du Toit.[9] Demostrating that the Afrikaans peoples Africanized & developed their own culture due to having been cut off from Europe. Now the Cape Afrikaners often historically insisted that they spoke Dutch (until they finally admited that they speak a different language in 1875 when they formally recoginzed Afrikaans) while the Boers knew their language was not Dutch since they could not understasnd it & would often call their language die Taal. The Cape Afrikaners often viewed their culture as being related to Europe while the frontier Boers (having broken all ties to Europe) developed a new African culture & were even ex-communicated from the Church -due to the Great Trek- whereupon some of them started their own church. Allthough the Afrikaans historian André Du Toit (a common Afrikaans name of French origin) noted in his academic findings that the Boers were not known as ardent Christians or for their religiosity before the Anglo-Boer War & that they were then believing in legends of spirits / primitive medicine & were superstitious[10] having adopted homegrown customs. So this matter of them having adopted "European" customs is not as black & white as you might think.
Quote: < Not to mention that most are still predominantly of European, specifically Dutch and German, origins. >
No you still do not get it. The White Afrikaans people have been in Africa for so long that they are in fact of African origins (as Africa is where their culture / language & ethnic group developed) just as the White people in Europe are no longer still called Asians just because most White Europeans came from Asia thousands of years ago. The White people in Europe are of Asian origins but no one calls them Asians as they have developed their own cultures in Europe. Just as the Boers & Afrikaners have developed their own cultures in Africa.
Quote: < How about this Afirkaner flag which bears the colours of the United Netherlands and used by some Cape Rebels during the second Anglo-Boer War ? >
More erroneous presumptions again. This flag has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Netherlands as it was a representation of a combination of the two Boer Republics flags you ignoramus! Furthermore: it is not an Afrikaner flag but rather a Boer flag & it was called the Struggle Flag. The fact that it has similar colours to the old Netherlands flag IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE as there are numerous flags around the world which resemble one another. For example: the flag of Chad resembles the flag of Romania: but are the people of Chad then Romanians? Furthermore: the Cape Rebels were those Boers of the eastern Cape -where the Great Trek was from- who fought on the side of the Boer Republics against Britain. The term rebel meant they they were rebels to Britain as the Cape was ruled by Britain.
Quote: < The Afrikaners are ethnically culturally and linguistically distinct from the actual, indigenous African peoples. >
Well this was the most telling line of all. The "actual indigenous African peoples". So basically in your erroneous POV world the White Afrikaans people are not indigenous people simply because you say so despite what the actual historical records shows. The White Afrikaans peoples & particularly the Boer people ARE IN FACT an indigenous people as their culture / language & ethnic group WAS ENTIRELY DEVELOPED ON African soil.[11] I think I will take the academic findings of the historical record over an uninformed Canadian college student.
I would suggest that you actually learn about this people & the region first before making the erroneous statements that you have as this encyclopedia should be accurate & not reflect an uniformed point of view. I have been studying the various peoples -the Boer people in particular- of Southern Africa for 15 years now.
No one calls White Canadians "Europeans" (even though they are much more directly tied to Europe -Britain in particular- than the Afrikaans peoples could ever be accused of) & no one calls White Australians "Europeans": so why the double standard when it comes to the White Africans of which the Boers developed into a home grown culture in ways that even the White Americans did not.
Notes.
1. The 1991 Dutch documentary on the Afrikaans separatist movements in South Africa called Hartseer Land was dubbed in Dutch subtitles proving & demonstrating that Afrikaans & Dutch are not mutually intelligible.
2. Andre van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.
3. Clare Wyllie interviews Professor Gerrit Schutte
4. The Boers are a distinct entity from the Cape based Afrikaners. < There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the socalled 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." > From: Adriana Stuijt. At a post at Stop Boer Genocide.
5. André van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.
6. Adriana Stuijt. Former anti-Apartheid Dutch born South African journalist. "I recently received an enquiry regarding the history of the Afrikaner origin as far back as their Fresian ancestors -- after I had commented that my research had shown that many Afrikaners actually descended from the Fresians who live scattered along the northern-European seaboard in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands - but that this ethnic identity was also actually 'hidden' beneath the Dutch identity of the VOC-masters, who spoke Dutch." From: Attention Oosthuysen / Oosthuizen Family History.
7. The Contribution of the French Huguenots. < The legacy of the Huguenots was however far reaching. Today thousands of their proud descendants carry with dignity surnames of which the spelling is unchanged from the original, such as De Villiers, Malan, Du Toit, Du Plessis, Du Preez and Malherbe; the spelling of others were localised, such as Viljoen, Cronjé, Pienaar, Retief and Senekal. Certain first names which the Huguenots brought with them are poplular amongst their descendants, especially male christian names such as Francois, Pierre, Etienne, Jacques and Louis. Research has shown that the contribution of the Huguenot genes to the Afrikaner people amounts to some 24%. Their descendants are proud of ancestors who sacrificed a great deal - even their country of birth - and were willing to suffer personally for their religious convictions. > From: The Huguenot Society of South Africa.
8. AM de Lange. San and technology.
9. Brian M Du Toit. The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity.
10. Irving Hexham. Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910.
11. The homegrown / Africanized & indigenous nature of the White Afrikaans peoples is even noted in a document from the Eastern Cape Tourism Board.
Review the documented historical record first before making uninformed & erroneous presumptions.
Ok, clearly the French Huguenot and German settlers also provided large numbers into the population of many Afrikaners (again this is not evenly distributed and many may be mainly or wholly Dutch in origin, others may be Frisian, Walloon, German or French Huguenot), but the fact remains that their culture, language and origins is predominantly European. They are not indigenous to Africa like the Bantu, Xhosa or Khoisan peoples are and the stream of European elements into the Afrikaners did not come merely in the 16th or 17th centuries, but was also swelled by further migrants during the 18th and 19th centuries. Your own source mentions the closeness between elements of Afrikaans culture or language and that of the Dutch. You claim it directly descended from Low Franconian but none of your sources support this, otherwise the first European settlers would have come during the middle ages since by the time the Dutch came in large numbers to Southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries, "Low Franconian" (Frankish) was extinct and was merely a classification of the language Dutch and its dialects had evolved from. I can understand why Afrikaans is classified under Low Franconian now with it being a separate language, not just a Dutch dialect (though this is disputed and most still classify it as evolving directly from Dutch), but it nevertheless evolved from the Dutch language brought to South Africa and is very closely related to Dutch. The number of Afrikaner Wikipedians on the Dutch encyclopedia is just one obvious example of the Mutual intelligibility of the two languages. "Afrikaans" culture may not have existed in Europe, but the components which make Afrikaans culture (Dutch, German and Frisian) did and do. Afrikaner culture is predominantly of European origin as is the case for White Africans in general. Afrikaners are also distinct from other European in Africa such as the Anglo African by the fact that they are not of British descent, hence the importance of the Dutch-Frisian-German aspects in Afrikaner culture. If Afrikaner culture was indigenous to Africa, then the people would be similar in origins and culture to the Xhosa, the Khoisan, the Zulu, etc. which to anyone is obviously not the case whatsoever. Afrikaner culture is predominantly from European culture. It is very distinct form the cultures of the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. Remember, this article is about the Afrikaners, not simply people who speak Afrikaans (which includes other ethnic groups such as the Coloureds, Griqua, etc.) Epf (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for your comparison with "White" and European Americans, Australians, etc. in other countries outside of Europe, in fact the people ethnically identify with specific European groupings: White African, European American, White American, Anglo African, Anglo-Celtic Australian, British American, English Canadian, Irish American, French American, French Canadian, German American, English Australian, [Irish Australian]], Dutch Australian, German Brazilian, etc. or simply are just classified or identified (by themselves or others) with the specific European groups themselves Briton, Irish, Dutch (ethnic group), etc. Ethnicity often transcends or is only party associated with political or national affinities. Some Afrikaners may be collectively German-Dutch-French and some may be distinctly or mainly Dutch-African, German-African or French-African. Not all peoples and groups coalesced like many of the Afrikaners did. One obvious example is the linguistic and ethnic distinction between Anglo-Africans who are of British descent or speak English and Afrikaners. Epf (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the White Afrikaans peoples are in fact a rather homogenous composition of Dutch / Frisian / German / French & Danish (the Voortrekker leader Louis Trichardt ancestor was a Danish servant of the VOC) origin. While some might be of more one group in ethic origin than another: the fact of the matter is that most White Afrikaans peoples are in fact descended from Dutch / Frisian / German / French & Danish origins.
No their language culture & origins is not European. What you are doing is conflating. The fact that most of their ancestors LONG AGO were taken out of Europe then dumped at the Cape does not equate that their culture is of European origin as the European role simply played a part in the creation of the Afrikaans culture but it is not the entire origin. The Asian & African role on the development of the Afrikaans language / culture & ethnic group negates the assertion that the Afrikaans language / culture & origin is "European".
- "Conflating" ? Do you even know what that term means ? You claim this despite the fact that their culture is almost wholly derived from European culture or Europeans in South Africa. I agree with Epf in that their language, history, ancestry, religion and cultural traditions are European-based, specifically that of Dutch, Frisian and German cultures. All of your information entered here supports this and none denies it. They do not have mainly indigenous African cultural origins like the Xhosa, the Khoi, the Zulu and other peoples. Your arguments are, quite frankly, ridiculous and have a bias in favour of distancing the European roots and basis for Afrikaner people (which is obviously the core factor in their distinct Afrikaner identity) which would be clear to anyone reading this. 70.27.164.95 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Boers & even many Afrikaners ARE IN FACT indigenous to Africa as Africa is where their language / culture & ethnic group was created. IE: The origins of the Afrikaans language / culture & ethnic groups ARE African. What you are doing is insinuating that just because the Afrikaans peoples are not as senior as Africans or have not been in Africa as a people as long as other Africans that they are erroneously somehow not "as indigenous". Absolute nonsense. Consider the fact that most White Europeans have not been in Europe for as long as the Basques but no one would claim that they are not "as indigenous" since they are now an indigenous feature of the European continent.
No the White Afrikaans peoples were not significantly "swelled" by further migrants. Furthermore: even if this were the case it would be of no consequence to the fact that the European origin of the White Afrikaans language / culture & original ethnic group IS A DISTANT one. For the simple reason that no matter how many further immigrants "swell" the number of the White Afrikaans peoples: their origin would still have been a DISTANT one. Do you get it now? The origins of the White Afrikaans people is a distant one: hence it is irrelevant how many other people MIGHT have later been absorbed into the Afrikaans culture. Just as it is irrelevant that the San / Kung (the aboriginal people of Southern Africa) have absorbed numerous Khoikhoi / Quena as this does not negate the fact that the San / Kung culture is OLDER & is the original culture of the region.
Quote: < Your own source mentions the closeness between elements of Afrikaans culture or language and that of the Dutch. >
No you are using a logical fallacy here. First of all you must understand that the term Dutch does not necessarily mean Holland or the Netherlands language. The term Dutch was (is still often) used to denote any language of Germanic origin. This is why the Amish people of German origin of Pennsylvania are called the Pennsylvania Dutch. It does not mean that they are related to the actual Dutch / Netherlands people. Similarly the "Dutch" (in the old sense of the term) Franconian dialect spoken by the first White arrivals at the Cape was not related to the Dutch / Netherlands language. Therefore asserting that the original White settlers spoke "Dutch" is akin to asserting that the English people speak Germanic: in other words it does not tell the whole story as it is not a complete nor accurate classification.
Another very important point to remember here before I go any further is to remind you that the Dutch were the original oppressors of the Boers & their ancestors. Which is still noticed today via the Cape based Afrikaner domination of the numerically smaller Boer people which was noticeable all throughout the 20th cent. The Dutch took the Frankonish speaking ancestors of the Boers out of Europe & the tyrant Jan van Riebeeck often noted derisively how the people he brought out to the Cape did not speak Dutch (ie: Netherlands) as they in fact spoke a Franconian dialect spoken by the lower classes whom were the bulk of the so called "Dutch" segment of the ancestors of the Boers.
Quote: < You claim it directly descended from Low Franconian but none of your sources support this. >
Most of the sources I used call it "Dutch" as per the old classification for any language of Germanic origin. One source explicitly states that Afrikaans is of Franconian origin. What you are doing is confusing the "Dutch" dialect of the first settlers with the actual Dutch / Netherlands language as used in Holland.
Quote: < otherwise the first European settlers would have come during the middle ages since by the time the Dutch came in large numbers to Southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries, "Low Franconian" (Frankish) was extinct and was merely a classification of the language Dutch and its dialects had evolved from. >
No the Franconian dialect in question was Frankonish not Frankish: a separate dialect. The Frankonish language was a dialect spoken in the lowlands of north western modern day Germany of which High Dutch would develop from. Note: Dutch in the sense of a Germanic language & not the Netherlands language.
- While these Xhoi < Ron7 note: variation spelling of Khoi > languages immerged, the Xhoi people collaborated in letting Afrikaans emerge as their new mothertongue during its womb years (1652-1750). I give 1750 as date because in the late 1700's people speaking fluently the official High Dutch first began complaining about this horrible "Cape Dutch" which the brown Hottentots, the mixed and the white Grensboere (border farmers) were speaking. Today they would have called it the creolisation of Dutch. The forebears of the Grensboere themselves spoke Frankonish (from which High Dutch got standardised), Twents/Drents/Gronings (dialects of Saxon=Low German), French, some Schwabish and English as well as a little Portugese.
Then there is also the Malay language of the slaves form the Far East to reckon with.
- Most, if not all, Dutch and Afrikaans linguists believe that Afrikaans evolved haphazardly from the 16th century language called High Dutch whereas modern Dutch has evolved systematically from High Dutch. In other words, High Dutch has immerged into Afrikaans as kitchen language and emerged into modern Dutch as living-room language. I will now delve into some history of languages which may tire fellow learners, but I promise them that will give us profound insight into language emergences through bifurcations.
High Dutch itself was established from Frankonish (not Frankish) as a result of the invention of the priniting press. SPOKEN Frankonish was rich in local dialects and one of them became the WRITTEN language known as High Dutch. The "rich, learned and influential" people SPOKE and WROTE High Dutch while the vast majority of "poor, ignorant and powerless" people spoke any one of the many Frankonish dialects. It took a couple of centuries for High Dutch to become their mother tongue too and by that time, and as a result of it, modern Dutch was well on its way.
The first colonizers at the Cape in South Africa from the Netherlands in the 1650's consisted of HOIK company officials who were well versed in High Dutch and settlers of whom the majority spoke, SUPPOSEDLY only Frankonish with its many dialects. Here at the Cape they soon came into contact with many INDIGENOUS Khoi (Hottentot) tribes ("brown" people), Banthu slaves ("black" people who were not indigenous to the
Western Cape) and Malay slaves IMPORTED from the far east. As a result of the creolisation of languages like English, Spanish and Portugese elsewhere in the world, liguists SUPPOSED that seemingly similar conditions in the Cape were perfect for High Dutch to immerge into pidgen Dutch, also known as Cape Dutch.Quote: < though this is disputed and most still classify it as evolving directly from Dutch >
No. Afrikaans developed from High Dutch - Frankonish to be precise- as well as Malay / other lowland dialects / German / French / Portuguese & Nama -the language of the Khoisan people. Asserting that Afrikaans only developed from its alleged Dutch origins neglects the role that other prominent influences played in the creation of the Afrikaans language. Afrikaans simply would not be Afrikaans were it not for its non European inlfuences & is the main reason why it even developed into a distinct separate language from its Germanic origins.
Quote: < The number of Afrikaner Wikipedians on the Dutch encyclopedia is just one obvious example of the Mutual intelligibility of the two languages. >
No this presumption is wrong! you are making an uninformed priori argument. It is easier for Afrikaans speakers to learn Netherlands / Dutch in the same way it is easier for French speakers to learn Spanish. It does not mean that Afrikaans & Dutch are mutually intelligible to the average speakers of the languages just as French & Spanish are not mutually intelligible to the average speakers of those languages -but because of some similar origins of Afrikaans & Dutch just as with French & Spanish- it will be earlier for people who speak those respective languages to learn the other language.
Quote: < "Afrikaans" culture may not have existed in Europe, but the components which make Afrikaans culture (Dutch, German and Frisian) did and do. >
No this is not accurate as it is an incomplete represenatation. What about the Indian / Malay / & Khoi cultures which had a significant impact on the creation of the Afrikaans language? -even on the creation of the various Afrikaans cultures & ethnic groups. Remember: the legends that Afrikaans historian André Du Toit noted that the Boers were believing in had their origins with Malay culture & the White Afrikaans people are partly descended from Indian / Khoi & Malay slaves. Therefore: you focusing on only the European origins of the Afrikaans culture -just as the Afrikaner Nationalists did in the past- does not tell the whole story as it is not an accurate representation as you have omitted OTHER influences ie: the non European influences which are most notable in the Oriental cadence (including various words) in which Afrikaans is spoken -even by the various White Afrikaans peoples.
Furthermore: you are entirely forgetting that it is irrelevant where the various ancestors of the Afrikaans peoples came from as they developed on African soil & have remained on African soil as a consistent ethnic / cultural group since the mid 17th cent. For example: the components (to use your odd mechanical term) of the various Native American (Amerindian) peoples came from Asia: BUT NO ONE calls the Native American cultures "Asian"! How long do the White Afrikaans peoples have to be in Africa before you admit that they are African? You admitted yourself that they have been in Africa for close to half a millennium: but refuse to admit that their European origins (which is not their full origins as explained earlier) are in fact distant.
Quote: < Afrikaner culture is predominantly of European origin as is the case for White Africans in general. >
An absolute lie as the above has already explained. Consider this. A White Afrikaans person by the name of Hendrik Biebouw (from the French Bideault) stood up in court back in 1707 - 300 years ago!- & stated that he "was an African" who did not want to be ruled by Europeans. If he was so European why would he be claiming otherwise? Afrikaans culture can not be of European origin since when Afrikaans culture was developed (miles away from Europe) the people had been taken out of Europe & had to created a new culture which drew out of the various diverse peoples dumped at the Cape -many of whom were not even originally from Europe. A culture can only be of European origin if it was developed on European soil. Afrikaans culture was developed on African soil which included numerous non European influences.
Quote: < hence the importance of the Dutch-Frisian-German aspects in Afrikaner culture. >
No this is another priori argument. A culture is organic hence the Afrikaans culture would still be a distinct culture even if it had none or little of those "aspects" in it as its culture would be determined by its language & customs. The Griquas for example are a distinct Boer / Khoi / Tswana mixed race people who started out as a Boer / Khoi mix but have incorporated numerous Tswana over the decades -but they are still known as the Griqua people. The various components of a given culture are ancillary to the actual continued existence of the given culture. Just as any given people wil remain a people no matter how many other peoples they might absorb. The Scots have aborbed other peoples but are still Scots. The Boers & Afrikaners have absorbed other peoples but are still Boers & Afrikaners as absorbing other people does not negate the origins of the given group. The various components of the origins of the culture is not as important as the actual culture itself which can not be reducible to its alleged components. Therefore the White Afrikaans cultures are not reducible to the largely -though not complete- distant European origins of their 17th cent ancestors.
Quote: < If Afrikaner culture was indigenous to Africa, then the people would be similar in origins and culture to the Xhosa, the Khoisan, the Zulu, etc. >
Another unacademic priori argument yet again. Indigenous African culture does not all have to resemble one another. Just look at the diversity of culture & appearances among the various indigenous peoples of Africa. The Ethiopian is different from the Bantu & they are both different from the Egyptian & they are all different from the Boer & the Berber & so on. This is the most unacademic statement you have made to date -& you have made quite a lot so far. In order for a culture to be indigenous to a given region: it has to have been formed or developed there & have a history there as the Afrikaans peoples do. It is irrelevant where their distant ancestors came from pertaining to their status as being an indigenous feature of the landscape as every cultures' ancestors came from elsewhere (ironically the major hypothesis of current times is that they all came from Africa) meaning that if a given culture were deemed to be not indigenous due to its having distant ancestors who arrived there long ago then no culuture on Earth can be deemed indigenous. Question: is this a Pandora's box that you even want to open.
Quote: < Remember, this article is about the Afrikaners. >
Which is never defined. The term Afrikaner covers disparate groups of White Afrikaans people which was initially propagated by the Cape Dutch when they started a language rights movement in the late 19th cent. The Boer people have never historically been called Afrikaners until the Boers were conquered & defeated by the coalition of Cape Dutch & British at the conclusion of the Anglo-Boer War. The term Afrikaner is a political term devised by those who inherited the British created macro State of South Africa which stole the inheritance of the Boers & subjugated them under the tutelage of the Cape based Afrikaners -who have historically worked against the interests of the Boers- after the British killed close to half of the total Boer child population in British run concentration camps. The Boers had their first freedom struggle against the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners in 1795. This article is ridiculous as it often hijacks the history of the Boers & appropriates it to a macro Afrikaner group.