Talk:Volkstaat/Archive 1

NPOV

There was an NPOV notice that was removed before. Please don't remove the one that was just added until these issues are resolved. 168.209.98.35 15:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs some balance, and the claims made need to be backed up. It seems to have been written exclusively from the perspective of a small group of disillusioned Afrikaners, and seems to have a great deal of editorializing - see the section on Unemployment.

…a small group of disillusioned Afrikaners… a great deal of editorializing…

But how then to explain the following? A South African television poll among 11.000 Afrikaners revealed that 91% of them feel cast-off in the new South Africa, see http://www.news24.com/Beeld/Suid-Afrika/0,,3-975_1765878,00.html (in Afrikaans)

--Jvb – November 14, 2005

Still doesn't mean that all 91% support a Volkstaat. I'll have to look for a reference to back me up, but my own daily experience is that very few support the idea, with even fewer willing to move to one (if their current place of abode falls outside the/a Volkstaat area). Elf-friend 10:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also note that it is not a scientific poll with a random sample among Afrikaners, but a phone-in and SMS poll, which would naturally skew the result, because those who are unhappy would be most likely to "vote". Elf-friend 10:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If so much Afrikaners react in that way, even in a phone-in and SMS poll, then in every normal country a fully scientific well-balanced poll would certainly be organised, but not in South-Africa…that says enough about the country.

Moreover the idea of a volkstaat is an abstract concept. Indeed I can imagine that most Afrikaners (especially those who live on the wrong spot) don’t like to think about the “circumstances” that would force them (to move) to a volksstaat, with the example of ex-Yugoslavia in mind, but that doesn’t make the concept less genuine. And there certainly is a risk. Don’t forget that South Africa still figures the number 2 (out of 17 emerging markets covered by the index) in the Lehman Brothers’ annual Damocles report.

In fact the question is whether such abstract idea, the volksstaat, pleasant or not, can be NPOV on itself. Don’t forget that POV refers to an individual contributor and that’s certainly not the case here, thus the article is NPOV.

--Jvb – November 14, 2005

Well, I think you should distinguish between the Volkstaat concept (which may or may not be NPOV) and the Wikipedia article about it, which definitely should be (as with any other article). Elf-friend 08:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Other arguments to remove the POV tag can be found here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46727 South Africa's white, and especially the Afrikaners, feel like '2nd-class citizens'.

--Jvb – November 15, 2005

It supports a lot of the material on the page, I agree. It by no means argu(es) to remove the POV tag.

I disagree. If the material on the page is supported by the very large majority of the Afrikaners, then it is by definition NPOV.

--Jvb – November 15, 2005

No, sorry, your logic is faulty. The fact that a large number of people agree on something doesn't make it true, or neutral. I'm sure everybody can make up their own examples of such cases. Regards, Elf-friend 10:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

See argumentation above.--Jvb – November 15, 2005

The article has improved a lot, especially with the addition of the paragraph mentioning ANC and DA responses. It still rambles on in places - The bombs in Soweto stuff I don't think really adds to the article, particularly as it was lifted wholesale, but is not a reason on its own to keep the POV tag. Are we ready to lift the tag ? Wizzy…☎ 09:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The following sections were added to the article to improve the balance:

• "The idea"
• "Public opinion" (under "Obstacles")

Thanks. Take the tag off ? Wizzy…☎ 11:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree.

Maybe a bit "after the fact", but I agree as well ... while the article still needs some improvement and additional information (but then so many articles on Wikipedia do :-) ) and we may need to stay a bit vigilant so that it does not become skewed again, I think that the article as it currently stands merits the removal of the POV tag. Elf-friend 08:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this article (by doing disambiguations, FWIW), and, from a completely disinterested Yankee perspective, as it stands it seems POV-ish. For example, the first paragraph of the article strikes me as an argument supporting the creation of a Volkstaat. I'm not saying that such an argument shouldn't be in the article, but it should not be in the intro, and it should be in a section entitled "Arguments for...". --Deville 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph quoted: "Volkstaat (in Afrikaans "People's state") is a proposal for an independent state in South Africa by a minority of Afrikaners through so-called cultural separatism." - I must be blind, but I am unable to see how this paragraph makes an "argument for" a Volkstaat....

Sorry, I misspoke slightly; I mean the first paragraph in the body of the article, starting with the sentence "For the Afrikaners who support this concept, the basic prerequisite of a nation wishing to secure its survival with its own culture, religion and language, is a geographically defined territory."

In any case, I think the article as it stands now is much, much better, mostly due to adding the sense of historical context. --Deville 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph which is worrying you to the section titled "Afrikaner arguments for a Volkstaat", I think the move will not affect the factual correctness of the article and I hope that it will set your mind somewhat at ease. Regards, Gemsbok1

Yeah, like I said, I like it much better now. Thanks! --Deville 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

it's a pity that a racist, far-right user like jbv can dominate an article on wikipedia. --Severino 17:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

the link to the site "majorityrights.com" alone is questionable... --Severino 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has a liberal bias in it - "The current South African government (African National Congress) is distrustful of Afrikaner motives for a Volkstaat, due to the South African history of the previous century, when the racially driven apartheid policy caused much suffering and misery to black Africans. The government also wishes to protect the territorial integrity of the country."

What is this “much suffering and misery to the black Africans?” What liberal nonsense is this? South Africa had the biggest Black middle class in ALL of Africa. The Blacks in South Africa DURING apartheid had more cars than all the Whites in the Soviet Union. Please tell me what misery they suffered when everything for them was subsided by the Whites (from education to medical care).

WP:NOT

• 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

Wizzy…☎ 16:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A casual Yankee surfer gives his two-cents' worth: This article is about the concept of an Afrikaner "Volkstaat" and the motives that Afrikaners in certain walks of life might have for supporting such an idea. Therefore, it seems quite necessary to include an Afrikaner nationalist point of view in the article to make any sense at all whatsoever.

This article is quite useful in the ongoing online discourse about anything and everything under the sun because it takes a controversial point of view on race relations in South Africa today. A point made later in the article, that the ANC-led SA government has been marginalizing the Afrikaans language in the legal sphere and the fear (whether real or unfounded) of militant African nationalists comitting acts of violence against Afrikaners certainly belongs in any accurate article about the motivations for creating a "volkstaat."

However, the NPOV issue might be resolved by considering this article a stub. Issues that might be resolved in this article include providing actual numbers (x Afrikaners were disposessed of their holdings by the ANC government in comparison to the y Palestinians who were disposessed of theirs at the hands of the Israelis). Also, a brief synopsis of the history of Apartheid, the Anglo-Boer Wars, Paul Kreuger, Hendrik Vervoerd (whose statue overlooks Orania), the Great Trek, and maybe a bit more on Boer self-reliance.

Afterall, despite their shameful role they played in South African Apartheid, the Afrikaners remain a distinct ethnic group with their own language and the same right to self-determination and/or minority rights as other ethnic groups deserve.

Perhaps it is time for the Afrikaners to face up to the crimes their nation has comitted in the past (like West Germany did in the late '40s/early '50s), but this is a whole new topic altogether.

PS One's own personal experiences in any given issue constitute a primary source in any given field of scholarship, and is much valued in scholarly research. I suggest that Wikiwizzy refrain from attempting to quash this sort of testimony in order that s/he may retain an artificial and quixotic restraint on human thought in what is supposed to be an open forum in the compilation of knowledge from all walks of life and an infinite multitude of points of view. I point my finger of shame at anyone who would attempt to stifle this for whatever reason.

Wikipedia is built on the non-negotiable basis of NPOV. When we deal with sticky subjects, this must be carefully considered. I live in South Africa, I have good Afrikaner friends, and I certainly appreciate their contribution to this country - more, perhaps, than you think. I believe that there are many Afrikaners that would agree with the NPOV tag I inserted. In fact, a glance through the history of the main article reveals that User:Elf-friend, a respected Afrikaner wikipedia contributor, inserted an NPOV tag before. There is no balance - what, for instance, the ANC, Coloured population, or English-speaking South Africans think about Volkstaat.

One's own personal experiences in any given issue constitute a primary source .. Not on Wikipedia. My other two points follow from that. Wizzy…☎ 06:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct, I was just too lazy to get into a debate about this issue ... I'd rather be writing articles :-). But anyway, the anonymous "casual Yankee surfer" is quite incorrect - own experience that is considered as a/the primary source of an article is actually classified as "original research" and this is an absolute no-no on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia (the article pages at least) is an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debating society.

Anyway, this aricle makes quite a few claims that must really be backed up references in the text to respected and acknowledged sources.

Elf-friend 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also see [1] and [2].

Elf-friend 09:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Corroborating source added

I have been able to locate work published by the South African Institute for Security Studies in 2003, entitled Monograph 81 - "Volk, Faith and Fatherland" which corroborates with the situation as described in the article. I have also streemlined the conditions described in "Afrikaner situation" with the detail statistics as provided in this document. Complete reference to the Institute's published document was included.

The Institute for Security Studies is a higly respected information gathering organisation in South Africa whose credibility can be confirmed at their website at Institute for Security Studies

I have alse sent a request for permission to the Institute to enable Wikipedia article writers to frequently quote information from them as a source. I will post their reply on this discussion page.

I trust that you'll find the above in order and that the NPOV on the updated article can now be resolved, I therefore remove the NPOV notice in the article until further notice.

It certainly looks quite better through your and other's efforts - thanks (although I've only had time for a quick look and may give detailed comments later). But I think the procedure is that there first must be consensus on an article's talk page that the article is now Neutral-POV before the tag is removed ... removing it unilaterally is not such a good idea (although it may be deserved). Thanks for understanding. :-)

I agree with you regarding the credibility of the ISS.

Regards, Elf-friend 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

A (possibly minority) Afrikaner perspective is well-represented in this article. Perhaps a section on what the ANC, DA, or other local politicians in the Free State think about Orania, perhaps ? (I am not qualified to write that section, I am afraid). Wizzy…☎ 15:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wizzy, how can this only be a "possible minority Afrikaner perspective" if everything is backed up by an Internationally acclaimed authority on security issues? I have complied with your request to add other views, please refer to the "Obstacles" section. You said yourself that you are South African, please feel free to add to the article if you have anything to contribute.

The full variety and complexity of South African views on this topic has been raised to my mind. Since it is some Afrikaners who wish to create this Volkstaat, it is only prudent to explain their motivation for such a drastical action, and therefore their view will receive more coverage in an article covering this subject.

Also, please do not try to "soften" the circumstances under the "Afrikaner reasons for wanting a Volkstaat", as I have gone to great lenghts to find a credible source and wish to use the source as accurately as possible. (As noted to the changes done under the subheadings "Crime" and "Culture and heritage"). Please refer to the source before you editorialize your own views into this article. You are welcome to soften the blow in the "Obstacles" section of the article.

If this effort does not comply to your "standards" (or maybe biased expectations), it would be better to delete this entire article and write me off as a contributor to Wikipedia.

More sources needed

The corroborating source, while (on first scan), apparently a really good treatment of the subject, doesn't contain absolutely all the information presented in the article (though maybe I've missed some bits). Since the source is a very long text, containing a lot of information, I think that it would be a good idea if specific references to chapters and pages in the book were made, as it's quite easy for someone to slip in a few incorrect statements in among the correct ones cited from the book. Even better would be to look up some of the (many) sources cited by the book, and to add those as more direct references. I'll see if I can do some of this. -Kieran 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Below is some text I removed from the "Afrikaner reaction" section. I've added some text, based upon a reliable reference, which I think captures the point that was trying to be made. If someone can substantiate the below text, please put it back into the article, with added references. -Kieran 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Begin removed text*

"Emigration of citizens, including Afrikaners, from South Africa is at an all time high. Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and Canada are favourite destinations. This drain of mostly highly qualified and skilled people is making a large impact on the both South Africa in general and Afrikaner communities in particular.

The majority of Afrikaners still hope that the New South Africa as envisioned by Nelson Mandela, FW de Klerk, Desmond Tutu and Beyers Naudé will come to pass, i.e. a South Africa with racial reconciliation and equal rights. The support that a Volkstaat needs is therefore still largely lacking among Afrikaners."

• End removed text*

An excellent source for this article would be the original Volkstaat Council report, apparently titled "Broadening Democracy for Stability". Unfortunately, I haven't found this on the web, so maybe if someone could get hold of a print copy, and verify some facts about the actual proposal, it would improve the article immensely. -Kieran 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vryheidsvlag is in fact the Strydvlag

While the flag depicted in the article is now called the Vryheidsvlag -the fact of the matter is that it was originally called the Strydvlag (Stuggle Flag) which dates from the Anglo-Boer War. This flag was used in battle & was a representation of both the Transvaal Republic & the Orange Free State -the orange bar representing the OFS. This flag was renamed the Vryheidsvlag after the Vryheidsfront (Freedom Front) was formed during the mid 1990s. I think the popularity of this flag among the Afrikaans independence movements is due to the fact that it combines the popular Vierkleur design (as used for the Transvaal Republic / the New Republic / Goshen Republic) which is popular with Boer movements of Voortrekker descent with the Prince Flag (or also known as the van Riebeeck Flag & used as the backdrop of the old South African Flag) -the Orange White & Blue horizontal tri colour - which is popular with Afrikaner independence movements. Those who favour the Transvaal Vierkleur would see the only change being the horizontal orange top bar while those who favour the Prince Flag would see the only change being the vertical bar to the left in the flag.

Ron7 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Volkstaat council

there is no hint in the article for the volkstaat council (volkstaatraad), which was appointed by the government of national unity in 1994 --Severino 18:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Volkstaat council was appointed due to the negotiated settlement reached between the Freedom front and the ANC. The purpose of the Volkstaat council was to investigate the feasibilty of establishing a Volkstaat and to make recommendations to government. After reaching a conclusion, the Council presented it's findings to government in 1996, and was subsequently disbanded. Government is yet to react formally on the findings (as far as I know). I could not obtain information on the details of the findings of the Volksraad council. Probably due to government still having to react. A reputable source will have to be found before this detail can be added to the article. --Gemsbok1 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh ... I actually hadn't read this part of the talk page. I've added some information on the Council, with references to the sections in the 1993 constitution, and the relevant acts. The name of the report they produced is mentioned above, in another comment by myself, but I haven't been able to find an online copy, or, for that matter, a copy in any online bookstore. I imagine one could apply to some department in the government for a copy. I think it would be a very useful source of information. -Kieran 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The name?

"Volkstaat (in Dutch "People's state")" Should it not read (in afrikaans)? ?Dr.Poison 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User IP 72.131.119.106 has willfully deleted statistics under the "Unemployment" section of the article, which were explicitly stated in the source document. The Source was compiled by the South African Institute of Security Studies which is confirmed to be a reliable, independant source. This user has also contributed offensive remarks on the Orania talk page. I therefore request that this user be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Gemsbok1 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that one deletion, however wilful it may appear, is grounds for a banning, and neither is holding a POV that one does not agree with. I have, however, invited that user to discuss the deletion on this talk page, and have requested him to desist from deleting that information again. We'll take it from there and I'll keep an eye on him. Kind Regards, Elf-friend 12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

- Hellow elf-friend. I was the one who changed the 'affirmative action' employment citation, mainly because it is very partisan (right wing based, anti-minority thought equating american affirmative action with South African efforts to balance the private business force). There were no offensive rhetorical statements made by me, however, from the very agressive response I see from Gemsbok, it leads to suggest that there is definitive animus towards black south africans within the writing of that article. While the 'quota' commentary may be citable, the last sentence about 'brain drain' is nothing more than conjecture, and borderline insultive towards nonwhite south africans. No reasoning for the enacting of the programs is giving, in a seemingly sense to vilify the black south african government. Considering that white south africans are in the vast minority in south africa, but at the time of the creation of these 'affirmative action' laws, held practically all the skilled labor, blue and white collar jobs, it is obvious why any government would want to ensure the majority of citizens have fair access to employment, particularly after aparthied prevented this since the countries creation. Please explain why this non-academic statement has a place on wikipedia, other than to attack black south africans. I will go to the moderators if necessary (I am not sure if you are a moderator, Elf Friend, in case you are, I guess I am requesting explanation from you), but the problems of 'racialist' using wiki to subtly advance their ideals is something wikipedia needs to address. This is the reasoning behind changes made in the Orania page, which has had and is apparently still having problems with pro-supremacist editing it in a subjective 'pro-aparthied/white supremacy' manner. If wikipedia is not to become another stormfront, the information on it has to be as objective as possible, and if subjective statments are going to be made, shouldn't both sides of the issue be stated so not to seem biased? The change was reasonable, objective, and a reversal of very political and biased subjectory comments. Please respond or send me an email. Please Respond either by Email or Here. This article needs tobe changed, ASAPLnstr 2:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Added- Thank you for leaving the note and contacting me with this Elf Friend.Lnstr 2:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Elf-friend for facilitating this discussion. My objection relates to Lnstr removing the following paragraph in the article: "10% in 2001, compared to a national average of 37%. White unemployment has, however, experienced the greatest proportional increase between 1995 and 2001: 197% compared to a national average of 27%. In 2001 some 228,000 economically active whites were unemployed". This statistical information was obtained on page 86 (Chapter 5) of the cited source document. Unfortunately Lnstr has not given a reason why he chose to remove this information.

I did not write the piece about the "brain drain", but there are supporting evidence that it is not mere conjecture, and cannot therefore just be truncated. Lnstr is welcome to add information if he feels that it will balance the view. Refer to the following sources which prove that the "brain drain" is no conjecture:

• [Business Times report]
• [National Research Foundation]

The following remark was made by Lnstr on the Orania talk page:"the people of this privatized town are in fact a threat to the current multiracial government of South Africa if they do not wish to take part in the government and separate themselves. No one stops them from emmigrating to 'white' countries". This sentence is a clear violation of the Afrikaner's human right to freedom of association and of the UN Charter which acknowledges the right to selfdetermination to all peoples. This right is also enshrined in the South African Constitution.

I do not have any objection to the modification of any article, within the rules of Wikipedia. Trying to enforce a biased view, is however cleary an act of vandalism. Gemsbok1 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To Gemsbok: What right to 'self determination' are you speaking of other than one you are determining for yourself? The link you gave cites the South African Constitution, but gives no specified data relating to any 'right' to what you are (very subjectively) coining as 'self determination'. Furthermore, I could not find a description of 'self determination' which fits your decriptive standards for 'self determination'. Under such standards, any group of people in any government would have the instant right to succeed and form their own government at any giving time. I think reality shows us that this is not the case.As for vandalism, I think you should check the references for the definition of vandalism before accusing someone of committing it. That is a very serious charge, and it implies a negligence or malicious intent. Obvious, as my initial explanation to Elf Friend states, none was present. If anything, such an outright attack and catagorical request for removal of questioning of such extremist agenda motivated material is vandalism.

• [Vandalism Defined] Perhaps better exercise of objectivity and less political agenda motivated biasing would be the better action to take in judging postings, and requesting their immediate removal and bannings. I would highly reccomend such.

That being said, I am still awaiting response from Elf-Friend to clear this matter up. Both this page and the Orania page are heavily doused in politically motivated agenda advocacy. I believe your ( Gemsbok1 ) commentary on the Orania page giving political events in a completely different nation as justification for advocacy on wikipedia prove that. Elf-Friend, please respond when possible. Lnstr 8:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lnstr, please refer to this external link for Section 235 of the South African Constitution, which deals with the right to Self-determination: [Section 235 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa]

Willfully deleting information on Wikipedia which have been verified to a reputable and independant source, does constitute Vandalism, defined as the destruction of Public Property.

As per my riposte on Talk:Orania, the reference to other countries and leaders was used to prove the fact that ethnic minorities are extremely exposed to violence in Democracies.

Please provide a detailed list of the statements purported to be "heavily doused in politically motivated agenda advocacy" in order for them to be corrected. Just keep in mind that the Talk pages are not used to provide information to the public, but to enable Wikipedians to discuss the content of the articles. -Gemsbok1 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

//////////

Hi my fellow Wikipedians,

I'm an user and admin, not a mediator, so I'm not acting in any official mediating capacity, although this may be needed for this article in the future. (But not by me, I think.)

The original objection was regarding the deletion of statistics from a trustworthy source; any other modification of the text is up for debate, of course, but considering the (apparently) controversial nature of the topic, I strongly suggest that all possibly contentious statements be backed up by a citation in the standard format.

Lnstr, the term "affirmative action" is actually widely/officialy used in South Africa (in job adverts, for example) for some of the government's policies - although I appreciate that its context and the reasons behind it may differ from those in the US - so I don't think any ill intentions should be read into the usage of this term of this article. You do make some good points regarding the reasoning for the government's policies, but I do ask myself if this is the correct article for it. Of course the reasons for these policies (appropriately cited, of course) should be in an article on Black Economic Empowerment or somesuch and linked to this article, but I cannot see the value of turning this article into a debating forum on the validity of the reasons for a Volkstaat or not. We must remember that people often want something for what they perceive to be valid reasons. Whether these reasons are actually valid are, in my opinion, beyond Wikipedia's scope ... the best that we can do is list them and state that these are perceptions of the people concerned, and not facts (unless cited).

Gemsbok, while I appreciate that you strenuously object to Lnstr's point of view and some of his edits, it is not vandalism, but a "mere" editing conflict (and I've seen much worse). Branding someone a vandal and asking for him to be banned is not helpful, and I can't see any admin doing that. I also think that we should all limit ourself to discussing the contents of the article itself and not fall into the trap of discussing the issue.

Guys, no article on Wikipedia is perfect, all could do with improvement. This is especially true in contentious articles. We all have our own inherent POV, however neutral we try to be, that is why we need our own views balanced by others with opposing views and, by debating this, create a better article. I urge everybody concerned to assume good faith from the other side and not read intentions into the other party's edits that may or may not be there.

A last thought ... this article has already come a long way since its first incarnations to being a better Wikipedia article ... check the original versions.

Lets try to make this a Featured Article!

With Kind Regards to all, Elf-friend 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Like my edits? I balanced some of the extreme POV

Before I edited the article, I read this and thought that the Afrikaaners were an ancient group of native South Africans who had peacefully lived there for 300 years and had been victimized by the government for no reason and were then neglected and oppressed for no reason. Now that I edited it, I think we can see that the Afrikaaner Volkstaat (you know what... forget this, I'm using the english words) The White South African People's State is transparently a racially based cultural seperatist movement. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah, I appreciate your concern for the NPOV. Some of your adjustments are fine. You should however be careful to try and publish work that is referenced. An example is your summation that Black South Africans had a higher unemployment rate during the Apartheid era, while the facts acccording to statistics presented in the source document states that Black unemployment has on average increased by 37% between 1995 and 2001, which is in the Post-Apartheid era. Please refer to the cited source document in the Article. If you are unable to provide citations to an independant, published source, we will have to remove your additions.

Another point of concern is the fact that Afrikaners did not have absolute control over the politcal environment during the Apartheid era, as they only represented 60% of the eligible voters, the others consisting of Anglo-Africans and other white ethnic groups.

Your summation that the Volkstaat movement is a "racially based seperate movement" is incorrect as the other White South African's (non-Afrikaners who make up 40% of the white population in the country) are also not allowed to live and work in the proposed Volkstaat areas (the movement is therefore not racially driven, but culturally driven). Please consider the fact that there are no non-Afrikaner people living in the Volkstaat areas (including black people), therefore the reality is that no one is being opressed by this movement, as the Afrikaners are only exercising their globally acceptable right to enforce immigration control--Gemsbok1 10:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is obvious that the unemployment among the Black south Africans during Apartheid was higher. So Gemsbok this is why I believe you are being dishonest. I should not have to cite a reference that you yourself know to be true.

2. The contentious issue is how much power the Afrikaaners had over the political climate in S. Africa. Could you point out what point in the Apartheid era a "non-Afrikaaner" government controled the country? Which of the presidents of S. Africa during Apartheid were "non-Afrikaaner" whites. Which of the racist policies in S. Africa were non-Afrikaaner established policies? The National Party as I recall is the "Afrikaaner" party, while the South Africa Party was the party for the other whites. The National Party was founded in Bloemfontein in 1914 by Afrikaner nationalists soon after the establishment of the Union of South Africa. The National Party increased its parliamentary majority in almost every election between 1948 and 1977. The National Party won all elections during the Apartheid white elections. It was mainly supported by the Afrikaners, but also a huge number of the Anglo-Africans voted for the party. The party had a support of 50-65%. That is sufficent to say "absoute" without being childishly technical. Now I am re-reverting the comment I made Back. You want your link, you got it. The three revert rule applies here and now we are in rule #2. The report is made against you once you re-revert the third time (doubly so now since I have provided the evidence to the obvious) [[3]] This second link here is taken originally from the U.S. Library of Congress and CIA World Factbook (if you dispute this, resolve it before trying to revert my comment) [[4]]. What offends me at this point is that you are asking for me to produce references for something that is obvious. I cannot find an EVENT in S. African history where the Afrikaaner led National Party WERENT the initiators of the infamous racist policies of S. Africa. Regardless, their control was obviously absoulte, even if one or two isolated examples pop up in your response. Funny you say they represented only 60% of the eligible voters, yet only 12% of all voting age people in the country.

Finally let me make sure you understand something. the Afrikaners are do not have a globally acceptable right to enforce immigration control anymore than Amish have in the USA or Mormons in UTAH. There is no "immigration control" in the conversation. This is what I am talking about regarding your reasoning. You have already concluded in your mind that there is an "established" or "agreed" notion that any old group of tom dick and harries can just start their own immigration control and by virtue alone it's "globally acceptable". It's not globally acceptable.

When will you accept the fact that the Afrikaaner culture is an artifically transplanted culture from EUrope and has no place in S. Africa? We aren't going to have a magical fairy-tale land in the middle of S. Africa for white Afrikaaners to run to just because they can't cope with changes that don't always favor them. Not one grain of dust in South Africa should be set aside for any white man for any racial or cultural rason. THAT is a globally accepted notion. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and here is the proof that it is racial. Afrikaaner "culture" is a culture, not a race, correct? Well now, how then can some of the Afrikaaner descendants (some of whom surely share some Afrikaaner cultural heritage) be excluded from participating? Oh you don't know who I am referring to? Let me help you. WHen an Afrikaaner and a Black have a child, the child is still Afrikaaner, in addition the child is also Black. You may call them colored... or I apologize... coloured (gotta put that U in there, don't want to offend you). What baffles me is how can a "culture" be dependent so strongly on a biological trait that even the direct descendants are excluded because of.... what's the word "mixture"? Are all Afrikaaner's strictly "dutch"? Or are they "dutch/german" purely? What about those Anglos? If you meet Afrikaaners who are descendants of non-Afrikaaners... like oh English, or Italians, or Jews, are they also excluded? Why then are Afrikaaners who are descendants of Zulu, Xhosa, Indians, and Malaysians.... why would they be excluded. OOOOhhh I remember now... they are not WHITE. Their children are not considered white, and thus RACIALLY they are not "pure"... a RACIAL requirement for being a member of the Afrikaaner cultural identity of this Volkstaat. THAT being said, I will also reSTORE the "Racial" element in the first sentance. The three rule revert applies of course, and the burden lies on you. Three strikes you out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I expect you to respond to this with some level of reason or logic. So let me jump ahead. If a society is going to adopt a racial and cultural seperatist position of such an extreme, right off the heels of a 50 year terror campaign by like minded political and military leadeers. They will have to do some equally extreme reasonsing. Oh I don't know, lets have every Afrikaaner in the family tested to see if they are part English, part anything but dutch/german. And lets see how the losers cope and deal with being evicted first. THen from what's left we will decide how to handle the remaining 100% pure dutch/german Afrikaaners... Oh unless of course you want to say that Afrikaaner heritage is not based on older national origin. :) --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All changes have been reverted untill verifiable sources are added. --Gemsbok1 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All changes have been restored. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask if Zaphnathpaaneah has ever been to South Africa ? Wizzy…☎ 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah has not been to South Africa. Would you like to talk to friends of Zaphnathpaaneah who live in South Africa? Zaphnathpaaneah needs not be the sole voice repsresenting the position he takes. Guys, no one here is stupid. I do not need to get into a spaceship and fly over the earth to know the world is round. We can all read. But this silliness, that's the kind of attitude you want to take? "The Afrikaaners are right unless you take a time machine, record every event and then come back, only then will we accept proof." I actually have to find statistics to "prove" that black unemployment was higher than it was for the whites during Apartheid. Oh, I'm sure all those janitor and servant positions should be taken into account. I had to remind a man here about his own country's history. Gemsbok did not even know that his country was run by one party for 50 years. That's like me saying "Gemsbok, you need to give proof that Democrats and Republicans have been in absolute control of the U.S.A. for 100 years. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it equally retarded that you consider Black Economic Empowerment a form of racism on par with Apartheid. For one, the Black Eco-empowerment does not exclude whites from any economic or employment. What would you prefer? Should white taxpayers pay for the restoration of all the damage done by Apartheid? Shoudl instead the White S. Afrikaaners pay back like the Jews were paid in Germany for all the crimes done to them? Or is it that you feel it's "all in the past". Like a criminal steals or rapes or murders... let there be no justice, let there be no redress for grievances...it's all in the past. Do not even let the criminal pay back what was stolen. Nice... --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"the Afrikaaner culture is an artifically transplanted culture from EUrope and has no place in S. Africa" (quote Zaphnathpaaneah). this is as racist nonsense as most of the contributions of jvb & co ! the afrika(a)ners belong to south africa as much as the zulus,xhosas, sothos, khoisan or indians. maybe Zaphnathpaaneah should inform himself, on which principles the new south africa has been founded. --Severino 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zap, the way in which you express yourself borders on incivility and is making you no friends here. All points of view are and should be welcome here, but please observe Wikipedia's policies. That includes providing citations, if asked or required. (Although I personally do agree with your statement about unemployment during the apartheid era.)

Also (and I'm not limiting this comment to you alone), people should stop debating the merits of the issue here and only discuss the contents of the article. Statements like "When will you accept the fact that the Afrikaaner culture is an artifically transplanted culture from Europe and has no place in S. Africa?" adds nothing to the debate and just riles people up (including yours truly, who is no supporter of the Volkstaat concept either, truth be told).

Regards, Elf-friend 13:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, this can work both ways. Since Servino agrees that the Afrikaaners belong to S. Africa as much as anyone else (no longer more than the others), why then should they be given EXTRA special treatment by being allowed to annex land for themselves? How is it racist nonsense to say that Afrikaaner culture is transplanted froM Europe? (with it's dutch and german based language system, european nuances, white orientation, and so forth) If it's racist nonsense, then where does Afrikaans originate? How about the "whiteness" aspect of Afrikaaner culture? Oh the use of European methods of music, and dress, that's not transplanted from Europe? I am already riled up by the earlier ignorance "Afrikaaners did not have absolute control over the government... they only represented 60% of the eligible voters.", and "the Volkstaat movement is not racially based". It is what it is, don't play games. As far as the citations go, I alredy put them in this discussion. You guys know what to do. And Elf, I see you are friendly, but since you say that your comment is not limited to me, it would be nice if you could address the others directly, providing quotes and helpful instructions for them as well. So far i am the sole direct recipient of warnings. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, zap, the afrikaaners have roots outside africa. like many other people in south africa, like the malays, the indians, the coloureds, the english-speaking whites,...(there is even a chinese community in the rza). so?! the point is that you said that they have no place at all in south africa! to counter your claims does not mean to endorse the volkstaat-concept (at least i do not). the volkstaat-concept is not supported by a majority of afrikaaners. but it is out of question that afrikaans is one of the national languages of south africa and afrikaaner-culture is part of the south african culture. but now, as elf said, this discussion should serve to improve the article...--Severino 12:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep and the Malays, Indians, and the other (you call them coloreds) all were subjugated by Apartheid. The whites were NOT. I did not say "they have no place at all" in S.A. I said that not one speck of dust should be given to them (the whites). And I certainly mean that in a political exclusionary way. I have no problem with the Boers living in S.A. but they should and better get used to the idea of Blacks living in their neighborhoods, working in the same businesses, and interacting with them on all levels. That's reality. The Boers form a large minority and there is no way they are going to dissappear in the forseeable future. This "paranoia" is a front for a deeper desire to simply exclude Black and other non-whites so that the Boers can have their sanitized fantasy world. You think Boer racist sentiments simply vanished after 10 years? See, this is the bottom line here: The Boer Volkstaaters are only doing this because they hate Black people. Yes I am sure there is an element of cultural preservation in the mix, however that is a smokescreen (many truely believe it, but deep down they know its not the true reason) for their unnatural hatred and contempt for black people. Yes, they would probably be annoyed with non-Boers living among them who are white, but they could tolerate it. What they cannot tolerate, is blacks living among them. That is what will cause them to go out and get a gun and cry out in paranoid fear of a fight for survival of their "race". Let me elaborate on that. These same racists, who supported Apartheid and violence for contempt of Blacks, these same people still view Blacks as something not quite human as they are. Although they cannot say it outright, and they cannot live with that philosophy in the open, they still operate on that level. To them, Blacks dirty up their town by merely being there. The blacks would destroy their cultural heritage merely by being a part of it. White purity is the motivation behind this seperation. This is what is not being said or even eluded to in the article. For some reason, people are taught that the wide range of white racist sentiment simply vanishes in a few years, and all of the coiencidental obsession for "white rights" (which ultimately equate to white exclusionary principles, not actual equal rights) is just a benign desire for cultural preservation. Your culture isn't going anywhere and you know it! A little more than a decade has passed and you are afraid that 9 Million people will vanish in some kind of dramatic cultural "suicide" (i love how that word is used so badly out of context by the white priders). Right wing Confederate, Boer, Aussies all have this issue with their cultural suicide. So their attitude is to keep the non-whites (and sympathetic whites) out. No, those days are over. Either adapt and assimilate and integrate or deal with it. No one is going to give you some magical space in the middle of S. Africa to continue those policies. And trust me, as they grow and expand (and they will) they will once again clash and make war with those around them. It's part of their cultural peculiarities. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"And trust me, as they grow and expand (and they will) they will once again clash and make war with those around them. It's part of their cultural peculiarities." Gee Zaphna, what a racist thing to say :-(

Why POV?

Why do I see POV? because this whole article does little to address the legitimate concerns of the non-Boers/non-whites regarding the exclusionary nature of the Volkstaat. The impatience of the Boers in question to resurface ideals that helped inspire Apartheid and anti-black hatred in S. Africa (and the world) should be a red flag for everyone. Many will express a benign desire for them to preserve their culture which they believe is threatened. However, merely coexisting with other groups does not threaten one's own sense of identity. Many examples were given by the Volkstaat and Orania supporters in this discussion and in the Orania discussion, and they fail to realize something. The other groups (the basque, the kurds, the various factions of the former Yugoslavia, ad infinitium) still exist, and with strong life. All have perservered most despite the oppression of their states and empires. S. Africa, seeking not to oppress, should not be regarded as such. Now of course if there are legitimate concerns that S. Africa is oppressing, then those concerns should be addressed and resolved. Yet I have not seen those concerns even raised here. Only generalized assumptions and projections are made of an ambigious "macro state" whose origins are "illegitimate" which logically is "oppressing". these complaints are made in a heartfelt inspired passionate rouse, utilizing the rhetorical methodology of those who spoke against Apartheid. If the argument can work one way, it can work in reverse I take it? But it doesn't work both ways. I do not see S. Africa inspiring Apartheid, nor do I see a S. Africa policy of pushing whites into Gallo-stans and forcing them to speak in Zulu everywhere else in S. Africa. No, what I see is a country whose infrastructure has been gutted out in part by the departing Afrikaaner elite and which struggles with far less support against the far more vocal majority (who still by and large has not received restitution) as well as by these Volkstaaters who pull despite the fragile nature of their government. It's like they are demanding attention even though they just came off the heels of getting exclusive attention during Apartheid. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with Orania being ran by the Boers, but they do not deserve exclusive access to any part of S. Africa (or anywhere else on the continent). This is not a solution to their concerns, but appeasement to their fears and prejudices. But for some contributors here, appeasement IS the solution. It is beyond the pale then to believe that everything has been resolved socially in S. Africa, and furthermore it is a step backwards to appease those whose only concerns are themselves at the expense of others. Discussing this matter as if we are an a vaccumm sealed airtight theoretical perfect scenario is also ignorant. Many Volkstaaters we know promote a violent agenda and many more "moderates" also perceive blacks as inherently inferior in some way or another. To foster generation to generation of this thinking is like allowing the neo-nazis of germany to get their own place in Germany to restart their own social aspirations. Of course again, peaceful at first until the opportunity to take presents itself. You want to call my view racist? call it racist. I don't care. I know full well the new thing this millenieum is to use that back-tracking hypocritical rhetoric as "justification". --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, your opinions and views are not based on fact therefore they are not welcome in an encyclopedia. I am a Volkstaater and I do not view any other person inferior to me based on race. The Volkstaat ideal is also not to the expense to any other group of people, as they are trying to develop land with no current populations. --Gemsbok1 11:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us see how well your truthiness meshes with the facts. My opinion is that the Volkstaat movement is based in part on racial seperatism, desguised as "cultural" seperatism (which coiencidentally incorporates a racial white purity seperatist outcome). I have yet to see anyone explain how the Volkstaat principles are undermined by the color of the members. For example, whites can assimilate into the Volkstaat while Blacks cannot. Mixed people also cannot. I also believe that the hoarding of technological experience, access, and infrastructure by the whites over the past 50 years is the bottom line reason that the black government and social structre of S. Africa struggles now. If no black was allowed to become an engineer for example or work as one in S. Africa. How then can you expect the infrastructure (which requires engineers) to flourish just because the restrictions are no longer in place. It will take time for engineers to graduate, start their jobs, become experienced, teach others, and so forth. Under the backdrop of the intellectuals emigrating from S. Africa, there aren't many options for the blacks to learn enginnering for example, and thus the widespread access to the technological education becomes diminished. Same thing with the farms, During apartheid, the best farm lands, and the access to the best technology to cultivate was denied to the blacks, now the blacks have to figure out how to manage whatever they do have without the experience they would have had without Apartheid. Orania on the other hand seeks to once again, promote racial sentiments to hog the experience and thus perpetuate the myth that the blacks cannot function while the whites can. Not to mention the overarching poverty that must be addressed first. The S. African government cannot address all the concerns with the little it has. The Afrikaaner Apartheid government never took on this responsibility. No they only took care of 13% of the population and let the other 80% fall apart. Now that there is true freedom, there is opportunity for the blacks to reclaim much of what they were unnaturally denied. Orania and the Volkstaat system seeks to privatize Apartheid and maintain a social order thoroughout S. Africa. There is no such thing as total isolation these days. It seems rather cheezy that just coming off of a social structure that gave you all the benefits, and withheld them from the rest of the population, you would want to go off to another social structure that guarantees you the same thing... especially considering the fact that the earlir (apartheid) gave you unearned preference at the expense of others. The way I see it, all that you have in your Volkstaat (the techonolgy, the educational and financial backing) was based on unearned access to resources during apartheid. In essence you saved up a million dollars you got during Apartheid and now want to spend it on Volkstaaten. --208.254.174.148 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)