Talk:Afrikaner/Archive 22/09/06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 from Talk:Afrikaner

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.

Note: even former President F W de Klerk apparently notes in his autobiography that he himself has an Indian ancestor.

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

1. Alan Boesak is not an Afrikaner, he is a Coloured.
2. 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.

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.

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 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)