Talk:Orania/Archive 1

message: "Today the government has made a transition to the African National Congress who actively oppress Afrikaners with their ground reform and affirmative action policies."  You've got to be kidding me.  This article (and the even more offensive Volkstaat one) reflect terribly on Wikipedia the longer they remain.  Someone more informed about these post-apartheid Afrikaner movements should come in here and rewrite these articles.  --dylan  167.206.188.3 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

message: OK, I haven't bothered reading through all of the below argumentation, but the bits I've seen suggest that both parties need to calm down, do some research, and come back with something substantiated. Here are a few points:
*The "boer" ethnic distinction is one made only by a minority of Afrikaners (a term commonly used to refer to white, Afrikaans-speaking South Africans). Most Afrikaners, including even those at www.boer.co.za, an Afrikaner cultural organisation, really don't care about making the distinction. The creation of an Afrikaner culture was a process which happened throughout the 20th century, and the end result is a strongly self-identifying cultural group, desirous of maintaining its cultural identity.
*Note, however, that it seems to me that there's a correlation between people distinguishing themselves as "boers" from the rest of the Afrikaner group, and their being right wing white supremacists. Certainly, the majority of the places I've encountered the distinction have been on white supremacist websites.
*Orania is not a "white town in a black country". It is an exclusively Afrikaner town in a multicultural, multiracial, albeit majority "black", country. Note that "black" in South Africa is misleading, as within that racial grouping, which was largely a construct of apartheid, there are numerous self-identifying cultural groups, such as Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, and quite a few others.
*The vast majority of Afrikaners interested in maintaining their cultural (and linguistic) identity, seek to do so by ways that are non-exclusive. "Afrikaanses" (Afrikaans speaking people) is a new term conveying the inclusion of non-white Afrikaans speakers into a broader, multi-cultural Afrikaans linguistic culture. An example, for instance, is the hugely popular Afrikaans television show, Sevende Laan, which has a broadly multi-racial cast.
*The current government has considered, and rejected the idea of a self-governing, all-Afrikaner enclave in South Africa. They have, however, made a commitment to the protection of Afrikaner linguistic and cultural identity, on an equal footing with all other minority groups' cultural identities in the country.
*Orania is not a self-governing Afrikaner enclave. It is a corporate entity that owns private property (and reserves right of admission). Prior to the re-defining of municipal boundaries, at the end of the 90's, it was a distinct municipality. It is now incorporated into a larger local municipality, which has governmental jurisdiction over it. Any inhabitant of Orania is entitled to all the services provided by the South African government to its citizens. They are also subject to the corporate policies of the "Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok", where those do not contravene South African law.
*It would really amuse me if the government decided to enforce affirmative action on the Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok. At present, I think, every company with more than 50 employees has to meet certain quotas in terms of representativity in its employees. The fact that the government hasn't taken such measures could be seen as conciliatory.
-Kieran 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chill out, please

message: I doubt you can find anything neutral about this. it would be like trying to find a neutral POV on a White-NAZI town in the middle of Israel. These guys in Orania are using all the rhetoric they can muster to re-generate the Apartheid movement. the mere fact that they perceive democracy itself as a threat to their cultural identity (which is little more than a century old) should clue you in. And of course, they tie in bio-racial ancestry (pure whiteness) to the preservation of their cultural and linguistic heritage, as if having mixed children will destroy their cultural identity. The old white "purity" clause.  - Zaph
:: Perhaps the people of Orania are sick of the massive corruption, crime, rape and lower standard of living for the White population that was brought on by the end of apartheid? If you have ever had the chance to live in South Africa, as a White, pre and post-apartheid you would sing a different tune. Areas where children could once play happily are now areas where you would most likely get robbed and killed for a trivial amount. Most of the White population has moved to gate communities where they are free of all the crime, murder, and rape that now plagues South Africa. Volksgeist 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's just too fu__ing bad. here's why. The lower standards were already there BEFORE the end of apartheid. But your people simply didn't give a care about the Blacks who suffered under those lower standards. Now, that the problems are shared by yourselves, you have a concern. If I lived in S. Africa as a white I would probably sing a different tune, because like yourself, I would view people only as valuable as their skin color? (funny how you think all white people are self-centered as you Volksgeist). What you are explaining is how your military society had to pull back to smaller and smaller enclaves... your people never solved any problems when they were dominating the entire country. Instead you wish to have a fantasy world of whiteness, instead of learning and sharing in the difficult reality of life. Maybe if you stopped thinking so much about how good you think you are and realize that your values are corrupt and self-righteous, you might find a way to solve your country's social problems. For example, I know for a fact, that when your people would hire black farm hands, you wouldn't pay them the same wages you paid white workers, you wouldn't apprentice them to run their own farms, and thus you hogged all of the technological and economic impact for yourselves. That is why your society is so messed up now. You don't have the capacity to see past your skin color and look at your society as a whole. You operate on fear and fantasy. If you want a white only homeland so badly, why not just move to Sweden or Norway and get it over with? Why must you feel so motivated to live in South Africa of all places??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's like trying to say it's erroneous to say that the Casinos that are in the cities are detrimental to a city's society because they also provide gambling addiction recovery services. They did not care enough. There was a minority that did. but the South African society itself was exclusively white and exclusionary in it's design and inherent nature. So as a GROUP no they did not care. And it's erroneous to try to refute that. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is very important to note that the state is an artificial construct as the people of the state were never consulted about its imposition. The Zulus colonizing Germany scenario you outline neglects to mention that the Boers never intended to rule over the whole region. The Boers in fact never ruled the whole region. When the Boers were independent they left the Xhosas & the Zulus (in the British colonies of the Cape & Natal) to rule themselves. The White population did not rule over the whole region until the South Africa Act of 1909 was passed in the British Parliament. 
This is the whole point I thought I was clear about. While you are correct in stating that it is not important who created the artificial macro state: the point I am trying to get across is that is was because of this act (of creating the macro state) which put the entire White population (Afrikaner, Boer, English speaker & others) in control of the whole region. 
While you are right that the then government exploited the Bantu
population & denied them the right to farm within South Africa proper. 
How do you explain the fact that they were not taking to commercial  
farming even within the so called "homelands" where there were no similar restrictions on their activities. The Transkei had some of the most fertile farm land in the region while a number of Boers had even settled onto arid lands which they turned into successful farming enterprises. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoever wrote the paragraph above is insane, spewing blatant racist anti-white propaganda.  The United Nations Charter states that all people have a right to Selfdetermination.  The People of Orania are merely trying to obtain this right.  The blatant POV is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and I move to have this user blocked.  Gemsbok1 11:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure where you're getting your info from, but during the apartheid era, whites typically made up about 15% of South Africa's population. (In 1994, on the eve of the first democratic elections, they made up 13.6 percent.) Today, after significant emigration, they make up 9.3 percent (see my post below). 69.137.220.179 04:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A white town in a Black country? 

message: Sorry Zaph, you are being very POV yourself.  South Africa is not a "black" country, but one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world, and proud of it, the National credo is "unity through diversity".  The "white" population numbers more than the populations of Norway, Denmark or Finland each and the "Indian" population is the largest outside the Asian Subcontinent.  
: Whatever. that's like saying that France isn't a white country because 20% of the population is non-white European. Unity through diversity means UNITY through diversity. Not Unity (except for the white part) through diversity (except when the white segments want to opt out). The overall numbers may be greater in S.A. than Norway, Denmakr, or Finland, but the proportional population of S.Africa is 90% Black African. Get over it. Your not going to fenaggle and gerrymander statistics to make S. Africa look like it's "not really black". GET OVER YOURSELVES. Being white does not automatically give you more consideration, respect, or the right to get more compassion from the world. Your people in S.A are still the worst racists in the world, still #1 baby. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, per this source  South Africa is 79.4% black, 9.3% white, 8.8% colored, and 2.5% Indian/Asian. 69.137.220.179 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The White population is all of 4 million compared to over 30 million Blacks. Hardly diverse. The Whites of South Africa are mostly living in gated communities because of the post-apartheid massive surge in crime. Volksgeist 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Lnstr is clearly unable to follow an argument.  Neither Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe or the Rwandan Hutu's have anything to do with this town, except to prove the argument that ethnical minorities are extremely exposed to violence in democratic states.  Lnstr must also take note of the fact that this page is used for arguments relating to the article, and therefore does not serve as an informing tool, but to discuss the merits of the contents of the article.  No mention of Robert Mugabe is included in the article.  I have never added supremacist or racist propaganda to any article in Wikipedia.  Lnstr must start providing proof, rather than just accusing everyone who disagrees with his views of being racist and supremacist. Gemsbok1 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the "white"?

message: Great points Gemsbok1. Note to Zaph: The various Afrikaans cultural identities are 350 years old. What is 100 years old was the attempt at uniting them under a single designation. Those who trekked away from the Western Cape during the turn of the 1700s became known as distinct groups: from Trekboers (semi nomadic pastoralists) to Grensboers (established eastern Cape border farmers) to Voortrekkers (the pioneers who left en masse from the border regions of the Cape to trek into the veld in the north) to Boers (which described those associated with the above groups) while those who remained in the Western Cape tended to be called the Cape Dutch & were more affluent than their estranged trekking rustic cousins. The term Afrikaner as used in the 20th century was an attempt at politically uniting the various White Afrikaans speaking people under one designation after the partial genocide of the Boers during the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War.   
 Ron7 20:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boers consider themselves to be white. They do not relate to the Blacks and they do not consider themselves colored.  Like White Americans, they relate based on how well their faces appear to be purely white. Surely there are some exceptions to a degree, but the Boers who are 21%-50% are called "colored" and "black". Why are we having this absurd conversation? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Afrikaans Cultures are Centuries Old

message: The fact of the matter is that the town of Orania is not even located in a "black" section of the country as Black people do not have a history of settlement there as they do particularly the south-eastern regions. Most of the people living in the Northern Cape including the Western Cape are a series of Afrikaans speaking mixed race groups (such as the Griquas & the Basters & others) who are descended from the Khoisan (the aboriginal people of the Cape of non-Bantu (non-Black) origin & whose ancestors were also the original people of much of Southern Africa before being displaced & annihilated by migrating Bantus) peoples whose societies were still intact when the first Europeans arrived due to the fact that the Black-Bantu peoples did not penetrate the Kalahari dessert barrier. Significant numbers of Black people did not settle the Western Cape until the 19th century & are still a minority there. The Cape Coloureds (as they were classified) of mixed White / Khoisan / Indian /  Mozambican & Malay descent are the majority population. The Northern Cape province is also the least populated region of South Africa & is the main reason why those who seek to establish an Afrikaner demographic consolidation aimed at territorial indpedendence or autonomy are promoting resettlement to this region.   
 Ron7 08:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Town located in low populated mixed race region

message: You seem to be on a anti-Afrikaner crusade.  I do not know how I have wronged you, but you are dripping hatred of me.  You stated that you are from the U.S.A, do you therefore then consider yourself to be an African living in America or an American?  People in the U.S.A also had their fair share of white supremacists.  Do you remember the Clu Clux Clan?  Did you forget that you also had Apartheid as an official policy in all your Southern States before the advent of Martin Luther King? At least we did not murder all the natives in South Africa, as you had done with the Native Americans in the U.S.A!
I did not compare Mugabe to Hitler, I compared their actions to the security that minorities have in democratic countries.  What guarantee do we have that a future Hitler or Mugabe does not come to power in South Africa?
I have donated my own money and have built Christian Missionary schools for black children in South Africa and Mozambique with my own hands.  What have you done for black people here, except for attacking me?  Why is it wrong for me as an Afrikaner to want exactly what the Tswana's have in Botswana? I do not want to be German or Danish.  I want to be an Afrikaner in my own country in Africa.  You do not have any right to deny me this.
Your rabid attack on me smacks of foul motive, clearly coinciding with your use of foul language.  You are not a good example of a Christian. --Gemsbok1 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again in circles. Shooting up children in Soweto comes close. Creating "bantustans" comes close. Forcing Blacks to walk around S. Africa requiring "passes" is close. Not allowing the majority of the people of South Africa to vote, own land, run businesses, and to just live. It's close enough. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're sugar coating. "horizontal features". No, the Apartheid laws were a symptom of a delusional and self-centered culture. Boer, Afrikaaner, british, and so on. All were a part of the problem. Each having power at some point perpetuating the same stupidity. However the BOER led National party made it a very clear cultural and social issue to exacerbate the division of race into such a psychological level. What Apartheid type laws are still in effect now? Where are white people not allowed to work, swim, eat, live??? COME ON. Where are whites of any kind told they must speak Zulu in schools? You consider reparations "apartheid" because to you, to give up any of the unearned benefits from Apartheid is to go into another form of Apartheid. WRONG. 
No I am not "sugar coating" the horizontal features of Apartheid. I am 
pointing out that it was precisely because of the horizontal features that Apartheid was so oppressive. The National Party was not Boer lead. It was lead by Afrikaners that the British placed in control. 
 
  What Apartheid type laws are still in effect now?     
 
The Affirmative Action laws. The Black Economic Empowerment laws. 
The Communal Land Rights Act. Which was described as being worse 
than during Apartheid. 
 
  SA's "apartheid-style Land Bill" sparks fear of abuse 
- Communal Rights bill gives traditional leaders draconian powers..."worse than during apartheid..."   
SA's "apartheid-style Land Bill" sparks fear of abuse. 
White people are being pushed out from & discouraged from holding 
certain employment positions. 
People are being forced to learn English in schools. Odd how you appear 
to justify the Soweto Uprising in revolt of being educated in Afrikaans yet you downplay the fact that people are now being forced to be educated in English the true colonial language. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: YEs I not only assert, I clearly state unequivocally "extreme hate filled arrogant disgusting morally decrepit hypocritically anti-christian self absorbed white supremacist evil nastynuss.(sic)" . But to clarify, once again you are using ambiquity to present a point in a misleading way. The ethnic group voted for this repressive regime which was UNrepresentative because it did not allow OTHERS (who are not a part of the ethnic group) to participate. They were intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, as the Afrikaaners were the ones to voted them in. NOW, your dishonest deceptive and totally misrepresenting at the very LEAST the message I know you clearly understand. The Afrikaaner government was intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, lopsidedly so, it was NOT representative of the South African people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For one I find the Basque and Tamil claims worthy of merit. They were there long before any Spaniard or Aryan-Hindu came along. But regardless, their situation is extremely different than the AFrikaaner. (I'm sure you are wondering how...right?) Well, with the Basque, they never agreed to be a part of a unified spain. I do not have an opinion one way or another however, as Spain was unified about 500 years ago. With the Tamils, they have dealt with oppression from the Hindu government and they were not given a sayso in the establishment of INdia 60 years ago. However, with Afrikaaners, they came from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over from Europe, displaced 87% of the population of S. Africa, and in an ironic twist stole 87% of the land of that area. They were not and never have been related in any ancient way with any other group of indigenous people. The BASQUE and TAMILS have been living in their areas for eons. NEither group oppressed the Spaniards nor the Hindus(ARyans). So here we are again, you taking a dense approach to something that you know we are all intelligent enough to discern clearly. Why? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok let me get this straight. The Boers settle in SW corner of South Africa. Some then "trek" westward, and displace the Khoi (ding), then get into fights with the british (or other settlers), then trek again, displacing more Khoi (ding ding), then trek, then displace Xhosa (ding ding ding), then trek, then displace more Xhosa (ding ding ding ding), then trek again, then displace Zulu (ding ding ding ding ding!).... THEN, after a couple of wars against the Zulu, and other "bantu" then fight a couple more wars with and against the British with and against the Zulu, the Germans, and again the British. Now, after a while, SOME of the Boers want to remain seperate from the other whites (including other boers) who establish the country... ALL want the Blacks to be nothing and to have nothing, but you can't kill em all, so you all mutually agree to push them into bantustans (ding!). Oh wait we aren't done yet. THEN you make up those chump rules called Apartheid (and believe me, Apartheid was such a chumpy way to be like Jim Crow America. Silly three-caste system. Then you try to force them to speak Afrikaans (ding!). Kill some kids here, kill some there. Now, after 12 years of disengagement, you are trying to "reason" on this talk page about "suzerainty of the Boers". So your issue isn't that the Boers displaced and stole land that was not theirs, but that the British stole what was rightfully stolen by the Boers. OH WAIT, its not theft by the Boers, because the Blacks weren't REEEAALY there. LOL. Or wait, Let me guess, there was a treaty signed by some idiot chief who was double teamed by another tribe (supported by Boers or Brits) into a peace treaty. Or, oh wait a minute, it's coming to me now. The Zulu attacked first. They started it, so of course the Boers have every right to just colonize. What a nice beautiful Afrikaaner logic again! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: DING! And nothing NATURAL happened with the Boers besides the typical garden variety unnatural exploitation of the Khoi and manipulation of the Zulu. The silly treaties and the crazy stuff with Henry Frere and Cetshwayo. In the end those kind of things gave, WRONGFULLY, gave the Boers more land. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a white person. Secondly, much of my heritage is native american. Thirdly, I do not make excuses for what white Americans had done. Fourthly, there is no "white American" reservation in the U.S.A. Finally, I do not have any problem with Native Americans being compensated (without reservation, without delay) for the lands stolen. So what now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaph 

message: Firstly I want you to know that your opinion is not the same as a universal fact. I do not have an interest in you personally. The "you" in question is your philosophy and your general attitude. So I think you know this. Secondly, it is BECAUSE of the hatred in the USA, with the Klan, and the Apartheid (which you obviously recognize as morally wrong) that I have the position I have. YOu did not murder ALL of the natives, but you murdered many, using many dispicable tactics. (Notice that you say "we didn't murder" and "we this" and "we that", that is why I refer to "you" in that same collective sense. You personally can understand this, so do not pretend I am personally attacking you).  You wonder, what guarantee do you have that a future Hitler or Mugabe does not come to power in S. Africa? Guess what, a regime like that already RULED south Africa for over 100 years. That's the part that doesn't make sense. It's like you don't seem to understand that you already HAD your hitlers. Now you question the new leadership based on a fear or assumption that the KIND of hitler will be the kind that hurts you and people like you. Well guess what, that's just not happening. The government of S. Africa has not come even CLOSE to matching the atrocities of the Afrikaaner ruled Apartheid regime. It would take eons for the body count to match. In addition, what the Afrikaaner regime did for the people of S. Africa throughout its ENTIRE existence was just as bad if not worse than Hitler. Hitler lasted for 10 years. Your government killed millions, tried to annex Namibia, attacked Zimbabwe and Zambia. Your government's CBW germ warfare was no different than the gas chambers of the Nazi's and the Rodeplat RResearch Labs developed the "native american genocide" option, by putting poison and germs in blankets and clothings then "giving" these to Blacks. The Rebels of Renamo in Mozambique was known for using chemical weapons...I could go on and on. But you live in a world where you want everyone to focus on every single crime by the blacks and in doing so thus forget of the overwhelming evil by the Afriakkaners. There is no "forget". And as far as Christian goes. I never forced a white person to pray to God with "To the Father, whom you are" instead of "OUR Father". Amazing Christians Afrikaaners are, "To the Father, whom thou art". Oh and lets not forget, only in S. Africa are all of these crimes non-punishable by a mere confession by the perpetrators. "Truth and REconcilliation Commission" should have been called "Trade Black equality for White pardons". It is too bad for you that you will not have what the Tswanas have, since they did not come from the other side of the planet to take it. This is the reason why. YOu say "I am not dutch or german" so that is why you wish not to go to Germany. Well you want to say "I am South African" then well, live AS A SOUTH AFRICAN, not as a "White" South AFrican. Germans don't have a seperatist nation in the middle of their country for some "other kind of germans'. The Dutch don't have a "such-and-such enclave for some other kind of dutch". All this talk of yours, you trying to sound reasonable "oh all I want is just to be treated like everyone else" kind of talk, well ACT like it. Keep building your schools and what not with your bare hands and accept that you are a part of a bigger society which is not centered around people that look like you. Maybe if you really think about it, those Christian Missionary Schools will be capable of teaching the children more than what the Afrikaaner system did. Maybe 50 years down the line, those students will be able to run their own farms, and hire white south africans as assistants, and maybe those black south africans whom you build schools for, maybe they will be able to run the cities and governments effectively without a hinderance from a lack of experience and unity from his OWN PEOPLE!... oh you DO consider yourself one of the PEOPLE of South Africa right? Or does that respect only extend to the "white" South Africans? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again in circles. Shooting up children in Soweto comes close. Creating "bantustans" comes close. Forcing Blacks to walk around S. Africa requiring "passes" is close. Not allowing the majority of the people of South Africa to vote, own land, run businesses, and to just live. It's close enough. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're sugar coating. "horizontal features". No, the Apartheid laws were a symptom of a delusional and self-centered culture. Boer, Afrikaaner, british, and so on. All were a part of the problem. Each having power at some point perpetuating the same stupidity. However the BOER led National party made it a very clear cultural and social issue to exacerbate the division of race into such a psychological level. What Apartheid type laws are still in effect now? Where are white people not allowed to work, swim, eat, live??? COME ON. Where are whites of any kind told they must speak Zulu in schools? You consider reparations "apartheid" because to you, to give up any of the unearned benefits from Apartheid is to go into another form of Apartheid. WRONG. 
No I am not "sugar coating" the horizontal features of Apartheid. I am 
pointing out that it was precisely because of the horizontal features that Apartheid was so oppressive. The National Party was not Boer lead. It was lead by Afrikaners that the British placed in control. 
 
  What Apartheid type laws are still in effect now?     
 
The Affirmative Action laws. The Black Economic Empowerment laws. 
The Communal Land Rights Act. Which was described as being worse 
than during Apartheid. 
 
  SA's "apartheid-style Land Bill" sparks fear of abuse 
- Communal Rights bill gives traditional leaders draconian powers..."worse than during apartheid..."   
SA's "apartheid-style Land Bill" sparks fear of abuse. 
White people are being pushed out from & discouraged from holding 
certain employment positions. 
People are being forced to learn English in schools. Odd how you appear 
to justify the Soweto Uprising in revolt of being educated in Afrikaans yet you downplay the fact that people are now being forced to be educated in English the true colonial language. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: YEs I not only assert, I clearly state unequivocally "extreme hate filled arrogant disgusting morally decrepit hypocritically anti-christian self absorbed white supremacist evil nastynuss.(sic)" . But to clarify, once again you are using ambiquity to present a point in a misleading way. The ethnic group voted for this repressive regime which was UNrepresentative because it did not allow OTHERS (who are not a part of the ethnic group) to participate. They were intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, as the Afrikaaners were the ones to voted them in. NOW, your dishonest deceptive and totally misrepresenting at the very LEAST the message I know you clearly understand. The Afrikaaner government was intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, lopsidedly so, it was NOT representative of the South African people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaph's reponse 

message: All the different peoples in the world have an internationally recognized legal right to self determination.  This is why there are different countries in the world, and not just one country.  This concept is enshrined in the UN Charter as well as in the South African constitution.  It is not only us who want it, the Basques and the Tamils also want it, but strangely you only attack us.  
:: For one I find the Basque and Tamil claims worthy of merit. They were there long before any Spaniard or Aryan-Hindu came along. But regardless, their situation is extremely different than the AFrikaaner. (I'm sure you are wondering how...right?) Well, with the Basque, they never agreed to be a part of a unified spain. I do not have an opinion one way or another however, as Spain was unified about 500 years ago. With the Tamils, they have dealt with oppression from the Hindu government and they were not given a sayso in the establishment of INdia 60 years ago. However, with Afrikaaners, they came from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over from Europe, displaced 87% of the population of S. Africa, and in an ironic twist stole 87% of the land of that area. They were not and never have been related in any ancient way with any other group of indigenous people. The BASQUE and TAMILS have been living in their areas for eons. NEither group oppressed the Spaniards nor the Hindus(ARyans). So here we are again, you taking a dense approach to something that you know we are all intelligent enough to discern clearly. Why? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let me get this straight. The Boers settle in SW corner of South Africa. Some then "trek" westward, and displace the Khoi (ding), then get into fights with the british (or other settlers), then trek again, displacing more Khoi (ding ding), then trek, then displace Xhosa (ding ding ding), then trek, then displace more Xhosa (ding ding ding ding), then trek again, then displace Zulu (ding ding ding ding ding!).... THEN, after a couple of wars against the Zulu, and other "bantu" then fight a couple more wars with and against the British with and against the Zulu, the Germans, and again the British. Now, after a while, SOME of the Boers want to remain seperate from the other whites (including other boers) who establish the country... ALL want the Blacks to be nothing and to have nothing, but you can't kill em all, so you all mutually agree to push them into bantustans (ding!). Oh wait we aren't done yet. THEN you make up those chump rules called Apartheid (and believe me, Apartheid was such a chumpy way to be like Jim Crow America. Silly three-caste system. Then you try to force them to speak Afrikaans (ding!). Kill some kids here, kill some there. Now, after 12 years of disengagement, you are trying to "reason" on this talk page about "suzerainty of the Boers". So your issue isn't that the Boers displaced and stole land that was not theirs, but that the British stole what was rightfully stolen by the Boers. OH WAIT, its not theft by the Boers, because the Blacks weren't REEEAALY there. LOL. Or wait, Let me guess, there was a treaty signed by some idiot chief who was double teamed by another tribe (supported by Boers or Brits) into a peace treaty. Or, oh wait a minute, it's coming to me now. The Zulu attacked first. They started it, so of course the Boers have every right to just colonize. What a nice beautiful Afrikaaner logic again! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: DING! And nothing NATURAL happened with the Boers besides the typical garden variety unnatural exploitation of the Khoi and manipulation of the Zulu. The silly treaties and the crazy stuff with Henry Frere and Cetshwayo. In the end those kind of things gave, WRONGFULLY, gave the Boers more land. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a white person. Secondly, much of my heritage is native american. Thirdly, I do not make excuses for what white Americans had done. Fourthly, there is no "white American" reservation in the U.S.A. Finally, I do not have any problem with Native Americans being compensated (without reservation, without delay) for the lands stolen. So what now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: I will make a prediction. My name is Zaph von Seer de Wikipedia. I predict that colored people in S. Africa will be recruited to legitimize the white boer movement. Boer-mixed-coloreds will be used to "show" that the Boer seperatist movement is not purely skin-color-racial. I predict that a marginalized minority of coloreds will be "accepted" into the Boer seperatist movement, but of course they will not be allowed to marry white boers, especially not a black male boer marrying a white female one! No Black boers will have any say, any relevant say in policy in the boer seperatist movement, and they will be mere participants, never influencing any of the outcomes... that is unless they look white enough.  --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh the token black-boers will be used

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orania, Northern Cape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106034410/http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/Monographs/No81/Chap3.pdf to http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/Monographs/No81/Chap3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)