Talk:Afrikaners/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Trek 

message: To Psb777 who deleted the portion noting the Indian admixture of Afrikaner's ancestors & commented "Afrikaners of Indian extraction/admixture?" in the edit box. There is in fact a growing record of evidence uncovered by researchers which has found that some of the early White settlers miscegenated & intermarried with some Indian slaves. In fact the Indian genetic element is most likely the largest percentage of their partial non white genes. Some related excerpts concerning this follow. 
 
The next largest group of slave spouses were from the Indonesian Archipelago (22.5 percent) and 15.2 percent of the slave wives were from India, all from Bengal.  From: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1266/genetic.htm 
The first slave to be freed at the Cape was Catharina Anthonis, who was born in Bengal, and liberated because Jan Woutersz from Middelburg wished to marry her - this was on 21 May 1656. Another slave Maria van Bengal, was a slave of the sick comforter Pieter van der Stael, she was sold into freedom 6 July 1658 to be married the 21 July to Jan Sacharias. "A dropsical Bengalese woman married to a Netherlander and with the consent of the Commander.  From: http://www.stamouers.com/Slave.htm 
According to some scholars on slavery in South Africa, the number of slaves from India exceeded those from Indonesia or Africa.
The Dutch settlers married some Indian women. There was extensive miscegenation and many settlers, in their old age, formally married their mistresses and baptised their children. As a result, numerous Afrikaner families can trace their ancestry to Indians and perhaps half the Coloured people have Indian ancestry.
And the Indians were also the most prominent in the slave resistance and revolts.
I hope that the Afrikaners will rediscover their history so that we in India can establish fruitful relations with them.
E. S. Reddy.  From: http://anchosting.unwembi.co.za/un/reddy/nehrulec.html 
J. A. Heese, in Die Herkoms van die Afrikaner 1657-1867, presented the results of research from parish registers and other sources on the ancestors of the Afrikaners. He found that between 1660 and 1705, 191 of the settlers from Germany married or lived with women who were not pure Europeans. Of the women, 114 were born in the Cape (most probably mixed), 29 were Bengalis and 43 were from other Asian regions.  From: http://www.geocities.com/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm  
Note: even former President F W de Klerk apparently notes in his autobiography that he himself has an Indian ancestor.  
 
Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688. Like many Afrikaners he has a skeleton in the closet--one of his 18th century forebears was the daughter of an Indian slave.  From: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107990201-20401,00.html  
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)
thread_title:  Afrikaners' ancestors. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Admixture 

message: 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.
 
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 .  redirects to , and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OtherUses template 

message: # Alan Boesak is not an Afrikaner, he is a Coloured.
# Ernie Els is an Afrikaner
DEFINE Afrikaner please.  I would say 1) in South Africa 2) Speak Afrikaans as your first language.  What does race have to do with it?
An Afrikaner is a white person who speaks Afrikaans as his or her first language and was born in South Africa. I'm sorry but you can
lay claim to Afrikaner land and property but one thing you can't take away is the heritage from them because it just isn't feasible.
You can call yourself Afrikaner all you want, it doesn't change anything about how you are perceived amongst Afrikaners. And I'm
not trying to be a "racist" asshole here, but even though I am white if I were to immigrate to South Africa and even if I learned Afrikaans
I would be welcome to my fellow white people but they would never consider me an Afrikaner either. You have to fulfill all of the criteria
to qualify both heredically and culturally. 84.160.239.19 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaln Boesak and Ernie Els 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Information on Afrikaners who have migrated to Europe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV notice 

message: 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.
 Ron7 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Boer versus Afrikaner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious data list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: What the H has happened to this article? Half of it is gone? �Dr.Poison 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has.. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  There is a big problem here 

message: 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)
thread_title: Two cents from an Afrikaner-Boer

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black "allies" during Anglo-Boer war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Afrikaners 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaned up page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On being an Afrikaner...or, perhaps, NOT? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section on religion has serious shortcomings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fine Spread 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I don't have a problem with moving the girl down to say the "Culture" section. --Gemsbok1 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main picture... 

message: The South African referendum, 1992 was held on 17 March 1992. In it, South Africans were asked to vote in the last tricameral election held under the apartheid system, in which the Coloured and Indian population groups could also vote, to determine whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by then State President F.W. de Klerk two years earlier.
This should be re-written. It sounds like the Coloureds and Indians would have voted in the referendum. That is wrong, only white citizens where allowed to vote in national referendum. Dr.Poison 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this could be wrong, since 1984 Indians and Coloureds were given the right to vote. However, weather they were accepted into this exact referedum is another question.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Apartheid 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the  template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 

message: I think that, for the sake of objectivity, it should be stated in the article's introduction that 'Afrikaner' is a highly problematic term for which several conflicting definitions currently exist.
:Don't know who posted the above, but yes, in principle I would agree with that. --WickedHorse 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic 

message: I've included a section on what a lot of people think of as a typical Afrikaner, as being overweight and uncivilised because it's necessary to remove this prejudice, considering Apartheid is 13 years behind them. I followed the style used in the hillbilly page on wikipedia and if someone wishes to remove it please do tell me why. 
82.2.88.225 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be rather filled with overgeneralizations and it's not very NPOV.. ~
"(The Afrikaner just want to be left alone. They dont care much for different cultures. However this has changed dramatically over the last few years as more and more young Afrikaners had to go overseas, because they were to white to apply for jobs in South Africa"
That looks very POV to me, so do the others.....
217.39.175.141 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical Afrikaner 

message: I know that strictly speaking the term Boer is applied to farmer or 'peasant' but all the 'Afrikaners' I've met, and that's probably about 7 or 8, have referred to themselves as Boers, perhaps we should have a seperate article for Afrikaners and Boers, but include most of this one in the Boer one because Boers are whites whereas 'Afrikaners' include elements of the coloured community who consider themselves Afrikaner.
If someone could tell me why certain 'Afrikaners' find the term Boer offensive please do tell me, it only means peasant in the sense that it means common people. 
P.S. I've used Leonard Van Os.' Self- Taught Afrikaans to get these definitions I'm sure wikipedia has some fluent Afrikaans speakers to please correct me. 
86.27.49.214 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best usage is to restrict 'Boer' to historical contexts, eg Boer Republics, and to use Afrikaner in present-day contexts. Perhaps a better analogy would be to place 'boer' to the same category as 'negro' — a once-neutral term the use of which today is deprecated and may signal a certain mind-set in the user. I don't dispute that in South Africa, in slogans as 'kill the boer', the term is being used like 'nigger', but on the whole I think the analogy to 'negro' might be more accurate. Rexparry sydney 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I cannot agree more, and Afrikaner is actually a rather derogratory word in my family, because we've never used it. There is even an infobox on Afrikaans wikipedia which translates : This user is a boer (I for one use it).Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boer 

message: Perhaps we should have an article emphasising that there is an Afrikaner nation, more so than one of English- speaking South African whites who still have ties with Britain. The fact is that they are a large group of people (at least 2,700,000) and have been seperate from Europe for at least 200 years. They have a different culture, a different language. I've heard ignorant people say if they're forced out of Africa one way or another that they'll be coming 'home'? It's not like they've been on holiday, they've had probably 8 or 9 generations at least who've been born there (more for some of the original Dutch settlers' descendants) born and raised in Africa. 
They have a nation because:
*They have a history together, they're bound as an ethnic group by hardship, wars and a common culture 
*Their own language 
*A clearly defined homeland, which they recognise as where they come from 
*No ties outside of Africa for most of them, other than commercially 
*A culture seperate from that of their ancestors in Holland, Germany, Belgium or France 
So if someone with more knowledge of their culture than myself could start an Afrikaner Nation page it would be productive in my opinion.
BOV1993 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such discussion or information would relate directly to this page and would not require a separate article. As for what constitutes an "Afrikaner", well that has also been thrashed out extensively on this article's talk page (see the archives) and is also covered extensively in the article. The fact is, there is great debate on what constitutes an Afrikaner ethnic group (if one could define such a group). In any event, adding the nation suffix would do nothing, but evoke 'white supremacist' language and notions. --Deon Steyn 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afrikaner Nation 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: I changed the estimated number of Zulu slain during the 1838 battle from "10,000" to "3,000," to reflect the number commonly quoted by various sources, e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Du Toit (2005:20), etc.
Of more concern, I am puzzled by the extended discussion of the conflicts with the Zulu in an article dealing with Afrikaner ethnicity. All that needs to be done here is to point out the function of the 1838 event in the origin myths of Afrikaner ethnicity. 
I recommend moving both this section and its verbatim repetition in the Great Trek article to the Battle of Blood River article. 
→Sorry, forgot to sign earlier: DocDee 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Changes to Blood River Section 

message: As a member of that malleable, elusive and historical construct "Afrikaner" (:/) I find myself uncomfortable with the images at the top right of the article that purport to represent "Afrikaners." 
* In the first place, the gallery excludes more recent exemplars. 
* In addition, the four figures represent historical conflict with various sectors of the broader South African population (the Zulu, people from British descent).
* Third, all persons represented opposed, to varying degrees, the legal equality of those in the population who were not directly descended from European ancestry.
My point is that we should not hide the broad spectrum of political stances and historical actions of those who claim to be Afrikaners. It is important for historical accuracy to show Afrikaners who did not conform to the racial prejudice which, for many Afrikaners and for so long of our history, was central to Afrikaner identity.
Should the images not also include people like C F Beyers-Naudé, or André Brink, or Breyten Breytenbach, or Carl Niehaus, or Max du Preez, who chose to side against the racial prejudice of their fellow Afrikaners? DocDee 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should more images be included? 

message: Does anyone know the origins and distinction of the most-used spelling Afrikaner and the alternative, lesser-used spelling Afrikaaner, which occurs in some dictionaries and older texts? Should the alternative spelling be given in the article or is it deprecated? Rexparry sydney 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include it as a parenthetical at the beginning of the article. And from what I see in the OED, it looks like it was the original spelling (from usage and from etymology). Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: No Afrikaans is not close to standard Dutch as it did not develop from Dutch but from a Franconian dialect which was infused with & significantly influenced by Malay -adopting its grammar syntax & numerous loanwords- & influenced by French (adopting its nasalization of vowels & the double negative) / German / Portuguese & certain Khoi words. Furthermore: most Afrikaans speakers have great difficulty in 
understanding Dutch & vise versa. Even a Dutch documentary on South Africa was in Dutch subtitles[1] when the Afrikaans speakers were featured. 
  Is Afrikaans not a creole of Dutch?
In the late nineteenth century, when most research on Afrikaans was based not on empirical, historical and etimological studies, but rather on the personal opinions of famous scholars, Afrikaans was regarded as a creole of Dutch. During the early twentieth century, however, several Dutch, German, English and South African scholars spend years studying early manuscripts, Netherland dialects, and modern 
linguistic theory, and were able to prove that Afrikaans is indeed not a creole, but a full language in its own right.
Some of the most favourable and valuable academic materials were published in Dutch and Afrikaans, but one or two books with less favourable opinions were written in English. Since English is far more widely understood than Dutch, many English speaking people read only the English books proclaiming Afrikaans to be a creole, thereby resulting in the worldwide mistaken belief that Afrikaans is indeed a creole.
Is Afrikaans not merely a simplified version of Dutch?
If you believe this, you might as well believe that French is a simplified version of Latin. While it is true that to the casual observer Afrikaans might look and sound like a watered down version of Dutch, Afrikaans actually boasts many linguistic features not found in Dutch at all. In fact, you might say that modern Dutch and modern Afrikaans are both dialects of late medieval Dutch.   
 From: Brief intro to Afrikaans. 
  Afrikaans, the modern version is more than merely a Dutch derivative as some would suggest.
Inextricably linked for the last century with the development and application of apartheid within South Africa, the immense reach and value of this language has often been overlooked within the wider political climate.
While the Dutch, who arrived in South Africa in 1652 and established a colony in Cape Town, are largely credited with the birth of the language, the version spoken today is an accumulation of many other influences. The Dutch dialect established after 1652 incorporated terms and phrases handed down from sailors who had been shipwrecked off the Cape coast after it became clear that the horn of Africa presented 
another viable trade route. These phrases, of both english and portuguese origin, soon found their way into the dutch dialect.
In addition, the language took on a more oriental flavour with the arrival of a slaves in the Cape, primarily of Malay extraction, but also from other eastern regions and nearby African islands including Madagascar. 
This spiced the language considerably, and when the accents, dialects and phrases of the original inhabitants of the land were added to the mix, it became evident that Afrikaans was a completely different animal to its Dutch parent. 
The Hottentots, original Koi inhabitants as well as the Xhosa and the Zulu people all contributed in their fashion to the language as it spoken today.
From this, three main dialects emerged, Cape Afrikaans, Orange River Afrikaans and Eastern Border Afrikaans. The Cape dialect is mostly enfused with the language spoken by the Malay slaves who worked in the Cape and spoke a form of broken Portuguese, the Orange River dialect developed with the influence of Koi languages and dialects developed in the Namakwaland and Griqualand West regions and the Eastern Border Afrikaans evolved from the settlers who moved East towards Natal 
from the Cape.   
From:  History of the Afrikaans language in South Africa.  
  This unique language "just grew" from the soil of South Africa. In the human melting pot of the Cape it was inevitable that, from the original Dutch spoken by the first settlers, a colloquial form would be evolved by people such as the Khoikhoi and slaves from Malaya, Indonesia, Madagascar and West Africa.
These diverse peoples all needed to communicate and a modified version of Dutch, with many words from the other languages, was used as a language common to all. It developed further as Huguenot settlers added words and altered the sound of other words.
The struggle to gain recognition for Afrikaans as a written language was directed and carried out from Paarl. The Language Route centres on Dal Josaphat where a number of farms and buildings are to be found in which many of the events relating to the struggle for recognition of the language and the First Afrikaans Language Movement took place.   
 
From: History of Afrikaans. 
  Erroneously some have claimed the Afrikaans language to be the language of the 'Baas'. Afrikaans is the result of bringing together the East and the West, the North and the South. It was and should be the language that celebrates our cultural diversity rather than the language of exclusion. On the other hand those who attack Afrikaans is attacking not the language of the white man, but also the legacy that our slave stamouer have left behind in the development of this  language.   
 
The above excerpt from: Slave Stamouers of South Africa. 
  
The Taal movement—Afrikaans.
- the main leaders in this movement were the Du Toit brothers in Paarl. Afrikaans (at the time almost always referred to as ‘die Taal’—the Language) was a spoken, not a written language. It was a simplified version of Dutch which probably had originated among the slaves and/or Khoikhoi servants. Because young children were raised mostly by nannies, this was the language most whites learned first . Over many generations, the Taal was usually the first language of young children. Dutch remained the official language of government and the Dutch Reformed Church and thus it had to be learned later. Dutch was the written language.   
 
From: Origins of Afrikaner Nationalism.  
  Towards the end of the nineteenth century, however, a political party known as the Afrikaner Bond had been started in the Western Cape. Its publication Die Afrikaner Patriot made a small and shaky beginning, read mainly by the less well-to-do rural readers whose home language was not Dutch but Afrikaans, sneeringly referred to as the patterjots by Dutch speakers.
Afrikaans was not a systematic language. Dialects differed widely — at the beginning of the century, for example, six dialects existed in the Cape province alone. Furthermore, Afrikaans had an unfavourable image for wealthy Boers. It was associated with both colour and class; the middle class regarded it as a kombuistaal — a ‘kitchen language’ to be used when addressing servants or farm labourers. Generally, the poorer the community, the more its Afrikaans differed from the ‘purer’ version spoken in the Western Cape. For example, the language spoken by the poorer peasants in Namaqualand caused concern:
In (this area) one finds the weakest Afrikaans. Ignored by Church and State, these people have been in constant contact with Griquas and Hottentots, who speak a low semi-barbaric form of Afrikaans. We must make a distinction between civilised Afrikaans and the language of the street, playground and servants.
Afrikaner intellectuals worked very hard to ‘clean up’ Afrikaans —they appropriated the language developed by the ‘coloured’ lower classes and claimed it as their own, ‘white’ language. They removed black and Malay as well as English influences; for example, many southern Nguni words, which had entered the dialect in the Eastern Cape, were replaced by Dutch words in the new dictionaries devised by teachers and 
academics, to reinforce the idea that Afrikaans was respectable and ‘white’.
On the Rand, where the dominant language of an industrial society was English, working-class Afrikaans was riddled with English-based words. For example, the Afrikaans Garment Workers Union magazine Klerewerker (which promoted the use of Afrikaans) adapted many words derived from English — they used words like ‘werkendeklas’, instead of ‘arbeidersklas’. They also included creative new uses of 
words, like brandsiek, which was used to describe a ‘scab’, a person who broke a strike by working. But these were lost as they arose out of working-class experiences, and were excluded from official recognition by the middle-class compilers of Afrikaans dictionaries, and magazine and book editors.   
 From. 
Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State. 
  Afrikaans as a lingua franca in South Africa: the politics of change.
Afrikaans has been a lingua franca throughout its existence. Its early development took place mainly in and around Cape Town, in a situation of intensive language contact between indigenous Khoekhoe, Dutch settlers, and slaves. Since most people learned it informally, often from other non-native speakers, and since the Cape was relatively isolated from conservative linguistic influences, the language changed a great deal. Until the late nineteenth century, there was no concerted attempt to regulate it. It does have less prominence in public life, but is still being used as a lingua franca. 
Print ISSN: 0165-2516  
Volume: 2006, 01/2006  
Pages: 91 - 109.   
 
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Walter de Gruyter. 
The White Afrikaans peoples do in fact recognize that they are ethnically distinct from other Africans (though most White / Black & Coloured Africans in fact share Khoisan genes[2] furthermore they are all indigenous but none are aboriginal as the aboriginal Khoisan peoples were displaced & hunted down by invading Bantus) but the fact of the matter is that this does not negate the fact that they are an African people as they developed as a people & as a culture on African soil. There was no Afrikaans culture in Europe before it was developed on African soil.
The European origins is in fact distant & this is on the historical record. Most White Afrikaans people have ancestors that go back for 355 years (& beyond to thousands of years when factoring in the Khoisan element) with generations of forebears having been born lived & died in Africa & never having gone to Europe. The alleged "significant migration of the later centuries" was mostly that of the British who formed their own distinct English speaking community with very little actually being absorbed into the White Afrikaans peoples. The VOC had stopped legal immigration in 1707. There was a trickle afterwards but it was relatively small scale to which the arrivals were absorbed into the established White Afrikaans communities. There were a number of Dutch immigrants brought out during the 19th century to the Transvaal Republic as President Kruger did not like the Cape Afrikaners as he viewed then as being to pro British.[3] But the majority of the Boer & Afrikaners peoples were & are descended from the original arrivals of the 17th cent.
  Afrikaner
The Afrikaners are the descendants of the Dutch and French Huguenots who settled in southern Africa from the 1600’s. They are also commonly known as the Boers[4], which means “farmers” in Afrikaans.
Later British settlers prompted them to move further inland, where, isolated from their European influences, they Africanized and developed their own culture and language. The Afrikaners have also been called the white tribe of Africa. Their language is Dutch of origin and structure, similar to the Flemish. It is also influenced by African, Portuguese, German, French and Malay languages. In 1925, Afrikaans was 
declared the official language of South Africa besides English. The Afrikaners, or Boers, have a rich mix of cultures in their blood: one estimate has 40% Dutch, 40% German, 7.5% British (mainly Scots), 7.5% French and 5% others. The word Afrikaner was first used in 1707.  
 
From: 
Eastern Cape Tourism Board.  
Also.  
Afrikaner.
From: A Dictionary of World History | Date: 2000.
Afrikaner (or Boer) A member of the White Afrikaans-speaking population of South Africa. It is used particularly to refer to the descendants of the families which emigrated from the Netherlands, Germany, and France before 1806.  
Wrong. Black Africans are relative new comers to Southern Africa as they came & displaced the aboriginal yellow-brown skinned Khoisan people who inhabited the Southern half of Africa for thousands of years. The White people displaced the Khoisan peoples in the Western Cape (absorbing many & also producing various mixed race groups such as the Griquas) as the Black people did not inhabited the Western Cape when the White people first arrived & did not migrate to the Western Cape in any significant numbers until well after the British ruled the Cape.
Now you contradict yourself as you admit that the White Afrikaans peoples have been in Africa for close to 400 years yet deny that they are White Africans. Then you lie asserting that "very few" can trace their ancestry to the original settlers when in fact most White Afrikaans people do go back this far as noted in all the historical 
documents on them & all one has to do is to look at their surnames to see quick proof of this. Most of the White Afrikaans people's surnames go right back to the 17th cent.
Quote: < . The cultures and peoples which constitute Afrikaners are almost entirely European >
Wrong. The White Afrikaans people did not exist in Europe & only came about on African soil as a result of amalgamating with the various cultural groups brought there by the VOC. The White Afrikaans culture is an African culture just as the White Americans are an American culture. Historians have noted that they broke their ties to Europe early on & the first trekking Boers in particular who moved away from colonial society beginning in the late 17th cent lived as nomadic migrating farmers co-opting & adopting much of the Khoisan way of life[5] in order to survive as a class of impoverished pastotalists. The Boers lived in total isolation to Europe & Europe only began to take notice of them around the time of the Great Trek & particularly during the second Anglo-Boer War.
Quote: < culture, language, ancestry, religion, all trace to the primary origins of Afrikaners: the Netherlands >
Absolutely Wrong! The Dutch component to their ancestry is only about 35 % of their origins & much of that was in fact Frisian.[6] The French Huguenot refugees who were sent to the Cape comprise of about 25 % of their origins [7] & about 35 - 40 % of their origins is of German origin. There were even more Germans than Dutch among those who were initially sent to the Cape. I do not believe it! -you actually contradict yourself again by saying that their "primary origins" are Dutch then later admit in the same paragraph that they are only about 35 % of Dutch (which is mostly Frisian) origin. Now you can not have it both ways.
Quote: < Dutch culture and language again also had the largest impact. >
An absolute lie! None other than the Dutch tyrant Jan van Riebeeck -who forcibly removed the ancestors of the Boers & Afrikaners & dumped them at the Cape- even noted in his own personal diary his DISTAIN for the immigrants he sent to the Cape noting that they did not speak Dutch as they spoke a Franconian dialect.[8] Dutch culture HAD NO significant impact on the emerging White Afrikaans peoples since they were not even significantly composed of Dutch origins & neither did they ever speak the Dutch language!!!
Quote: < In addition, the comments of some of these authors is ridiculous. >
Now you are making an erroneous JUGEMENT call as the EXCERPTS I posted of certain knowledgable authors (they examined the entire continent in question: what the hell have you ever examined on Africa?) is clear academic peer reviewed proof of the fact that the Boer people -in particular- broke all their ties to Europe when they began to forge a homegrown African identity / language & culture.
Quote: < If the Afrikaners had "broken all ties with Europe", how come they retained their European and Dutch culture and language and their religion, including before the British even arrived in South Africa ? > 
Now this is getting into complicated territory as it illustrates the cultural differences between the neo colonial Cape based Afrikaners & the anti colonial & rustic Boers. The point is that the Afrikaans peoples broke their connection to Europe & have even been called an "orphaned" people by the Afrikaans authour Brian Du Toit.[9] Demostrating that the Afrikaans peoples Africanized & developed their own culture due to having been cut off from Europe. Now the Cape Afrikaners often historically insisted that they spoke Dutch (until they finally admited that they speak a different language in 1875 when they formally recoginzed Afrikaans) while the Boers knew their language was not Dutch since they could not understasnd it & would often call their language die Taal. The Cape Afrikaners often viewed their culture as being related to Europe while the frontier Boers (having broken all ties to Europe) developed a new African culture & were even ex-communicated from the Church -due to the Great Trek- whereupon some of them started their own church. Allthough the Afrikaans historian André Du Toit (a common Afrikaans name of French origin) noted in his academic findings that the Boers were not known as ardent Christians or for their religiosity before the Anglo-Boer War & that they were then believing in legends of spirits / primitive medicine & were superstitious[10] having adopted homegrown customs. So this matter of them having adopted "European" customs is not as black & white as you might think.
Quote: < Not to mention that most are still predominantly of European, specifically Dutch and German, origins. >
No you still do not get it. The White Afrikaans people have been in Africa for so long that they are in fact of African origins (as Africa is where their culture / language & ethnic group developed) just as the White people in Europe are no longer still called Asians just because most White Europeans came from Asia thousands of years ago. The White people in Europe are of Asian origins but no one calls them Asians as they have developed their own cultures in Europe. Just as the Boers & Afrikaners have developed their own cultures in Africa.
Quote: < How about this Afirkaner flag which bears the colours of the United Netherlands and used by some Cape Rebels during the second Anglo-Boer War ? >
More erroneous presumptions again. This flag has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Netherlands as it was a representation of a combination of the two Boer Republics flags you ignoramus! Furthermore: it is not an Afrikaner flag but rather a Boer flag & it was called the Struggle Flag. The fact that it has similar colours to the old Netherlands flag IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE as there are numerous flags around the world which resemble one another. For example: the flag of Chad resembles the flag of Romania: but are the people of Chad then Romanians? Furthermore: the Cape Rebels were those Boers of the eastern Cape -where the Great Trek was from- who fought on the side of the Boer Republics against Britain. The term rebel meant they they were rebels to Britain as the Cape was ruled by Britain.
Quote: < The Afrikaners are ethnically culturally and linguistically distinct from the actual, indigenous African peoples. >
Well this was the most telling line of all. The "actual indigenous African peoples". So basically in your erroneous POV world the White Afrikaans people are not indigenous people simply because you say so despite what the actual historical records shows. The White Afrikaans peoples & particularly the Boer people ARE IN FACT an indigenous people as their culture / language & ethnic group WAS ENTIRELY DEVELOPED ON African soil.[11] I think I will take the academic findings of the historical record over an uninformed Canadian college student.
I would suggest that you actually learn about this people & the region first before making the erroneous statements that you have as this encyclopedia should be accurate & not reflect an uniformed point of view. I have been studying the various peoples -the Boer people in particular- of Southern Africa for 15 years now.
No one calls White Canadians "Europeans" (even though they are much more directly tied to Europe -Britain in particular- than the Afrikaans peoples could ever be accused of) & no one calls White Australians "Europeans": so why the double standard when it comes to the White Africans of which the Boers developed into a home grown culture in ways that even the White Americans did not.
Notes.
1. The 1991 Dutch documentary on the Afrikaans separatist movements in South Africa called Hartseer Land was dubbed in Dutch subtitles proving & demonstrating that Afrikaans & Dutch are not mutually intelligible. 
2. Andre van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.
3. Clare Wyllie interviews Professor Gerrit Schutte
4. The Boers are a distinct entity from the Cape based Afrikaners. < There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers",  "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the socalled Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the feat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled." > From: Adriana Stuijt. At a post at Stop Boer Genocide.
5. André van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.
6. Adriana Stuijt. Former anti-Apartheid Dutch born South African journalist. "I recently received an enquiry regarding the history of the Afrikaner origin as far back as their Fresian ancestors -- after I had commented that my research had shown that many Afrikaners actually descended from the Fresians who live scattered along the northern-European seaboard in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands - but that this ethnic identity was also actually 'hidden' beneath the Dutch identity of the VOC-masters, who spoke Dutch." From: Attention Oosthuysen / Oosthuizen Family History.
7. The Contribution of the French Huguenots. < The legacy of the Huguenots was however far reaching. Today thousands of their proud descendants carry with dignity surnames of which the spelling is unchanged from the original, such as De Villiers, Malan, Du Toit, Du Plessis, Du Preez and Malherbe; the spelling of others were localised, such as Viljoen, Cronjé, Pienaar, Retief and Senekal. Certain first names which the Huguenots brought with them are poplular amongst their descendants, especially male christian names such as Francois, Pierre, Etienne, Jacques and Louis. Research has shown that the contribution of the Huguenot genes to the Afrikaner people amounts to some 24%. Their descendants are proud of ancestors who sacrificed a great deal - even their country of birth - and were willing to suffer personally for their religious convictions. > From: The Huguenot Society of South Africa.
8.  AM de Lange. San and technology.
9. Brian M Du Toit. The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity. 
10. Irving Hexham. Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. 
11. The homegrown / Africanized & indigenous nature of the White Afrikaans peoples is even noted in a document from the Eastern Cape Tourism Board.
Review the documented historical record first before  making uninformed & erroneous presumptions.
   Ron7 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response: Setting the Record Straight.