Talk:Boers/Archive 1

message: This is my first foray into Wiki Talk or editing, so I hope I'm doing good...
The silly quote didn't belong in wikipedia anyway so I removed it
I also changed
"trekked into and inhabited the Eastern Cape frontier" to "Entered and Occupied the Eastern Cape" which is a term could refer to a hostile encroachment or the peaceful one the pervious term insinuated. 
I don't know anything about this subject but the 'black actors' are certainally silent here and I don't think that's right. Even if the sources are limited, something should mention Xhosa presence in the area. 
This particular article is very shabby and should not a yardstick on the Eurocentricity of similar Wiki articles, but even more rounded ones give a similar sort of treatment. I was surfing around articles about the East India Companies and South Africa amongst others, and didn't find any good details about the interactions between black and white.
Only when I got linked into an article that was actually about Shaka or another African leader did there seem to be actual acknowledgement that the actions of these people counted as 'History'
The thread starter is right to point out that this is a problem
If there are articles on wiki that do pass the "black empowerment" test I would like to see them included in the 'See Also' section of this article.
Courtesy of Gavla 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No title 

message: The term indigenous to describe the Boers is not controversial in the least. The Boer people & culture (including their language) all developed on  African soil. I think what you are doing is confusing the term indigenous with aboriginal which are two different things. A given group can be indigenous while not necessarily being aboriginal. Remember: the Bantu populations are also not aboriginal to the region as the aboriginal people to the South African region are the Khoisan related groups of which only a small amount still exist mainly in the Northern Cape & Namibia. There are significant Khoisan genes among the Cape Coloured population including the Griquas / Basters / Cape Malays as well as fewer Khoisan genes among the Xhosas & the Boers & Afrikaners. The Boers have been called the White Tribe of Africa by the world at large & they have been recognized by neighbouring Bantus as a tribe in the past.   
  It would be entirely wrong to regard the trekboers as members of an exotic civilisation transplanted to the South African interior: these new-comers had become as much a part of Africa as its indigenous people and as the Bantu who, all unknown to them, were at the same time migrating southwards down the continent.   
 From: The Great Trek. Oliver Ransford.   
   
  The trekboers are a product of Africa. They broke all connection with Europe and their homeland Holland. The Afrikaner and his language grew out of this movement, and this could be considered as another of the migrations of Africa but by a white African tribe this time.  
 From: The Devil's Annexe. A Continent in Agony. Sidney & Shirley Robbins.    
 
Note: The Boers did not come from just Holland but from France / Belgium / Germany / Asia & others as well. 
  
   Boer Family, 1886. The Boers (Afrikaans for farmers) were of Dutch descent. Recognised by many Africans as a tribe, the were a semi-nomadic cattle owning people.   
 From: Swaziland Digital Archives.   
  
  The Afrikaners are Africa's only true indigenous white tribe of Africa. They even speak their own language, Afrikaans formed over many years through the coming together of various cultures and nationalities in the Cape.      
Note: The Afrikaners in actual context tends to refer to those of Wetstern Cape descent while the term Boer tends to refer to those who are of Trekboer & Voortrekker descent. 
  This tribe traces its origins to the first permanent settlement of Dutch colonists who arrived in 1652 and to the French Huguenots, Protestant refugees from catholic France who came to the country shortly thereafter. 
  
 From: Kruger National Park Lodges.      
Concerning the contention that the page does not address their migrations into the eastern Cape frontier: well for one thing that would be a subject much more suitable to the section on South African history as the purpose of this page is strictly describe the cultural / ethnic group of the Boers / their origins & their history. Their impact on other peoples (& vice versa) is something better dealt with in a history section. After all no one describes Anglo-Saxon invasion & the displacement (& absorption) of the native Celtic British peoples in the entry on the English people. 
When the Boers moved in the eastern Cape frontier -while not done in a vacuum- one must also remember that what occurred was nothing different to how the Bantus moved into somebody else's territory as well. The Bantus moved into & dispossessed the Khoisan people too, but this fact is not deemed necessary to mention when strictly discussing the origins & nature of the various Bantu groups. Furthermore: the Boers did not encounter the Xhosas until a full 120 years after their first European originated ancestors arrived at the Cape. When the Boers encountered the Xhosas it was at the furthest end of the eastern Cape frontier. 
While you might want to call the Boers move into the east Cape frontier a "faux pas" one must remember that virtually every other group in the world has committed similar "faux pas"s as well. There is hardly a single ethnic group in the world who has not at some point in their past moved onto another person's land & committed "faux pas"s in this regard. 
True social justice would not discriminate in any fashion for any reason. The new form of discrimination going on is not social justice except  perhaps in an Orwellian context. 
No one seriously believes that the Xhosa nationalist regime running South Africa has any real commitment to democracy: otherwise all of those DA (the liberal opposition) supporters who were seen on news reports all around the world would have been much more represented in the Parliament. The laughable results of the ANC receiving a suspiciously convenient & unheard of 70 % of the vote while the popular campaign of the DA only incredibly received a ridiculous 12 % of the vote stands as testament to the lack thereof. 
While you might just be able to get away with accusing the Trekboers of "taking other peoples' land" (in fact the Boer ethos forbids the claiming of other people's lands & the clashes between them & the Khoisan was no different to other peoples inter struggles among competing groups) it is much harder to make that inflammatory claim against the Voortrekkers as the Voortrekkers purposely trekked around the densest Bantu populations (the went the long way around the Xhosas) & specifically trekked into de-populated lands to the north of the Orange & Vaal Rivers. The Boers under Piet Retief (French surname) even acquired a treaty from Dingaan the Zulu king to settle the unoccupied land south of Zululand.  Furthermore: the Boers were allied with the Rolong (West Sotho) & the Griquas (Boer / Khoi ethnic group with Tswana admixture) during the era of the Great Trek. 
Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up your offensive assertion that the Boers were more brutal to their neighbours than the British were to them. Remember: the Boers fought wars of self defense. While Shaka  on the other hand fought wars of aggression & committed a massive genocide against neighbouring tribes in the region. 
  This article makes the Trekboers out as lofty defenders of their land; what about the similarly courageous (black) defenders of THEIR land who are made to seem like a mere obstacle to the Boere's advancement?!!!   
First of all: the various Bantu tribes did in fact try to defend their land -from Shaka & his genocidal campaign -yet all I ever hear from you is how the big bad humble pastoral Boers are somehow the only group to have ever clashed with Bantus in the region. The Bantus were not an "obstacle" to the Boers' "advancement" as the various Bantu groups remained free & independent until the British came & conquered them as the British did indeed see both them & the Boers as an obstacle to their imperial advancement which claimed far more lives than can ever be accused against the Boers. 
The problem here is that you are illogically arguing that non Boer people should be "given a voice" in an article that has nothing to do with them. Taking this new standard into practice: When will the Celtic people then be given a voice in the English people article? This is just pure anti Boer hypocrisy once again. Furthermore: do you know how many dead Black bodies the various Bantu groups stepped over? A lot more than  you could ever accuse the Boer of. Shaka's genocide claimed the deaths at least more than one & a half million people. Let's not forget the many dead White bodies as well particularly all of those unsuspecting civilians (including many children) Dingaan killed during the Bloukrans Massacre for which the town of Weenen is named after. 
Furthermore: I am troubled by your one dimensional use of "Black" here as the people you refer to are not a single block but are comprized of many different ethnic groups & nations. Just as there are also numerous ethnic groups among the so called Coloured & White groups as well. 
 Ron7 17:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to No Title: The Boers are indeed an indigenous group. 

message: It's great to see that the article has been expanded, but assertions are presented without any supporting justification. In an article like this it would be really helpful to get verifiable references for some of the propositions - otherwise it is in danger of becoming a soapbox. Humansdorpie 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome aboard Jacques Viviers. I appreciate your recent contributions & I like your name due to the fact that they are both of French origin & I understand that it a somewhat common or popular Afrikaans name. -Like other common or popular Afrikaans (first & sur)names of French origin such as: Etienne Le Roux / Louis Le Grange / Jacques Duplessis / Francois Pienaar / Jacques Cronje & Pierre Viljoen to name just a few other notable examples. I am fascinated with the French Huguenot influence on the Boer & Afrikaner peoples. This influence not only gave the Afrikaans speakers their numerous French names but also strengthened their Protestant religious outlook & even shaped the Afrikaans language to a notable degree as well.   
 Ron7 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The following wording "are descended mainly from Dutch Calvinist" gives  an erroneous impression because the fact of the matter is that the Boers are not "descended mainly from" Dutch Calvinists.   
The wording concerning the cultural /ethnic origins of the Boers creates the erroneous impression that the Boers are mainly descended from just the Dutch ancestors when the fact of the matter is that the Dutch component of the Boers only accounts for about 35 % to 40 % of their ancestral origins. The Boers are in fact mainly a rather homogenous mix of Dutch / French / German & Frisian with significant Flemish / Walloon  & other origins. 
The French origins of the Boers accounts for at least 15 % to as much as 24 % of their genes. Visit this link to read more about the French Huguenot ancestors.    
The German origin of the Boers accounts for at least 30 % to 35 % of their genes. 
Therefore it is factually incorrect to assert that the Boers are "primarily" or "mainly" descended from Dutch Protestants as this erroneous pronouncement overlooks & omits the true / full & complete picture. It would be similar to claiming that the English are "mainly" descended from Angles while neglecting to point out that they are in fact mainly a mixture of Angles & Saxons -as well as Jutes- or even similar to claiming that the French are "mainly" descended from Romans while neglecting to point out that they are also significantly descended from the Gauls. 
  Research by J. A. Heese indicates that as of 1807, 36.8% of the ancestors of the White Afrikaans speaking population were of Dutch ancestry, 35% were German, 14.6% were French and 7.2% non-white (of African and/or Asian origins).   
The above indented text is posted in the Afrikaans language section.   
 Ron7 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning an Acurate Account of the Ethnic & National Origins of the Boers. 

message: I do not have it right here, but if someone wants to fix the article I remember a couple of very interesting chapters in John Reader's Africa: A Biography of the Continent, . Among other things, the Boers settlers relied a lot on black populations to acquire knowledge necessary to survive, and constantly moved towards their survival strategies. They were in conditions of such poverty and illiteracy, before the gold rush, that had the rush not happened they might have merged with the local black populations or become the only white native population of sub-saharian Africa. 
Well in fact the Boers were & are the White native population of sub-Saharan Africa. This is an obvious & confirmed fact. See the above quotes I posted concerning this matter in response to the author of the No Title quasi rant.   
 Ron7 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source 

message: A long quote from Sir Conan Doyle appears in the Nationalism section.  The quote praises the Boers, but has nothing to do with Nationalism.  I'm removing it. Patiwat 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the Sir Conan Doyle quote have to do with Nationalism? 

message: I've known about 7 or 8 Afrikaans- speaking whites from SA and I'm not familiarised with all of the areas but they all liked to be called Boers, so surely it's just their word for themselves and it's nothing to do with which part of the country you come from.
86.27.49.214 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many — if not most— white Afrikaans speaking South African might find it quint or humorous to be called a "Boer" by a non-South-African, but they definitely would not like to be referred to that by another South-African. This is because the term no longer identifies a specific ethnic group and has taken on specific political connotations. It is very difficult for any such South African to definitively identify their specific ancestors as original Boer and not Voortrekker, Cape Dutch or even British so to claim to be a "Boer" is more of a cultural or political statement than anything else. --Deon Steyn 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As you can see from Ron7's explanation above, it's a matter of choice or how you view yourself, i.e. a political/cultural. To use a rough example from the United States, it is similar to the term Yankee which might be used to refer to all Americans by a foreigner, but internally it refers to different people none of whom make up a distinct racial or ethnic group. --Deon Steyn 07:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All white Afrikaners like to be called Boers 

message: I've taken a big interest in white South African culture and I've heard unconfirmed rumours that lots of Boers' who're very proud of being white have had ancestors who have mixed out of the white race, into Indian, Oriental or Native African ethnic groups but over the 350 years there's no facial features which denote it any longer in them. Is that true?
86.27.49.214 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black ancestry 

message: The following is not quite accurate. 
  
Over time the obvious differences between Cape Afrikaner and Boer would subside and the terms "Boer" and "Afrikaner" would eventually be used as synonyms.  
It was only after the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd, the subsequent disintegration of the National Party and the slow dismantling of apartheid, that the more conservative of the Afrikaners (some the decendants of the Boers) started referring to themselves as modern Boers.  
Some of these modern Boers[1] would argue that they were forced to accept the apartheid establishment and that they were suppressed whenever they attempted self-determination, however, the absence of "Boer"-parties in a political system where all white adults could vote, speak to the contrary[2].   
For one thing there was a Boer political party founded in 1986 known as the Boerestaat Party whose leader Robert van Tonder began advocating for the restoration of the Boer Republics as early as 1961 when he left the National Party to pursue this ideal. Furthermore: the Boers were indeed suppressed & out right repressed whenever they attempted self determination particularly during the Boer Rebellion (also known as the Maritz Rebellion) of 1914 when a number of Boer Generals attempted to restore the Boer Republics during an armed rebellion against the  Afrikaner-British government of Louis Botha. Furthermore: while many were indoctrinated out of referring to themselves as Boers: there were indeed still quite a lot who continued to refer to themselves as Boers during the 20th century particularly in private among themselves. 
 Ron7 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite an accurate account. There was indeed Boer Repression. 

message: Maybe someone more familiar with the IPA can put up a pronunciation  thingie for the Afrikaans pronunciation. I believe that /bur/ does the job, where the r is an Alveolar trill and the u is pronounced as in through (maybe a bit shorter?), but I'm not an expert on the subject. Unfortunately boer is rendered as boar by most well-meaning English speakers, which is not how us boere would say it...
:(IPA pronunciation: , which is pronounced b-ooh-r, where the r is an alveolar trill as in Spanish and Italian)
Too wordy? --Lionelbrits 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I couldn't find a reference for this. Is it a parody?--Lionelbrits 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The text in edit box of a of non registered user of April 16 presumes &  erroneously states: "they are not "indigenous" to Africa the way actual Africans are. Afrikaners are Europeans mainly descended from the Dutch, and this is specified" asserting a number of falsehoods. 
Fist of all the White Afrikaans peoples are not "mainly" descended from the Dutch. I have gone over this before in an earlier post. See more above. I know some of those links I posted erroneously stated this, but they are wrong as other sources have pointed out the multi national origins of the Boer people. The French Huguenot origins accounts for up to 25 % of their roots. The German origins accounts for at least 30 % of their roots. Their Dutch origins accounts for less than 40 % & likely about just 35 % of their roots. Furthermore much of that was Frisian & not even Dutch. I posted the links to demonstrated that they are an indigenous people that were formed on African soil. I regret that the links in question presume that they are only descended from Dutch people as the historical record clearly notes that they are descended from large number of French & German people among others as well. 
Next. The White Afrikaans population particularly the Boers are indeed indigenous to Africa. Once again I have covered this too in the past. While it is true that they are not as senior in their indigenous status to Africa as other Africans, they are still nonetheless an indigenous group to Africa by virtue of the fact that they were formed as a group on African soil. Even their laguage was formed on African soil. They did not exist in Europe then were suddenly transplanted to Africa. The ancestors of the Boers were of diverse national origins & were dumped at the Cape by the VOC. The Boer & other Afrikaans related cultural groups were formed as a direct result of living on the African continent. 
Next. The White Afrikaans peoples most especially the Boers are not Europeans in any true sense of the word. The Boers broke all their ties to Europe early on & are the direct result of a home grown cultural group which sprang up on African soil. They even began referring to themseves as "Africans". This is the main reason as to why they have been referred to as Afrikanders & Afrikaners as this was the Dutch & Afrikaans word for African. 
Next. The Boers are a distinct group from the Afrikaners. The term Afrikaner refers to a anyone born in Africa who speaks Afrikaans as a native language. It is a term that was appropriated by the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape during the latter half of the 19th cent at a time when the Boers had long since developed into a separate & distinct group.    The Cape Dutch were the cultural group who remained in the Western Cape when the Trekboers began trekking away beginning in the late 17th cent. The Boers are the descendants of the Trekboers & frontier Boers: those who trekked away from the Cape Dutch. 
Furthermore: what does "actual Africans" mean? Are you implying that some Africans are more African than others? Are some people more American than others? Is that not an out-of-line sentiment? I doubt anyone could get away with claiming "actual Europeans" in similar vein. 
The fact that the Boers are not as senior as Africans as other Africans does not negate the fact that they are still Africans nonetheless. After all asserting that they are compatriots of another distant continent  despite their long often hard won history of being in Africa & as Africans even referring to themselves as Africans is simply just not an accurate account. After all: how can they possibly still "be Europeans" after all these centuries as Africans in Africa? Most White Afrikaans people have never even been in Europe & have ancestors who have never  been connected to Europe going back for centuries. Some "Europeans". These people are Africans who happen to be White. No one would call  White Canadians or White Americans "Europeans" so why would anyone call White Africans "Europeans" particularly when they have a 350 plus year long history as belonging to the African continent.   
 Ron7 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the text in the edit box. 

message: Does anyone know approximately what number of the White, Afrikaans speakers in Southern Africa are Boers as opposed to Afrikaners?
I'd have said, judging by estimates of the population of the remaining Boer communities that it's under 100,000 (considering only the small farming communities in the Western parts of SA are still 'Boer').
86.31.153.156 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no way to "racially" (or genetically) differentiate one Afrikaans-speaking white South African from another, i.e. there is no "racial" group that can be called "boer". Even if there has been a clear distinction to start with, any such differences no longer exist. In a modern context the term is only used in a political context (to denote conservative or far right political views). Even amongst conservative political parties such as the Afrikaner Volksfront or even right wing extremists such as the former Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement), the term "Afrikaner" is clearly used while the term "boer" is only loosely used. So the question of number in the population can not be answered, because there is no physical distinction. --Deon Steyn 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the definitions of right-wing and extremist, the AWB were clearly "right-wing extremist". Both such definitions are relative and in the South African context, they were clearly to the extreme right of the political spectrum, it's not opinion it is commonly accepted fact (BBC news report). As for the conspiracy theory of them being a government front, that is simply unfounded "original research" that violates Wikipedia policy (for articles and talk pages, see Wikipedia:No original research. Last, but not least, there no longer exist a genetic, ethnic or "sociological" group called "boer". Any such claims are attempts at propaganda and not based in scientific fact. Those that refer to themselves as "boer" wish to associate with a specific political/cultural identity. It is not as weak, but similar to people who dress in black and call themselves "goths" in that it is a choice. What irritates many South Africans —especially white Afrikaans speaking ones— is that political parties or commentators hi-jack this historical term and associate right-wing  —often racist— politics with it in an attempt at myth making , which is a common thread amongst white supremacist groups, who often referring to a mythical nation (see also Nazism and race). --Deon Steyn 07:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that Talk pages are not forums (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), but for discussions on the article content itself. You lack a proper understanding of the situation. I have already cited reliable sources referring to the AWB as right-wing extremists, you will find none referring to them as left-wing, centre or moderate and even the most optimistic (even though completely biased and unverifiable claims) figures of 70,000 members is a tiny fraction of the total SA population (that exceeded 40 million at the time) or even the white population (approx. 4.5 million at the time) which would make their views an extreme. Please limit your comments to neutral verifiable facts. --Deon Steyn 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would disagree that the AWB had all that much of an influence due to their small membership numbers. 
 Ron7 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An earlier post mentions that "Terre'Blanche claimed 70,000 members", therefore I referred to it as an estimate and "most optimistic" as it is the greatest number. No matter the source (I have yet to see one cited), 70 000 is still a tiny fraction and since they hold a view different to the vast majority of the population would still qualify them as "extremist" according to the definition of the term. --Deon Steyn 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population? 

message: Ron7, I seriously dispute that, they were penetrated by the Security Police (which is well- known before Deon interjects and tries to pick fault with me), they defeated the SAP on several occasions (most memorably the storming of the Johannesburg WTC). Their 120 bomb campaign is yet another piece of evidence displaying them as an organised, nationalist, paramilitary force, they had connections in the police and Defense Force (where they obtained many of their explosives from), a large number of the AWB had military training. I see it as highly unlikely that if it did come to a fully- blown war the other 4.43 million Whites would have sided with the Blacks against the AWB, a large number of them would have joined the paramilitary, nationalist movement, the AWB gained huge support when it showed it was being pro- active and was prepared to engage the SAP (following the Battle of Ventersdorp there was a great increase in support for the AWB). 
So there you go, they had plenty of influence and the government of the time regarded them as a threat, who knows they may turn around soon and mount a revolution. 
JBAK88 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I'm assuming you are the previous anonymous poster that have now created an account? Could you please check Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. New headings go at the bottom of the page and denote a new topic, previous threads should be answered with and indented paragraph. Also note, that talk pages are not forums, they are strictly for discussion of the article (problems, modifications etc.). You keep talking of the AWB with admiration when they never had much support and were almost universaly ridiculed in South Africa (even amongst the majority of White Afrikaans speakers). The government did regard them as a threat just as any terrorist organization would be, even if it has only 5 members. Please remember that the goverment held a referendum asking the white population whether they should continue a negotiated settlement with the ANC or not. The majaority gave their approval which led to the current democracy (1992 South African Referendum). Most white South Africans (Afrikaners included) watched the futile WTC spectacle with horror and great embarrassment. Please keep all comments to verifiable facts, backed up with actual reliable sources (I have referred you to the correct guidelines on several occasions). --Deon Steyn 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small influence? 

message: As you said above many Boers were forced to leave their traditional rural homes and find work in the cities, where some were taken advantage of by Afrikaner nationalists, so I would imagine that there is a lack of Boer communities and self- identifying Boers in the areas where Boers who participated in the war were from? 
I know that in the now Kwazu- Natal there is a fair amount of Boer communities, so I would imagine that since the British would have destroyed the livestock and farmland of those who they were fighting against, it was only a certain portion of the Boer people who were urbanised?
86.27.56.184 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please create an account (Wikipedia:Why create an account?) so that it is clear which editors contributes what. Also please familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for discussion of specific points in articles, not as a general forum, please limit yourself to verifiable facts (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and refrain from original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Your post is unclear on the time, place or war it refers to. Also the current (as of 1994) province name is KwaZulu-Natal. --Deon Steyn 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I seem rude, it was not my intention, but Wikipedia demands neutrality (see WP:NPOV) and I have to correct anyone who misinterprets, distorts or misunderstands the facts or reports them from a non-neutral point of view (that they are perhaps not aware of). Yes, I am a South African and yes my first language is Afrikaans so I am more familiar with the topic then someone from a different background would be. I am also familiar with some of the historical distortions of the Afrikaner/Boer past and how what the share with white supremacist groups in general. I feel it is my duty as Wikipedian – and also South African – to correct such inaccuracies and point out a more balanced view. --Deon Steyn 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non- participating Boers 

message: Although Dutch ancestry may not be what the Boer people are primarily descended from, culturally they have taken more from Dutch culture than any other one, as well as linguistically. So in terms of language and culture they are overwhelmingly Dutch. 
82.27.255.99 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please refrain from "original research" and cite reliable sources. As the article points out in several places, the term "Boer" and the exact characteristics of the group it refers, varies with time. If you feel the article need modification or correction, please cite reliable source and update it. --Deon Steyn 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ate best it was originally predominantly (not exclusively) Dutch, but it is no longer possible for any white South Africans (English or Afrikaans speaking) to say exactly what their genetic ancestry is and it most certainly is a mixture of – mostly – British, French, German and Dutch. Culturally however, there no longer exists any link whatsoever to the Netherlands or Dutch culture. The languages aren't immediately compatible and most Afrikaans speaking emmigrants are most comfortable in English speaking countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA/Canada with hardly any emmigrants to the Netherlands with it's foreign language, cold weather and European culture. --Deon Steyn 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing an earlier issue, of 'primary' Dutch ancestry 

message: I personally don't associate Boers or Afrikaners with White supremacy, I would associate the few hundred thousand or so right- wing Afrikaners and Boers with it, as I said I don't think Apartheid was challenged by them a great deal, not because they individually agreed with it, but I think it was shown as the only way a country in which they were such a huge minority could be run without black rule.
The policy of seperate developement would have been a peace- keeping strategy had it not been taken advantage of by so many, I think that in order to preserve individual cultures and peoples an element of seperate developement is required, it was used as a vehicle to oppress, when it should have been a regime to develope seperately and celebrate your own culture and people in your own state. The blacks had their own self- governing regions, where they were a majority and could live as native Africans, the Whites had their own places where they could live as White Africans, it's just enshrining in law what is done naturally anyway, ethnicity- based communities are formed in any part of the world, it's just that in South Africa, at that time, it was made official. 
86.27.78.208 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deon, I think 70,000 says it all