DIE WERKLIKE WAARDE VAN DIE OPINIE VAN AFRIFORUM/SOLIDARITEIT SE FLIP BUYS VIR DIE AFRIKANERVOLK. - Afrikanervolksparty
DIE WERKLIKE WAARDE VAN DIE OPINIE VAN AFRIFORUM/SOLIDARITEIT SE FLIP BUYS VIR DIE AFRIKANERVOLK.
Gepubliseer op 24 April 2017 | Geskryf deur Danie Varkevisser | | | Trefslae: 971
Die opinie van Flip Buys soos weergegee in die Pretoria News, 25 Maart 2017, is van belang in die diskoers oor die politieke-, maar ook die voortbestaan van die Afrikaner as ‘n volk in Suid Afrika.
Buys spreek sy mening uit na aanleiding van: “Journalist Yusuf Abramjee’s complaint that the Afrikaans student residence, De Goede Hoop, discriminates unfairly on the grounds of race”. ‘n Bewys dat die lyne van verdeeldheid in die land steeds diep sny, aldus Buys.
Die opinie van Buys het dit dus ten eerste nie teen Abramjee se veragtelike “aanspraak” op die blankes se regmatige besit, en die legitieme besetting en benutting daarvan nie, maar wel teen die feit dat daar steeds sigbare en hoorbare diep verdeeldheid bestaan.
Die ontkenning van die liberalis van die God’s beginsel van verskeidenheid en geskeidenheid setel in sy beterweterigheid wat uiting moet kry in ‘n swak akademiese gebrabbel oor eenheid in diversiteit.
Nie eers die werklikheid van konflik, konfrontasie en toename in rassehaat vat êrens grond in dié mense se begrip van omstandighede wat hulle help skep het nie. Hulle het hulle be-ywer vir rasse integrasie en soek nou allerhande sondebokke vir die feit dat die “eenheid in diversiteit” nie wil werk nie.
Buys se aanhalings van Marx en Lenin verklaar ook sy oorname van die Blanke Bouwerkers Vakbond en persepsie dat hy vir die blanke werker in die bres tree. Solidariteit en Afriforum se volgehoue pogings om binne die bestel en sy Afrikanervyandige grondwet, blankes te probeer saamsleep om die onhaalbare haalbaar te probeer maak, is ‘n futiele politieke denkfout.
Ingeskrewe Afrikanerlede van Afriforum en Solidariteit moet kennis neem van Buys se onverbloemde stellings dat die beginsel van afsonderlike ontwikkeling diskriminasie op grond van ras was. Dat die nalatenskap uit ons verlede, debat belemmer: “Hence, debates on language, race and class inevitably take place in the shadow of the past and under the heavy burden of a legacy of racial discrimination in the country and of Western colonialism in the world.”
Buys se siening oor kolonialisme strook verder met dié van die ANC en die swart ras in die algemeen as negatief, sonder enige aanduiding van die beskawing wat dit meegebring het.
Indien Solidariteit en Afriforum verteenwoordiger van Afrikanersentiment moet wees soos wat dit deur Flip Buys vertolk word, kan die lede van hierdie organnisasie net so wel by die ANC aansluit, daar die sentimente nie verskil nie! “My view as an Afrikaner and AfriForum chairperson is that Afrikaners do not want to hold on to the past, but are looking for spaces to help build a successful South Africa for a better future.” Sê Buys.
Wie het Flip Buys aangestel om namens Afrikaners uitsprake te maak? Die AVP is nie oortuig dat Buys se vertolking van Afrikaners se politieke siening tred hou met die waarheid en/of die werklikheid nie. Wat waar is, is dat Afrikaners uit hulle land uit verneuk is deur politieke uitoorlêery en dit hoegenaamd nie vertolk kan word as dat hulle daarvoor gestem het nie!
Die aangryp van elke rassevoorval om aan te hou met dié valse propaganda dat Afrikaners vir dié wanstaltige “democracy” gestem het, is beproefde kommunistiese praktyk. Dit ten spyte daarvan dat dit besig is om soos tydig en deurlopend voorspel is, Suid Afrika en daarmee saam die Afrikanervolk te vernietig.
Die waarde van Buys en sy twee organisasies se opinie is nie te onderskei van die NP, die Broederbond, die kerke en sommige kultuurorganisasies, wat óók op bedenklike wyse gekaap is deur die liberaliste en goedgelowige Afrikaners met hulle saamgesleep het nie.
Daar is egter toenemend Afrikaners wat van dit wat hulle gekry het waarvoor hulle hulle be-ywer het, nie hou nie en dit openlik sê.
Rasse onverdraagsaamheid sal nie weggaan nie omdat daar blywende kultuurverskille bestaan wat onversoenbaar is. Hoe individue ookal poog om daarby verby te kom, hoe groter is die skade wat almal daardeur ly.
Rassevrede en harmonie setel in afsonderlike regeringstelsels wat binne eie grondgebied, volgens eie aard en eie behoefte toegepas word. Vreedsame naasbestaan is die produk daarvan wanneer die bedreiging van taal, kultuur, en besit deur wedersydse begrip, erkenning en aanvaarding oor landsgrense heen die norm word.
Die oorname van die eiendom van ‘n ander op welke wyse ookal, kan uiteindelik slegs deur geweld afgedwing word. Vrede en aanvaarding word dan ‘n hersenskim, ‘n drogbeeld van ‘n verwronge en besoedelde gedagtegang, afgesluit vir die begrip van ‘n gesonde verstand.
Indien die onhaalbare standpunt van nie-rassigheid, tenspyte van die sigbare gevolge nie uit kranksinnigheid gedryf word nie, is verraad die enigste ander verklaring daarvoor!
Ek heg vir u mnr. Buys se betoog aan vir u eie oordeel.
Afrikaners also need sanctuary Flip Buys 19 April 2017
Flip Buys responds to Yusuf Abramjee’s attack on UP's private student residence for Afrikaans-speakers
AFRIKANERS ARE LOOKING FOR SPACES TO HELP BUILD SOUTH AFRICA
Journalist Yusuf Abramjee’s complaint that the Afrikaans student residence, De Goede Hoop, discriminates unfairly on the grounds of race (Pretoria News, 25 March 2017), shows that in this country the lines of division still run deep. Karl Marx rightly said that people make their own history but in circumstances they have inherited from the past and not in circumstances they have chosen themselves.
Hence, debates on language, race and class inevitably take place in the shadow of the past and under the heavy burden of a legacy of racial discrimination in the country and of Western colonialism in the world. At the same time, universities feel the pressure of the present-day realities of unemployment, poverty and inequality.
It is true that when it comes to issues such as language, culture, race and class in the country there are opposing views, and the question is how it should be handled, going forward. Marx said: “Philosophers interpret the world,” but also that the “challenge is to change it”. In short, South Africans cannot allow events of the past or differences in the present to undermine our future. Of course, a motorist has to check the rear-view mirror at times, but in the journey to the future it is vital to look forward at the road ahead.
A successful South Africa requires that our vision for the future is stronger than our memories of the past. The question is how all of us can build a better country together.My view as an Afrikaner and AfriForum chairperson is that Afrikaners do not want to hold on to the past, but are looking for spaces to help build a successful South Africa for a better future.
Most Afrikaners entered the post 1994 era with some hesitation, but with great expectations about the future, comforted by President Mandela’s assurance that no one will ever be oppressed again. However, the euphoria of a new democratic beginning, which would have room for everyone, is making way for a sense of disillusionment and alienation among many Afrikaners. This stems from a growing sense that government wants to reshape South Africa’s multicultural reality into their ideological vision of a monocultural society.
The question is how cultural diversity can be reconciled with national unity. The answer lies in “unity in diversity” as the cornerstone of our Constitution. Only “diversity” was emphasised during apartheid. The essence of the 1994 accord, on the other hand, was not to enforce “unity” at all cost but to achieve a balance between unity and diversity. We chose not to do what Lenin had told Pavlov; we chose not to “standardise humanity”.
Multiculturalism presupposes a positive acceptance of diversity based on the right to mutual recognition and respect between cultural communities. Room for diversity creates the common ground for unity. Therefore, multiculturalism is a precondition for the equal enjoyment of the individual rights citizens have. This ensures equal citizenship. As Judge Albie Sachs put it:
“Equality means equal concern and respect across difference. It does not presuppose the elimination or suppression of difference. Respect for human rights requires the affirmation of self, not the denial of self. Equality therefore does not imply a levelling or homogenisation of behaviour or extolling one form as supreme, and another as inferior, but an acknowledgment and acceptance of difference. At the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society.”
For Afrikaners, the exchange of majority rule for minority protection and human rights constituted the essence of the 1994 accord. Over and above extensive measures to promote unity, provision was also made for a multicultural reality. By including comprehensive constitutional protection for linguistic and cultural communities, should they desire that, unity could be ensured.
One of the underlying premises was that linguistic and cultural communities must have spaces within which they can be a majority to prevent every aspect of their existence being dominated by demographic majorities. In so doing, political, cultural and even economic marginalisation could be averted and everyone could have citizenship of equal value.
Past lines of division cannot be overcome by diminishing nation building and conciliation to assimilation into the majority. That requires cultural suicide – too high a price to pay the world over. However, in South Africa assimilation is pursued by using state ideology in a bid to transform the country and all its institutions in such a way as to mirror the country’s demographics.
Thus, under the banner of the promotion of diversity, the exact opposite, namely uniformity, is enforced. Representativeness requires that all institutions, taken together, should reflect the country’s demographics, not each institution by itself. This stems from the demographic realities of our country and its people. However, the totalitarian overtones of enforced race formulae fly in the face of freedom as the essence of democracy.
As a result, many Afrikaners believe they have become second class citizens because our language, culture, institutions, heritage and way of life have been fundamentally prejudiced. Many Afrikaners feel humiliated, alienated and vilified by such prejudice and are experiencing a profound loss of culture and identity. Therefore, to many, the former liberators have turned into conquerors and they have a sense that while they have voted for democracy, they have landed up with the consequences of a revolution.
South Africans are united by the constitutional values of freedom, equality and dignity. (Gelykheid, Vryheid en Broederskap? Slagspreuk van die Kommunisme. Quo vadis Flip?)These values apply to all in the country – also to Afrikaners, enabling them to democratically express their language and culture. When one person’s freedom is threatened, then everyone’s freedom is in danger. Therefore, the only guarantee for lasting freedom is that each one protects the other’s freedom, be it personal freedom, economic freedom, freedom of the media, freedom of the courts or cultural freedom. Culture communities, such as the Afrikaners, that want to celebrate their cultural freedom can be an important part of the checks and balances protecting the freedom of all South Africans. Cultural freedom does not mean exclusion based on race, but voluntary inclusion and free association on the basis of language and culture. A democracy without cultural freedom is indeed but freedom for the majority.
It is true that in the past, Afrikaners have discriminated unfairly based on race. (Nê!) As a consequence, Afrikaners have become a popular political punching bag and scapegoat in certain circles. But he or she who sees racism in any legitimate project by Afrikaners to protect their language and culture, is promoting the agenda of populist politicians who only want to fuel hate and hostility.
South Africa is facing many challenges at the moment and there are plenty opportunities for wise leadership to promote mutual recognition and respect rather than to sow division by denigrating as racist anything that is Afrikaans.
The United Nations’ Human Development Report 2004 succinctly states: “If the history of the twentieth century proves anything, then it is that efforts to wish away culture groups or trying to assimilate them will only provoke a vigorous cultural revival”.
For this reason, South Africans should rather pursue our national motto, namely to unite in our diversity. (AVP beklemtoning)
This article first appeared in the Pretoria News.