Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

South African Whites

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • South African Whites

    I have never seen a good discussion concerning how well white South Africans of Boer and English ancestry get along. It is my understanding that the Boer descendant were the more racist. Is this correct?

  • #2
    Nothing could be more racist than an Englishman conquering the world. Get a book by George Macdonald Fraser, of any of the Flashman series. Englishmen did not like Scots, Welsh and had an even worse category for the Irish. The main difference between the two groups is the British outlawed Slavery in around 1800 and the Boers moved away and kept theirs.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      I know all about that, but I'm not talking about the British. My question was about South Africans and their differences. I was especially curious about their differing views (if any) concerning Apartheid.

      Comment


      • #4
        John,

        There were no Boers in Rhodesia. Were the views of the Rhodesians different than the Boer South Africans? I don't think the Boers were any more Racist than the "English" South Africans. They were just simple enough to talk about them. The large majority of Boers were what we call "working poor". During the Apartheid system at least they could point at the Black Population (and Colored) and say they were better off. This was very similar to the system that ran the South after Reconstruction. Now the Boers have no system to protect their economic status and they are scared.

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you. That was what I was looking for. Now maybe Meenmutha and some others will join in.

          Comment


          • #6
            There were no Boers in Rhodesia. Were the views of the Rhodesians different than the Boer South Africans? I don't think the Boers were any more Racist than the "English" South Africans.
            Pruitt, I've known several Afrikaaners who were originally from Rhodesia. But rather than take my recollection for it, since I never questioned how long their families had lived in Rhodesia, you might peruse Chris Cocks' book "Fireforce". he not only mentions Afrikaaners in the RLI, some of whom could also have been SA crossovers, but also mentions a period when his unit was working off a farm out in the war zone belonging to Afrikaaners.

            As for racism, I once went to dinner with Lionel Dyke, a former Fire Force commander, and asked about racism in the RDF. His answer was that racism as Americans understand it did not exist in pre-war Rhodesia, but that some ugly strains of racism began to show among some elements during the war. Particularly among foreign elements who had come to Rhodesia to join the RDF.

            Regarding South Africa, it helps to remember that the progress it has made to date is as much the contribution of an Afrikaaner, as it is a Bantu. I certainly would give the lion's share to Mandela, but without de Klerk, the transition never would have happened.

            There are certainly some ugly strains of racism among no small number of Afrikaaners, but acknowledging the gap between the levels of Boer culture, and that of the African townships, is not racism per se. Neither was Apartheid a clone of Jim Crow. Two different cultures, two different histories, two different peoples, two vastly different nations. What Terreblanche was asking for, was an Apartheid status for Afrikaaners. But yes, the echoes of 1930's Germany in his movement are not haphazard.
            dit: Lirelou

            Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              I have never seen a good discussion concerning how well white South Africans of Boer and English ancestry get along. It is my understanding that the Boer descendant were the more racist. Is this correct?
              Phew, in a few words or more? I can try, but I am biased, being English and of English ancestry, but also having people out here from the onset of colonialism in these parts.

              There has been animosity between the English and Afrikaans since time immemorial - the English are the ones that started the Great Trek of the Arfikaners becasue the Afrikaners were getting away from the English, AKA Rooi Nek and Soutie. Then the English came and invaded the Transvaal and Orange Free State after gold was discovered and that lead to the boer wars and english concentration camps and much more bitterness. when I moved back to the highveld a few years ago and wanted to buy a house from an Afrikaner, the deal went sour after he found out I was English. Strange but true. My mother became bitterly anti Afrikaans after being ragged at school by Afrikaners and she grew up in Zambia. I have had a number of run ins with Afrikaners (still do) but not only them - people are people across the divide and they can all be just as stupid or brilliant as anybody else.

              The Afrikaners are still in the pound seat here in SA though, and that will take a long while to change.

              I am married to an Afrikaans women and I still have some tough encounters mostly from Afrikaans people, but that may very well be biased.

              English guys in the old SADF were also meted out more than their fair share of punishment due to old historys - not always, but a lot of the time.

              An interviewer asked an AWB official who they would accept in their new homeland (should it ever happen) and he said only Afrikaners, no Englishman - my wife laughed at me!!!

              Racism allowed all whites to prevail, and I would hesitate to say who was worse - I may just about be one the worst at times, I can tell ya. Rhodesians were just as bad, but their laws were not as draconian as SA's, so they were not looked at too badly.

              I learnt Afrikaans in Rhodesia, and when I spoke it for the first time here in SA people thought I had escaped a mental institution - I was speaking very old authentic Afrikaans. Apparently, the Afrikaners who went so far North did not evolve as their cousins in the South.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MeenMutha View Post
                I learnt Afrikaans in Rhodesia, and when I spoke it for the first time here in SA people thought I had escaped a mental institution - I was speaking very old authentic Afrikaans. Apparently, the Afrikaners who went so far North did not evolve as their cousins in the South.
                Then you can imagine what I experience these days when I hear Afrikaans
                I found that I can answer in high Dutch though. Even better: as long as we both speak slowly, we understand one another. It is great fun
                I guess I'm being biased from the other side, but I haven't developed the antennae yet needed to pick up social subtleties connected to speaking Afrikaans.
                Last edited by Colonel Sennef; 12 Apr 10, 08:09.
                BoRG

                You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  Nothing could be more racist than an Englishman conquering the world. Get a book by George Macdonald Fraser, of any of the Flashman series. Englishmen did not like Scots, Welsh and had an even worse category for the Irish. The main difference between the two groups is the British outlawed Slavery in around 1800 and the Boers moved away and kept theirs.

                  Pruitt
                  In all fairness, Flashman was was used as a foil for Fraser to point out that English factory workers, coal miners and any other "labourer" was treated like a dog by their "betters" so the consternation of the Liberal set over the treatment of the foreigners while their tea parties were being served by the invisble poor was only worthy of derision.

                  Of course Flashy was the kind of bounder who was happy with any opportunity to bully anyone whom he could get away with and to toady up to anyone whom he couldn't bully.
                  "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                  George Mason
                  Co-author of the Second Amendment
                  during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                    Pruitt, I've known several Afrikaaners who were originally from Rhodesia. But rather than take my recollection for it, since I never questioned how long their families had lived in Rhodesia, you might peruse Chris Cocks' book "Fireforce". he not only mentions Afrikaaners in the RLI, some of whom could also have been SA crossovers, but also mentions a period when his unit was working off a farm out in the war zone belonging to Afrikaaners.

                    As for racism, I once went to dinner with Lionel Dyke, a former Fire Force commander, and asked about racism in the RDF. His answer was that racism as Americans understand it did not exist in pre-war Rhodesia, but that some ugly strains of racism began to show among some elements during the war. Particularly among foreign elements who had come to Rhodesia to join the RDF.

                    Regarding South Africa, it helps to remember that the progress it has made to date is as much the contribution of an Afrikaaner, as it is a Bantu. I certainly would give the lion's share to Mandela, but without de Klerk, the transition never would have happened.

                    There are certainly some ugly strains of racism among no small number of Afrikaaners, but acknowledging the gap between the levels of Boer culture, and that of the African townships, is not racism per se. Neither was Apartheid a clone of Jim Crow. Two different cultures, two different histories, two different peoples, two vastly different nations. What Terreblanche was asking for, was an Apartheid status for Afrikaaners. But yes, the echoes of 1930's Germany in his movement are not haphazard.
                    Lou, you obviously have vast experience in Africa - and I am not being sarcastic. Your posts ring with authenticity, which is refreshing - thanks.

                    Maybe to backtrack a little in time to '89 when De Klerk led a quiet coup in cabinet to force our ou krokodil from power and took over himself. De Klerk was (is) a vastly experienced lawyer and politician at the time, and basically he and a group of leaders were pushing for the dismantling of apartheid legislation so that we could negotiate from a position of power before we collapsed from the pressures of sanctions etc, and through no small amount of pressure from business at the time. I know that many business leaders held meetings with our old presidents, from Vorster onwards, and Vorster was at least approachable, PW was not. We held a referendum and, thankfully, the YES vote won it - the road for negotiations was now open for him, but it was touch and go, and both English and Afrikaans voted yes and no.

                    Mandela had great humility, and had it not been for his leadership in getting the blacks to the negotiating table, things may well have turned out differently. He was also against revenge and getting even and was a great calming influence. As an example of my countrymen's ability for forgiveness, after ET had been released from prison for assaulting one of his farmworkers and went back to his farm, a news reporter asked some blacks living in the town what they thought, and they said he had served his time and he was welcome back again. Put that against some others in this country ..........

                    De Klerk often gets lambasted by the right for handing away power and he is still regarded as a traitor by the conservatives. As far as De Klerks role in the whole thing, well, if not for him we would have gone down the Rhodesian path, had a knife held against our throats and had power stripped from us violently and with the after affects of a bloody civil war, the doomsday scenarios would have played out rather well. In my mind he could see the future and had to act - was forced, almost, to take that path. I do not think he did it due to a great humanitarianism, but because he was hoping that we could hand over power in a controlled pragmatic manner transitionally.

                    Anyway, the sad fact of the matter is, that languages and so forth mean little. I recall smoking a certain green weed many years ago with a group of Afrikaans fellows who were anti government and very well read on matters of human rights etc - far more so than myself - and they were actively anti Apartheid and advocating negotiations long before De Klerk was even known of. I have also shared a few drinks with some English people who made Adolf look like a saint. I knew of one guy who used to ride his motorbike through town whilst his pillion would use his helmet in his hand as a weapon to 'tap' blacks that they passed on the head. Another one would wait outside a local cafe and pick fights with the homeless Black kids that were waiting for scraps outside - walk over and kick them where they sat, and when they complained, climb into them.

                    I can carry on across the divide - there is no easy rule on this. Hatred and bigotry, fear and anger do not follow certain people around, it is in every single one of us - it is just that some of us control it better than others, I think.

                    The sad part of it all is that we have an Idiot called Malema who is now being blamed for inciting violence against whites with his singing of old songs, and is tearing open the divide all over again. It is always the little wankas that start these things, and I can see the last twenty years of progress being torn down. The extremes are gaining in strength now mainly due to ET's murder, and things are rather touchy. at least it has brought our women chasing president out of his bedroom and he is getting more vocal in opposing Malema. Anyway, thats off topic.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                      Pruitt, I've known several Afrikaaners who were originally from Rhodesia. But rather than take my recollection for it, since I never questioned how long their families had lived in Rhodesia, you might peruse Chris Cocks' book "Fireforce". he not only mentions Afrikaaners in the RLI, some of whom could also have been SA crossovers, but also mentions a period when his unit was working off a farm out in the war zone belonging to Afrikaaners.

                      As for racism, I once went to dinner with Lionel Dyke, a former Fire Force commander, and asked about racism in the RDF. His answer was that racism as Americans understand it did not exist in pre-war Rhodesia, but that some ugly strains of racism began to show among some elements during the war. Particularly among foreign elements who had come to Rhodesia to join the RDF.

                      Regarding South Africa, it helps to remember that the progress it has made to date is as much the contribution of an Afrikaaner, as it is a Bantu. I certainly would give the lion's share to Mandela, but without de Klerk, the transition never would have happened.

                      There are certainly some ugly strains of racism among no small number of Afrikaaners, but acknowledging the gap between the levels of Boer culture, and that of the African townships, is not racism per se. Neither was Apartheid a clone of Jim Crow. Two different cultures, two different histories, two different peoples, two vastly different nations. What Terreblanche was asking for, was an Apartheid status for Afrikaaners. But yes, the echoes of 1930's Germany in his movement are not haphazard.
                      Hello lirelou,

                      very well posted, and I would confirm it entirely. Some of my Rhodesian friends (two of them being former Selous Scouts) told me just the same.

                      From what I saw and felt with my own eye's I would like to add the following interpretation of mine.
                      There is a vast difference between white farmers amongst themselves and white workers/employees in Africa. To my observation it doesn't really matter if these farmers are Rhodesian-British or South-African Boers, and amazingly there is an extreme difference betwen these "big" tobaco or other planters, to the average smaller white farmer.

                      I got the impression that the white farmers are not so much of racists (off course one can find racists all over the world) - but they are the perfect example of "freedom seekers". They won't bow to anyone - including their own former white government and they wan't to keep seperated from the blacks in regards to leading their lives.

                      The white workers/businessmen are logically in need of the blacks and look upon them as partners in business - whom they also need to please in order to get along (Just as any good businessman in this world would not show openly despise or disregard to a potential customer).

                      I found it amazing about the way - the mostly ruling non-farming whites and the "big" farmers in Rhodesia sold out their country and it's small-average farmers to Mugabe and Co.
                      Same goes for the more or less total non-support of SA towards the Rhodesians during their war.

                      Obviously also due to the Boer mentality of - I don't care much about others, I just care for my family and farm. Many SA's also never gave Rhodesia a chance for survival and thus prefered to keep out of the civil-war.

                      Due to the Boer's being the majority of the white farmers in South-Africa, and the British-whites taking the business/employee part - both parties share a different view upon their necessary relationship to the blacks. And in SA I observed the same extreme difference between the "big" planters or whine fellows towards the common small white farmers.

                      Additionally off course history in regards to South-Africa also playes a big part in the non-likening of these two major white groups towards each other. Poverty produces radical views - for both whites and blacks - and the same economical discrepance amongst the whites has for some reason never been solved - even during Apartheid.

                      I also noticed the same social-political issue amongst whites in Namibia.

                      I was always convienced that if the whites would actually act in solidarity - they could indeed form their own country if they wanted so - within the bounderies of present SA.

                      But somehow it just sems impossible for these two knuckleheads to get together and the social discrepancy amongst those white groups seems to be the main reason.

                      Regards
                      Kruska

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kruska View Post
                        I was always convienced that if the whites would actually act in solidarity - they could indeed form their own country if they wanted so - within the bounderies of present SA.

                        But somehow it just sems impossible for these two knuckleheads to get together and the social discrepancy amongst those white groups seems to be the main reason.

                        Regards
                        Kruska
                        The whites tried to make their own homeland, and guess what? all is not well in the land of the free white man. One rich farmer now runs the entire show and poverty there is rampant.

                        Also, what part of SA must we then give to these separatists? The Northern Cape? Gauteng? Rubbish - we are SA one and all, and what we need to do is move away from the racial hatred that feeds racial separation and divides that you call for.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MeenMutha View Post
                          The whites tried to make their own homeland, and guess what? all is not well in the land of the free white man. One rich farmer now runs the entire show and poverty there is rampant.

                          Also, what part of SA must we then give to these separatists? The Northern Cape? Gauteng? Rubbish - we are SA one and all, and what we need to do is move away from the racial hatred that feeds racial separation and divides that you call for.
                          Hello MeenMutha,

                          I think you got me wrong.

                          In your first statement you actually confirm my thoughts in regards to the social-economic discrepance amongst the whites and the white Farmers.

                          In your second statement you again confirm my thoughts about the "city-whites" (mostly non Boers) who rely on a coperation with the black South-Africans and them farmers (mostly Boers) who don't share the same "views" onto sharing their live with the blacks - since they do not see themselves having to rely on them.

                          As such the majority? of the white farmers do not see the need of a "common" country. And this is the problem that the whites in SA have - there is no unity or a common goal between those two white groups.

                          So to me its either the whites join up for the common goal of a seperate state - or the already existing devide will continue, since I do not see a majority of Boers willing to join into a black South-Africa. If you wan't to term that racial motivation or just human nature in regards to totally different cultures and mindsets - I leave that up to you.

                          Israel is not a racial motivated topic (at least it is not termed as such) but it is about two groups not wanting or being able to live in one country. As such they build a wall in order to ensure seperation.

                          I would think that the Israelis and the Boers are not that far apart from each other.

                          Regards
                          Kruska

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kruska View Post
                            Hello MeenMutha,

                            I think you got me wrong.

                            In your first statement you actually confirm my thoughts in regards to the social-economic discrepance amongst the whites and the white Farmers.

                            In your second statement you again confirm my thoughts about the "city-whites" (mostly non Boers) who rely on a coperation with the black South-Africans and them farmers (mostly Boers) who don't share the same "views" onto sharing their live with the blacks - since they do not see themselves having to rely on them.

                            As such the majority? of the white farmers do not see the need of a "common" country. And this is the problem that the whites in SA have - there is no unity or a common goal between those two white groups.

                            So to me its either the whites join up for the common goal of a seperate state - or the already existing devide will continue, since I do not see a majority of Boers willing to join into a black South-Africa. If you wan't to term that racial motivation or just human nature in regards to totally different cultures and mindsets - I leave that up to you.

                            Israel is not a racial motivated topic (at least it is not termed as such) but it is about two groups not wanting or being able to live in one country. As such they build a wall in order to ensure seperation.

                            I would think that the Israelis and the Boers are not that far apart from each other.

                            Regards
                            Kruska
                            Your last point refers and was very similar in the old days.

                            Kruska, I understand your argument, but am dead against it for a number of reasons. The sum of the whole of SA is far richer than its individual parts, and if we divided my country up piecemeal, it would only spell disaster, and here I am only talking economically. Farmers here struggle as something like only 14%(IIRC!) of the country is arable and worthwhile farming. Great swathes of the Karoo and Northern Kalahari cannot support much livestock and you cannot grow anything on it, except brush, and even that only thinly. Our traditional wealth is Gold, situated from south in Welkom in the Free State, westwards to Klerksdorp, northwards to Joburg and eastwards to the east rand Springs.

                            Platinum is our new wealth, from Rustenburg in the west to Polokwane in the North and Steelpoort in the east. Diamonds we still have a few of but located near Pretoria. Coal in Mpumalanga, but low grade coal and not suitable for much beyond power station use which is becoming threatened.

                            So what parts must we hand over? There will be no easy solution to that question and only trouble. The Apartheid govt tried forcefully moving people under one of their more inhumane pieces of inspiration called Group Areas Act, and what it seems to me that you are proposing, is to do the same.

                            Also, the "common goal of a separate state"? Whose common goal? The whites? So we stay racially stigmatised, in our laager, carry on with apartheid and we increase the racial hatred? Yeah sounds good to me for progress Kruska, and something that I abhor. By the way, who will work on the whites farms? Whiteys? Being paid R400 per month? Yeah, riiiiight, thats gonna work.

                            Many Afrikaans people (boer is traditional, and there are many more afrikaners in the mines and industry now than on the farms) are more than happy to give this country a shot, and we should move beyond this old rhetoric about boers and english - we can do that amongst ourselves (and often do) but we all see each other as SAFANs, not anything different. Boer means farmer in Afrikaans, so if I can understand your confusion on this topic.

                            More importantly, you sound like some of my compatriots with this talk of a separate state, and we refer to them as the AWB, or hitlerites, for want of an easier expression, and they are Hitlers disciples, make no mistake on that.

                            they want a white only country, for themselves, and by white, I mean Aryan white and that excludes the English!!! Sound familiar? These types are despised across the board, even amongst the middle of the road Afrikaners who can see the bigger picture. Sadly, they are having a moment in the spotlight again to sprout their warped, poisonous, hate filled garbage, and all they do is attempt to drag us backwards into Hell.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              MeenMutha

                              Also, the "common goal of a separate state"? Whose common goal? The whites? So we stay racially stigmatised, in our laager, carry on with apartheid and we increase the racial hatred? Yeah sounds good to me for progress Kruska, and something that I abhor. By the way, who will work on the whites farms? Whiteys? Being paid R400 per month? Yeah, riiiiight, thats gonna work.
                              Taking in blacks as farmhands is not the same meaning as being dependend on the blacks in order to do business, or having to work together as collegues.

                              Many Afrikaans people (boer is traditional, and there are many more afrikaners in the mines and industry now than on the farms) are more than happy to give this country a shot, and we should move beyond this old rhetoric about boers and english - we can do that amongst ourselves (and often do) but we all see each other as SAFANs, not anything different. Boer means farmer in Afrikaans, so if I can understand your confusion on this topic.
                              I am aware of this, and that is why I keep to the term Boers or Buren. Since to me, the Buren are not equivalent with Afrikaans.

                              More importantly, you sound like some of my compatriots with this talk of a separate state, and we refer to them as the AWB, or hitlerites, for want of an easier expression, and they are Hitlers disciples, make no mistake on that.
                              I would refer to them as extreme "Blankes" who (to the most extend) refer their believes on the Calvinistic bible offspring. As such, how are you going to change their mindset?

                              I believe they wouldn't even care about how misserable their live in their own seperatistic republic would turn out to be - as long as they can rule among themselves.

                              they want a white only country, for themselves, and by white, I mean Aryan white and that excludes the English!!! Sound familiar? These types are despised across the board, even amongst the middle of the road Afrikaners who can see the bigger picture. Sadly, they are having a moment in the spotlight again to sprout their warped, poisonous, hate filled garbage, and all they do is attempt to drag us backwards into Hell.
                              Correct, and that is why those white groups will never come up with a common own country - because there is no unity or common goals and believes amongst the whites themselves. They can't even stand each other - not to mention the problems in regards to the blacks.

                              So it will be the Afrikaans (in majority British + some urban Buren) who will try to find a way of coexistence with the blacks - hoping that they will not end up like those whites in Zimbabwe or Namibia - and the Boers dreaming about their own Bantustan - till they will probably achieve it - afterall why is there a Swaziland, Ciskei, etc.

                              You know better then me, that SA future in regards to a peacefull coexistance of blacks and whites depends entirely on the social-economic progress of your country. Is there such a progress?

                              Unfortunatley the wealthy countries are not into subsidizing or supporting the economy of your country - social discrepances therefore remain and will make a coexistance questionable.

                              I do hope that it will work out the way you like to see it - but for how long will you try and believe in that possible future? what political party is strong enough to take up your interests (ANC?) - in what regards have the blacks changed since 1994? - 450,000 killed, not even a or two national languages but 10?

                              AFAIK, still any skilled white is trying to get a job outside of SA.

                              So sorry to say, but for me as an outsider it is still either a common country for the whites - probably even one for the Afrikaans and one for the Boers, or most likely end up like those whites in Zimbabwe or Namibia.

                              Anyway, I keep my thumbs pressed for you.

                              Regards
                              Kruska

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X