Talk:Afrikaners/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Afrikaners as an ethnic group disputed

Surely there are analysts, historicans or writers who dispute the existence of Afrikaners as an independent ethnic group? The migration from Europe more or less coincided with with the migration to the Americas. There's no such ethnic group as "the american", unless you're explicitly talking about Native Americans. For the same reason there's no ethnic "Afrikaan". Afrikaners are a mixture of European migrants since a few centuries ago, a large majority of them Dutch if I'm correct.

Afrikaners culture and history definitely exists and I'm not disputing that, but to call it an ethnic group seems inaccurate. Ethnic groups can't just show up over a perod of 3 centuries can it? It's best to list Afrikaners as a "the white inhabitants of South Africa who've been living in South Africa since the 17th century and then briefly explain their ethnic background (Dutch people mixed with Germans and other ethnic groups, there's probably detailed articles on that. The lead is too short anyway. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with the notion of the Afrikaners being an ethnic group is that it incorporates two distinct ethnic groups under one political umbrella. The term Afrikaner encompasses just about all White Afrikaans speaking people when in fact the Boers are a distinct ethnic group apart from the Cape Dutch or Cape based Afrikaners. The Boers in fact are not of Dutch descent as they are mainly the descendents of Germans / Frisians & French Huguenots. See more above. While the Cape based Afrikaners: or the Cape Dutch (as they were often called in the past) had much more Dutch ancestors but were also a mixture of other groups. This is because a large number of the Germans who were sent to the Cape went directly to the north eastern Cape where the Boers were formed thus shaping the Boers as a distinct entity from the White proto Afrikaans speakers at the Western Cape complete with even being formed into a different ethnic group.

Ethnic groups can be created in the space of one generation. Hence: what they hell do you mean that they can not show up over the space of 3 centuries (good lord! isn't that enough time?!) Just take the Griqua as an excellent example. The Griquas are a distinct mixed race Afrikaans speaking ethnic group. The Griquas were formed when White settlers amalgamated with Khoisan peoples & later this group absorbed numbers of Tswana people. The Ndebele / Matabele were formed as a distinct ethnic group in the mid 19th cent when Zulus amalgamated with North Sotho peoples dispelling the notion that ethnic groups can not just spring up in a short space of time. Just as so too were the Boer people & the Cape Dutch formed as distinct White Afrikaans speaking ethnic groups when their ancestors amalgamated with each other during the late 1600s & adopted an language created on African soil.

The English ethnic group itself was created out of diverse origins when their Angle / Saxon & Jute ancestors mixed in England. But no one denies that the English do not exist as a distinct ethnic group apart from their Germanic origins. The same thing with the French who came about as a direct result of their Roman / Gaulish & Germanic ancestors mixing to form the French ethnic group. When the diverse ancestors of the White Afrikaans people mixed on African soil 3 centuries ago: new ethnic groups were born by virtue of this fact.

Please include reference to the following book somewhere: "Language Policy and Nation-Building in Post-Apartheid South Africa" (2008) by Jon Orman published by Springer, Netherlands.

Ron7 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaners are an ethnic group, it is clear. They don´t say "I am German-South African" or "I am French South African" as different ethnicities have mixed so much over the centuries (including Khoisan) that now they only call themselves "AFRIKANER", the same as most whites in the American South don´t say "I am German American" or "I am Italian American" as they don´t remember their centuries old ancestors (a mixture of different ethnicities, including Natives) so now they call themselves "AMERICAN" in the U.S. Census.--88.18.150.42 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Boers are only about one third of the White Afrikaans population.

The introduction to this article erroneously states that the Afrikaners are the decendents of the Boers when this is not the entire truth. Most Afrikaners are in fact not descended from the Boers as the Boers were & are only about one third of the entire White Afrikaner population. This is because most Afrikaners are the descendents of the Afrikaans speaking communities of the south western Cape formerly often known as the Cape Dutch in the past & were never part of the Boer people. Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit -a name of French origin for those ignoramuses who continue to flaunt their ignorance with "of Dutch origins" claptrap- notes in The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity on page 1 quote: [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. As members of a frontier society they always had a hinterland, open spaces to conquer, territory to occupy. Their ancestors had moved away from the limiting confines of Cape society to settle the eastern frontier. ] Therefore: it is historically impossible for most Afrikaners to be descended from Boers when those who remained in the south western Cape: the Cape Dutch outnumbered the Boers to a ratio of about 3 to 1. The Boers are the smallest segment of the macro group often known as Afrikaners but the Afrikaner designation was started in 1875 by a group of Cape Dutch people struggling for Afrikaans language rights at a time when most Boers were living in their independent republics to the north & were not susceptible to the emerging Cape based Afrikaner politics of the Afrikaner Bond & other groups who were aimed at co-opting the Boers. The co-option of the Boers by the Cape based Afrikaners did not start in earnest until after the second Anglo-Boer War.

Ron7 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stateless Nation

Regarding the latest addition I can easily see how most Afrikaners feel like foreigners in RSA, not because we don't have a strong identity in the country and a strong association with our motherland but because the current government and the recognition received from the "natives" (a large percentage of the native black Africans arrived in RSA at almost the same time the whites did, it is only he Kio-San who can not be regarded as colonist) speaks strongly otherwise. Most Afrikaners feel unwelcome and that their voice is ignored, often advise given by the political party representing the Afrikaner is ignored and the opposite is done of what can only be seen as spite. Often the ANC would condem advice given as either "racially motivated" or as an "agenda to discredit" or from "people who do not want to see this country succeed". The political advise given in perspective would be not to employ a convicted criminal and former terrorist and a person under investigation for fraud in a position of trust and the ANC would do just that. That is just one recent example of many. As an Afrikaner, I feel the European governments represent my interest better than the ANC does, I therefore feel a stronger association with Europe than RSA. I would like to add the above to the article but there is no way for me to phrase it properly to be of the standard required. Lsuacner (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that you have no substantial proof that all Afrikaners feel this way. This is only assumptions. As said previouslym if there has been conclusive studies based on these points you are trying to make, it could be included in the article. At the moment I feel that this article is completely staring to run off topic with too much focus on the political hardship of Afrikaners, which is not shared by all Afrikaners. The fact that no conclusive research is done, doesnt justify any of these arguments be placed in this article!

You give the following example:

"The political advise given in perspective would be not to employ a convicted criminal and former terrorist and a person under investigation for fraud in a position of trust and the ANC would do just that. That is just one recent example of many."

This is more of a personal opinion that doenst mirror the view of a nation or volk. For that matter you can argue that a Zulu or English speaking South African feels exactly the same way. To try and tie these point of views only to the Afrikaner nation would be misleading and play on the political message that some right wingers try to market throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I tell you that many Afrikaners which fled the nation over the past 18 years probably feel as though they have no truly Afrikaner homeland (or that their homeland is so ungodly and corrupted that they-re safer in a foreign country. It's almost as if many of the Afrikaner people have gone into exile. I'm not saying that this should be included in the article, but I bet many South Africans would return if the ANC gave them a district in which they could be self governing or some land for themselves (like Lesotho and Swaziland have). Invmog (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'like Lesotho and Swaziland'? And besides there is an Afrikaans land, Orania in the N.Cape and Kleinfontein in Gauteng. If someone feels very strong about a 'disctrict' for themselves, then go there--Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

UNPO

There was quite an outcry amongst Afrikaners and other white Afrikaans speaking South Africans regarding the inclusion of the Afrikaner nation in the UNPO. This is stated in the article. However I have a problem with the statement:

"A majority of Afrikaners feel the ANC does not value their welfare and that their rights and liberties as described above are always second subject to those of the previously disatvantaged."

This statement seems to be making a political point based on unproved assumptions. If this could be verified with some statistics I would gladly accept this be placed there. But otherwise I would scrap the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention Jan Smut's work on the League of Nations?

You can check the Jan Smuts article for more details but appearantly he did alot of work on the League of Nations and he "strongly encouraged" the formation of another international organization after WWII (which became the United Nations). Seeing as how Jan Smuts was an Afrikaner (although not a very popular one among the Boers because his being buddy-buddy with the British) should this information be added to the Political section? Invmog (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaner population

According to the english wikipedia the afrikaners number approximately 3.6 million, however a number of the other language wikipedias maintain an estimate of around 2.7 million. What can be considered a reliable estimate of the actual afrikaner population? TerritorialWaters 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest it's neither. I think it's more around 3.1 million, but to make this easier for you to work out, here are some facts:

1)White population of South Africa: 5.2 million 2)of these 60% are Afrikaners (60% of 5.2 million is 3.1 million) 3)39% are English-Speaking

However the Black Parliment of south africa puts the white figures at 4.6 million due to undercounting, 60% of 4.6 million is 2.7 million. But this number is way too tiny, the 3.6 million is probably from that highest white population (which was in 1994 at 5.6 million) - 60% of that is 3.6 million. I hope im clear. The chances are that 3.6 million is way too big, but also 2.7 seems way too small. Hope this helps :) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose then that by using the above mentioned figures nobody's going to include the population of Afrikaners in other nations (like Great Britain, The Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand) - even if we tried to include those Afrikaners it'd be really hard to do since not all nations keep track of their Afrikaner populations. Invmog (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Even so, it couldn't be more than 300,000. And yes, the above figures don't include above figures, or that of the 150,000 Afrikaans namibians, or 15,000 Afrikaans Swazis etc..--Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the figure for Afrikaners residing in South Africa has been changed from 3.0 to 3.2 million. Does that figure have any factual basis (i.e lack of citation) or is it simply a guesstimate? thanks:) TerritorialWaters 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't increased, maybe look at the above? There are 5.2 million white south africans (some citations say between 4.6 and 5.6), 60% are Afrikaans (many citations for thie figure) - therefore it resides at about 3.2 million to be precise. I also added this figure as an average for the high or 4.6 and 5.6, while 60% if definitley the figure for the percentage of white people bein afrikaans. --Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason there is a recurring edit of this page to show an Afrikaner population of 5.3 million. I think it is safe to say that this figure is highly optimistic as there are at most only 5.2 million European South Africans in total (including people of both Afrikaner and British ancestry). Moreover Statistics SA gives a more conservative estimate of 4.3 million of all White South Africans. Perhaps the editor should have considered the above discussion before editing on what appear to be their personal beliefs on the Afrikaner population. Therefore I am once again re-editing the page to the concensus estimate putting the figure at approximately 3.3 million. TerritorialWaters (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he/she keeps editing the number, but one must remember, that the above numebers not only exclude Afrikaners outside of SA, but also do not include Afrikaners in Gated communities or Farms, which could become a considerable number. The ANC however is trying to lower Afrikaners numbers as low as possible, so the lowest possible number (and the number by the ANC claimed) is 4.3 million.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the SA government is most likely undercounting the number of Afrikaners in the country, perhaps substantially, however even if Afrikaners living in gated communities or farms are included I doubt it would amount to an undercount of 2 million. The 3.3 million figure is the best estimate as it means that there are approximately 3 million Afrikaners living in SA and approximately 300,000 living in foreign countries (i.e the UK, USA, Australia, NZ, etc.) In addition the Statistics SA figure of 4.3 million is of all White South Africans living in South Africa, hence the majority, but not all of them are Afrikaners (3 million) and the rest are of British or other European ancestry. I have invited the user who insists on the 5.3 million claim to join the discussion and can perhaps tell us where he/she is getting this figure from. TerritorialWaters (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion

If you think that there is a minority of Afrikaners who are Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc., then that minority would be around 50 people. It would be the same situation as an Italian Hindu, living in the Vatican. We are talking about one of the most religious communities in the world, of which practiccaly none are non-christian or non-religious.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any current religious statistics that focuses on specifically Afrikaner religion. There have always been a substantial amount of Agnostic and Atheistic Afrikaners as well. You can also look at the declining attendance at churches. However, since no concrete statistics are available, your point that it is one of the most religious communities in the world is not valid. Maybe in rural areas, but in major cities there seems to be some notable non religious communities especially in Johannesburg. As to Muslim, it goes back to the debate regarding the coloured community being referred to as Afrikaner. The Quran has been translated into Afrikaans and a significant number of Malay descendants are in fact Muslim. I agree that Buddhist and Hindu are not really a significant number. Based on national statistics I think Christianity is the leading religion followed by non - religious and then the rest. (Assuming we are not including coloured into the Afrikaner terminology).

I agree with you, and sorry about my statement, at the end I meant to say that they are one of the most white christian devout people in the world, but also I meant to put down that the non-religious (or agnostic) population are still significant, however, with Church attendence 49% in 2009 (what the article says), i'm obviously guessing that AT LEAST 50% are christian, with my guess going around 90% believing in the faith. In the religion section of the article, I would prefer saying that the vast majority are Christian, with a small but significant non-religious population, but I prefer to write the sentance as Christian and Other (incl. Non-religious).--Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bezuidenhout on this. Invmog (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, Someone changed the article to say that church attendance is 79% currently under Afrikaners. I have phoned various sources who says it is not correct. However no one can give a credible source. I am removing the percentage as it is misleading and if someone could quite a source, they can replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaner Identity

Should there be a section or subsection which discusses things which self-identified Afrikaners usually identify themselves with (like the old South African flag, speaking Afrikaans, celebrating Day of the Covenant (Day of the Vow, Day of Reconciliation,) ect.)? We could have a link to to Afrikaner Nationalism right under the title, and then we could finally have a good place to insert the old flag and perhaps have a good discussion about it and its origins, meanings, and present day connotations. Invmog (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Loyalist Cannons

User:Loyalist Cannons has made some incorrect edits recently, but I don't know how to undo all of them, can someone please help me?--Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: I'll be on the lookout to undo any "incorrect edits," however if it's just a difference in opinion between the two of you I'd suggest discussing it and backing up each side with references so we aren't left to the tyranny of original research without references. Invmog (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But the stuff (s)he has edited have been already discussed. These include changing all 'whites' to European, which is incorrect and already mentioned that these are only of european ancestry etc.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

SHARLTO COPLEY

is he Afrikaner then we should add him to the pic 62.38.18.192 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Overgeneralisations?

That's my point, it's the way that a lot of people generalise about white South Africans and particularly Afrikaners and it's highly offensive for a lot of them and because so many believe it this article could be a platform for spreading knowledge and eradicating ignorance.

BOV1993 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always felt that we (Afrikaner/Boere) use the term Boer when we feel particularly fierce or warlike about something and the term Afrikaner when we feel more cultural, artistic etc(ie. want to come across more civilised. Have I missed the point here or is there some truth in it?). However, we speak of black Americans as African American, thus should we not be called Euro-Africans ( no matter where the majority of our ancestors came from?)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniba (talk • contribs) 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i have always seen people, including myself refering to themselves as a Boer or an Afrikaner depending on their mood. Most Afrikaners can trace their family to the original settelers, although because of all the mixing with the English ect, it is more likley that most Afrikaners are not pure bred,as such the term is used to refer to some one who associates themselves with the Afrikaner culture Scottykira —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

What does Aparthedi have to do with Afrikaners?

I'm an Afrikaner and I didnt make one apartheid law. I refuse to take the blame for one government's actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner ghost (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree :) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though apartheid is very often misused on Wikipedia (aka 'The Apartheid Regime' (as if it was a political take over solely for the purpose of imposing apartheid on poor unsuspecting tribesmen) (never the 'Afrikaners fought to have their own nation for decades and who created a land so prosperous with God's blessing together with the British that many native Africans immigrated to South Africa even if they did have apartheid') we must always recognize that it was the Afrikaners in government which enacted apartheid and some parts of those laws were racist and wrong, and so as an Afrikaner myself I say that we keep apartheid in the article but explain it from both points of view with an explanation of how communists misrepersentated the 'Evil' and 'White' South Africans in order for them to come to power, which they did, and have done since then. Invmog (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states that "Apartheid laws were enacted by the British controlled government when the Pass Laws were passed in 1923.

Due to the threat of Communism the status quo was maintained and restrictions on non-whites' social and political segregation further tightened and internationally supported when Afrikaner-led political parties gained control of government in the 1960s."

This is a somewhat over-simplified statement. The formal policy of Apartheid, including the exclusion of Cape Coloureds from their previously-held rights, was first instituted following the 1948 general election. This election saw the National Party, the recognised voice of the Afrikaner peoples, return to power. The Apartheid laws took segregation considerably further than the various Pass laws which had evolved since the 19th century. Given the institution of Apartheid by the National Party, an Afrikaner political organisation, the link between the Afrikaner people and Apartheid is a matter of historical fact, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.49.236 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's The Afrikaner Flag?

The Flag of the most widely regarded as the Afrikaner Flag (to the best of my knowledge,(although I might be biased as I have two of them in my room) is the 'Prinsevlag' (or affectionatley known as the 'Oranje-Blanje-Blou' (The Orange-White-[and]Blue))

Nevertheless, it may be fitting to add it to the article with a subtitle of 'Many Afrikaners strongly identify with South Africa's old flag'

It might also be noted that some Afrikaners go so far as to derail the ANC government as not legitimate and therefore claim that the old flag is the 'true' or 'real' South African Flag.

Just a thought. Invmog (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree that O-B-B is, what I think, that national flag of the Afrikaans. But another question is wheather the green stripe on the left is still needed? Personally, I think that the old SA flag, has very much become move offensive in recent years, due to Right-wing organisations expanding it's use. However, I still think a section in the article should be written about the 'Afrikaner' flag, and how it developed from the Dutch flag (Red, White, Blue) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :

The old South African flag developed from the VOC Orange White & Blue flag of the Dutch administrators of the Cape while a number of Boer Republican flags developed from the Batavian Red White & Blue tri colour flag. Ron7 (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Say, could someone perhaps assist me in adding information about the history and he different interpretations of what the flag means currently seeing as how if I tried to do it by myself it'd probably be reverted. Invmog (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not an expert, but it I know that it's based on the Dutch flag, and the Orange comes from William of Orange. As for the green stripe, I have no idea, i'm guessing it was added to represent farmland or land in general of the nation.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole notion of an "Afrikaner" flag is questionable. I don't believe there is any general consensus amongst Afrikaners about "their" flag, and support for the Prinsenvlag seems to be mostly in evidence amongst right-wing groups, with which many Afrikaners do not wish to be associated. Moreover, the Prinsenvlag is also claimed by the "Grootnederlandse" movement in Europe, which argues for greater cohesion between Flanders and the Netherlands.124.184.225.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

The Flag with the green stipe is not the Afrikaner flag but the flag of the Freedom Front Plus, a political oraganisation, the old south african flag is a better representaion Scottykira —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

Final Answer?

Just so solve the continous problem with the 'Afrikaner Ethnic group':

An Afrikaner is a white person living in Africa who speaks afrikaans as a first language, and is of 100% European genetics - of which the majority is north-west european (German, Dutch, Huguenot and Flemish). Relgion is another matter, an Afrikaner can be non-religious.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be proper to mention that almost all Afrikaners are 'religious' as stated in the Afrikaner page and elsewhere? (P.S. for further information see Afrikaner Nationalism and Afrikaner Calvinism) Invmog (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

100% European geneticsdoes not seem very scientific, nor historically accurate. Unless you can give a clear definition of what 100% European genetics means, I suggest scrapping it. Most research these days shows that Europeans themselves are a pretty mixed bunch genetically, anyway. This seems to imply an obsession with race classification. Many prominent Afrikaner families have a dollop of South-east Asian and African genes as well, and are proud of it.124.184.225.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

User:85.211.34.24 revisions

User:85.211.34.24, your continued insertion of text without reliable sources can be considered disruptive editing. Two editors have requested that you provide sources. You indicated that the content you are adding is "carefully documented in genealogical records and DNA studies". If there is "careful" documentation, what are these sources? And please provide them when you add such content. Eastcote (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user (User:85.211.34.24) should cite his sources, annoying. That said, his info appears to be verifiable. http://www.beyondidentity.co.za/2008/02/the-purity-of-the-afrikaners/ and http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers/Deconstructing_Jaco_Genetic_Heritage_of_an_Afrikaner.pdf back it up. I've added the one reference, which is from a University of Pretoria DNA study, there are quite a few more like it. The other reference seems to walk the line with WP:SPS and WP:NPOV, so I've omitted it to prevent nit-picking. I wish I could find sources for the BeyondIdentity article, it's well presented, just not verifiable. --HiltonLange (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to address the latest edits - the 5-7% non-white DNA composition is uniform across the Afrikaner population, that's what the BeyondIdentity article clarifies. J. M. Greef's article does a detailed DNA and genealogical study on one individual (the author), and the results he finds are directly in line with what two earlier 1970s pre-DNA studies had predicted would be the outcome for almost any Afrikaner ancestry. --HiltonLange (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of the articles cited rely heavily on a genealogical study by this Heese feller. Greeff's own study was specifically on his own genealogy, and he indicates that Heese's work was an estimate, adding, "I am not aware that this estimate has been validated for any other Afrikaner individual." The Beyond Identity article also relies on Heese, but carries a lot of anecdotal accounts as well. I'm not really comfortable with the way the article reads, that "most" Afrikaners have non-white ancestry, as if it is established fact, when this is based on a guess-timate. Perhaps it should read more along the lines of "A 1971 study by Heese estimated that roughly 7% of Afrikaner genetic heritage is non-European." Eastcote (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Heese (1971) did a genealogical study which estimated that 7% of the Afrikaner's heritage was non-European. Botha and Pritchard did a 1972 genetic study which predicted the same number (5-7%). Greeff's own study was anecdotally about himself, but it was also a formal academic paper which revisited and commented on the works which went before him. Also, these were only the most high profile studies. A few google searches turn up Brink, Steyn, Coetzee and Wezthuizen saying the same thing.(http://www.springerlink.com/content/w12671ku7lu520k3/) It is not unexpected, but the full reasons aren't really suitable to be explained and referenced in this article without having WP:UNDUE weight. Dutch women rarely accompanied the men in very early migrations, and without a history of racial mixing, intermarriage or interracial sex had no precedent and was not yet taboo. It's well documented that children of Dutch men with Indonesian women were numerous enough to constitute an entire social strata, above that of children from Dutch men and African women. (White supremacy: a comparative study in American and South African history By George M. Fredrickson, entire book available on Google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=sXNmy2n6-1EC&lpg=PA309&dq=Botha%2C%20M.%20C.%20%26%20Pritchard%2C%20J.%20(1972)%20Blood%20group%20gene%20frequencies%3A%20an%20indication%20of%20the%20genetic%20constitution&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q=Botha,%20M.%20C.%20&%20Pritchard,%20J.%20(1972)%20Blood%20group%20gene%20frequencies:%20an%20indication%20of%20the%20genetic%20constitution&f=false, page 97)

As to how consistent this 7% will be. In the 300 years subsequently, the Afrikaner race has hardly interbred with other races or cultures. The Greeff study mentions about how uniformly distributed ancestry is among the Afrikaner population. It would be akin to adding salt to a stew and then stirring for 30 generations. The salt (non-European ancestors) becomes very consistently and evenly spread throughout the population, so that any one teaspoon (invididual) contains the same quantity thereof. This is how through 3 independent methods it can be confirmed. Two methods can only estimate or predict based on records and blood groups. But now with DNA evidence we can test individuals and confirm that the predictions in the pre-DNA studies were correct.

Apologies for being so wordy - there was lots of interesting stuff to read. It fascinates me, there's a certain irony given the eventual role of the Afrikaner in racial politics.HiltonLange (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Afrikaner Jews

Please could somebody include a link under the Religion section, to this page Afrikaner-Jews. Although a minority, Boere-Jode form an integral part of the history of South Africa.Ethnopunk (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Afrikaner Americans?

Are there Afrikaner Americans? If so, i think wikipedia needs to have an article about them. Gringo300 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a significant population, however there is also significant ones in Australasia, the UK and Canada, so in light of this, maybe an article on Afrikaner emigration would be more appropriate.

10:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They are likely grouped under Dutch-Americans in census data in both countries. Perhaps a section on the Afrikaner-Americans could be attached to that article. There is also a significant, and growing, Afrikaner population in the Netherlands and Belgium so make sure to include that as well. 69.157.123.218

I'm sorry to single out the above comment however it is symptomatic of the common ignorance amongst the general non- South African populus, if it's working under the premise of names, they're just as likely to be grouped under German- Americans or Franco- Americans as Dutch Americans. Although I suppose you could be correct if the census specifically relies upon their first language, although Afrikaans and Dutch are internationally recognised as being different languages.

Besides I don't think we have any confirmation that the Afrikaner communities abroad are grouped into one specific area, especially considering they're likely among the wealthier immigrants to the first world, so the need earlier immigrants had to form a community resembling home abroad is invariably no longer present for Afrikaners moving abroad.

If anyone can single out specific Afrikaner communities outside of Southern Africa maybe we should consider listing them.

82.14.64.128 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did find this map and some language statistics about the Afrikaans language in the US, and therefore these are 99.89% white. The link [Afrikaans USC2000 PHS.svg is here] and I also found out that there are over 3,000 afrikaners in California, 1,500 in Florida, however the largest percentage is in Utah and Colorado (see the map for the % of afrikaans in each state, unfortunately theres no key :-( )--Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In the US we're not counted as Afrikaners; we have to select 'Caucasian' or 'Other' as they only list 'Black African American' as an option but not 'White African American.' We're too much of a minority to be separately classified. Invmog (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afrikaners Around London

Recently I was in South Africa and an Afrikaner friend told me that there are one million Afrikaners in the greater London area alone. Does anyone know of a reference for that or is it just a rumor? Invmog (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

According to [[1]], about 440k South Africans have emigrated in the last 20 years. Spreading this number across white/black and English/Afrikaans, as well as the various international destinations, I wouldn't imagine that there are even as many as 50k Afrikaners in London.--HiltonLange (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2001 UK census showed that 90% of South Africans in the UK were white. I suspect that a "minority" of them wil be Afrikaner since alot of South African whites in the UK are here because of their British heritage. In HiltonLange's statistics, does the 440k of white South Africans include those who returned, or only those that have left at some point? So Basically Invmog, your friend is incorrect but many people assume the same. The highest possible figure for whites South Africans in the entire UK have reached the highest estimates of half a million. One more statistic that I would like to add is that 10% of white South Africans in the UK are Jewish, and from what I have read, most Jews in SA speak English. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor Whites External Links

Poor people exist in every single society on earth. I do not see the reason for the inclusion of these external links in the article at all.

I am happy with the inclusion in the reference list as it refers to a point made in the main article.

However External links refer to topics specific to AFRIKANERS such as organisations etc.

Poverty is not unique to the Afrikaner. For that matter we can place a link to "Wealthy Whites" since whites still earn 4 x more than blacks in this country and enjoy great freedom and wealth in several sectors of the economy. See this is not really applicable to the article!

These links were placed merely to try and prove a political point. If anyone agrees with me, please let me know so that I can remove it.

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lsuacner (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I see your point, why reference something which is common sense. Many blacks in RSA (even co-workers who earn the same salaries) do not however believe in white poverty at all and believe that whites always have more money, from their viewpoint they will need a referances, therefore it is best to keep it there.

Whites do not earn 4x more than blacks, however whites are better qualified, have more experience and in general a Western work ethic and those people including blacks (not just whites) earn more than the average/general black man who do not have a good education or experience to take to the bank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsuacner (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Many blacks in RSA (even co-workers who earn the same salaries) do not however believe in white poverty at all and believe that whites always have more money" Bollocks, I think this statement is just another attempt to broaden the pity-party the original writer is a member of. If the poverty of white people after 1994 is to be mentioned, an explaination that makes this phenomenon worth mentioning should be stated as well. The unemployment rate in a number of black townships also increased after 1994 because no one was forced to work anymore and in the same token didn't have a decent education (particularly in Gugulethu and Alexandra), the HIV infections also increased which explains why the average life expectancy in Gugulethu is 25. Why are the Boere getting poor, are they getting poor at rates that are unusually high in comparison with other ethic groups in South Africa and around the world? Keeping an irrelevant and suggestive bit of information in an article over an unsubstantiated generalisation is a lame excuse (my colleagues are black and they think all white people are rich so most black people must think so too/most black people I've met think so, so most black people in South Africa must think so too) . I say remove it.Fruitandnut (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think if one wants to include a reference to poor whites it is important to note that poor whites is not a new phenomenon and has been a problem in South Africa since the first "vryburgers" settled permanently in the Cape. An interesting read on this would be : Teppo, A. 2004. The Making of a good white: a Historical Ethnography of the rehabilitation of Poor Whites in a suburb of Cape Town. University of Helsinki: Research Series in Anthropology. Chapter 2. The reference to poor whites is a very one-sided view as it creates the impression that poor whites is a new phenomenon, exclusively created by affirmative action, which is not true at all. I think this part needs clarifying. |||

democratically elected government

National voting in RSA is mostly based on race, policies is usually the last concern. There are no live debates as seen in Western elections. It is my opinion that a government elected based on the skin colour of the patry's candidate can not represent a "democracy" as in the West. It is also my opinion that the president of the ANC is elected based the cadidate's inclination to accept corruption as the norm - in doing so the high profile party members and continue being corrupt and even more so. I assume the will of the people is to live a life compared to the standard set by the wealthy Western countries - which will not happen under the ANC leadership where corruption and incompetence reduces every national agency to its knees. Only 30% of government employees are literate - the article appeared on the 27th Aug on news24.co.za (link not available to me on a restricted connection). The ANC is elected in a democratic manner/process, but South Africa is by no means a democracy (if measured by a Western standard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsuacner (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Progenitors of the Afrikaner

With all the above about the progenitors of the Afrikaner said and done, there seems to be a common misconception that this “volk” or “group” or whatever descended mostly from Dutch immigrants in South Africa. In reality, as the knowledgable dr. J.A. Heese has pointed out, the German genes are far more prevalent although there seems to be a more or less equal amount of Dutch and German blood in the Afrikaner! This is explained by the fact that the first Dutch immigrants had many children (daughters) who later married many different Germans (from the German Lowlands near the Netherlands) recruited by die Dutch East-Indian Company. The result is that there are many more Afrikaans surnames of German origin than of Dutch in the South African Afikaans speaking group of European origin. (Dr. Heese quoted by C. Pama on pp. 17-18 of Die Groot Afrikaanse Familienaamboek, published 1983 by Human & Rousseau Publishers, Cape Town, etc. ISBN 0 7981 1618 8.) Could someone more knowledgeable about the Wikipedia workings than I perhaps state this fact in the article or at least mention that dr. Heese made this finding? -- Contributed by reader G. Olwagen -- dugeot AT iafrica dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.94 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand has 90,000?

on the South African Diaspora page it says there are only 55,000 South africans in new zealand. Could someone look for which is right? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2006 census, 0.6% of New Zealand spoke Afrikaans as a first language. Out of the 4,143,279 people counted in that survey, that would mean 24,859.I doubt this number has doubled in just 4 years, as many have returned. Also, around 3% of this number is likely to be Afrikaans speaking Coloureds. I think 20-35,000 should be a good guess. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I have just found out that the 0.6% includes secondary speakers of the language as well, e.g. Anglo-Africans or Black South Africans that can speak it. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism

There is an element of anti-Black racism in this article. If you go about 54% of the page down, in the paragraph which begins: "Today, roughly 400,000 whites are too poor...", there appears to be some unsubstantiated pro-White, anti-Black racist statements that border on what the Ku Klux Klan would write.

For instance, writer states: "...widespread among Black men in South Africa that they can cure AIDS by having sex with a woman who ...". My first problem with the statement: how do you define 'widespread'? There is no reference given for 'widespread'. Is it 40%, 22%, 89%, 73%, 46%? What % of "Black men" believe this?

Writer did not say "...sex with a White woman..." in that sentence, but several sentences later, writer states that (Black men) "...also seek out White women, among whom the infection rate is only a tiny fraction of the rate among Black women...", thereby subtly affirming that, in writer's statement 4 sentences previous, writer is implying that Black men are trying to cure AIDS by having sex with White women. Which, presumably, writer finds a problem with. Never mind that this behoves the question: where is the proof that the AIDS infection rate of White women is only a fraction of that of Black women? What are the actual statistics? What is the data source?

The same paragraph refers to 67,000 cases of rape and sexual assault against children, again with a subtle reference to Black men, since writer hasn't changed the context of the paragraph away from referring to Black men. What does this have to do with Afrikaners? Obviously nothing -- it is, instead, another attempt by writer (presumably Afrikaner and/or White themselves) to infect a Wikipedia article with racist invective against South African Blacks.

Wikipedia has no place for 'subtlety' in general, and racism in particular. This entire article has to be cleansed to determine how much of it is fact, and how much is racist diatribe. I'm sorry but I can not accept this Wikipedia article as it stands.

Agree. Besides being unacceptable (and not even closely related to the article topic), it simply violates some basic Wikipedia guidelines that demand verifiability, reliable sources and excludes original research (Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:No original research). I will remove these sections in accordance with these policies. --Deon Steyn 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the citation of a statement under the section about Afrikaners around the world? The one citation leads to a link to a forum post which has a copy-paste of an article about the Huntley case. The statement says that many emigrations are due to racially motivated crime, but the article contains no stats to support this, just information about ONE, publicised incident of a white man seeking asylum in Canada to escape(unproven)racial persecution. The citation is not very reliable and will probably not mean much two years from now. That's like citing an incident of someone in SA died from watching too much TV to prove that many South Africans die of watching too much TV. Also, the external link about farm killings is that of an extremist, subtley racist website. I am not doubting the fact that farmers are being murdered, but could someone find a better website to list than one of those SOUTHAFRICAISAHELLHOLE.com websites, maybe one that mentions the fact that black farmers get murdered too (even though they make up less than 4% of commercial farmers in SA, stats from Sowetan, way more reliable, donchathink)? Fruitandnut (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what you have to understand about these farm murders, if that White farmers are getting killed, because of their skin colour. Black farmers, who are murdered, are because of money. I know this is a very harsh way to look at it, but white farmers are also seen to be one of the more brutal killings. Often black farmers will just get robbed, while this week a farm in Lindley, a 3 year old girl was killed by attackers.. and for what?! her parents (both white) were also killed in the attack. Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

People who commit murders are barbarians, thugs, animals. Who can fully understand their motives? The murder of a 3 year old girl is a sickening thing - the murder of ANYONE is sickening. I would not defend their actions nor might light of them for one second. BUT, be careful about being quick to characterize or stereotype them based on preconceptions. When a black family is murdered it is because of money, but when a white family is murdered it is because of their race? In South Africa, the individual most at risk of being the victim of a murder is a black male. Does that mean that most murders are racially motivated against black people? No, it's a product of demographics, poverty, opportunity etc. Farm attacks are a complex situation to understand and police, but the statistics (already cited in the talk page of the farm attack article) clearly show that there is no underlying trend that would indicate it is targeted against whites nor farmers. If you're going to try and make that (highly dangerous) point, take care to ensure it is backed up with incontrovertible facts and references. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but before that, what does this conversation have to with the article? I am also guilty, as I am actually slightly confused for what this has to do with Racism and what the issue at first was about? This was at first about the pro-white comments which were underlined at the beggining of this heading. But I feel like this sections has already been solved? I disagree that there is a genocide against white people (although it might seem so statistically, this is a misconception), but also I asked myself what the comments highlighted in this heading have to do with Afrikaners?? Maybe the section should be deleted? (PS I agree with everything you're saying Hilton) Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Distant European Origins.

The user Swartelf said:

[ removed "distant" in relation to European. They still see themselves as European. ]

The term distant refers to their European ancestry which in fact is distant as it goes back hundreds of years up to 355 years ago & even longer when factoring in the Portuguese who have been in Africa longer. Most White Afrikaans people go back for generations in Africa so the description of their European roots as being distant is accurate. Furthermore: No they do not still see themselves as European as the Boer segment in particular broke their ties to Europe early on & began referring to themselves as Africans by the turn of the 1700s. It was the British which introduced signs designating White people in general as "European" -as well as non White people as non-European- as the term Afrikaner is simply the Afrikaans word for African. If the White Afrikaans people still saw themselves as European then they would have called themselves Europeaans or Europeaaners.

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.

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.

Is George W Bush of Irish descent(?) not an American in the same vein as Chief Sitting Bull in Arizona? Why then are Whites in South Africa not referred to as Africans!!! The Whites, and then the Afrikaans-speaking Whites are nothing other than a people (= Volk) similar to the Venda, Xhosa and Griqua peoples. The difference being language and ethnicity.

From: http://www.rights2property.com/comment_doc.htm .

Had the English not interfered, had the English not created this unnatural state, had the English not disregarded the ethnic identity of every previously free and self-governing people in Southern Africa, and had the English not erected signs saying "Europeans" and "Non-Europeans" the various nations of Southern Africa could have been spared ethnic friction and its resulting misery!

From: Fritz Meyer in an open letter to the Office of the British High Commissioner Pretoria, Oct 10 1997.

The White Afrikaans people are a product of Africa & go back for generations -even their language was created on African soil as well as their culture to a large extent as well.

Ron7 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaners are not simply "White Africans" which includes all people in southern Africa of European origins. Most of their origins are Dutch, the Afrikaans language is very very close to standard Dutch. In addition to this, most Afrikaners realize that they are distinct ethnically from indigenous African peoples like the Zulu and Xhosa. The European origins are not "distant" by any measure and there was significant migration in especially the 18th and 19th centuries. "Black" or indigenous Africans have inhabited this region for thousands of years. Afrikaners and Anglo-Africans have been in this region for 400 years at the most, and very few actually can trace any significant ancestry that long to the very first Dutch settlers. The cultures and peoples which constitute Afrikaners are almost entirely European: culture, language, ancestry, religion, all trace to the primary origins of Afrikaners: the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Some more information is given here about how approximately 35 % of Afrikaner ancestry is Dutch. Dutch culture and language again also had the largest impact. Epf (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the comments of some of these authors is ridiculous. 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 ? Not to mention that most are still predominantly of European, specifically Dutch and German, origins. How about this Afirkaner flag [2] which bears the colours of the United Netherlands and used by some Cape Rebels during the second Anglo-Boer War ? The Afrikaners are ethnically culturally and linguistically distinct from the actual, indigenous African peoples. Epf (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By Epf's logic Americans and Canadians are Europeans and if they had not outnumbered and displaced the Native Americans they would have no "right" to their home.

Many Afrikaners don't see themselves as 'European,' but rather as Afrikaners - although the significant English population in South Africa may very well regard themselves as Afrikaners and Europeans... As far as I know, the more specific 'Boere' would consider themselves soley South African, many even after they fled the nation. Invmog (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a silly argument. White South Africans wouldn't normally class themselves as European because they weren't born their. My parents and their parent's parent's where born in SA, they have never been to europe, how can they be european? Sure their ancestry is clearly European, but thats just ancestry. Culture isn't similar. I doubt the Dutch play Rugby, drive Bakkies and have braais every day? Can we classify the Americans as European? Surely their ancestry is european and their culture is european too? The Afrikaner flag doesn't exist. They don't have an official flag, but merely some historical flags that they like. Linguistically they have Afrikaans, but the Surinamese speak a Dutch dialect and they certainly are not European? Most South Africans (especially Afrikaners) cannot trace their ancestry to when they immigrated. I used ancrstry.co.uk and found my Dutch and French ancestors migrated to South Africa in in the late 1600s? Afrikaners did break off all ties with Europe, that is why Afrikaans evolved so much. Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Cape Dutch Were Not Boers & Did Not "unite" With Them During the Anglo-Boer War.

I can not believe the level of ignorance demonstrated in the following atrocious paragraph as it is full of erroneous assertions & a total lack of research on the topic.

[ The Trek split the Afrikaans-speaking Boers into two groups: the Trekboers (later called 'Voortrekkers'), and the 'Cape Dutch', as they were called by British settlers. These distinctions overlapped with economic differences, as the Trekkers generally had fewer material resources on the frontier than those who remained behind. During the Anglo-Boer war, the distinction between Cape Dutch and Voortrekker became irrelevant. They united under the name of Boer people against the foreign British invaders. ]

The Afrikaans speakers were already split LONG BEFORE the Great Trek. And no they were not all called Boers!!!!! Only the folks who developed on the Cape frontier [ circa 1679 - 1735 & then continued trekking inland until 1779 when they were stopped ] were called Boers. This fact has been noted by countless historians from Irving Hexham to Herman Giliomee & even Canadian Professor Wallace Mills. The folks at the Western Cape were never called Boers as the folks who remained at the Western Cape were known as the Cape Dutch & looked down on the Boers. The Boers called them the Cape Dutch LONG before the British used the term to describe them. The Great Trek simply FURTHER split the two Afrikaans speaking groups - it did not CREATE a split as it exacerbated the previous split. The Boers developed on the Cape frontier during the late 1600s & into the 1700s splitting off from the folks who were known as the Cape Dutch long before the Great Trek. The Cape Dutch were OPPOSED to the Great Trek.

During the second Anglo-Boer War the Cape Dutch & Boers were FAR FROM UNITED! The Cape Dutch [ now calling themselves Afrikaners as per Afrikaner Bond rhetoric ] were generally on the side of the British & many were helping the British in fighting against the Boers. Some did join the Boers but those Cape Dutch folks called themselves Afrikaners not Boers. There were Cape Rebels but the vast majority of them were Boers from the northeastern Cape frontier. The term Voorrekker was rarely used in the 19th cent as it was a term cooked up by the Afrikaner Broederbond when they were rewriting history in order to co-opt part of the Boers' history & heritage. The Boer people are descendents of the Trekboers [ & later Voortrekkers ] & the Cape Dutch NEVER "united" with them. The Cape Dutch & Boers were later lumped under the amorphous & dispossessing term Afrikaner AFTER the second Anglo-Boer War.

Not only did the British invade the Boer Republics but the Cape Dutch Afrikaners ALSO invaded them in the wake of the gold rush. The Afrikaner colonization of the Boer people began in earnest after the second Anglo-Boer War when the Boers were impoverished after the devastation of the war & had to look for work in the cities where they often encountered Afrikaners. The Cape Dutch Afrikaners had set themselves up in the towns & cities long before the Boers were forced to migrate to the town & cities which is why the Boers were so quickly co-opted by the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. There were around 400 000 Cape Dutch & quite a bit less than 300 000 Boers [ this includes the Boers of the Boer Republics as well as those Boers on the Cape frontier ] during the second Anglo-Boer War. Therefore the Cape Dutch portion DOMINATES & marginalizes the Boer portion under the Afrikaner designation & thus the Cape Dutch segment controls the Afrikaner designation.

Ron7 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Trekboers were also distinct from the Voortrekkers. The Voortrekkers were from settled in the "Oosgrens" area. For example Piet Retief's farm is in the Humansdorp district. The Trekboers were nomadic sheep herders who roamed the Karoo areas long before the Great Trek. This stuff isn't all that complicated, I learnt it in High School almost 30 years ago! (Back then Mandela was still a "gevaarlike kommunistiese terroris" so I imagine the school history curriculum has since been sanitised of much of this detail about "white" people.) Roger (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is having Afrikaans as first language a necessary pre-condition to being an Afrikaner?

A bit of an edit dispute has arisen with one editor claiming that Afrikaners may not necessarily be native speakers of Afrikaans whereas another (me) thinks it's absurd. I maintain that an Afrikaner is first and foremost a mother tongue Afrikaans speaker. Nobody would ever think to call someone who doesn't speak French as a first language, a Frenchman, so why "allow" this for Afrikaners? Roger (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the only thing that differs an "Afrikaner" from an "English-Speaking" South Africa, let alone those of other ethnic groups. It is the only thing all of them have in common, since many are of different churches, and may come from different ancestries. But it is indisputible that to be an Afrikaner you must speak Afrikaans. However one can be of Afrikaner-decent is they speak English or whatever, as long as they have Afrikaans relatives. Personally as well, NO ONE in my family ever calls themselves "Afrikaners", but as an "Afrikaans person". It wouldn't make much sense as an "English-speaking Afrikaans person"? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor also says that if one is of "Afrikaans" ancestry. What exactly is that?? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this topic. The term Afrikaner has always been a complex term whose definition has changed from time to time. It was initially used by the VOC to describe anyone who was born in Africa of White & mixed race descent. It was first used in a public context in 1707 when a one Hendrik Biebouw was in court asserting the he was an African [ Afrikaner ] who does not want to be ruled from Europe. There were Trekboers & Boers who called themselves Africans [ Afrikaners ] but they also simultaneously saw themselves as distinct from the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape ie: the bulk of the folks who later appropriated the term Afrikaner from the late 19th cent onwards. Then in the early 19th cent a group of mixed race Basters called themselves Afrikaners led by a one Jager Afrikaner. It was not until the late 19th cent & 1875 in particular when the term Afrikaner was now being used by the Cape Dutch descendents when a few intellectuals from Paarl started a language rights movement. These newly baptized "Afrikaners" then attempted to export the term Afrikaner in a dispossessing political context onto the Boers mainly via the Afrikaner Bond: an Afrikaans speaking Cape political party with an aim of pan White Afrikaans nationalism. President Paul Kruger of the ZAR & President Marthinus Steyn of the OVS rejected the overtures of the Afrikaner Bond & the Boers of the Boer Republics generally rejected these overtures. F W Reitz being a notable exception. Therefore the term Afrikaner is not an ethnic term as it includes Cape Dutch / Griquas / Boers / Basters & Cape Coloureds in general. Thus referring to someone as an Afrikaner is an amorphous description & is akin to referring to someone as British which covers Scot / English / Welsh & Northern Irish. The term Afrikaner is a geographical term & everyone in Africa is technically an Afrikaner. Those who insist that Afrikaners are only those of Cape Dutch & Boer descent are in fact clinging to revisionist post 1930s definition of which most Cape Dutch & Boers never consented to as it was a political decision made on behalf of the Afrikaner Broederbond: an semi secret organization generally unknown to most folks.

None other than JBM Hertzog [ the founder of the original National Party & later Prime Minister ] asserted that one does not have to be an Afrikaans speaker to be an Afrikaner as he recognized English speakers as Afrikaners too. Further demonstrating the amorphous nature of the term Afrikaner as it includes not just Afrikaans speakers of varied cultural / racial groups but also English speakers who identify with Africa more than with Britain. This is all the term Afrikaner ever meant therefore those who promote it are also promoting the marginalization of the constituent groups who fall under the macro designation. No one for example would call Acadians "French Canadians" as it would marginalize the actual Acadians even though they are also French speaking Canadians because the term French Canadian is historically applied to the French speaking inhabitants of Quebec & Ontario. The Quebec portion of which since the 1960s now generally refer to themselves Quebecois. The folks of Boer descent are similarly marginalized & dispossessed under the macro / umbrella term Afrikaner as the Boers are outnumbered by the Cape Dutch portion.

Now of course someone can indeed be of Afrikaans ancestry just as one can be of French ancestry but not necessarily speak French. Like many of the modern era Cajuns of Louisiana. J M Coetzee is a perfect example of someone of at least partial Afrikaans ancestry but would be rejected as an Afrikaner by those who define Afrikaner as an Afrikaans speaking person. Though some like JBM Hertzog would accept Coetzee as an "English Afrikaner" along with his "Afrikaans Afrikaner" designation to describe the macro Afrikaans speakers. When attempting to refer to someone's ethnicity one should avoid the term Afrikaner as its definition is amorphous & ever changing & has been used by Afrikaner Nationalists [ the 20th cent manifestation of the Afrikaner Bond & run by the Afrikaner Broederbond ] to describe both Cape Dutch & Boer descendents. The Afrikaners are not a single ethnic group but a continental / geographical group whereas Boers / Cape Dutch / Griquas & Basters are much closer to ethnic groups. For example someone can be of Boer descent but speak English or be of Griqua descent but speak German.

Ron7 (talk)

Wow, that was really informative and well written. I would love to see some of that information integrated into the article - the using of the term for political gain is consistent with how politics works and really brings some of the current intepretations of the terms into perspective. I'd offer to do it myself if you could share sources - although I presume information like this is mainly in printed books, probably inaccessible outside of educational institutions. --HiltonLange (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree! That is not a mere "2c" post. It quite neatly sets out some of the finer detail of the issue - that needs to go into the article itself. Roger (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove Coetzee

J. M. Coetzee is not an Afrikaner. We should remove him from the picture box. It's a South African of British descent who has moved away from South Africa. Based on his DNA alone, he is not what is considered to be an Afrikaner. He should be removed. Invmog (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

He is of Afrikaner decent. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was wrong. But he's also of other descent. What does he claim to be? But I guess it may not matter. Invmog (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No but I agree with you he shouldn't really be on this page. He is a natively English-speaking "Australian", so when we show "charlize theron" and "coetzee" with some black and white photos, it may seem like the Afrikaner nation is either historical or all immigrated. I do agree he should be removed from the infobox. :) Groete Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that he is of Afrikaans decent as he was 'born' an Afrikarner or at least into a family with strong Afrikaans connections. This being a page about an ethnic group (Afrikarners) and people who are from that ethnic group he should remain on the page. Ethnicity is by and large not some thing that anyone can simply loose through choice or action as it is confered through birth and culture, things that stick with an indervidule throughout their lives. However what makes a person an Afrikarner is another matter entirly and is still an issue of some debate that I will not go into.--Discott (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing between Afrikaner, Boer, Voortrekker, Cape Dutch, Trekboer, etc is a bit weak in this article.

I've edited the article a bit to sharpen the distinction between some of these groups, but there is more to be done as the article blurs the line between or even conflates or confuses some of these groupings. Roger (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaners Are White-Only

Afrikaners are NOT mixed with non-white people, in the beginning of the article it says that the afrikaners are of french,dutch,german and other EUROPEAN minorities,and then why does it later say that they are descended of non-white? When the dutch arrived in South Africa yes they did have children with Khoikhoi and other native population BUT when the children were born they would not be considerd white, they would be excluded from the white population and would be considerd be cape coloureds, this clearly shows that if cape coloureds were excluded from the white population means that there is no possible way of them interbreeding with white people Also, there is no DNA test to prove that they have distant non-white population, non-white is a rumour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Gabriel Viljoen (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Genetic genealogy for DNA genealogy testing. Gandydancer (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but this guy has a point, an "Afrikaner" is a white Afrikaans speaker, who historically would have also needed to have been some sort of Protestant practicing christian. If a person in South Africa speaks Afrikaans they are not definitley an Afrikaner, e.g. Coloureds. If you are an Afrikaans speaking muslim, if you are white you are still an Afrikaner and if you are darker skinned, then Coloured or Black, remember 4% of all Afrikaans speakers classify themselves as "Black" according to the 2001-census. So regardless of DNA genealogy, it comes down to what people want to class themselves and I see no Coloureds wanting to call themselves "Afrikaners" at the moment. Bezuidenhout (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The references are specifically about the white Afrikaner population, it does not include Black or Coloured self-identifying Afrikaners. They are not saying that 5%-7% of the Afrikaner population is non-white. They are saying that each member of the White Afrikaner population group has between 5%-7% non-European ancestry. Greef, Nurse and Heese all independently arrived at these numbers from two completely unrelated study methods, too. (Genealogical and genetic) --HiltonLange (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

I've tagged as "Dubious" the use of the term "Cape Dutch" in the context of the post Boer War era. By the early 20th century there were barely a few scraps of "Dutchness" left in the Afrikaans speaking white people of the Cape. The only "Dutch" features was a thoroughly bastardised version of the Dutch language used in church, court and school - basically Afrikaans with a few "Dutchified" words sprinkled in such as "zijn", "mijnheer" "zullen" and "willen". Not the language that a Hollander would have spoken. Roger (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right. The Afrikaner Bond was created at a much earlier stage (1880)so yes, Afrikaner would be the correct term. Thanks for this :)User:Duwwel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.44.150.15 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as confident in my being right as you seem to be. While the existence of the Afrikaner Bond is an indicator of the use of the term "Afrikaner" it doesn't really give us the specific context of such use. Also keep in mind that the AB was explicity promoting a particular POV of ethnic identity. We need to find out what descriptor(s) contemporary reliable sources such as Cape newspapers used. We cannot rely on what we (a century later) think they might have called themselves. Roger (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just an update. I see at this external page names such as "Burgher" and "Dutch-Afrikaner", the latter indicating a movement from Dutch to Afrikaner.User:Duwwel —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

Distinct subgroup "BOER"

The following statement "including the distinct[citation needed] Boer subgroup" is an opinion with very little basis in reality. The idea that "boer" is distinct from Afrikaner has it's roots in the different ideologies and the politics of Afrikaner identity. Far right Afrikaner groups in South Africa started to use the term to distinguish themselves from moderates and politically liberal urban Afrikaners in the late 20th Century. The idea is that Afrikaners were basically the Cape Afrikaans population, and the ones who partook in the "Groot Trek" and fought against the British in the Anglo-Boer war, who were at the time predominantly rural are "Boere". In the 20th century, the National Party, in order to gain political victory, had to unify these two supposedly different groups of white Afrikaans speaking populations (the Cape Afrikaner and the Boer). This was done by unifying them under the term "Afrikaner". This narrative is slanted at best. I am an Afrikaner, and a descendent of Afrikaners who were Boere, and Cape Rebels and Bittereinders. But I am an Afrikaner, 'Boer' would make me distinct from Afrikaners in the same way that my support for one or another political party would make me "anthropologically distinct", in other words, it would make almost no difference at all.

The term "Afrikaner" comes from the older Dutch for 'African' or basically someone who is from the continent of Africa (ie. black or dark skinned) as opposed to the European population. Due to their long stay in Africa the settlers from the different parts of Europe started to lose their separate national character and exchanged that for the new identity that was forming in the Cape Colony (cf. Nuwe Geskiedenis van Suid Afrika p. 70).

The first documented use of the term "Afrikaner" to identify a white (European) was in 1707 by a white youth called Hendrik Biebouw. He was in trouble for public disturbance and told to leave the Company mill in Stellenbosch. He apparently then screamed the following "Ik wil niet loopen, 'k ben een Africaander al slaat die landrost mijn dood, of al setten hij mij in den tronk. Ik sal, nog wil niet swijgen" (Nuwe Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika, page 62)

"However, the Boers of Trekboer descent who developed on the Cape frontier from the late 17th century are an anthropologically distinct group from the Afrikaners who developed in the south western Cape region[12] who were often known as the Cape Dutch.[13] It was only in 1910, with the creation of the Union of South Africa that the word Afrikaner came to widespread use to refer to both the Boer and Cape Dutch.[dubious – discuss] As a direct result of the Union, the majority Cape Dutch culturally assimilated the minority Boer people of the Transvaal and Orange Free State; adopting a lot of the traditions and values of the Boer people within a new Afrikaner Nationalism[14]

I am sorry, but 'Boer', means farmer, and was used as self identification because that is precisely what most of this new group of white people in Africa did - they farmed. Unless I am horribly mistaken there never was documented, formal distinctions drawn between "Boer" and "Afrikaner". In fact there is no cultural, religious, or language distinction. To say that a "Boer" is an anthropologically distinct subgroup of 'Afrikaner' makes as much sense as saying that English Bankers and English Miners are anthropologically distinct subgroups of the "English".

It is only the right wing groups in SA who draw that distinction to identify themselves as somehow the only true progeny of the heroic fighters against British Imperialism and 'die volk' and somehow were the victims of Afrikaner nationalism under the National Party. However, this is simply not the case.

100 years ago, this idea of "Boere" as a distinct group within the spectrum of Afrikaans speaking whites would have made sense, if one would focus exclusively on values, culture and outlook that made them different, in the same way that a farmer from rural IOWA in the USA would have been different from a lawyer in Des Moines. However, with the urbanization of most Afrikaners in the 20th century and the socio-economical values that they share, there is far less that distinguishes a successful Afrikaner accountant in the city, from his middle class cousin who manages a commercial farm with the same level of education. Afrikaners who are boere (farmers), and who are descended from Boere comes in all forms and stripes, and there is very little to distinguish them from each other and other Afrikaners. It is only the ones with a right wing political persuasion that would draw such sharp distinctions. In other words, the differences are political not descent, culture, or occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erickmulder (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people self-identify (quite vehemently) as "Boer" while others just as emphatically reject that label. That their motives for doing so are "purely political" is not significant as such. Take the example of Serbs and Croats - their only "real" difference is religion. We report what is, not what we think should be. Roger (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The contributor Erick Mulder is horribly distorting the issue because there was indeed a formal distinction between the Cape Dutch & the Boer of the frontier. The notion that the term Boer is a political term & "a right wing term" at that is incredibly insulting to the Boer people. What you conveniently forget is that the term Afrikaner is a political mythology cooked up by the Afrikaner Bond of the 19th cent then was later propagated by the Afrikaner Broederbond & various politicians in the 20th cent. It is almost comical to see people making accusations that the term Boer was "started" by "far right Afrikaner groups" when they very notion of an Afrikaner was in fact started by far right Cape Dutch groups! In order to co-opt the smaller Boer people & lay claim to the Boer Republics as well as the Cape. The cognitive dissonance & irony here is incredible! The Boers existed as a people LONG before the rise of the so called Afrikaners which history shows was a FORCED coalition of Cape Dutch & Boer. The term Boer is derived from Trekboer as the Boers are descended from the Trekboers. Talk about an a priori argument because Mulder makes a lot of blanket assumptions as the notion of an Afrikaner was political mythology & the notion that Boers are "a far right" political grouping is a mendacious & glib anti-Boer talking point.

The Boers are the descendents of the Trekboers who left the western Cape region starting in the late 17th cent. Just a few decades after the initial arrival of Jan van Riebeeck. Therefore the Boers arose as an anthropologically distinct people from the Cape Dutch by circa 1700. The term Afrikaner was originally used to describe the slave class at the Cape then was later used to describe anyone who was born at the Cape. A Khoisan group were calling themselves Afrikaners LONG before the Cape Dutch began to appropriate the term for themselves in 1875. Therefore by the time the Cape Dutch began to call themselves "Afrikaners" the term Afrikaner was already long since an ambiguous & amorphous term & the Boer people had been a distinct anthropological entity for over 150 years by the time the Cape Dutch began to usurp the amorphous term Afrikaner. JBM Hertzog even defined all White South Africans [ both Afrikaans speaking & English speaking ] as Afrikaners thereby further diluting any significant meaning to the term.

The Boers were the ones who went on the Great Trek as the emigrants were overwhelmingly from the eastern province region of the Cape where the Boer population lived. More English speakers went on the Great Trek than did Cape Dutch so those who assert that the Boers went on the Great Trek but few Afrikaners did are factually correct. The Boers were indeed victims of Afrikaner Nationalism as it marginalized them under the numerically larger Cape Dutch population all now under the dispossessing term Afrikaner. The Afrikaner establishment including the National Party organized AGAINST the Boers who were calling for the restoration of the Boer Republics during the 1940s & they harassed & attacked those Boers who were working for such a goal. One such individual named Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 in order to campaign full time for the restoration of the Boer Republics & Boer self determination. He ran an underground printing press for the purpose of educating the Boers about their own post Anglo-Boer War history that the National Party government suppressed. Anti-apartheid Dutch born South African journalist Adriana Stuijt noted that the term Boer was not used much by National Party ministers. The Afrikaner Broederbond also prevented unreconstructed Boers from rising too high. [ Though some Afrikanerized Boer decendents did rise high. ] Think about this for a moment. Whenever a particular group is refrained from referring to themselves by their own hard won & historically sound ethnic designation: that bespeaks of repression.

To suggest that Boers are only as different from the Cape Dutch as a farmer is to a lawyer betrays your total lack of understanding & education on this topic. The assertion that those Boers who recognize themselves as distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners is due to a so called "Right Wing political persuasion" is the height of hypocrisy [ considering the Cape Dutch Right Wing origin of the term Afrikaner in the first place! ] & betrays a total lack of insight on your part as numerous authors have noted that the Boers are & began as a distinct anthropological entity from the Cape Dutch whom [ the Cape Dutch that is ] would later go on to appropriate the nebulous & amorphous term Afrikaner. The following are some excerpts from erudite authors on the topic.

Quote: [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. As members of a frontier society they always had a hinterland, open spaces to conquer, territory to occupy. Their ancestors had moved away from the limiting confines of Cape society to settle the eastern frontier. In time this location became too restricted, and individuals and families moved north across the Orange River. ]

The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity. Brian M. Du Toit. Page 1.

---

Quote: [ The Boer was born in isolation on the veld and out of the turmoil and danger of the expanding frontier. ]

The Last Trek: A Study of the Boer People and the Afrikaner Nation. Sheila Patterson. Page 278.

---

Quote: [ It will be noted that the mythology now being propagated is a Voortrekker mythology. Starting with the wrongs of the frontiersmen, it proceeds via the Trek to the Anglo-Boer Wars, well nigh ignoring the contribution of the Cape Dutch. Such is the dynamic of this mythology that the Cape Nationalists accepted it and ignored their own fine history and tradition. ]

The Last Trek: A Study of the Boer People and the Afrikaner Nation. Sheila Patterson. Page 41.

---

Quote: [ Trekboers certainly recognised the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British; they had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete. The westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical Afrikaner ‘nation’. ]

Professor Wallace Mills. The Great Trek. [ stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/6Great_Trek.html ]

---

Quote: [ moreover, Afrikaners in the Cape, especially in the western province areas and Cape Town, while recognizing a degree of kinship with the trekboers and Voortrekkers, regarded them as rather uncouth and wild. There was no sense of national identity to bridge the social gap.]

Professor Wallace Mills. [ stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/11Afrikaner_natm.html ]

---

Quote: [ These early Dutch farmers were joined by other Europeans and their populations grew. The Dutch East India Company imported slaves from Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar and other parts of the Dutch Empire to work on large plantations close to Cape Town. The semi-nomadic Dutch farmers expanded their settlement further from the Cape and came into conflict over land with local African populations. Their contact with the local Dutch government became more and more tenuous and most of them lived hard rural lives, moving farmsteads frequently, and quite independent of government and education. By 1745 they were known as Trekboers, which means "wandering farmers," a term which was later shortened to Boers. They were unaware of the changing politics in Europe. ]

From: http://www.bowdoin.edu/cbbaway/CapetownSA/CTGeneralinformation.html

---

Quote: [ Definitions of Boer, Afrikaner, South African Colonists, Settlers and Coloureds:

The authoritative Canadian journalist-author Noel Mostert, (who is a descendant of Afrikaners Huguenots who in 1947 had emigrated to Canada; and now lives in Morocco), draws a very clear distinction especially between Afrikaners and Boers, writing on page 1292 in " Frontiers", his comprehensive history of the Xhosa nation:

Afrikaner: "The word 'Afrikaner' has a long history among Dutch-speaking colonists, but its modern nationalistic associations are comparatively recent, starting around the 1870s but principally early in this century.

Boer: "The word Boer is used to describe Dutch-speaking colonists both early and later in the nineteenth century, for the Cape Colony as well as Natal, the Orange Free State and Transvaal. Trekboer, Voortrekker: "Trekboer" is used to describe the semi-nomadic Boers who moved outwards from the Cape of Good Hope into the interior between the end of the seventeenth century and around the end of the eighteenth.

" Voortrekker or " Trekker" is applied to those who moved in more or less mass emigration from the Cape frontier to the north at the end of the 1830s.

Colonist: "The word ' colonist ' has been used to describe all white colonials, but I have found it necessary to make some distinction between the (two varieties of Afrikaans-)Dutch speakers in South Africa, as well as English speakers.

The term ' settler ' (in the South African connotation) therefore has been applied exclusively to English-speakers (in Mostert's book).

Coloured: A catch-all apartheid-era term used to officially register South Africa's large variety of creole peoples, including the Khoi-San descendants living in the Western and Eastern Cape; the millions of Afrikaans-speakers of Afrikaner-Malay-Khoi-San descent (such as the Boesaks); also English-speakers of Zulu-Scottish descent (the Dunns of KwaZulu-Natal). ]

From: groups.msn.com/crimebustersofsouthafrica/bombblasts.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1202&LastModified=4675399711866976806

---

Quote: [ Apart from the ambiguous term 'Afrikaner' or 'Afrikander', there also existed the notion of a 'Boer' people. Dutch-Afrikaners generally acknowledged that they were of Boer descent, but it was usually the pastoral farmers in the interior who applied the term to themselves. Finally, there was the term 'Cape Dutch', but this was an English description rather than a self-concept. English-speakers tended to distinguish between the better educated and more 'civilized' Cape Dutch of the Western Cape or interior towns and the Boer people whom they considered ignorant, illiterate and almost beyond the pale. ]

From Professor Hermann Giliomee at: content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft158004rs&doc.view=content&chunk.id=d0e505&toc.depth=1&anchor.id=0&brand=eschol

In fact it was the Trekboers who coined the term Cape Dutch to describe the Colonial Afrikaans speakers ofthe western Cape region they left behind during their nomadic phase of the 1700s wen they began to occupy the northeastern Cape frontier.

---

Quote: [ There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the so called 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 defeat 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."

Strangely back then, people who looked down on the defeated Boers were referred to in the news media such as The Star of Johannesburg as "racists" who should make an "effort at reconciliation". However most of the "reconciliation" came from the side of the defeated Boers who had to find a livelihood as working-class workers in the mines and factories of the cities. They were forced to relinquish their identity indeed as the Afrikaners of today are now being forced to start referring to themselves as "Afrikaanses" - people who speak Afrikaans, a term which was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak.

See how history repeats itself? ]

From: South African journalist Adriana Stuijt.

[ http://www.stopboergenocide.com/108362/66301.html?cc=0.5061473071974908&i=25271082#start ]

---

[ In an article dated 1891, sent to a Dutch student magazine, Hertzog wrote that "the friction is not between Dutch speaking colonists and the colonial Englishmen, but between the colonist in Africa and the Englishman 'at home'... France, Holland, Germany, England each had a share in the origin of this people, and thus the name Afrikaner includes them all, both Hollander and Englishman, who have learned to unite their concerns with those of the land which they have made their home. [ van den Heever 1944 p 45 - 46. ]

From: The rise of Afrikanerdom: power, apartheid, and the Afrikaner civil religion By T. Dunbar Moodie. Page 74.

---

The notion that the Cape Dutch & the Boers are all part of a monolithic group under the ambiguous & ever changing designation of "Afrikaner" stemmed entirely from a far right political program which marginalized the Boers in the process so it is all rather rich & hypocritical to hear someone complain that the use of the term Boer is now suddenly itself "far right" when the Boers have NEVER relinquished their identity despite the ascendancy of the Afrikaners decades ago. The folks who recognize themselves as Boers often are APOLITICAL & many do not even subscribe to the notion of political spectrum politics as they are simply defining themselves under the historical cultural / ethnic designation that they have had for centuries now.

Ron7 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So did you edit the article to reflect what it is that you object to? The effort you seemingly put into the above comment could probably result in the article's class being bumped up a notch or two if you ensured that what was written was done so neutrally w/o any bias! Good luck! Joep01 (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology - It seems a previous edit by me to this page did some inadvertent damage due to a misbehaving browser. Roger (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Population figures

I think well over half of the population figures listed for the Afrikaners should be called into question. Most are uncited, and I'm under the impression that some estimates were calculated by speculating editors themselves. I have searched for literally hours for such figures, and those which I could even find are quite different. The figures for Australia seem probable (though of the 104,128 South Africans in AU, slightly over 3,000 identitifed as Afrikaner in the 2006 census), though I'm skeptical that the figures for Kenya are even above a few hundred. Surprisingly, I couldn't find a figure for the population in the Netherlands (though I did find a clipping stating that 500 Afrikaners arrived as guest workers there in 2009). Can anybody provide citations for these numbers, or supplant them with more accurate projections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.123.55 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Being no expert on Afrikaners as an ethnic group, I'll be very careful about this, but I must do some cleanup. The article is extremely one-sided and glosses over apartheid as a fihgt against evil communism. Another problem is its depiction of pre-apartheid political events, presenting the Afrikaners as a victimized group persecuted from all sides, especially by the Zulus. While I'm certain that in the course of wars there are unjust actions taken by both sides, it is not the time or place to tell tales of folk heroes that are 1. hardly relevant for the historical context and 2. only represent the "nice" side of the story for the group involved. Erget2005 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Erget, I appreciate your effort in improving the article but you really need to have lived there to understand the situations. You have removed a lot of necessary information that you have deemed "one-sided". If anything the whole apartheid topic is one-sided against white people and especially among modern Afrikaans people the most annoying thing is the blaming of South Africa's problems on the past. Of all people, you Germans should understand that, here in the UK there is STILL anti-german sentiment among the older generation when in fact most people who are not ignorant know that Germans aren't Nazis. Please before removing enormous chunks of valuable information please consult us first and remember that what you learnt in School or in the News about Apartheid isn't always true. Although the atrocities of the Soweto uprisings are disgusting it is being misrepresented in the Media today as false claims are being made as to what really happened. I appreciate your work Erget but many people have put a lot of thought and effort into expanding the article (like you have as well) but please consult us on what is "not neutral" first before removing chunks of information. Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bezuidenhout, thanks for your response. If I've made changes that misrepresent Afrikaners, that was clearly not my intent. My concrete objections to the former content of the article are:

1. The Migrations section. I don't have a problem with it talking about a massacre of the Zulus against the Boers, but there were other conflicts as well and I felt they should also be in there if the Blood River conflict went in. Another problem I had with it was the talk about a covenant with God and the courageous Italian woman who saved many people. Such details would belong in an article with more detailed accounts of the specific conflicts, but not in a general article about the Afrikaners as an ethnic group, in my opinion.

2. The apartheid section. The way it was formulated before made it sound like apartheid was rather harmonious and the only reason that non-whites were deprived of their rights was to fight communism. That this is not the fact is well-attested.

My intention, however, is definitely not to represent Afrikaners as a group composed of individuals who collectively wished to persecute non-whites. In reference to Germans, you're right, most Germans were not for / did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening, but that doesn't mean that the Nazis didn't do it. This is a condemnation of Nazi politics but not the German people. The same should hold true for apartheid politics - the discerning reader should be able to tell the difference between the Afrikaners themselves and the politics of apartheid. It would be wrong to see apartheid as simply a measure to preserve democracy and capitalism.

I'm sure you know a lot more about the topic than I do. If you feel the article in its current form is slanted, my suggestion would be to modify the article to more clearly reflect the reality of the situation. The last thing I'd want is for my edit to leave behind an inaccurate article :) Daniel Lee (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :) Yes I agree with a lot of what you have put but, for example, the paragraph about "God being at Bloedrivier" is quite an important one as it was effectively (to some extent) one of the reasons why apartheid held on for so long. White South Africans are FAR more religious than Europeans and at the time Bloedrivier was, in a way, a "sign" that Afrikaners (Still speaking Dutch(ish) at the time) were allowed to stay in Africa, and so they did. I will edit the article later just to round some things over :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are indeed some important facts that were up till this point unknown to me and in that context quite relevant. Glad the article will get a good work-over :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erget2005 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know the exact content of your "neutral" edits to the apartheid section, but being that there is only mention of black citizenship being revoked but no mention of the fact that they were given bantustans which were planned to become independent countries in their own right (if you wanted to be neutral you could point out that the government was sluggish in giving enough traditionally black land to the bantustans to make their national territories interconnected). Without such a vital piece of information you are in fact giving the casual observer of this article a view of a vile people who sought to dispossess and act cruelly to those who were not the same race.96.241.155.90 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the ethnic group. Extensive material about Apartheid etc is off-topic. There are better places for such material. We don't have details about Nazi death camps etc in the German people article. Roger (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Another minor issue is the quotes on this page. It's not quoted following the Wikipedia standards - looks to me more like the quotes were taken out of a school report, perhaps? Erget2005 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why scholars disregard wikipedia as a reliable source of information..

This has been in dispute since 2010 because of the clear bias found in the article. It is now 2012, and the fact that this error hasn't even been resolved, clearly isn't helping this site any further on the path to becoming a respected source of information. Kezo2005 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What error? Please be specific. Roger (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

This may be a lead: In McGregor, Gordon. DAS BURENFREIKORPS VON DEUTCH-SÜDWESTAFRIKA 1914-1915. John Meinert Printing, 2010, p. 8, ISBN 978-99916-40-93-8

Der Begriff, Boer/Bur wird in dem Buch benutzt für die weiße, Afrikaans sprechende, einheimische Bevölkerung des südlichen Africa, Der Begriff 'Afrikaner' war zu dieser Zeit noch nicht akzeptiert worden.

Translated:

The term Boer/Bur is used in the book for the white, Afrikaans-speaking, indigenous people of southern Africa, the term' Afrikaner' was still not accepted at this time.

Duwwel (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is important todistinguish betwee historical, geographic, and political contexts. In the German language "Buren" is until today perfectly acceptable, and has mostly positive connotations. -- Aflis (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Religion section

The section has only one sourced sentence - the rest is speculation and OR. It also neglects to mention Jewish Afrikaners. Roger (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links list

It's far too long! It should be trimmed down to only a handfull of the most important sites. See WP:EL for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed six links... I think that's enough, in my opinion. But I see no harm in removing more and only keeping a few major sites. Unfortunately, Afrikaner representation on the Web isn't big or centralized, so there's no single "institution of Afrikaner people" who everyone agrees with and that we can link to. Therefore, I see the remaining links as collectively useful to the reader. Maybe we can incorporate some of the 'external links' as citations? For example, the Arthur Conan Doyle book. There is another book by the same author listed as a reference. I'll come back and look tomorrow if I can do more :P --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic origins

This is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing, but of facts. Everybody knows that the origin of the Afrikaners are Dutch, French, and German people who settles in what became the Cape Colony. Everybody also knows that the Dutch and the Germans are Germanic people, but that the French are not (except for Alsatia/Lotharinghia, and the Flemish speaking French in the Northwest -and the Huguenots who emigrated to the Cape were not frm those regions. Conclusion: the ancesters of the Anfrikaners came from teo Germanic People and from one non-Germanic people. --Aflis (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The classification is by language-group, not genetics. Otherwise, you'd be all over the place anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes sense to talk about a "Germanic ethnic group" anyway. The article to which it links, Germanic peoples, seems to regard it as a historical category not a current one. As you point out, it's essentially a linguistic categorization, which means that it's redundant for the article to use the description "a Germanic ethnic group in Southern Africa whose native tongue is Afrikaans: a Germanic language...". - htonl (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I dimly recall that this awkward verbiage is the result of a slow edit-war. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we have a whole separate section detailing how different people classify the Afrikaner ethnic group differently? It could also detail about how some people classify by religion, instead of only language and/or colour and/or genetics. It's quite complicated. The article should remain neutral on the actual classification (whatever it might be) unless an authoritative source is found (a scientific study about the Afrikaner people, perhaps). It's like we have an identity, but we could never completely agree on it. Even during the Trek, we couldn't really make up our minds on where to go :P --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I frankly cannot see why there should be anyedit warring here in Wikipedia. The facts on the origins of the people who constituted the "boer" (laters "afrikaner") group are well established and uncontroversial in academic historiography. On this points, it doesn't make sense to speak of "opinion" and "neutrality". -- Aflis (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Boers are/were a sub-group of the Afrikaner. The Afrikaner identity originated in the Cape Colony. When the Voortrekkers left and established themselves in the interior outside of the Cape Colony they developed a separate, but related, "Boer" identity. The Cape Afrikaners never called themselves "Boere". After the 2nd Boer War and the establishment of the Union, the Boer identity was gradually "re-absorbed" into the Afrikaner identity, although there are still some Afrikaners who self-identify as "Boere" even though the label is stigmatised as characteristic of a right wing conservative social and political outlook. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see something about the etymology of the word. The word was apparently coined in 1822 (by Burchell), although this source says earlier. This looks like quite a useful source. Helen (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This article itself cites 1707 as the first known use of the term - see the fourth paragraph of Afrikaner#Settlers and slaves. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, I missed that. I think it would be helpful to have a separate section on etymology. I will try do it myself when I have some time (not enough hours grrr). Helen (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Population figures?

About a month ago, someone "updated" the population figures in the sidebar... They did the formatting wrong, and I corrected it. They cited the "2011 census" even though the census was only conducted in South Africa, and doesn't show the total population of Afrikaners in the world. I don't really know where to look for correct and up-to-date data, and it looks like it is difficult to get census data. There are also accusations on some blogs that the census data was skewed.

This is an invitation for anyone out there to come up with more accurate figures on the population, and population in different countries. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you where to find the 2011 census data (source also cited in South Africa) but tbh I am very uncomfortable editing this page as the definition of Afrikaner is too unstable. There were 2,710,461 white South Africans with Afrikaans as a first language in 2011, which is presumably where the figure quoted comes from. Helen (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

PhD thesis by Christoff Erasmus

I came across this genetic and genealogical study of Afrikaners in progress which may be worth keeping tabs on. HelenOnline 08:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This again confirms the results of Greef and Heese's studies which both estimated that 5-7% of Afrikaner ancestry was from San, Khoi and African. I see that this information was removed from the article a few months ago as "pushing a social and political agenda". I'll see if I can replace it, although the context has moved to the lede, and I think that gives it undue prominence. --131.107.0.114 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The study is still in progress, we should probably wait a little longer. It looks promising. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a note that it is in progress so editors know about it. When the thesis has been published, it should be a good source for this article. As the article is about an ethnic group, it is highly relevant regardless of the findings. HelenOnline 07:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The published genealogical studies are also relevant. Let me know if you need my input. I have not been that involved with this article (hands full with others at the moment). HelenOnline 07:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ghana

The source for the figure of 13900+ Afrikaners in Ghana seems dubious for two reasons:

A. The sourcemakes no mention of Afrikaaner in Ghana (it only mentions French and Germans)

B. Much of the information from said source seems highly suspect e.g. the figure for the French population of north Korea being 500

Please amend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.211.47 (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed thanks! HelenOnline 10:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)