Talk:Anglo-African
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
|
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
- Removed message. The main article page is not a place for messages - if an editor has a message for other editors, it belongs on this page, the Talk page.
- Removed linked images to external sites - no longer allowed on Wikipedia.
- Removed first person narrative and informal tone - this is an encyclopaedic article, not a personal web page.
- Removed non-working external link
- Removed bias towards South Africa/Zimbabwe
- South African history - removed a mass of POV/original research irrelevant to this article. I have replaced this section with a brief summary relevant to the article's subject.
Also removed unverified refs to:
- Network AA - I don't seem able to find this organisation on Google, which infers that there's not a lot of point mentioning it in this article
- British South African - does not appear in Dictionary of SA English, inferring that it may be a neologism
- Canadian settlers - surely not a significant minority, if so a reference would be useful
- Reinstated ref. to rooinek = sunburnt neck; this is the explanation given in the DSAE, so a verifiable and authoritative reference otherwise would be useful
It might be helpful if someone could come up with an image less politically charged than the signing of UDI to illustrate this article - this is an encyclopaedic article, not an apologia for white minority rule. Humansdorpie 11:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Related ethnic groups
This article is extremely offensive and should be removed. I have lived in South Africa all my life and I have never heard of most of this nonsense.
i think you should add afrikners to the realted ethnic groups as alot of settlers married afrikners but kept their english culture.
In the introduction it should say at the end of the first sentence: "English as their first language", and I agree many people of Dutch descent are today so-called Anglo Africans.For some reason the first section can't be edited.
Regarding the debate on British South Africans, I think this was a term used in the early twentieth century, hence current people would not be familiar with it.
I have never heard this term Anglo-African before and find it quite obnoxious as an English speaking South African with its connotation of Anglo Indians who didn't have a great record, or for English S.Africans and their other British colony cohorts who overall have a group of people who have quite a colonial and racist history. It sticks in the throat that we should as a group claim "African" in our ethnic identity!
Terminoloy I am a little concerned about how much SA history the writer has read beyond school level (or even how much he really took in at school!) when he writes that the English speakers never established a strong cultural or political entity in SA. This is so completely wrong about the history of SA, and is just a common myth we current English speakers have about the Afrikaners having had the only power.
I am also concerned about the mixup that goes on between SA issues and Zimbabwe and Kenyan history - it is not clear whether the article is about this broader group of Anglo-Africans that the writer needs to claim or about English speaking issues in SA.
As you have gathered the article has got up my nose - sorry about getting up yours probably in response - the culture section is incredibly weak - the history section ditto. There seems to be a Rhodesian cause somewhere in there that hasn't been resolved by the writer - I believe claiming to be African means getting over the white bit. Comfortable with being white, but comfortable being with other Africans. I just don't think it is of encyclopedia quality, sorry and I will leave you alone now. Cheers
[edit] History
Since this article is about Anglo-Africans, surely the history section should only start with British involvement/annexation of the Cape Colony? Anything prior to that is just South African History, not Anglo African History. Also, I'm not convinced by the term British South African - I've never heard it. It's usually just English or English-speaking South African, no? Joziboy 12 April 2006, 21:25 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up!
I think it is great with the new pics and text, put the article should be clean up, it is a little confusing and messy . Dr.Poison 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I've done some tidying and removing - let me know what you think. Joziboy 15 April 2006, 23:22 (UTC)
Much better, in my opinion. �Dr.Poison 16:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2006. The result of the discussion was equal consensus; keep. |
[edit] Independence
What parties want to form an independent state like Quebec? I've never heard of parties wanting to do that Joziboy 15 May 2006, 11:10 (UTC)
- More of Luke's personal opinion, I'm afraid. The Sons of England were not an independence movement - they were an early-20th century Friendly Society. The "British African Front"/"The English African Front for Liberty" was a one-man movement (known in the trade as "green-inkers") that never progressed beyond posting a manifesto on a web site and designing several flags. Humansdorpie 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, yeah. Some very odd stories creep into this page from time to time. The page seems to blur the distinction between Anglo Africans and Anglo-South Africans. It mentions how they live in various countries but then talks almost exclusively about South Africans. Maybe it should specifically be reduced to an article about English-speaking South Africans, since they account for almost all "Anglo Africans" anyway, and are - and this is me stating opinion here - more of a coherent bloc than the scattered white English-speakers in the rest of the continent who tend to regard themselves as British expats. As an English-speaking South African, I certainly feel no particular attachment to the UK, despite what this article often seems to claim (I remember reading omething about respecting the Crown and Commonwealth?!) Joziboy 15 May 2006, 19:20 (UTC)
- It makes good sense to change the focus of the article more closely to English-speaking white South Africans - there is already a corresponding article on Whites in Zimbabwe; and White African, which deals with European colonists in general. Perhaps Whites in Kenya and Whites in Zambia will appear a couple of years down the line. My only caveat is that the name of the article might need to change to reflect the limited geographical scope - maybe English-speaking white South African is too long! Humansdorpie 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Haha, yeah it definitely is a little long.. and no one would ever find it in searches! :) I can't really think of what it could be called... South African English? That way it would correspond to the language too... like Zulu (the ethnic group) and Zulu (language) on wikipedia. Joziboy 16 May 2006, 12:26 (UTC)
- That makes really good sense. I see the DSAE lists South African English as a collective term for English-speaking South Africans, so it's a recognised expression. Maybe that's the answer? If I can work out which account Luke J is using at the moment I will drop him a line and ask him to post his views, as he appears to be the originator of the page. Humansdorpie 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The following exchange has been copied from User talk:Bhunduboy:
- Hi Luke, User:Joziboy and I are having a discussion on the Talk:Anglo-African page about maybe renaming the page to reflect a closer focus on white South African history and culture. As you are the originator and one of the main contributors, it would be very constructive to have your views. Humansdorpie 13:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Stupid idea! btw... there is an Afrikaner page and a White African page already! (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takkies (talk • contribs).)
- Thanks for your message - I've copied it to the Talk:Anglo-African page to try to keep the conversation in one place. It would be very helpful if you could explain there why you think it's a stupid idea. (If you type four ~ symbols after a comment (~~~~), it automatically signs the comment - it's a good habit to get into!) Humansdorpie 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Humansdorpie 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily need to replace this article. It could just be a separate article which focuses on the South African English. Especially since the table at the bottom is of ethnic groups of South Africa. Although most of the history which is specific to South African English-speakers would need to be taken over to the new page I suppose. Joziboy 17 May 2006, 18:26 (UTC)
[edit] Today's edit
Luke, it would be really helpful if you could discuss on this page some of the edits that you are making. I have removed some of them today for a variety of reasons:
- Factual inaccuracy - there is no such thing as a "Rhodesian dialect"; the white Zimbabwean slang term "mush" does not come from Shona.
- Stylistic - I assume that you are not using the word to make a racist point, but the word Bantu, when used to refer to a black South African person, has strong racist connotations and in modern South Africa is viewed as a deliberately offensive term.
- Notability - I have removed the reference to the "English African Front for Liberty" - not only is there no evidence of its notability, but the Wikilink you provided leads straight to a copyvio notice.
- Personal opinion - e.g. "The phrase Kaffir became common among Anglo Africans". It isn't a phrase; it's a word. If you're going to make sweeping statements like that, you need to provide a reference. Without a reference, it is nothing more than your personal opinion.
Humansdorpie 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm tempted to revert the picture change too. Considering it's from a one-man movement, and thus not overly representative of Anglo-Africans :) Let me know what the verdict is on moving the page to South African English (ethnic group) (or something like that) Joziboy 16 May 2006, 17:32 (UTC)
- It is good that this article has been edited! I am just wondering, which flag is that on the article? Dr.Poison 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United Party
During the Apartheid years in South Africa, many Anglo-Africans considered themselves to be more moderate than their Afrikaner compatriots, and generally supported the United Party rather than the National Party which established Apartheid in 1948.
- Didn't many Anglo-Africans also vote for the National Party? Should this not be noted also? Dr.Poison 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Number of Anglo-Africans
Is the the number of Anglo-Africans that high? 4 million? In South African, there is about 2million and in Zimbabwe maybe 70 000? But are there over 2 million outside Africa? If somebosy would have a source for that number? ���Dr.Poison 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In asking this question, are you referring to Anglo-Africans only as those of English descent? If so, your number for Zim is inaccurate because it reflects the number of white Africans there and not necessarily those of Anglo descent. If speaking of just whites, the number is actually even higher than 4 million since there are almost 5 million in South Africa alone.
[edit] Independence movement
This whole section seems a little odd. It's a one-man movement, has no support among the South African English and is entirely irrelevant to modern South African politics or culture. Who wishes for a volkstaat? Maybe 0.001% of English-speaking South Africans? Joziboy 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Anglo-Africans were much more opposed to an end to Apartheid, it doesn't suprise me that many of my countrymen have wised up. That's like saying that support among Afrikaners for a volkstaat is almost non-existent because they all don't go out and vote for volkstaat-supporting parties, doesn't mean there isn't support.
