Talk:Boeremag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comment on "Boeremag",
You seem to hav a lack of insight in the current situatuation in South Africa. Just believing an repeating what newspapers write and tell is not enough. The ANC seized power illegaly. Currently some people have been arrested on unfounded grounds. Other seem to have been incited by "securitity police"-informers. Houses and Farms have been raided without warrant or reason. Thousands of farmers have been murdered: http://www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp
- Your views have been noted in the article, thanks. -kwertii
firstly: A woman was arrested for having illigal weapons(there were 12 .303 rounds in her house). If they arrest somebody for that they can arrest half of south africa's population. Some of the boeremag members' defence were 'confiscated' in jail.
secondly: The killing of white farmers in South-Africa is above average, it is genocide. The violence that goes with these attacks indicates that the motive is not criminal. Genocide watch estimates that about 2.2 percent of white farmers have already been killed and 12 percent attacked. http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm
The picture is different than the one painted by the state media and/or papers.
Contents |
[edit] Restoration of erstwhile Boer Republics... Not return to Apartheid.
This article erroneously states that the Boeremag wishes to return "to the days of Apartheid" when in reality what the Boeremag wants is for the restoration -or at least the partial restoration- of the former Boer Republics that the Boers -of Voortrekker descent- had established shortly after the Great Trek of the 1830s & 40s. The Boers do not wish to return to the (British originated) Apartheid system which was mainly crafted by their estranged cousins of Cape Dutch descent (whom the Trekboers trekked away from beginning in the 1690s & throughout the 1700s) of the Western Cape whose ancestors did not engage in the series of mass migrations known as the Great Trek as any proposed return to the erstwhile Apartheid laws would only make them responsible for the country's entire population instead of simply attaining the self determination that they seek & which they had with their internationally recognized republics from the 1830s until 1900 when they were conquered & subjugated by the British after the Anglo-Boer War.
Furthermore: it is not their intent to "overthrow democratic (sic) majority rule", but to simply strive for Boer national liberation & self determination within the traditional Boer regions in order to defend themselves against the growing genocide against their people. Read more about the growing (& historic) genocide against the indigenous Boers at: Stop Boer Genocide.
Considering that the Boeremag -as well as many average Boers- do not recognize the legitimacy of the British created South African State since they were conquered & subjugated by the British in 1900 after as many as twenty seven thousand Boer civilians died in the British created concentration camps: it is not intellectually honest to assert that they are part of " a right wing" contingent on the political spectrum since they do not consider themselves part of the political landscape of the South African State that the British created on the backs of their dead children & compatriots. The Boers of the Boer Republics fought against the creation of the South African State which was briefly inherited by their Afrikaner (re: Cape Dutch) cousins when it was established after the war -most notably with the former ruling National Party & then later inherited by the Xhosa dominated ANC / SACP / COSATU ruling alliance since 1994.
Taking all these facts into consideration one would have to conclude that the Boeremag are irredentists as opposed to simply militant Boer nationalists. Something else to consider: There are eerie similarities with the Boeremag trial & the Rivonia trial of the ANC of the early 1960s. Both the Boeremag & the ANC were accused of treason. Both groups were fighting oppressive governments. The governments of each era ignored the constituents represented on behalf of the militant groups.
[edit] Return to former Boer Republics far more serious than implied
This is nonsense. The boeremag is a terrorist organisation. To say that the wish to refrom the Boer republics of the Orange Free State and Transvaal is not a return to Apartheid is to misrepresent what it would entail. The fact is, to recreate these states and have them populated solely by White Afrikaners would obviously mean that the current residents, who are majority non-white, would have to be removed. By force. Considering that the original Boer republics covered at least 1/3 of South Africa's area, this is a sizable claim being made by the Boeremag. There is no reason why those areas should belong to them anyway - while it could be possible for people to consider those areas as having been 'stolen' by the British in the South African war of 1899-1902, the fact is that prior to that the areas had been 'stolen' by the native Bantu speaking inhabitants of South Africa, who, it could be concluded in this line of reasoning, 'stole' the land from the Khoisan inhabitants who lived there prior to the Bantu movement South from Central and West Africa. My point is that it cannot be argued that the land 'belongs' to anyone, and it certainly cant be claimed by the Afrikaners of the present day.
It is also not true that many Afrikaners do not and have not recognised the legitimacy of the South African state as set up in 1911 as the Union of South Africa. It is a very small minority, and may have grown since 1994 due to a feeling of dissatisfaction some white people in South Africa feel towards the ANC government. This is largely due to the end of white privelege under Apartheid, and cannot be claimed to be any more noble a nationalist movement than the National Party government was pre-1994.
Finally, the claims of boer genocide as made by the above commenter and the website www.stopboergenocide.com are absurd. The number of farmers in South Africa who have been murdered in the last 11 years is a very small fraction of the total number of people who have been murdered ion South Africa since 1994. Indeed the country has high crime rates, but 1700 people killed in 11 years cannot constitute genocide when many times more than that have been killed in that period, black and white.
The article needs to be re-written, giving more information on the actual events mentioned that relate to the Boeremag, and links to other historical and modern information about politics and economics in South Africa to avoid the kind of confusion present in the above comments.
This is where you are so wrong. The president of Genocide Watch has gone on the record stating that the killing of Boer farmers constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention. Furthermore: the Boers are the most at risk group for being killed in the whole world. Therefore they are the most at risk group for genocide. Due to their small numbers: their genocide would be much faster than if it were being targeted against any other group.
The following is a transcript of an excerpted segment of what the President of Genocide Watch: Gregory Stanton said pertaining to the growing Boer genocide in the Carte Blanche television program.
[edit] Genocide Watch Calls it a Genocide.
Read the full transcript of this program at this link.
Dr. Stanton is a retired American professor of law who heads Genocide Watch, the organisation that co-ordinates the international campaign to end genocide.
We met him in Berlin where he was attending a conference in remembrance of the Holocaust.
He believes that, apart from crime, there's also another motive.
Gregory: “There's a motive of hatred, that these are hate crimes, that people are tortured, that they're murdered in ways that are de-humanising.”
Not only does Stanton believe farm murders are hate crimes, but he's also recently warned the world that the white farmers in South Africa could be facing genocide. Twenty years ago he witnessed the horrors of the Cambodian genocide.
Gregory: “I realised, I think, from that point forward that I would spend the rest of my life working to stop genocide and to bring those who committed it to justice.”
Years later, that's exactly what he did. He was the person responsible for drafting the UN resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Stanton has identified eight stages of genocide by comparing the history of genocides in the 20th century. He describes it as a process, rather than an act that could take many years to be effected.
Gregory: “The third stage is really where you begin the downward spiral into genocide and that is the stage of de-humanisation. It is where you treat the other people as though they're less than human.”
A scene like this, he says, should have the alarm bells ringing.
This farmer was ambushed at his farm gate, shot in the back and left to die. His vehicle was burnt out and his body displayed with the lights and number plates.
Gregory: “These are clearly hate crimes. It's such a symbolic expression of de-humanisation. They're so treating him like a thing.”
It's often thought that a whole group needs to be killed before it's defined as genocide, but that's not the case.
Stanton says the more than one thousand four hundred farmers killed in South Africa could be classified under the Genocide Convention.
Gregory: “Even if it's a few hundred individuals who have been targeted, that is an act of genocide under the convention.”
However, Stanton warns that South Africa has already slipped into the fifth stage of the process, or what he refers to as polarisation.
Gregory: “Extremists attempt to drive out the centre, they attempt to divide the world into just two camps; into us and them.”
And from there on, he says, it's a small step to the seventh stage when the actual genocide takes place and where the word genocide is used.
Gregory: “People who commit this crime often think amazingly enough that they're purifying their society in some way or another, you know - they're getting rid of insects or some kind of less than human form of life.”
A civil war is potentially more likely, says Moolman.
Prof Neels Moolman: “I don't think we are there yet, but I think that we are speeding to that point very fast if the radicals are not controlled properly.”
Gregory: “They will say that the genocide was really just a civil war as though a civil war somehow was an opposite of genocide when in fact many genocides occurred during civil wars.”
Watch part of this special at this link.
The above sheds light on the situation facing the Boers & why the government finds it easy to blame them for the bombing (as an oppressed group) despite the complete lack of evidence in even establishing wether a Boer terrorist group exists or not.
[edit] NPOV
I'm giving this a NPOV tag since at the moment, it seems to be implying that they aren't so bad after all, or that they are innocent. This is a terrorist organisation - they're not "irrendentist" or anything else, or an "irregular army". I think the article needs to be re-written, personally. XYaAsehShalomX 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Now that statement is simply ridiculous. The trial is going on for month. And still there is no hard proof to prove even the existence of such an organization let alone that those accused are members. Claims and perceptions is all that there is. So it is reasonable to assume that in fact some people in the police and the intelligence services are creating jobs and work for themselves to get a higher budget. Since all of the accused (Except for the state wittnesses) have a close to perfect civic record (Mike du Toit was even a lecturer at Vista, a Black University), I think we have good reason to believe that the prosecution doesn't have a case at all. I think people like you need to re-think what they are actually saying.
If you're going to make critical commentary, please have the courtesy to identify yourself. I agree with the first poster. Political discussion has its place elsewhere -- this is an encyclopedia and can only report what is known and from verifiable sources. Rhombus 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wrongly labeled.
| Neo-Nazi movements and concepts | Ethnic supremacy | You'll have to explain how these labels stick! White separatists maybe, but "Ethnic supremacy" and "Neo-Nazi" is even simply ridiculous. Come up with names that define and not those that designed to smear!
- Too of the accused (in detention for ~3 years (sic)) "escaped" recently 'Prisons minister blames police for escape fiasco'
Considering the publications of support sites and media I think that any group who believes, propagates or incites violence against civilians is quite simply a terrorist or at the least a criminal. As to their claims concerning the legality of the regime, well perhaps these are best answered and refuted by lawyers and specialists in this matter. For my own part, having spoken to election monitors who were on the ground during the first elections I cannot say I have reason to doubt that there were minor irreguliarities but nothing that would have changed the outcome. The fact that more and more white south africans are joining the ANC only adds to the legitimacy and proves that the current south africa is a multi-ethnic state run by a democratically elected multi-ethnic democratic party whose statutes guarantee and protect the rights of all south africans. This doesn't mean to say that wrongful actions don't take place, but that in itself doesn't justify in any way or form the spreading of "swart gevaar" propaganda. In my humble opinion the problems in south africa are related to poverty and not race, unlike years of racial segregation and exploitation by the minority!
The problem here though is whether this group in fact does or does not propagate or incite violence against civilians. For one thing: it is doubtful that this group even exists as claimed. So far nothing has been proven in court & there does not appear to be a shred of evidence to back up the government accusations against the accused. The so called Boeremag is most likely nothing more than a defensive confederation of groups who are preparing to defend themselves against the rumoured & potential large scale government sponsored attacks against the Boers at some not too distant point in the future. There is a major & long standing rumour that the White population in general will be killed en masse after a certain famous icon & former president dies. I hope this will remain just a rumour but people on both sides of the purported coming struggle appear to talk openly about thus.
The assertions concerning the legality of the regime are valid considering that the state known as South Africa was an artificial creation which was created by the British colonialists & is based entirely on the South Africa Act of 1909 which was passed by the British Parliament & has been transferred to the various Constitution Acts.
The alleged fact that more White people are joining the ANC does not negate the fact that the country is becoming a one party state along the lines of Zimbabwe. People also used to claim that Zimbabwe was " a multi-ethnic state run by a democratically elected multi-ethnic democratic party whose statutes guarantee and protect the rights of all" Zimabaweans. Time proved the dreamers wrong before & I am afraid that they will be proven wrong again.
Futhermore: the ANC received a lot of White supporters when the New National Party recently disbanded & joined them. Similar to when the Joseph Nkomo's political party was disbanded & absorbed by Robert Mugabe's ZANUPF.
There is still "exploitation by the minority!" occurring is South Africa as the state is run by a Xhosa nationalist clique which imposes their hegemony even in the Afrikaans speaking Coloured majority areas such as the Northern Cape in which the local police force was purged of the local Afrikaans speaking Coloured members & replaced with Xhosas who have no familiarity with the region.
