Talk:Afrikaner

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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class 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: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Very full coverage of topic. Long stretches of text without verifiable references. Looking at the talk page, see possibility of POV disputes.

Contents 1 Archived discussion 2 Classification 2.1 Text under discussion 2.1.1 Historical 2.1.2 Modern 2.2 Discussion 3 White nationalism - Do Afrikaners exist? 4 Post Apartheid 5 New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 6 Problematic 7 Typical Afrikaner 8 Boer 9 Overgeneralisations? 10 Afrikaner Nation 11 Afrikaner Americans? 12 "related groups" info removed from infobox 13 Factual Changes to Blood River Section 14 Should more images be included? 15 Racism 16 What does Aparthedi have to do with Afrikaners? 17 Spelling 18 Distant European Origins. 19 Response: Setting the Record Straight. 20 Afrikaners as an ethnic group disputed 21 The Boers are only about one third of the White Afrikaans population.

[edit] Archived discussion

Refer to Talk:Afrikaner /Archive 22/09/06 for an archive of closed discussions.

[edit] Classification

Aside from the problem with weasel words (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) this section does not cite any sources or explain the historical limit of this classification which is no longer relevant. Is it perhaps a joke or a hoax?

Aside from these glaring problems, the main issue regarding "classification" (white + Afrikaans = "Afrikaner") is not even mentioned as if it is a commonly accepted classification or "ethnic group". The main problem with this assumption or classification however, is that according to the article on ethnicity a shared language and race does not constitute an "ethnic group". In modern times "Afrikaner" can at best be described as a "cultural group" that possibly also includes aspects of religion and cultural traditions in addition to language and race. The other concern is the political nature of the term that meant different things at different historical periods. --Deon Steyn 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote this section to be more accurate and balanced. --Deon Steyn 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the rewritten section here for justification of statements before it replaces the section in the main article. See "Text under discussion" below: -Gemsbok1 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text under discussion

___________________________________________________________________________________________

<--The term Afrikaner has different meanings according to the historical context^{[citation needed]}. The classification of people into an Afrikaner ethnic group is also dependent on the historical period and quite problematic in a modern context.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Historical

As described earlier in the article the term was first used by the early Dutch colonists at the beginning of the 18th century. Clearly they could not constitute a distinct ethnic group at that time, because they were still ethnically Dutch and later French and German before they formed a homogenous group.

Over time this group formed a distinct cultural identity with shared language (Afrikaans), religion and identity, distinct from their original respective ancestors as well as later British colonial powers.

Cape Dutch

The colonists at the Cape who did not take part in the Great Trek.

Boers

Because if the resultant divide both geographically and possibly ideologically between the Cape Dutch and the participants in the Great Trek, these groups grew apart. This group comprises those who had established themselves in the eastern Cape frontier and the Republican Afrikaners who trekked inland during the Great Trek.

This distinction no longer exists, because people freely move between all areas of the South Africa. Today only regional dialects differentiate Afrikaans people from different areas, much like any other country. These dialects are however regional and more numerous than merely "Cape Dutch" or "Boer".

[edit] Modern

Currently it is difficult to classify anyone as an Afrikaner ^{[citation needed]} – whether as ethnic or cultural group – based solely on a combination of language and race. Even if a person is of obvious European descent and they speak Afrikaans as a first language, it is almost impossible to claim a large genealogical link to the original Afrikaners of the Cape Colony or the subsequent ethnic group due to intermarriage with other European settlers^{[citation needed]}, especially the large number of British descent.

The population of white or European Afrikaans first language speakers are also far from homogenous with regard to religion, politics or cultural practices ^{[citation needed]}.

Even the Afrikaans historian, Hermann Giliomee, described the classification as: (Afrikaans) "enige iemand wat lief is vir die land en wat lief is vir Afrikaans" (English: "anyone who loves the land and who loves Afrikaans"). ^[1] --> ________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Discussion

The above text does not provide citations for five sweeping statements, which forms a unilateral declaration that Afrikaners do not exist as an identifiable Ethnic group today. The writer of the above text therefore ignores the generally accepted fact in South Africa where even current president Thabo Mbeki refers to Afrikaners in speeches to parliament, refer Pres. Mbeki speech. The writer of above text must first provide Sociological citations for his statements, which I as an Afrikaner do not agree with. The writer also do not consider the naturalisation of traditional English South Africans as Afrikaners when they intermarried and adopted Afrikaans as mother tongue together with the Afrikaner culture.

The following links are citations of external sources, other than the speech of President Mbeki, who also believe that the Afrikaner ethnic group does in fact exist:

• Strategyleader on Afrikaners
• Countrystudies on Afrikaners
• Southafricanhistoryonline on Afrikaners

The above citations, which are only a small and very incomplete list, proves that "Afrikaners" is a commonly accepted classification of an ethnic group.-Gemsbok1 10:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, please familiarise yourself with some standard Wikipedia practices, notably:

• Discussing a good faith edit before reverting it.
• Manual of style guidelines for talk pages: Help:Talk page

As for the last edit, it replaced completely unsubstantiated (without cited sources) claims that the current Afrikaner population is divided into two groups ("cape dutch" and "boers"). Secondly, nowhere in my edits do I claim that there is no group as "Afrikaners" whether it is ethnic or cultural. I simply clarified that it is not a simple question of being "white" and "afrikaans speaking". If you refer to your own external sources you would see they further qualify add certain religious affiliations and according to the last census there was 2,5mil white Afrikaans first language speakers, but only 1.5mil white members of the Dutch Reformed church (language unknown). It has to be made clear that this is not a typical "ethic group" such as "Serbian" that can be distinguished by langue of "african american" that can be distinguished by race, but a combination of factors including: genealogy, race, language and religion.

I have attempted to bring balance and neutrality to this section, perhaps we can add more, but please discuss first. No one is trying to deny the existance of this group, merely trying to clarify it's complicated definition. --Deon Steyn 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, you did not discuss the previous edit compiled by myself and Elf-friend before changing it. You will also find plenty of discussions around the matter in the archived talk page.

The article on ethnic groups clearly states that "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community."

It is therefore clear that the classification of ethnic groups is much more complex than you let it on to be, according to your statement "It has to be made clear that this is not a typical "ethic group" such as "Serbian" that can be distinguished by langue of "african american" that can be distinguished by race, but a combination of factors including: genealogy, race, language and religion."

It therefore seems that all ethnic groups are classified by the combination of factors that you refer to, which nullifies your argument that Afrikaners are not a "typical ethnical group". I therefore suggest that you study sociology before you state what a typical ethnical group looks like or not.

With regards to your reference to the Dutch Reformed Church, I suggest that you note that a common religion is cited for ethnic group classification, not a common denomination. I am for instance not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, but I am a Christian.--Gemsbok1 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners as an ethnical group is way too distinctive for you to label all white South Africans with Afrikaans surnames as "Afrikaners". I grew up in Bellville and our neighbours' son had Afrikaans surname just because of 1 father from 1 generation, all other generations were Flemish and also had Flemish surnames. He even looks Flemish, but spoke Afrikaans. So can you really call him "Afrikaner"? His name is Werner Greeff. Why provide scientific citations (as you ask) when this example proves to you that "Afrikaans + White = Afrikaner" simply does not work.WickedHorse 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All white South Africans with Afrikaans surnames, who speaks Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who identifies with the Afrikaner way of life, are by default Afrikaners. Some may even have English, German, French or Flemish surnames. Afrikaners share the same genetic code as the North and Western European ethnic groups of today, these groups therefore only need to make the cultural shift to become Afrikaners or any one of the other groups. Follow the genetics, and you'll find that Afrikaners, Dutch, Germans, English, Flemish and the French share the same genetic make-up. Between all of these peoples, the dividing line is what they do during every-day life. I did not ask for broad scientific citations, I asked for sociological citations. --Gemsbok1 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Even with the most accurate sociological citations, neither myself or you would know what Okkert Brits's mother tongue is or whether he really identifies with the Afrikaner way of life. The same for all the other people you blindly categorise into "Afrikaner". And according to you, a person from the Western European ethnic groups merely has to associate with the Afrikaans culture to become an Afrikaner. What about "mother tongue" and surname? You contradict yourself. --WickedHorse 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you, Gemsbok1, change your tune again and you qualify the group "Afrikaner" with "Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who identifies with the Afrikaner way of life". This basically then comes down to a choice and canyou enlighten us all as to what exactly the Afrikaner way of life is? As for not being a typical ethnic group, I stand by that claim, because the majority of ethnic groups have a much clearer definition than things like "identifying with a way of life". --Deon Steyn 05:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by the definition given, i.e. an Afrikaner is someone from European ancestry, who speaks Afrikaans as a mother tongue and who associate with the Afrikaner culture (commonly known as the Afrikaner way of life). My previous statement above about racial ancestry focused on that area only, not the entire definition. You may refer to the "Culture" section to find some detail about the Afrikaner culture. How is the English people's definition clearer than the Afrikaner one, Deon Steyn? WickedHorse, I know as a commonly known fact about celebrities, that Okkert Brits's mother tongue is Afrikaans. Please indicate the people I classified as being Afrikaners, who you can prove does not fit the definition. --Gemsbok1 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Going on current definitions of "Afrikaner", the onus is on you to prove that Okkert Brits's mother tongue is Afrikaans and that he associates with the Afrikaner Culture. Unless you cite personal interviews from media references or other similar reliable sources, you are purely speculating these people's "Afrikaner" ethnicity, and must have a third agenda as Deon Steyn has speculated. Nevertheless, in the absense of proof provided by you as explained above, I will start removing all of the people in the Category:Afrikaners from that category unless properly proven by explicit sources in each and every article about the person, starting as soon as I get time. --WickedHorse 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is – as you have admitted – that a person should associate themselves with Afrikaner "culture" so you can not simply use race and language to label someone as "Afrikaner". Your second argument comparing "Afrikaner" to English people is not a valid one either, because the one is much younger and started off as a combination of several diverse ethnic groups, apart from that it is a group closely associated to a nationality which is another important difference. --Deon Steyn 06:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have acted in good faith when I compiled the category for Afrikaners. If you delist anyone from the category without citing proof as to why they are not Afrikaners, I will argue vandalism on your part and ask for arbitration from wikipedia. You cannot force your one sided relativism view of the Afrikaner people and culture like this. You are not acting in good faith towards Wikipedia and merely using it as a mouthpiece for your current political views. The Afrikaner ethic group is in exactly the same situation as the Welsh people, Xhosa people, Zulu people etc. with regards to the anomalies that worry you, you are therefore welcome to place your arguments in the Ethnic groups article where these global issues can be discussed. -Gemsbok1 07:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, please note etiquette and guidelines for Talk pages, by occasionally indenting response (see Help:Talk page). So you are saying that you are allowed to make unsubstantiated claims and if anyone changes that, they are vandals? In that case, please also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism. As for the Afrikaner ethnic group being in "exactly the same situation as the Welsh people, Xhosa people, Zulu people", this is a false notion, because they are very different in terms of the different defining characteristics:

• histories ("Afrikaner" is shorter)
• politics (Afrikaner; first use was political, subsequent connotations)
• even genetics ("Afrikaner" mixture of several European groups... mostly)
• language (3.5 mil coloured Afrikaans first language speakers, only 2.5 mil "white").

So please stop pretending that this is a straight forward simple ethnic group like any other. I'm not saying there is no such group, all we are trying to say is that:

• it is a complex definition
• in some cases, it should be seen in a certain context.

This is how Wikipedia is supposed to represent a NPOV by showing all sides and facets.--Deon Steyn 08:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deon Steyn summed it up pretty well. Gemsbok1, would I be correct in saying that you want to assign people on Wikipedia to a certain category without proof that, according to the definition on the Afrikaner article, they fit that definition, and then when someone wants to remove it from the category, they are the ones that must submit proof that these people do NOT belong to the category? It does not work like that. Please refer to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We can discuss it further on the Category_talk:Afrikaners page, but I will proceed with the removals unless properly cited. You seem to think that I may have other reasons for doing this (political, personal views, etc) but I assure you that I merely want these actions to adhere to proper Wikipedia standard procedures, nothing more, nothing less. Can you give me the same assurance? --WickedHorse 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White nationalism - Do Afrikaners exist?

The statements made in the "White Nationalism" section were deleted as no cited references were given. Furthermore the "White Nationalism" section implied that the term "Afrikaners" were only recently being classified as an ethnic group in order for them to be able to claim ethnic separation. This is nonsense, as the Afrikaners were recognised as an ethnic group by independent parties long before Apartheid came to an end. I cite the following independent sources as proof of the existence of the Afrikaner ethic group:

• Strategyleader on Afrikaners
• Countrystudies on Afrikaners
• Southafricanhistoryonline on Afrikaners
• Pres. Mbeki speech
• Institute for Security Studies on 'VOLK' FAITH AND FATHERLAND

Agreed on your comments here. But Deon Steyn has made an interesting point that seem to (theoretically) describe exactly what you are trying to achieve (I am speculating here). I would not be surprised that the part is reverted again tomorrow and he comes back with full references (addressing your first problem) and rewording the part (adressing your second problem). We shall see. --WickedHorse 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, User:Gemsbok1 and please refrain from once again deleting or reverting sections conflicting with your view. Nowhere did that section state that there is no such ethnic group as Afrikaner. It merely shows the – sometimes political – motives, context and history of some of the very strict pseudo-scientific definitions of this "ethnic group". It is common knowledge – explained in the very references you cite – that the term "Afrikaner" has been used and changed at different times to suite different purposes. In Chapter 2 of of your last reference (Institute for Security Studies on 'VOLK' FAITH AND FATHERLAND), [1] it clearly states how the "National Party" sought to unite politically diverse group by a "three-pronged strategy to promote and establish Afrikaner nationalism and to promote a separate Afrikaner identity by creating consciousness among Afrikaners based on their language, religion and traditions" in the first half of the 20th century.

A neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia and we must guard against bias – or worse yet – subtle political undertones. I say this now, because I notice a worrying trend whereby certain editors are trying to steer a group of articles in a particular political direction. I fear that not all editors are aware of the related pages and do not see the full context when only looking at one or another. The pages in question are (apart from this one for Afrikaner):

• Volkstaat, currently not balanced and closely related to this page
• Category:Afrikaners, seeks to appropriate people for the group
• List of notable Afrikaners
• Crime in South Africa
• South African Farmer Murders, currently under review

There seems to be an effort to allign these pages in subtle ways to suite a particular point of view and other editors should please take note and beware. --Deon Steyn 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it seems that you want to change all articles not showcasing your view. Secondly, I never said that there were no political connotations to the Afrikaner term, I emphasized that I did not agree with your political view of the term. Your effort at extreme cultural reletavism is obvious in your statements, so do not even try to pretend as if you are presenting a neutral point of view. I have been editing the Afrikaner and Volkstaat articles to get rid of a extremely biased and sometimes racist right wing view, but some of those views are applicble therefore none with references were deleted. I did not contribute in any major way to the List of notable Afrikaners, or the Crime in South Africa article. I did start the Category:Afrikaners and used the already populated List of notable Afrikaners as a guide to add the individual articles to the category. If a trend develops in certain articles and these trends are referenced to valid sources, you should consider that they may contain the truth. -Gemsbok1 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I would think that all editors want should correct all articles that are biased, not neutral or not balanced. I don't have any political affiliation and I don't have any political view of the term, I merely pointed out that the term has certain political connotations and in some circles it is used as a political tool. This trend found in most "Afrikaner" related articles most definitely does not constitute either a truth, a representative view or a historical fact. So please, let us all get the full background and balanced views from all sides. --Deon Steyn 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Apartheid

The South African referendum, 1992 was held on 17 March 1992. In it, South Africans were asked to vote in the last tricameral election held under the apartheid system, in which the Coloured and Indian population groups could also vote, to determine whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by then State President F.W. de Klerk two years earlier.

This should be re-written. It sounds like the Coloureds and Indians would have voted in the referendum. That is wrong, only white citizens where allowed to vote in national referendum. Dr.Poison 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic

I think that, for the sake of objectivity, it should be stated in the article's introduction that 'Afrikaner' is a highly problematic term for which several conflicting definitions currently exist.

Don't know who posted the above, but yes, in principle I would agree with that. --WickedHorse 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Afrikaner

I've included a section on what a lot of people think of as a typical Afrikaner, as being overweight and uncivilised because it's necessary to remove this prejudice, considering Apartheid is 13 years behind them. I followed the style used in the hillbilly page on wikipedia and if someone wishes to remove it please do tell me why.

82.2.88.225 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be rather filled with overgeneralizations and it's not very NPOV.. ~

"(The Afrikaner just want to be left alone. They dont care much for different cultures. However this has changed dramatically over the last few years as more and more young Afrikaners had to go overseas, because they were to white to apply for jobs in South Africa"

That looks very POV to me, so do the others..... 217.39.175.141 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boer

I know that strictly speaking the term Boer is applied to farmer or 'peasant' but all the 'Afrikaners' I've met, and that's probably about 7 or 8, have referred to themselves as Boers, perhaps we should have a seperate article for Afrikaners and Boers, but include most of this one in the Boer one because Boers are whites whereas 'Afrikaners' include elements of the coloured community who consider themselves Afrikaner.

If someone could tell me why certain 'Afrikaners' find the term Boer offensive please do tell me, it only means peasant in the sense that it means common people.

P.S. I've used Leonard Van Os.' Self- Taught Afrikaans to get these definitions I'm sure wikipedia has some fluent Afrikaans speakers to please correct me.

86.27.49.214 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Boer is a very ambiguous term (the article covers that rather well). Afrikaners often jokingly refer to themselves and each other as "boere" (plural of boer), and most will accept the term if it is used by another ethnic group. The term is never used formally where "Afrikaner" is meant. However: The term can easily be taken or mistaken as an insult, often leading to flared tempers. Compare with "nigger" (sorry if that offends anyone. if it does, I give them permission to call me a boer.) An example is a piece of graffiti next to a road in Johannesburg: "kill the boer." It Should also not be confused with the real meaning of the word (farmer). From your happy Afrikaans friend, Goldfritter 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best usage is to restrict 'Boer' to historical contexts, eg Boer Republics, and to use Afrikaner in present-day contexts. Perhaps a better analogy would be to place 'boer' to the same category as 'negro' — a once-neutral term the use of which today is deprecated and may signal a certain mind-set in the user. I don't dispute that in South Africa, in slogans as 'kill the boer', the term is being used like 'nigger', but on the whole I think the analogy to 'negro' might be more accurate. Rexparry sydney 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The term Boer is not as ambiguous as is suggested above as it refers to a specific cultural group which was -as the Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit notes[1]- formed on the frontiers of White settlement & on the outskirts of civilization. The problem is that this term was somewhat conditioned out of the consciousness of many Boers in favour of the term Afrikaner (which was initially propagated by the White Afrikaans speakers of the Western Cape) as part of the attempts of the Cape based Afrikaners to co-opt the Boers after the second Anglo-Boer War.

The Boers & those who initially propagated the term Afrikaner were historically two distinct peoples / groups until after the second Anglo-Boer War when many Boers were too destitute & politically weak against the ascending political power & greater numbers of the Cape based Afrikaners -where many began also to move into the former Boer Republic regions further blurring divisions. The Boers were smaller in numbers which was the main reason they were marginalized (& thus the term "Boer" as well) by the Cape based Afrikaners who were then able to more easily promote the term Afrikaner as being applicable to all White Afrikaans speakers.

The Boers were conditioned to stop viewing themselves as Boers as part of the effects of the Western Cape based Afrikaner Nationalism which sought to politically unify the White Afrikaans speakers mainly in order for the Cape Afrikaners to "legitimize" their hegemony in the new British created unitary State & to united against British power.

Note.

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

There is often an erroneous presumption that the term Afrikaner & Boer are interchangeable but that is due directly to the facts as mentioned above since it only became that way over time after many Boers were conditioned since very young to view themselves as Afrikaners -due to the re-writting of Boer history in which Afikaner Nationalists replaced the term Boer with Afrikaner- when the Afrikaners (as a political label) were basically initially the Western Cape Afrikaans speakers who do not share the same history or struggles as the Boers & also often worked with the British (the Cape was long under British colonial rule) due to their closer association with the British colonial power.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Afrikaner Nation

Perhaps we should have an article emphasising that there is an Afrikaner nation, more so than one of English- speaking South African whites who still have ties with Britain. The fact is that they are a large group of people (at least 2,700,000) and have been seperate from Europe for at least 200 years. They have a different culture, a different language. I've heard ignorant people say if they're forced out of Africa one way or another that they'll be coming 'home'? It's not like they've been on holiday, they've had probably 8 or 9 generations at least who've been born there (more for some of the original Dutch settlers' descendants) born and raised in Africa.

They have a nation because:

• They have a history together, they're bound as an ethnic group by hardship, wars and a common culture

• Their own language

• A clearly defined homeland, which they recognise as where they come from

• No ties outside of Africa for most of them, other than commercially

• A culture seperate from that of their ancestors in Holland, Germany, Belgium or France

So if someone with more knowledge of their culture than myself could start an Afrikaner Nation page it would be productive in my opinion.

BOV1993 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Any such discussion or information would relate directly to this page and would not require a separate article. As for what constitutes an "Afrikaner", well that has also been thrashed out extensively on this article's talk page (see the archives) and is also covered extensively in the article. The fact is, there is great debate on what constitutes an Afrikaner ethnic group (if one could define such a group). In any event, adding the nation suffix would do nothing, but evoke 'white supremacist' language and notions. --Deon Steyn 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

White supremacist notions, I have the feeling I've dealt with you on the Battle of Ventersdorp page, I'm sorry but you have no grounding to say it. You're arguing on an informative encyclopedia that we shouldn't have an article on what, for an entire country, is a very serious issue, because someone may, possibly say something out of line?

As for what an Afrikaner is, it's plain and simple, an Afrikaans- speaking descendant of Europeans who journeyed to Africa, notably Dutchmen, Franks, Germans and Frisians, who identifies themselves as an Afrikaner. This has already been said on the article.

82.14.64.128 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Changes to Blood River Section

I changed the estimated number of Zulu slain during the 1838 battle from "10,000" to "3,000," to reflect the number commonly quoted by various sources, e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Du Toit (2005:20)[2], etc.

Of more concern, I am puzzled by the extended discussion of the conflicts with the Zulu in an article dealing with Afrikaner ethnicity. All that needs to be done here is to point out the function of the 1838 event in the origin myths of Afrikaner ethnicity.

I recommend moving both this section and its verbatim repetition in the Great Trek article to the Battle of Blood River article. →Sorry, forgot to sign earlier: DocDee 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should more images be included?

As a member of that malleable, elusive and historical construct "Afrikaner" (:/) I find myself uncomfortable with the images at the top right of the article that purport to represent "Afrikaners."

• In the first place, the gallery excludes more recent exemplars.

• In addition, the four figures represent historical conflict with various sectors of the broader South African population (the Zulu, people from British descent).

• Third, all persons represented opposed, to varying degrees, the legal equality of those in the population who were not directly descended from European ancestry.

My point is that we should not hide the broad spectrum of political stances and historical actions of those who claim to be Afrikaners. It is important for historical accuracy to show Afrikaners who did not conform to the racial prejudice which, for many Afrikaners and for so long of our history, was central to Afrikaner identity.

Should the images not also include people like C F Beyers-Naudé, or André Brink, or Breyten Breytenbach, or Carl Niehaus, or Max du Preez, who chose to side against the racial prejudice of their fellow Afrikaners? DocDee 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Racist

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Spelling

Does anyone know the origins and distinction of the most-used spelling Afrikaner and the alternative, lesser-used spelling Afrikaaner, which occurs in some dictionaries and older texts? Should the alternative spelling be given in the article or is it deprecated? Rexparry sydney 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would include it as a parenthetical at the beginning of the article. And from what I see in the OED, it looks like it was the original spelling (from usage and from etymology). Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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.

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 [3] 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)

[edit] Response: Setting the Record Straight.

No Afrikaans is not close to standard Dutch as it did not develop from Dutch but from a Franconian dialect which was infused with & significantly influenced by Malay -adopting its grammar syntax & numerous loanwords- & influenced by French (adopting its nasalization of vowels & the double negative) / German / Portuguese & certain Khoi words. Furthermore: most Afrikaans speakers have great difficulty in understanding Dutch & vise versa. Even a Dutch documentary on South Africa was in Dutch subtitles[1] when the Afrikaans speakers were featured.

From:

The White Afrikaans peoples do in fact recognize that they are ethnically distinct from other Africans (though most White / Black & Coloured Africans in fact share Khoisan genes[2] furthermore they are all indigenous but none are aboriginal as the aboriginal Khoisan peoples were displaced & hunted down by invading Bantus) but the fact of the matter is that this does not negate the fact that they are an African people as they developed as a people & as a culture on African soil. There was no Afrikaans culture in Europe before it was developed on African soil.

The European origins is in fact distant & this is on the historical record. Most White Afrikaans people have ancestors that go back for 355 years (& beyond to thousands of years when factoring in the Khoisan element) with generations of forebears having been born lived & died in Africa & never having gone to Europe. The alleged "significant migration of the later centuries" was mostly that of the British who formed their own distinct English speaking community with very little actually being absorbed into the White Afrikaans peoples. The VOC had stopped legal immigration in 1707. There was a trickle afterwards but it was relatively small scale to which the arrivals were absorbed into the established White Afrikaans communities. There were a number of Dutch immigrants brought out during the 19th century to the Transvaal Republic as President Kruger did not like the Cape Afrikaners as he viewed then as being to pro British.[3] But the majority of the Boer & Afrikaners peoples were & are descended from the original arrivals of the 17th cent.

Also.

Wrong. Black Africans are relative new comers to Southern Africa as they came & displaced the aboriginal yellow-brown skinned Khoisan people who inhabited the Southern half of Africa for thousands of years. The White people displaced the Khoisan peoples in the Western Cape (absorbing many & also producing various mixed race groups such as the Griquas) as the Black people did not inhabited the Western Cape when the White people first arrived & did not migrate to the Western Cape in any significant numbers until well after the British ruled the Cape.

Now you contradict yourself as you admit that the White Afrikaans peoples have been in Africa for close to 400 years yet deny that they are White Africans. Then you lie asserting that "very few" can trace their ancestry to the original settlers when in fact most White Afrikaans people do go back this far as noted in all the historical documents on them & all one has to do is to look at their surnames to see quick proof of this. Most of the White Afrikaans people's surnames go right back to the 17th cent.

Quote: < . The cultures and peoples which constitute Afrikaners are almost entirely European >

Wrong. The White Afrikaans people did not exist in Europe & only came about on African soil as a result of amalgamating with the various cultural groups brought there by the VOC. The White Afrikaans culture is an African culture just as the White Americans are an American culture. Historians have noted that they broke their ties to Europe early on & the first trekking Boers in particular who moved away from colonial society beginning in the late 17th cent lived as nomadic migrating farmers co-opting & adopting much of the Khoisan way of life[5] in order to survive as a class of impoverished pastotalists. The Boers lived in total isolation to Europe & Europe only began to take notice of them around the time of the Great Trek & particularly during the second Anglo-Boer War.

Quote: < culture, language, ancestry, religion, all trace to the primary origins of Afrikaners: the Netherlands >

Absolutely Wrong! The Dutch component to their ancestry is only about 35 % of their origins & much of that was in fact Frisian.[6] The French Huguenot refugees who were sent to the Cape comprise of about 25 % of their origins [7] & about 35 - 40 % of their origins is of German origin. There were even more Germans than Dutch among those who were initially sent to the Cape. I do not believe it! -you actually contradict yourself again by saying that their "primary origins" are Dutch then later admit in the same paragraph that they are only about 35 % of Dutch (which is mostly Frisian) origin. Now you can not have it both ways.

Quote: < Dutch culture and language again also had the largest impact. >

An absolute lie! None other than the Dutch tyrant Jan van Riebeeck -who forcibly removed the ancestors of the Boers & Afrikaners & dumped them at the Cape- even noted in his own personal diary his DISTAIN for the immigrants he sent to the Cape noting that they did not speak Dutch as they spoke a Franconian dialect.[8] Dutch culture HAD NO significant impact on the emerging White Afrikaans peoples since they were not even significantly composed of Dutch origins & neither did they ever speak the Dutch language!!!

Quote: < In addition, the comments of some of these authors is ridiculous. >

Now you are making an erroneous JUGEMENT call as the EXCERPTS I posted of certain knowledgable authors (they examined the entire continent in question: what the hell have you ever examined on Africa?) is clear academic peer reviewed proof of the fact that the Boer people -in particular- broke all their ties to Europe when they began to forge a homegrown African identity / language & culture.

Quote: < 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 ? >

Now this is getting into complicated territory as it illustrates the cultural differences between the neo colonial Cape based Afrikaners & the anti colonial & rustic Boers. The point is that the Afrikaans peoples broke their connection to Europe & have even been called an "orphaned" people by the Afrikaans authour Brian Du Toit.[9] Demostrating that the Afrikaans peoples Africanized & developed their own culture due to having been cut off from Europe. Now the Cape Afrikaners often historically insisted that they spoke Dutch (until they finally admited that they speak a different language in 1875 when they formally recoginzed Afrikaans) while the Boers knew their language was not Dutch since they could not understasnd it & would often call their language die Taal. The Cape Afrikaners often viewed their culture as being related to Europe while the frontier Boers (having broken all ties to Europe) developed a new African culture & were even ex-communicated from the Church -due to the Great Trek- whereupon some of them started their own church. Allthough the Afrikaans historian André Du Toit (a common Afrikaans name of French origin) noted in his academic findings that the Boers were not known as ardent Christians or for their religiosity before the Anglo-Boer War & that they were then believing in legends of spirits / primitive medicine & were superstitious[10] having adopted homegrown customs. So this matter of them having adopted "European" customs is not as black & white as you might think.

Quote: < Not to mention that most are still predominantly of European, specifically Dutch and German, origins. >

No you still do not get it. The White Afrikaans people have been in Africa for so long that they are in fact of African origins (as Africa is where their culture / language & ethnic group developed) just as the White people in Europe are no longer still called Asians just because most White Europeans came from Asia thousands of years ago. The White people in Europe are of Asian origins but no one calls them Asians as they have developed their own cultures in Europe. Just as the Boers & Afrikaners have developed their own cultures in Africa.

Quote: < How about this Afirkaner flag which bears the colours of the United Netherlands and used by some Cape Rebels during the second Anglo-Boer War ? >

More erroneous presumptions again. This flag has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Netherlands as it was a representation of a combination of the two Boer Republics flags you ignoramus! Furthermore: it is not an Afrikaner flag but rather a Boer flag & it was called the Struggle Flag. The fact that it has similar colours to the old Netherlands flag IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE as there are numerous flags around the world which resemble one another. For example: the flag of Chad resembles the flag of Romania: but are the people of Chad then Romanians? Furthermore: the Cape Rebels were those Boers of the eastern Cape -where the Great Trek was from- who fought on the side of the Boer Republics against Britain. The term rebel meant they they were rebels to Britain as the Cape was ruled by Britain.

Quote: < The Afrikaners are ethnically culturally and linguistically distinct from the actual, indigenous African peoples. >

Well this was the most telling line of all. The "actual indigenous African peoples". So basically in your erroneous POV world the White Afrikaans people are not indigenous people simply because you say so despite what the actual historical records shows. The White Afrikaans peoples & particularly the Boer people ARE IN FACT an indigenous people as their culture / language & ethnic group WAS ENTIRELY DEVELOPED ON African soil.[11] I think I will take the academic findings of the historical record over an uninformed Canadian college student.

I would suggest that you actually learn about this people & the region first before making the erroneous statements that you have as this encyclopedia should be accurate & not reflect an uniformed point of view. I have been studying the various peoples -the Boer people in particular- of Southern Africa for 15 years now.

No one calls White Canadians "Europeans" (even though they are much more directly tied to Europe -Britain in particular- than the Afrikaans peoples could ever be accused of) & no one calls White Australians "Europeans": so why the double standard when it comes to the White Africans of which the Boers developed into a home grown culture in ways that even the White Americans did not.

Notes.

1. The 1991 Dutch documentary on the Afrikaans separatist movements in South Africa called Hartseer Land was dubbed in Dutch subtitles proving & demonstrating that Afrikaans & Dutch are not mutually intelligible.

2. Andre van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.

3. Clare Wyllie interviews Professor Gerrit Schutte

4. The Boers are a distinct entity from the Cape based Afrikaners. < There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the socalled 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 feat 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." > From: Adriana Stuijt. At a post at Stop Boer Genocide.

5. André van Rensburg. My Genetic Enrichment.

6. Adriana Stuijt. Former anti-Apartheid Dutch born South African journalist. "I recently received an enquiry regarding the history of the Afrikaner origin as far back as their Fresian ancestors -- after I had commented that my research had shown that many Afrikaners actually descended from the Fresians who live scattered along the northern-European seaboard in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands - but that this ethnic identity was also actually 'hidden' beneath the Dutch identity of the VOC-masters, who spoke Dutch." From: Attention Oosthuysen / Oosthuizen Family History.

7. The Contribution of the French Huguenots. < The legacy of the Huguenots was however far reaching. Today thousands of their proud descendants carry with dignity surnames of which the spelling is unchanged from the original, such as De Villiers, Malan, Du Toit, Du Plessis, Du Preez and Malherbe; the spelling of others were localised, such as Viljoen, Cronjé, Pienaar, Retief and Senekal. Certain first names which the Huguenots brought with them are poplular amongst their descendants, especially male christian names such as Francois, Pierre, Etienne, Jacques and Louis. Research has shown that the contribution of the Huguenot genes to the Afrikaner people amounts to some 24%. Their descendants are proud of ancestors who sacrificed a great deal - even their country of birth - and were willing to suffer personally for their religious convictions. > From: The Huguenot Society of South Africa.

8. AM de Lange. San and technology.

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

10. Irving Hexham. Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910.

11. The homegrown / Africanized & indigenous nature of the White Afrikaans peoples is even noted in a document from the Eastern Cape Tourism Board.

Review the documented historical record first before making uninformed & erroneous presumptions.

Ok, clearly the French Huguenot and German settlers also provided large numbers into the population of many Afrikaners (again this is not evenly distributed and many may be mainly or wholly Dutch in origin, others may be Frisian, Walloon, German or French Huguenot), but the fact remains that their culture, language and origins is predominantly European. They are not indigenous to Africa like the Bantu, Xhosa or Khoisan peoples are and the stream of European elements into the Afrikaners did not come merely in the 16th or 17th centuries, but was also swelled by further migrants during the 18th and 19th centuries. Your own source mentions the closeness between elements of Afrikaans culture or language and that of the Dutch. You claim it directly descended from Low Franconian but none of your sources support this, otherwise the first European settlers would have come during the middle ages since by the time the Dutch came in large numbers to Southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries, "Low Franconian" (Frankish) was extinct and was merely a classification of the language Dutch and its dialects had evolved from. I can understand why Afrikaans is classified under Low Franconian now with it being a separate language, not just a Dutch dialect (though this is disputed and most still classify it as evolving directly from Dutch), but it nevertheless evolved from the Dutch language brought to South Africa and is very closely related to Dutch. The number of Afrikaner Wikipedians on the Dutch encyclopedia is just one obvious example of the Mutual intelligibility of the two languages. "Afrikaans" culture may not have existed in Europe, but the components which make Afrikaans culture (Dutch, German and Frisian) did and do. Afrikaner culture is predominantly of European origin as is the case for White Africans in general. Afrikaners are also distinct from other European in Africa such as the Anglo African by the fact that they are not of British descent, hence the importance of the Dutch-Frisian-German aspects in Afrikaner culture. If Afrikaner culture was indigenous to Africa, then the people would be similar in origins and culture to the Xhosa, the Khoisan, the Zulu, etc. which to anyone is obviously not the case whatsoever. Afrikaner culture is predominantly from European culture. It is very distinct form the cultures of the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. Remember, this article is about the Afrikaners, not simply people who speak Afrikaans (which includes other ethnic groups such as the Coloureds, Griqua, etc.) Epf (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• As for your comparison with "White" and European Americans, Australians, etc. in other countries outside of Europe, in fact the people ethnically identify with specific European groupings: White African, European American, White American, Anglo African, Anglo-Celtic Australian, British American, English Canadian, Irish American, French American, French Canadian, German American, English Australian, [Irish Australian]], Dutch Australian, German Brazilian, etc. or simply are just classified or identified (by themselves or others) with the specific European groups themselves Briton, Irish, Dutch (ethnic group), etc. Ethnicity often transcends or is only party associated with political or national affinities. Some Afrikaners may be collectively German-Dutch-French and some may be distinctly or mainly Dutch-African, German-African or French-African. Not all peoples and groups coalesced like many of the Afrikaners did. One obvious example is the linguistic and ethnic distinction between Anglo-Africans who are of British descent or speak English and Afrikaners. Epf (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the White Afrikaans peoples are in fact a rather homogenous composition of Dutch / Frisian / German / French & Danish (the Voortrekker leader Louis Trichardt ancestor was a Danish servant of the VOC) origin. While some might be of more one group in ethic origin than another: the fact of the matter is that most White Afrikaans peoples are in fact descended from Dutch / Frisian / German / French & Danish origins.

No their language culture & origins is not European. What you are doing is conflating. The fact that most of their ancestors LONG AGO were taken out of Europe then dumped at the Cape does not equate that their culture is of European origin as the European role simply played a part in the creation of the Afrikaans culture but it is not the entire origin. The Asian & African role on the development of the Afrikaans language / culture & ethnic group negates the assertion that the Afrikaans language / culture & origin is "European".

The Boers & even many Afrikaners ARE IN FACT indigenous to Africa as Africa is where their language / culture & ethnic group was created. IE: The origins of the Afrikaans language / culture & ethnic groups ARE African. What you are doing is insinuating that just because the Afrikaans peoples are not as senior as Africans or have not been in Africa as a people as long as other Africans that they are erroneously somehow not "as indigenous". Absolute nonsense. Consider the fact that most White Europeans have not been in Europe for as long as the Basques but no one would claim that they are not "as indigenous" since they are now an indigenous feature of the European continent.

No the White Afrikaans peoples were not significantly "swelled" by further migrants. Furthermore: even if this were the case it would be of no consequence to the fact that the European origin of the White Afrikaans language / culture & original ethnic group IS A DISTANT one. For the simple reason that no matter how many further immigrants "swell" the number of the White Afrikaans peoples: their origin would still have been a DISTANT one. Do you get it now? The origins of the White Afrikaans people is a distant one: hence it is irrelevant how many other people MIGHT have later been absorbed into the Afrikaans culture. Just as it is irrelevant that the San / Kung (the aboriginal people of Southern Africa) have absorbed numerous Khoikhoi / Quena as this does not negate the fact that the San / Kung culture is OLDER & is the original culture of the region.

Quote: < Your own source mentions the closeness between elements of Afrikaans culture or language and that of the Dutch. >

No you are using a logical fallacy here. First of all you must understand that the term Dutch does not necessarily mean Holland or the Netherlands language. The term Dutch was (is still often) used to denote any language of Germanic origin. This is why the Amish people of German origin of Pennsylvania are called the Pennsylvania Dutch. It does not mean that they are related to the actual Dutch / Netherlands people. Similarly the "Dutch" (in the old sense of the term) Franconian dialect spoken by the first White arrivals at the Cape was not related to the Dutch / Netherlands language. Therefore asserting that the original White settlers spoke "Dutch" is akin to asserting that the English people speak Germanic: in other words it does not tell the whole story as it is not a complete nor accurate classification.

Another very important point to remember here before I go any further is to remind you that the Dutch were the original oppressors of the Boers & their ancestors. Which is still noticed today via the Cape based Afrikaner domination of the numerically smaller Boer people which was noticeable all throughout the 20th cent. The Dutch took the Frankonish speaking ancestors of the Boers out of Europe & the tyrant Jan van Riebeeck often noted derisively how the people he brought out to the Cape did not speak Dutch (ie: Netherlands) as they in fact spoke a Franconian dialect spoken by the lower classes whom were the bulk of the so called "Dutch" segment of the ancestors of the Boers.

Quote: < You claim it directly descended from Low Franconian but none of your sources support this. >

Most of the sources I used call it "Dutch" as per the old classification for any language of Germanic origin. One source explicitly states that Afrikaans is of Franconian origin. What you are doing is confusing the "Dutch" dialect of the first settlers with the actual Dutch / Netherlands language as used in Holland.

Quote: < otherwise the first European settlers would have come during the middle ages since by the time the Dutch came in large numbers to Southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries, "Low Franconian" (Frankish) was extinct and was merely a classification of the language Dutch and its dialects had evolved from. >

No the Franconian dialect in question was Frankonish not Frankish: a separate dialect. The Frankonish language was a dialect spoken in the lowlands of north western modern day Germany of which High Dutch would develop from. Note: Dutch in the sense of a Germanic language & not the Netherlands language.

Quote: < though this is disputed and most still classify it as evolving directly from Dutch >

No. Afrikaans developed from High Dutch - Frankonish to be precise- as well as Malay / other lowland dialects / German / French / Portuguese & Nama -the language of the Khoisan people. Asserting that Afrikaans only developed from its alleged Dutch origins neglects the role that other prominent influences played in the creation of the Afrikaans language. Afrikaans simply would not be Afrikaans were it not for its non European inlfuences & is the main reason why it even developed into a distinct separate language from its Germanic origins.

Quote: < The number of Afrikaner Wikipedians on the Dutch encyclopedia is just one obvious example of the Mutual intelligibility of the two languages. >

No this presumption is wrong! you are making an uninformed priori argument. It is easier for Afrikaans speakers to learn Netherlands / Dutch in the same way it is easier for French speakers to learn Spanish. It does not mean that Afrikaans & Dutch are mutually intelligible to the average speakers of the languages just as French & Spanish are not mutually intelligible to the average speakers of those languages -but because of some similar origins of Afrikaans & Dutch just as with French & Spanish- it will be earlier for people who speak those respective languages to learn the other language.

Quote: < "Afrikaans" culture may not have existed in Europe, but the components which make Afrikaans culture (Dutch, German and Frisian) did and do. >

No this is not accurate as it is an incomplete represenatation. What about the Indian / Malay / & Khoi cultures which had a significant impact on the creation of the Afrikaans language? -even on the creation of the various Afrikaans cultures & ethnic groups. Remember: the legends that Afrikaans historian André Du Toit noted that the Boers were believing in had their origins with Malay culture & the White Afrikaans people are partly descended from Indian / Khoi & Malay slaves. Therefore: you focusing on only the European origins of the Afrikaans culture -just as the Afrikaner Nationalists did in the past- does not tell the whole story as it is not an accurate representation as you have omitted OTHER influences ie: the non European influences which are most notable in the Oriental cadence (including various words) in which Afrikaans is spoken -even by the various White Afrikaans peoples.

Furthermore: you are entirely forgetting that it is irrelevant where the various ancestors of the Afrikaans peoples came from as they developed on African soil & have remained on African soil as a consistent ethnic / cultural group since the mid 17th cent. For example: the components (to use your odd mechanical term) of the various Native American (Amerindian) peoples came from Asia: BUT NO ONE calls the Native American cultures "Asian"! How long do the White Afrikaans peoples have to be in Africa before you admit that they are African? You admitted yourself that they have been in Africa for close to half a millennium: but refuse to admit that their European origins (which is not their full origins as explained earlier) are in fact distant.

Quote: < Afrikaner culture is predominantly of European origin as is the case for White Africans in general. >

An absolute lie as the above has already explained. Consider this. A White Afrikaans person by the name of Hendrik Biebouw (from the French Bideault) stood up in court back in 1707 - 300 years ago!- & stated that he "was an African" who did not want to be ruled by Europeans. If he was so European why would he be claiming otherwise? Afrikaans culture can not be of European origin since when Afrikaans culture was developed (miles away from Europe) the people had been taken out of Europe & had to created a new culture which drew out of the various diverse peoples dumped at the Cape -many of whom were not even originally from Europe. A culture can only be of European origin if it was developed on European soil. Afrikaans culture was developed on African soil which included numerous non European influences.

Quote: < hence the importance of the Dutch-Frisian-German aspects in Afrikaner culture. >

No this is another priori argument. A culture is organic hence the Afrikaans culture would still be a distinct culture even if it had none or little of those "aspects" in it as its culture would be determined by its language & customs. The Griquas for example are a distinct Boer / Khoi / Tswana mixed race people who started out as a Boer / Khoi mix but have incorporated numerous Tswana over the decades -but they are still known as the Griqua people. The various components of a given culture are ancillary to the actual continued existence of the given culture. Just as any given people wil remain a people no matter how many other peoples they might absorb. The Scots have aborbed other peoples but are still Scots. The Boers & Afrikaners have absorbed other peoples but are still Boers & Afrikaners as absorbing other people does not negate the origins of the given group. The various components of the origins of the culture is not as important as the actual culture itself which can not be reducible to its alleged components. Therefore the White Afrikaans cultures are not reducible to the largely -though not complete- distant European origins of their 17th cent ancestors.

Quote: < If Afrikaner culture was indigenous to Africa, then the people would be similar in origins and culture to the Xhosa, the Khoisan, the Zulu, etc. >

Another unacademic priori argument yet again. Indigenous African culture does not all have to resemble one another. Just look at the diversity of culture & appearances among the various indigenous peoples of Africa. The Ethiopian is different from the Bantu & they are both different from the Egyptian & they are all different from the Boer & the Berber & so on. This is the most unacademic statement you have made to date -& you have made quite a lot so far. In order for a culture to be indigenous to a given region: it has to have been formed or developed there & have a history there as the Afrikaans peoples do. It is irrelevant where their distant ancestors came from pertaining to their status as being an indigenous feature of the landscape as every cultures' ancestors came from elsewhere (ironically the major hypothesis of current times is that they all came from Africa) meaning that if a given culture were deemed to be not indigenous due to its having distant ancestors who arrived there long ago then no culuture on Earth can be deemed indigenous. Question: is this a Pandora's box that you even want to open.

Quote: < Remember, this article is about the Afrikaners. >

Which is never defined. The term Afrikaner covers disparate groups of White Afrikaans people which was initially propagated by the Cape Dutch when they started a language rights movement in the late 19th cent. The Boer people have never historically been called Afrikaners until the Boers were conquered & defeated by the coalition of Cape Dutch & British at the conclusion of the Anglo-Boer War. The term Afrikaner is a political term devised by those who inherited the British created macro State of South Africa which stole the inheritance of the Boers & subjugated them under the tutelage of the Cape based Afrikaners -who have historically worked against the interests of the Boers- after the British killed close to half of the total Boer child population in British run concentration camps. The Boers had their first freedom struggle against the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners in 1795. This article is ridiculous as it often hijacks the history of the Boers & appropriates it to a macro Afrikaner group.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.