Talk:Frederik Willem de Klerk/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

De Klerk's role

"Today the role of De Klerk has largely been ignored by the ruling ANC and all credit given to so-called 'Heroes of the Struggle.'" I have a problem with this line. a. It is very subjective b. Why should de Klerk be given any credit? his party and he himself was the reason for the problem in the first place. Dankru 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't know your history. The ANC are communist thugs. de Klerk and co should have kept power. Look at SA today.

Neutral POV, please.

Soetermans 12:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a a need for some NPOV policing here.. perhaps a protection tab??

Noserider 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should be given credit, he ended apartheid not Nelson Mandela. Mandela is a great man but it was De Klerk who ended apartheid.

11:3:06 I beleive that is more of a figure head like queen Elizibeth and De Klerk is like the prime minister. 66.245.118.3 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

About his name: it is stated that the name De Klerk is derived from French, but De Klerk is a common Dutch name. Is his ancestry truely French? --Soetermans 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His ancestry is indeed French & it has been noted on the public record. All of the people with the De Klerk name in South Africa are descended from Abraham Le Clercq who arrived at the Cape in 1688 during the largest wave of French Huguenot refugees (1687 - 1690) to the region. As was the case with a number of French names: the spelling was changed to reflect a Dutch spelling. Though there were still quite a lot of French names which retained their original spelling. Such as De Villiers / Naudé / Joubert / Vivier / Roux etc.
Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688.
From: A Great Political Trek.

At the Huguenot Society of South Africa web page: the following line is listed among the French Huguenot surnames which survive in South Africa showing the transformation from Le Clercq to De Klerk.

Abraham le Clercq (le Clerc, de Clercq, de Klerk), x Magdalena Mouton

From: Huguenot Surnames Which Survive in South Africa.

The line is located between Pierre Labuschagne & Jean le Long. (which is now de Lange).

The Huguenots who arrived at the Cape of Good Hope at the end of the 17th century, consisted of only a fraction of the large-scale Protestant flight from France after the revocation of the Edict on Nantes in 1685. Nevertheless their numbers were large enough to have a considerable influence and leave a lasting impression on the young settlement at the Cape. As early as 1671 the first Huguenot refugee, Francois Villion (later Viljoen), arrived at the Cape. In 1686 the brothers Guillaume and Francois du Toit arrived. After the main stream of Huguenots arrived during 1688 – 1689, they comprised approximately one sixth of the free burgher population, after which individual arrivals continued sporadically until the termination of the state subsidised emigration in 1707.
From: The Contribution of the Huguenots in South Africa.

The Boers & Afrikaners are at least 15 % to 24 % French in ethnic origin or composition.

Ron7 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
de Clerc or De Clerc instead (clerc means cleric). But it may be the same as for de Gaulle whose name is a pervertion of Germanic De Walle.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 13:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

De Klerk's reasons

"De Klerk is best known for reluctantly[citation needed] agreeing to end apartheid". Since no one has added a citation yet, perhaps this sentence should be revised? My own recollection of events was that FW and his cohorts took advantage of PW's stroke to get him out of power. While PW was in hospital he refused to acknowledge that FW had legitimately taken control of the party. "Reluctantly" is not a phrase that describes to me the period when FW carefully started unhinging apartheid. If he had done so too quickly, the risk of the conservatives retaking control was too great. I think that the events happened as quickly as they could, and we are way better off for this approach. Change was inevitable, and by 1989, politics was ready for multi-racial elections, and FW was helping it along from the inside. -ObseloV 09:21, 15 Feb 2007 (GMT)

i agree. --Severino 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How did F. W. manage to be in a position to dismantle apartheid? I.e. did he become president and leader of his party on the strength of his desire to end apartheid, or did it come as a shock to the National Party? What were F. W.'s motivations for his own removal from office? Was he a reluctant champion of the human rights of black sth africans? Can we learn anything from F. W. de Klerk about the prerequisites - on the oppressors side - for ending oppression? - Jtauber

I'm not sure I understand your questions... FW became state president after PW Botha had to step down (partly due to health concerns), as the article states. He was part of a more liberal movement within the National Party, but I doubt his followers had anything as radical in mind as the abolishing of apartheid. He received a lot of criticism for this liberal POV, but he finished what he started, partly due to his perseverance, but also because the country would not have survived any other way. There was a lot of problems in the negotiating phase (just read Nelson Mandela's quotes in wikiquote), but he really did make the most concerted effort by those in power to start change. His own removal from office was, I'm sure, what he realised would inevitably happen should he open elections to all the country's citizens -- I doubt that it was because of him perceiving himself as a black champion, but rather as the reality of the matter. (Dewet 09:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC))
I added a note to the page to say his reasons were unclear. Edward 19:02, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
No. Saying that apartheid was to be abolished in 1989 was no radical, shock move. They had absolutely no choice in the matter. South Africa was falling apart due to the major international sanctions, and an increasing body of the white population were turning against apartheid as it was stifling their economies (e.g. not enough skilled blacks to work, or not enough blacks could access location of work etc). 62.254.64.14 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
there was a couple of reasons which led de klerk to the abolition of apartheid from 1990 on: the end of the cold war, the sanctions against the country, his realistic view of the things,... --Severino 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the section commenting why FW de Klerk decided to end apartheid.

Article needs to be corrected to reflect that.. a) FW de Klerk taking the reigns of the National Party (NP) was in fact a coup d'état by senior members of the NP effectively ousting PW Botha b) it was not his decision, but one that was made by him and by sernior party members c) the major deciding factor for the NP was the fall of communism, called The Red Danger (Die Rooi Gevaar), ceased to be a threat (the Cold War has ended, the Berlin Wall came down, etc)

The new edits

I don't really like the new edits that have been made. Why has the explanation been taken away? I think the explanations were good. Dr.Poison 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

List of multiracial people#K:

F.W. de Klerk, last Apartheid-era President of South Africa (1989-1994); acknowledges in his autobiography some Indian ancestry that his family had previously kept secret (and which would have legally disqualified him from holding office)

If true, it shoud be mentioned.


While it is indeed true that F W De Klerk has admitted to having an Indian ancestor the fact of the matter is that it would not have "disqualified" him from holding office for the simple fact that it is not uncommon for Afrikaners & Boers to have Indian / Khoi or Malay ancestors. The reason as to why they are not generally viewed as a "mixed race" is because the non White ancestors are fewer in number then say the Griquas for example & somewhat far enough back in the past.

The ethnic composition of the White Afrikaans population has been noted at being about 5 - 7 % non White afterall. Remember: a number of the first White settlers in the region married Indian / Khoi or Malay (or a combination thereof) slaves & a significant number of the mixed race offspring of these unions were absorbed into the White population.

Furthermore these non White ancestors generally date to the 1600s or 1700s therefore Boers & Afrikaners in the 20th century were by & large considered to be White even among those who were aware of their full ancestry or who even had slight non White features.

Just how history will come to judge Frederik Willem de Klerk is something else. He admits to being nothing more than a product of time and circumstances. His ancestors were French Protestants--Huguenots--who fled to the Netherlands to avoid religious persecution and settled in the South African Cape in 1688. Like many Afrikaners he has a skeleton in the closet--one of his 18th century forebears was the daughter of an Indian slave.
From: A Great Political Trek.
With only 19 European women and 100 white free burghers at the Cape in 1677, most 13th generation South Africans with colonial ancestry have at least one slave ancestor from these parts. Though European female numbers increased 30 years later, slave women were often favoured for their beauty, and many became the ancestral mothers (or stammoeders) of generations of families in South Africa.

Angela of Bengal.

Before the first official slave consignments had been sanctioned, Angela of Bengal (or Maaij Ansela) was bought by Jan van Riebeeck, the founder of the Dutch colony, was resold and freed by her master. She then married Arnoldus Willemsz Bason, and became the stammoeder of the Basson family in South Africa.

Through marriages of her children, Maaij (or Mooi, Beautiful) Ansela is also the stammoeder of the Bergh and Van As families. One of her descendants was Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, who married Anna Retief, niece of slain trekboer Piet.

In 1692, four of the 34 Cape Town free burghers had ex-slave wives, but according to "Cape Town, Making of a City", compiled by Nigel Worden et al, this mestizo culture was gradually discouraged by the ruling Dutch, although this did not discourage illicit affairs - and illegitimate children borne out of such unions.

As veteran genealogist Hans Heese, himself a white descendant of Krotoa, puts it in his book "Die Herkoms van die Afrikaner 1657-1867", the modern-day white Afrikaner is of 34% Dutch, 33% German, 13% French, 6.9% coloured and 5% British origin - a formidable array of genes for the South African genealogist to contend with.

From: What's in a (South African) name?
The early Cape had a very small number of people who formed the genetic pool for the make up of the future Afrikaners. Fortunately the pool was enlarged and enriched with people who were not from Europe. They were mainly Stammoeders. It is rather ironic that the so called White Afrikaner Race, can claim slaves as part of our ancestors.
From: My Genetic Enrichment. by André van Rensburg.

The fact of the matter is the F W De Klerk is not unique in having an Indian ancestor -in fact it has been reported that famous & notable Boer & Afrikaner leaders such as Andries Pretorius / Piet Retief -who is also of direct French Huguenot origin- / Paul Kruger / Louis Botha as well as Jan Smuts also have at least one non White ancestor.

Ron7 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction]

FW is also the only head of state to have voluntarily dismantled a nation's NBC platforms. Grant McKenna 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

term in office

de klerks term as president ended on 10 may 1994 (and not on 27 april) and his term as vice president began on the same day. 10 may 1994 was the day when mandela was inaugurated as president (as de klerks successor) and mbeki and de klerk as his vice presidents. 27 april was the beginning of the elections. i have corrected the dates. --Severino 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandela: The Authorised Biography

I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of Mandela's life and South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated on the peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography" BillMasen 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by "bloody handover of power"? the violence between inkatha- and anc-followers in the transition years? you have to say that more precisely. also, which responsibility de klerk, according to sampson, has. --Severino 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Better?

If you have any thoughts on the article for the book, I'd be glad to hear them. BillMasen 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yes,better. --Severino 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Criticism

I think this article sorely lacks criticism of de Klerk (with a NPOV of course). I'll leave it up to someone with more knowledge of the matter than I, but anyone who's interested can take a look here: http://sasa.stanford.edu/Past%20Events/Workshops/DeKlerk-statement2001.html 85.166.243.150

Agreed. I suggest that someone consults the "Apartheid Did Not Die" chapter in John Pilger's book Freedom Next Time [1]. It is full of quotes, references and citations. John Pilger is one of the most renown, independent and impartial political investigative journalists in the UK. This source would extremely enhance this topic and possibly many others. (My appologies if I'm not doing this quite right.) 192.168.1.100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagMagog (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake in the article

There seems to be something wrong in the summary information below the photo. It says: President Nelson Mandela Preceded by Pieter Willem Botha Succeeded by Nelson Mandela Why do we have Nelson Mandela twice? :) 85.217.139.218 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)