Talk:Orania/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

"Today the government has made a transition to the African National Congress who actively oppress Afrikaners with their ground reform and affirmative action policies." You've got to be kidding me. This article (and the even more offensive Volkstaat one) reflect terribly on Wikipedia the longer they remain. Someone more informed about these post-apartheid Afrikaner movements should come in here and rewrite these articles. --dylan 167.206.188.3 17:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The original article seemed very POV in favour of the town and against the black ruling party. I rewrote to reduce the POV and sections that could be perceived as racist. I also shortened some of the explanations were overly long and didn't in the end actually explain anything. This has resulted in some short one sentence paragraphs that could probably be cleaned up into one longer paragraph. Note that before reading this article I didn't have a clue about this place, though I vaguely recall seeing something on the news a few years after it was founded. I hope somebody who actually knows something will add some more content that isn't just Orania propaganda. TheosThree 13:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Chill out, please 2 A white town in a Black country? 3 Where is the "white"? 4 The Afrikaans Cultures are Centuries Old 5 Town located in low populated mixed race region 6 Translation Error? 7 Zaph 7.1 Zaph's reponse 7.2 Reply 8 What to expect in Orana 9 Oh the token black-boers will be used 10 See? This is why I am here!

Chill out, please

OK, I haven't bothered reading through all of the below argumentation, but the bits I've seen suggest that both parties need to calm down, do some research, and come back with something substantiated. Here are a few points:

• The "boer" ethnic distinction is one made only by a minority of Afrikaners (a term commonly used to refer to white, Afrikaans-speaking South Africans). Most Afrikaners, including even those at www.boer.co.za, an Afrikaner cultural organisation, really don't care about making the distinction. The creation of an Afrikaner culture was a process which happened throughout the 20th century, and the end result is a strongly self-identifying cultural group, desirous of maintaining its cultural identity.
• Note, however, that it seems to me that there's a correlation between people distinguishing themselves as "boers" from the rest of the Afrikaner group, and their being right wing white supremacists. Certainly, the majority of the places I've encountered the distinction have been on white supremacist websites.
• Orania is not a "white town in a black country". It is an exclusively Afrikaner town in a multicultural, multiracial, albeit majority "black", country. Note that "black" in South Africa is misleading, as within that racial grouping, which was largely a construct of apartheid, there are numerous self-identifying cultural groups, such as Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, and quite a few others.
• The vast majority of Afrikaners interested in maintaining their cultural (and linguistic) identity, seek to do so by ways that are non-exclusive. "Afrikaanses" (Afrikaans speaking people) is a new term conveying the inclusion of non-white Afrikaans speakers into a broader, multi-cultural Afrikaans linguistic culture. An example, for instance, is the hugely popular Afrikaans television show, Sevende Laan, which has a broadly multi-racial cast.
• The current government has considered, and rejected the idea of a self-governing, all-Afrikaner enclave in South Africa. They have, however, made a commitment to the protection of Afrikaner linguistic and cultural identity, on an equal footing with all other minority groups' cultural identities in the country.
• Orania is not a self-governing Afrikaner enclave. It is a corporate entity that owns private property (and reserves right of admission). Prior to the re-defining of municipal boundaries, at the end of the 90's, it was a distinct municipality. It is now incorporated into a larger local municipality, which has governmental jurisdiction over it. Any inhabitant of Orania is entitled to all the services provided by the South African government to its citizens. They are also subject to the corporate policies of the "Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok", where those do not contravene South African law.
• It would really amuse me if the government decided to enforce affirmative action on the Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok. At present, I think, every company with more than 50 employees has to meet certain quotas in terms of representativity in its employees. The fact that the government hasn't taken such measures could be seen as conciliatory.

-Kieran 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it is made by a "minority" as the Boers have ever only been a minority of the Afrikaner designation. Which was controlled by the Cape based White Afrikaans speakers who have historically worked against the interests of the Boers. While the term Afrikaner is used to refer to White Afrikaans speakers of the region (they existed long before South Africa was proclaimed by the British & many live in Namibia & elsewhere) one must remember that the Boers have had their own culture & identity ever since they began trekking away from the Western Cape starting in the 1690s & throughout the 1700s. The Afrikaner designation is controlled by those who marginalize the Boers who do however like to borrow Boer history for their own political purposes.

The Afrikaners at www.boer.co.za is exactly right! The site is run by nothing other than right wing Afrikaners who are only riding on the wave of the Boer identity & culture. Much as the Afrikaners nationalists of D F Malan stripe did in the past.

The Boer identity has been usurped in the past by ideologue Afrikaners as a means of attempting to foster a false unity in order to dominate the English speakers within the political realm.

I found the following at a Yahoo Groups discussion a while back that it relevent to the point I am making.

Click here for the link.

The so called creation of an Afrikaner culture points out the fact that the whole cultural identity is based on usurping the Boer's culture & land while marginalizing them within the Afrikaner designation as they were & are expected to work towards a greater Afrikaner nationalism (as in the past) or consciousness.

While you state that the Afrikaners want to maintain their cultural identity well so too do the Boers! This is the whole point. The Afrikaners are certainly free to develop & protect their cultural identity which the more conservative ones tend to do with the horizontal orange white & blue tri colour Prince flag as well the the two main (old & new) South African national flags: but they must at the same time recognize that the Boers have the same right to protect their cultural identity (which exists on its own outside of the Cape based Afrikaner one) which they tend to do with the various Boer Republican flags namely the Transvaal Vierkleur & the Orange Free State Vierkleur.

Claiming a correlation between a cultural designation ie Boer & that of a narrow minded political persuasion is simply a calumnious remark since most Boers are not White supremacists & many are not even right wing. I think you must remember to separate those who might speak on behalf of an entire group from rest of the actual group itself. It is rather like saying that there is a correlation between those who call themselves Christian & their being right wing White supremacists. While there are of course the few who are: one must remember that they are not representative of the entire group.

The distinction of Boer is made on the Censorbugbear site < link > which is run by an anti Apartheid Dutch journalist. As well as the Stop Boer Genocide < link > site run by an English speaking (one has a Boer parent) couple who are South African ex patriots.

Anyway, when I have some time, I'll get some more solid sources to back this stuff up, and incorporate some unbiased historical information into the article. I've already begun this process for the Volkstaat, but writing good, well-researched articles is time consuming.

Anyway, Ron7, Zaphnathpaaneah, be cool. -Kieran 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you advice did not work for Zaph. This clown has just crossed the line in his latest hate filled rant.

A white town in a Black country?

I doubt you can find anything neutral about this. it would be like trying to find a neutral POV on a White-NAZI town in the middle of Israel. These guys in Orania are using all the rhetoric they can muster to re-generate the Apartheid movement. the mere fact that they perceive democracy itself as a threat to their cultural identity (which is little more than a century old) should clue you in. And of course, they tie in bio-racial ancestry (pure whiteness) to the preservation of their cultural and linguistic heritage, as if having mixed children will destroy their cultural identity. The old white "purity" clause. - Zaph

Perhaps the people of Orania are sick of the massive corruption, crime, rape and lower standard of living for the White population that was brought on by the end of apartheid? If you have ever had the chance to live in South Africa, as a White, pre and post-apartheid you would sing a different tune. Areas where children could once play happily are now areas where you would most likely get robbed and killed for a trivial amount. Most of the White population has moved to gate communities where they are free of all the crime, murder, and rape that now plagues South Africa. Volksgeist 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's just too fu__ing bad. here's why. The lower standards were already there BEFORE the end of apartheid. But your people simply didn't give a care about the Blacks who suffered under those lower standards. Now, that the problems are shared by yourselves, you have a concern. If I lived in S. Africa as a white I would probably sing a different tune, because like yourself, I would view people only as valuable as their skin color? (funny how you think all white people are self-centered as you Volksgeist). What you are explaining is how your military society had to pull back to smaller and smaller enclaves... your people never solved any problems when they were dominating the entire country. Instead you wish to have a fantasy world of whiteness, instead of learning and sharing in the difficult reality of life. Maybe if you stopped thinking so much about how good you think you are and realize that your values are corrupt and self-righteous, you might find a way to solve your country's social problems. For example, I know for a fact, that when your people would hire black farm hands, you wouldn't pay them the same wages you paid white workers, you wouldn't apprentice them to run their own farms, and thus you hogged all of the technological and economic impact for yourselves. That is why your society is so messed up now. You don't have the capacity to see past your skin color and look at your society as a whole. You operate on fear and fantasy. If you want a white only homeland so badly, why not just move to Sweden or Norway and get it over with? Why must you feel so motivated to live in South Africa of all places??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Now it is erroneous to make the blanket assertion that the White people (as they were classified) did not "give a care about the Blacks (people)" when the fact of the matter is that a great many of the White people tried to develop the various Black (& Brown) peoples, but the West chose not to highlight this as it served the interests of the Western elite to highlight the faults of the White people in order to better plunder the resources.

That's like trying to say it's erroneous to say that the Casinos that are in the cities are detrimental to a city's society because they also provide gambling addiction recovery services. They did not care enough. There was a minority that did. but the South African society itself was exclusively white and exclusionary in it's design and inherent nature. So as a GROUP no they did not care. And it's erroneous to try to refute that. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason they did not appear to "care" (which is noted in your response) is inherent in the nature of the system which was constructed which was based on segregation. Under this system each group was supposed to care for themselves. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also erroneous to suggest that the White people of South Africa -an artificial British created construct which was imposed on all of the peoples without their consent- "never solved any problems" because the fact of the matter is that there was never a famine while they were put in charge of the artificial macro state (by the British) while now the farmers are being pushed out of their lands & farming in general which will one day lead to the type of starvation crisis as is occurring in Zimbabwe which is being run by a British elite selected point man.

It doesn't matter if it was an artifical construct created by Britain, Germany, Dutch, whomever. It is beyond the European land and the ruling people there had no cultural or historical relationship (and in fact abhored any relationship) with the natural people that lived in the region. IF they were going to colonize the land, the least they could do is respect the rights of the other people who were naturally closer and more a part of the design of the region. It would be like sending a half million Zulu to colonize Germany and rule it because the Zulu found some area in the rhineland that no-one ever settled in, so oh they should get minority domination over the whole region. The starvation crisis is ultimately at the hands of the white atmosphere that said all those years "no bantu, you can't learn to farm, no you can't own farms, no we won't pay you equal wages, no we will not allow you to gain any experience manaaging farms, no, all you will do is work for us.". It's called exploitation. And had the whites taken a different approach, then A. The blacks would not resent them so much now, and B. there would be no risk for the starvation that is bound to come. British, Afrikaans, whatever. The National Afrikaaner party ruled they imposed, they started the ultimate damage you see now. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very important to note that the state is an artificial construct as the people of the state were never consulted about its imposition. The Zulus colonizing Germany scenario you outline neglects to mention that the Boers never intended to rule over the whole region. The Boers in fact never ruled the whole region. When the Boers were independent they left the Xhosas & the Zulus (in the British colonies of the Cape & Natal) to rule themselves. The White population did not rule over the whole region until the South Africa Act of 1909 was passed in the British Parliament.

This is the whole point I thought I was clear about. While you are correct in stating that it is not important who created the artificial macro state: the point I am trying to get across is that is was because of this act (of creating the macro state) which put the entire White population (Afrikaner, Boer, English speaker & others) in control of the whole region.

While you are right that the then government exploited the Bantu population & denied them the right to farm within South Africa proper. How do you explain the fact that they were not taking to commercial farming even within the so called "homelands" where there were no similar restrictions on their activities. The Transkei had some of the most fertile farm land in the region while a number of Boers had even settled onto arid lands which they turned into successful farming enterprises. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore it is also erroneous to state that the White people "dominated the entire country" as there were in fact autonomous regions (four of which were considered to be independent by the then RSA governments) which were administered by various Black groups around their main traditional settlements. I am well aware that these "Bantustans" were not able to be much more than "satellites" of RSA proper -but the fact of the matter is that it was a step towards a sort of decolonization. The Transkei was even able to negotiate for more land which it received. Therefore the so called "homelands" certainly had a degree of authentic independence. At any rate: The Boers of Voortrekker descent were marginalized during the Apartheid era as the Afrikaners of mainly Western Cape descent were placed in charge (by Britian) to administer the macro state.

Again you are in error. They dominated the country, and the "autonomous" regions were not truely autonomous. they were subject ultimately to the whims of the White dominated S. Africa. I don't need to play dumb with you. i do not need to have a naive mentality that says "the oppressor says we are independant" when the oppressor still does what he had done. This was not a step towards decolonoization, this was a step towards ethnic cleansing. It's like saying the Jewish ghettos in Germany were "autonomous" or the native american reservations are "autonomous". In any event, that is an attempt to equate what is "said" to be equivalent to what "is actually happening". I find it insulting you are talking to me about autonomous "reservations" that were imposed on the people, with no infrastructure and with representation (required by S.A) only by white delegates. What went on between the British and Boers is not related to the matter at hand. File a grievance with Britain. Taking land from the Black s. Africans in order to redress grievances with Britain is not gonna fly. In fact, it's redicuous to bring Britain into this conversation, doubly so, because the british also oppressed the blacks in the same manner. Do you not understand, that what the Whites done in S. Africa was extreme? Extremely wrong, extremely exploitative, extremely immoral? Why would you try to reason with double-talk "autonomous" and "certainly had a degree of authentic independance"? How do you pretend that political might of S. Africa imposed it's will economically on the "independant bantustans" to their detriment INTENTIONALLY? The true answer is "what was done in S. Africa against the blacks was wrong, we should have not forced them into the reservations and should have let them as individuals and groups have the same freedom and economic and political access as what the whites had. Period. End of discussioN! --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The oppressors said that the country was "independent" in 1994, but it is still being run by the same continental European based banking families. While you are right to a large extent about the lack of true independence of the nominal independent former Bantustans, the fact of the matter is that the whole country is still not independent & is still doing what the oppressors want. The fact that the oppressors changed the colour of the surrogate ruling regime of the state does not negate the fact that the supra rulers are still the same.

The Boers have in fact filed a grievance with Britain back in 1997. Read more at this link. But let's not forget that the new ruling regime is still in many ways acting at the behest of the London bankers & the remnant of the British Empire elites. Mandela himself has been reported as having been an MI6 agent < link & Mbeki lived in London for much of his life.

While the repression against the various groups was wrong, what you conveniently forget is that there was never a single South African culture or language that the people could "assimilate" into, which is mainly why there were various attempts at separate development.

Just look what happened when the state attempted to force those in the townships to be educated in Afrikaans. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The goal of Orania is not about a so called Whiteness but simply the international right of self determination for an established ethnic group which just happens to be (of mainly) White descent. The Rehoboth Basters in Namibia are attempting virtually the same thing in Rehoboth Namibia as the Afrikaans Oranians are doing in Orania Northern Cape.

Well the 'established' ethnic group just so happens to have a bad human rights record and should not have a 'white only' sub-clause in their 'ethnic pride'. See the thing is you know this. You are defending them because you inherently believe that somehow, someway, their whiteness has some kind of extra virtue that requires extra special respect and consideration. They should have their own homeland because they are unhappy with the current situation. Well for over 100 years the blacks were unhappy and the whites responded with more and more oppression. Now the whites simply let go of their stranglehold (they do not take an assertive role in reconstructing the country, they merely stop oppressing.)and you belive that the letting go is equivalent to some big extensive positive step. Stopping the terror is one thing. REPAIRING the damage is quite another. In fact, the mere fact that the government is taking steps to repair the damage, that's seen as "racist". Because the established ethnic group just so happens to be of mainly Black descent. This lack of interest in that area is in itself racist and a testament to the extermely selfish nature of the white establishment. Those who do not share that view of course I do not include. but to go from participating in a destructive regime then to ask for "self determination" and a "seperate state" right under the wake of that destruction is appaling to say the least. Like the Basters of Namibia, these Afrikaaners and their culture is only survived this long by the forced colonization and oppresssion of the Blacks. Even more appalling is yet again, their cultural identity is largely racially based, for those who are oh so concerned about it dissappearing. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

While you claim that the Boers & Afrikaners have a bad human rights record: you conveniently neglect the fact that the Bantus also have a bad human rights record. Read up on the Difaqane or Mfecane in which the Zulu King Shaka -also called the Black Napoleon- engaged in brutal warfare against neighbouring tribes during the 1820s culminating in ethnic cleansing which lead to the massive depopulation of the regions north of the Orange & Vaal Rivers. Remember: it was because of this ethnic cleansing campaign on the part of Shaka that the Voortrekker Boers were even able to settle the fairly vacant regions on which they later established the Orange Free State & the Transvaal Republic.

Otherwise they would likely have trekked north into the Kalihari Dessert or to Mozambique or simply might not have trekked at all.

The fact the Boers & Afrikaners are White does not give them "extra virtue" or "extra special respect & consideration" as you imply. All I am pointing out is that they are entitled to the same rights as other ethnic groups who strive for greater self determination.

Quebec -a place I obviously know a lot about- is a prime example of this as it is a place where a French speaking people (whose ancestors could be accused of having "stolen" the land from the Amerindians) are attempting to become independent from Canada.

Well the fact of the matter is that Grand Apartheid was also seen as "the government taking steps to repair the damage" & past discrimination against the Afrikaans speaking population.

Don' t you see what's going on here? The current regime is using the same racist rational for thier discriminatory laws as the Apartheid regimes did. Two wrongs don't make a right. People should be promoted based on merit not racial quotas.

Well while a number of Boers might have ended up "participating in a destructive regime" one must remember that because of their smaller numbers as compared to the Afrikaners: they were marginalized within the dispensation.

The assertion that their culture is "racially based" does not compute since they are culturally distinct from the English speakers & have resisted becoming assimilated into an English speaking culture. I have even read discussion forums in which some Boers & Afrikaners have said that they are willing to accept people from the various Coloured communities into their ranks than to accept those who do not share their language & culture. Ron7 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the Afrikaans community is "so motivated to live in South Africa" is another erroneous assumption on your part. First of all: the Southern African region is the only home of the Boer people & the Afrikaans communities in general. It is not as if they even have a choice about where their homeland is. They are Southern Africans whether they or you like it or not. Going to Sweden or Norway would never solve the true problem facing the Afrikaans communities which is namely their inherent right to control their own destiny & to govern themselves according to the international right to self determination.

They can govern themselves, all they have to do is to particpate in the nation of South Africa. The people of Roanoke, Virginia for example participate in their own destiny and govern themselves as part of the state of Virginia, which is a part of the U.S.A. I don't see why Orania cannot participate in their government as a part of the political climate of their state/province and their country. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How in the world can they govern themselves when system is rigged against them due largely to their small numbers? It is mathematically impossible for a minority to govern themselves or even to have any effect on the regime. A people can only govern themselves once they have established some form of self determination.

This does not necessarily have to be in the form of a state, but even simplyin the form of a Band Council (as the Amerindians or native peoples have in Canada). A group of Boers recently held on internationally recognized election to choose a someone to represent them. This elected leader has even recently addressed the South African Parliament in Cape Town.

Link to the Boer Declaration made in the South African Parliament.

I do not endorse the extreme views of the above site, but the Boer declaration (scroll down to final post on page under Henry) before the Parliament was posted there in full.

Another link to the Boer Declaration.

Well that is the main goal of Orania. They are mainly just attempting to build an Afrikaans demographic majority in the region much the same way that the Colourdes have the Western Cape or the Xhosas have the Eastern Cape or the Tswana have the North West province or the Zulus have Kwa Zulu Natal. The secessionist option is only a distant option on the table that could only trully ever come about if both the people of Orania & the South African government concede to it.

While the Boers might have displaced the Khoi (as part of the inertia of the VOC rule in the region) they by & large did not displace Bantus. Remember: the Boers trekked into largely depopulated regions in the north & in fact came across a number of Griqaus who had earlier established independent minimal states under British direction.

No the Khoisan peoples are & were not "Black". They are a yellow-brown skinned people & it is an anthropological determination that the Khoisan peoples are not directly related to the Bantus considering the fact the the Bantus migrated into the regions originally settled by the Khoisan groups.

Furthermore: the Boers had their own internationally recognized republics /countries for 50 years before the British Empire decided to reverse the Sand River Convention & the Orange River Convention during the second Anglo-Boer War which culminated in the deaths of at least 27 000 Boer civilians in the British created concentration camps.

And before their republics, the Boers displaced the Khoi and Bantu peoples of the region to FORM their republics. So again, bringing and blaming Britain is not going to work. Their attitude (both) was that the Black people (and yes the Khoi are black, get over it) of S. Africa didn't "count" really and that their position was expendable. I do not care about Britain, the boers should file a petition for reparartions from BRITAIN, not from S. Africa. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of Boers have in fact done just that. The Khoi & Bantus had kingdoms & states not republics. Furthemore it is erroneous to suggest that the Boers displaced the Bantu peoples since they had their independence until the British arrived on the scene & annexed them.

For all of the problems that your African Amerian communities have endured -at least your oppressors never tried to exterminate your community in concentration camps as the British did & tried to do against the Boers.

yes they did. The native americans were wiped out many times. And again, the black middle class was wiped out in the South during the lynching period 1890-1970. The fact is, in the South United States, up until 1970 1/3 of that entire region was Black. But that doesn't matter, the issue isn't even about "how bad was your oppressor compared to mine". I know that S. African elements were performing eugenics and biological warfare on the Blacks during Apartheid. See, I cannot fathom your comfortability to justify or explain away or innoculate your mind from the extreme extreme indifference and hatred from the Afrikaaners AND BOERS. SOWETO? Killing little kids because they didn't want to cow down and be forced to speak Afrikaans (A language not even a part of their region's history???). NO! The answer is NO. No, you do not get to explain this in some rhetorical relative, oh it's not so bad thing. What Boer kids are being foreced to learn Zulu? Farms? The farmers are being targeted? What shadowy group just set off a bunch of bombs in Soweto in 2002? NO my friend, the Boers cannot be trusted to have their own homeland. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I said African American not Native American. I am well aware of the genocidal campaigns against the Native Americans. Who according to recent discoveries appeared to have displaced earlier peoples who came from the Iberian Peninsula of Europe.

Well you are going from the policy of forcing people to speak Afrikaans then jumping to the Soweto Uprising as if to imply that people were being shot for simply not wanting to be educated in Afrikaans when in reality people were being shot (as wrong as it was) for participating in a violent uprising which started killing people: the state was responding to the initial violence & killings of the uprising not responding to legitimate protests against being educated in Afrikaans. While the cause of the uprising can in large part (there were other issues too) certainly be said to be because of the forced Afrikaans policies, the fact of the matter is that the violent uprising was seen as a terrorist threat & a risk to the security (some might say "territorial integrity") of the state. I am not defending the state's actions: just pointing out that it was not done in direct response to the protests against the forced Afrikaans education policies.

Furthermore: Afrikaans is indeed a language part of the regions history. Afrikaans was formed on African soil (which is why it is called Afrikaans) & absorbed Khoi & Malay words & was & is spoken by the Griquas, Basters, even some pure Khoisan related peoples, the Coloureds or Brown Afrikaners as well as the Boers & Afrikaners.

The Boers & Afrikaners in general are being forced to learn English ironically just as their ancestors were back before the Great Trek.

The fact is that many Boers can speak Zulu & other African languages.

Particularly the Boers of the past.

The Boer farmers are being targeted for genocide. The President of Genocide Watch Dr Gregory Stanton has stated publicly that the killing of Boer farmers constitutes a genocide under the genocide convention.

Link to the page at Genocide Watch.

The following is a transcript of a segment of what Gregory Stanton said in the Carte Blanche television program.

The Stop Boer Genocide link.

Now this is the lowest accusation or thing that you have stated so far. The state has not proven a single thing in court which could connect the bombing to accused who were charged. The leader of the alleged group is a one Tom Vortser who was a South African government informant with CIA connections.

Was the entire "Boeremag coup" pre-programmed by security agents ?

This whole case looks rather suspicious to say the least & is probably the latest example of a state feigning terrorist opposition in order to clamp down on "disfavoured" groups & to set up a police state in general.

Furthermore: Most Boers & Afrikaners do not support the activities of the alleged group & are not in favour of a violent response to the oppression of the state. Also: there is no connection whatsoever to the peaceful community of Orania with the alleged Boeremag. The people connected to the Boeremag were allegedly attempting to reinstate the former Boer Republics as they had existed before the Anglo-Boer War. While the Oranians on the other hand are only attempting to create an Afrikaans demographic majority in a small part of the Northern Cape. The vast majority of Boer irredentists are opposed to the use of violence or terrorism at obtaining their goals. Therefore you insinuation that the peaceful Boer irredentists are somehow connected to the violent & government controlled Boeremag is truly beyond the pale.

The Boers were "trusted" with their own homeland republics for 50 years. It is the Afrikaners -a totaly differnt "species" than the Boer as a one Buks Barnard once stated in a letter to the Pretoria News newspaper on October 19 1999 over a traffic violation for having a Transvaal Vierkleur flag sticker on his licence plate) whom you are talking about. Not the Boers per se as they were smaller in number & largely marginalized after the Anglo-Boer War.

The accusation that the Boers stole land which was not theirs to steal conveniently overlooks the fact that the Boers were largely attempting to escape the authoritarian rule of the VOC & that there were no formally established borders which were recognized.

Though this applied mainly to the various Khoisan populations as the Boers generally respected the boundaries of the Bantus even though there were often disputes over where the boundaries actually were which lead to various border wars.

The Boers have been oppressed by just about every regime that has ever ruled or reigned in Southern Africa. The Boers fought against Dutch rule in 1795 at Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet. They fought most notably against the British from the Great Trek (in which the British drove them into the interior as well as the constant border wars against the Xhosas) all they way until the first & second Anglo-Boer Wars. They fought against the first Afrikaner regime in 1914 when some notable Boer generals attempted to reinstate the former Boer Republics. Then they were marginalized for most of the 20th century when many -but not all- were forced & propagandized into falling in line with the newly ascended Afrikaners who were placed in control by the British.

The Boers also OPPRESSED every non-white group in the region. They were not permitted to "settle". When you "settle" in a land where other people have already "settled", you are not "settling" you are "wrongfully stealing what is not yours to take". Boer vs Afrikaaner vs British... it's all irrelevant to this issue. I don't believe that any of those three groups even looked at the blacks as any people relevant to their goals. Why bring this up now other than to give an excuse??? Oh Britain oppressed the Boers, so the Boers should have a right to take from the blacks. Nice. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the Boers have a right to "take from the Black (peoples)". All I pointed out was that the Boers established themselves as a distinct people long before the British arrived & even before their first meeting with a Bantu group & in a time when the Khoisan peoples did not have recognized sovereignty in the regions the Boers trekked into largely due to the overarching power of the VOC which both Boers & Khoi were attempting to escape but the situation inadvertently created a sort of Boer suzerainty over the local Khoi they encountered as they trekked inland.

^ This is the same excuse and false claim white supremacist or 'white nationalist' groups in the US and Canada use as a reason to unify and gather there forces. The US and Canada are hardly 'mostly nonwhite' countries. Likewise, the people of this privatized town are in fact a threat to the current multiracial government of South Africa if they do not wish to take part in the government and separate themselves. No one stops them from emmigrating to 'white' countries as their former 'pro aparthied' companions have post-1994. The only logical reason these people would stay and not take part int he government is due to a plan to either re establish aparthied, or to succeed from South Africa. Both instances are threats to the country and the post aparthied, non-supremacist government, and both makes this group of anti-black pro-aparthiedist a definite terrorist threat to South African security, just as those who form such groups in the US and Canada are considered. {Lnstr}

Whoever wrote the paragraph above is insane, spewing blatant racist anti-white propaganda. The United Nations Charter states that all people have a right to Selfdetermination. The People of Orania are merely trying to obtain this right. The blatant POV is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and I move to have this user blocked. Gemsbok1 11:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The people of Orania are not a threat to the regime of South Africa. This assertion is nothing more than hate speech. No one would tolerate the assertion that Israel is a threat to the Arab region. Furthermore: Nelson Mandela himself publicly visited Orania thereby dispelling any notion that the town promotes White supremacism. A great number of Afrikaans peoples simply can not emigrate anywhere else either for lack of money or can not get accepted. Furthermore: there is no reason why they even should go elsewhere as the Southern African region is their only home. The people of Orania are simply exercising their internationally recognized right to self determination.

Oh I beg to differ. Israel has been a threat to the Arab region, however the political climate of the west will not tolerate that notion from anyone, myself included. So take your cheap shot now on that one if you wish. Everytime a settlement is built on the west bank, violating the peace agreements, that is threatening the region, since the palestinians do not have their own self determiniation and are subject to Israel. Nelson Mandela's visit does not "dispel" anything. Mandela is not God, he can be wrong and I would humbly say that the attitude of these Boers (with their exclusivity and "immigration" exceptions) is inherently destructive and no other place (besides Israel perhaps) participates in an exclusuve racial/ethnic immigration policy. Only this small select group is allowed to truely immigrate, even israel does not have that restrictive a clause. Given the animosity that these Volkstaters have, I do not trust that their little bastion will remain peaceful indefinitely, at some point they will cross paths with the blacks and the S. African governemnt and a new potentially destructive form of White supremacy will pop up as a "solution". --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely my point. Despite the fact that Israel is certainly much more of a threat to the Arab region than most Westerners will ever admit: some of them will turn around & hypocritically assert that Orania is a "threat" when Orania is no where near the that level of threat & is even working with the South African government & cooperating with the development of surrounding communities.

Much the same manner in which the Boers do not have their own self determination & are subject to South Africa. Once again I see a double standard here on your part.

He is certainly treated as though he were.

Actually what is much more likely to occur is that Orania would simply declare its independence from South Africa proper.

Secession from South Africa is by no means wrong. Remember: South Africa is an artificial British created construct which was founded on the backs of 27 000 dead Boer civilians & at least 15 000 Black labourers in which the various peoples therein were not consulted. How can this illegal macro state construct possibly go on forever? Particularly when it was founded on such impropriety / injustice & war crimes. No one begrudges the right of the various peoples of the former Yugoslavia in their quest for independence: therefore no one has a leg to stand on in attempting to deny this same basic fundamental right to the Boer people or any other people trapped in the oppressive construct of South Africa.

ALL Of the former colonies are artifically created. However the native people of the country, the NATIVE people, which are the MAJORITY, have the ultimate right to determine the fate of their country's territorial integrity. If they wish to retain it as is, or change it, then that is THEIR decision. Heck, the whites have a say also, but 1 person 1 vote. Not 1 white person one vote. See you keep talking about the oppression on the Boers, but you give no consideration of the oppresive nature of the Boers ON the blacks. You keep bringing up treaties between two groups of whites in the middle of SOUTH AFRICA. Within those treaties were "no blacks allowed" and "we will ignore the black people and just push them out of the way" kinf of thing. Heck no, you will not base your "right" of a seperate society on treaties that were unequally established. Sorry that life is not fair, but it took the whites until 1994 to stop the crazyness. The difference between Boers and Afrikaaners is one. One group "trekked" and another group "did not trek". They are both european colonizing elitists who think they are inherently exceptional and deserve special treatment... or should I say 'specially constructed' treatment. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People have the inherent & natural right to alter the territorial integrity of a state concerning the specific region that they are the majority in as history has shown. The various peoples of the former Yugoslavia did not consult with the so called "majority" when they opted out. Quebec has had two referendums on the question of independence which the rest of Canada has had no say in which would greatly alter the so called territorial integrity of the Canadian state. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that South Africa was created as a result of the South Africa Act of 1909 which was passed in the British Parliament. Talk about an illegitimate arrangement. The people of the macro state were not consulted about its imposition onto all of the various peoples. Secession starts to look like the only humane thing for the various peoples who do not want to live under the Xhosa minority rule of the current regime & the inherent inertia of the macro state regardless of who is in power.

THat has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION. S. Africa is a republic, it is not a crown colony and hasn't been one for over 40 years! Whatever greivance you have with britain, take it up with BRITAIN. No, take a number, becuse the black people were ALSO forcibly incorporated into the British empire against their will, AFTER being incorporated into the Boer empire and the "Afrikaaner" empire. In none of these three artifical constructs were the Blacks treated as equals, no, all was imposed on them. They come first now, and the boers have already enjoyed the benefits of being "white" in a system that only created drawbacks for "coloreds" and "blacks". --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This has everything to do with the conversation. South Africa is a republic in name only much as the Transkei & other Bantustans were only nominally independent. South Africa is not a true republic in any sense of the word. The British elite which created South Africa is still very much in control. There now is just a Black surrogate colonial power administering the region on their behalf in much the same manner as the old White surrogate colonial power did.

Do not forget that Verwoerd (who was from Holland with no lineage in South Africa) was assissinated because he was starting to dismantle the British social structure & was compromizing the "territorial integrity" of the macro state.

The Black people were never incorporated into the so called Boer "empire" as the two main Black groups the Xhosas & the Zulus were & are located in the eastern Cape & Natal.

The Boers might have allegedly enjoyed the benefits of being White (except for those who were deemed not White) - read more on this at this link - but they were still marginalized in the system which was controlled by the Afrikaners & a White elite in general.

Calling the peaceful Orania a "terrorist threat to the" terrorist regime of South Africa is beyond the pale. The Oranians are acting in full accordance with the South African Constitution & do not have the coercive power of the State as the South African regime has. The State (& all states) is the true terrorist threat to the various peoples as they have a monopoly on the execution of centralized power.

ha ha cute "beyond the pale"(transvaal) nice little double-entendre. Anyway, all sarcasm aside, considering that the blacks have the overwhelming majority, are you actually saying that the majority of the people (blacks) are still being oppressed by the S. African governemnet? The terrorist state of S. Africa is still oppressing them? Or are you really saying that the Boers are not being given all the considerations THEY think THEY should get, and by that mere fact, S. Africa is thus labeled an "illigetimate terror state"? Who bombed Soweto in 2002 again? --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Black people are still in fact being oppressed in South Africa: all one has to do is to look at how the largest ethnic group the Zulus are being repressed by the ANC. Just look at how the ANC tried to oust Zuma (who is a Zulu) in what many saw a politically charged character assassination attempt that when all the way to court.

The South African state itself is the most likely suspect in the bombing of Soweto in 2002. Tom Vorster was a government informant & with known connections to the CIA. States are renown for their fabrications of terrorist events dressed up as coming from disfavoured groups.

This is also known as a false flag operation.

Or for simply provided a pretext to invade countries they deem a threat to their interests.

For more on this read up on Operation Northwoods.

The Oranians by contrast are only responsible for the 700 consenting member community within their jurisdiction. They are not responsible for a single person outside of their jurisdiction therefore the notion that they are a threat to anyone is erroneous & ridiculous.

Don't worry, they will grow in number and need breathing room. A black man will want to visit. A colored person will apply for a job. A black businessman will want to buy a house. Something will happen. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the logic in why a Black or Coloured person would want to live in Orania. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The South African government is not "non-supremacist" as macro states by their very nature are supremacist. Furthermore the South African regime is composed of Xhosa supremacists & nationalists as they have promoted themselves even in the Afrikaans speaking mixed race police force of the Northern Cape.

So your grievance is with the Xhosa people which predominate the S. African government. Hmm. Ok, lets see. The Xhosa are the largest group of people in S. Africa. The Xhosa and white settlers first encountered one another around Somerset East in the early 1700s. In the late 1700s Afrikaner trekboers migrating outwards from Cape Town came into conflict with Xhosa pastoralists around the Great Fish River region of the Eastern Cape. Following more than 20 years of intermittent conflict, in 1811 to 1812 the Xhosas were forced east by British colonial forces in what was known as the Third Frontier War. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a grievance with the Xhosa people. They even wanted to make the Transkei the tenth province but the London puppet Mbeki was publicly opposed to this. The problem is that the Xhosas predominated the ruling regime while being smaller than the Zulus whom they repress. Though as I just demonstrated with the news article link they repress their own Xhosa people to an extent as well.

This is quite similar to how even though the Afrikaners predominated the then ruling National Party government they still repressed & marginalized the Boers whom they were related to.

The Xhosas are not the largest people in South Africa. The largest ethnic group in South Africa are the Zulus who are virtually shut out with the exception of those who tow the party line.

The Boers & Xhosas met for the first time around the 1770s.

Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So this is how I see the problem. If maybe by some miracle the Boers and Afrikaaners would take a more productive positive role in reconstructing the country (and oh my god that country desperately needs it)... if they could use all of their technical experience and infrastructural and engineering experience to work WITH the blacks, then a better situation for EVERYONE could occur. In fact I have no problem with the Boers establishing their own cities all over Northern Cape or wherever. They have every right to found a city, establish it, and build it up. What I have a problem with is the "no blacks allowed clause" and the "make our own country clause". I do not see why either of those are necessary for them to have the kind of future you are insisting they want.

Are you out of your mind? You don't ask for self determination by excluding people from living in the region. That is anti-black propaganda! You think you are clever? No. Self-determination is not a racially based concept. It's a SOCIAL concept. You have every right to be self determined, but the territorial integrity of South Africa should not be compromised for the self-centered insterests of an EXTREMELY SMALL MINORITY! You guys already had that benefit for 100 years, you never had more than 10% of the total population of South Africa, but you had your own "self-determined" country owning 90% of the land. You couldn't responisbly handle that big job without killing and murdering people. Now you want a soceity where only Europeans (again 10% of the world's population) can participate? No. I move to have YOU blocked, and again doubly blocked for being so ignorant. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your info from, but during the apartheid era, whites typically made up about 15% of South Africa's population. (In 1994, on the eve of the first democratic elections, they made up 13.6 percent.) Today, after significant emigration, they make up 9.3 percent (see my post below). 69.137.220.179 04:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine 13% going back 50 years. THE POINT IS, they never formed a MAJORITY, heck, they are a significant minority but a minority never the less. All of that "where are you getting your info from" response totallly ignores the POINT. You're still trying to bypass or counter the rediculousness that this minority imposed on other people. That damage (which is manifesting now) that fallout, the natural effects of that imposition and oppression needs to be rightfully corrected and atoned. Not "just stopped". You don't beat up a person, destroy their property, steal it, then stop beating them and say "ok i stopped beating you up, go home and enjoy your life. I'm not responsible for anything from this point on. And it's unfair and racist to expect me to repair the damage I already done, because it's in the past." --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "majority" of people. Even if most people decide on altering the border of South Africa it is highly unlikely that the government would ever allow that to happen. They have not "decided to leave it as it is" since they have never been given any other option. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The so called territorial integrity of South Africa is not worth preserving in the least considering how much pain & death it has caused in the past. Do some research & learn just where your precious "territorial integrity" came from. It came as a direct result of war crimes against various communities. it came about solely as an act of British Parliament. It came about due to carnage mahem & destruction. This very so called "terrotorial integrity" was directly responsible for the madness of the Apartheid laws. Yet you advocate preserving the very "territorial integrity" which has caused so much destruction.

It's not worth preserving to YOU. The MAJORITY of the people will decide that, and so far they have decided to leave it as is. Too bad for those who disagree. The Apartheid laws have nothing... NOTHING... to do with Britain's work. You explain to the audience here, how British territorial conquest forced white Afrikaaners and Boers to unilaterally create laws to oppress Black people. Explain the psychology and the logic behind that. I love how you guys over there make these statements, that seem to flow in some prism of abstract sentance building. "Buildings fall because people can't hold them up." "The plants were burned down because no one could stop the fires." "The Apartheid laws were caused by the territorial integrity of the British in S. Africa." Wait let me think here. When the Boers were bullied around by the British, it's ONLY natural they would go and oppress the Blacks, oh gee whiz why didn't I see that obvious "fact"? Like the NAZIs are to blame for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A bold faced lie. The Apartheid laws are based entirely in the British segregationist laws which were themselves based on the state that the British created. The first Apartheid laws passed by the British was the Native Pass Act of 1809 at the Cape. The Grand Apartheid of the Afrikaner nationalists -most of whom were not Boers- was directed by Britain & built on over the previous British segregationist laws.

A timeline of the various Apartheid laws.

Well first of all the Afrikaners who crafted the Grand Apartheid laws (apartness in law had long existed in South Africa) were not mainly descended from the Boers of Voortrekkers descent as most were either marginalized or were killed before the ascendance of the Afrikaner nationalists in the 1950s who were largely descendents of those who never historically reffered to themselves as Boers. Furthermore: a South African author who appeared a few years ago on the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn stated on her segment that it was her belief that the Apartheid laws "were created in large part because the Afrikaans communities "panicked" after what the British did to the Boers in the concentration camps & were determined not to ever be at the mercy of an antagonizing group ever again." This author was even an anti Apartheid activist so her insights into why Apartheid occurred can certainly not be dismissed as apologist propaganda.

Sir: you probably do not even realize just how close to the truth you are. The fact of the matter is that the only legal political party in Nazi Germany was in fact the Zionist party which worked with the German government with transfer agreements to send Jews -particularly those who allegedly ascribed to the Zionist worldview- to the then Palestine.

Zionist - Nazi cooperation before WW II. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: the "territorial integrity" of the illegal macro state should be scrapped not just for the Boers & other Afrikaans communities -like the Griquas etc- but also for the Zulus who are chaffing under Xhosa supremacist rule as well as for the Twsana & Indians or for any other people who desire to be free & self determined.

You've said "illegal macro state" about 4 times now. You know what, let them work those problems out. You have no justificaiton to create another "illegal micro state". You know, I'll even say this. If the Boers didn't have the "no blacks allowed clause" (it doesn't matter if that's a consequence of there being no non-boers allowed in general or not) I would have less aversion to it. If the boers were interested in creating an egalatarian state, one without the white only attitude, a state that was not focused on their SHORT (250 year) highly changed cultural history. --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The total White population at the begining of the State of South Africa was at 25 % - 33 % of the population.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND? 1901 S. Africa population was as follows (oh and don't ACT like they didn't undercount anyway)

If it was an "undercount" than that would have effected the numbers of both populations.

Wrong. The Oranians are not "Europeans". The Boers never considered themselves Europeans as they had broken their ties to Europe early on. The term European & non European was brought ot South Africa by the British -the true oppressors of the region.

Oh for god's sake. these people want to remain a pure-white culture. When a Boer of dutch descent mixes with a boer of english descent, their cultural integrity remains. When a dutch-boer mixes with a colored-of-boer-descent, the rest of them (that is the whites) consider that a loss of their cultural integrity. That means they only consider their culture "EUROPEAN". What planet are you on? Zarcon? Why doesn't that register with you? I'm not talking about "national" I am talking about a cultural, social identity. "Colored" refers to the "non-whites" even those mixed WITh white are not considered "true". Maybe they do that among the blacks also BUT THE BLACKS DIDNT RULE WITH AN IRON NAZI HITLER GRIP. Look, lets use Mobutu Sese Seko as an example, Charles Taylor, or our boy in Zimbabwe, Mugabe. He has to go. He shouldn't be president. That does not mean that the Shona people should be excluded from participting in their government. It also doesn't mean that they should be the only people ALLOWED to participate. Mugabe (like most dictators, including the white Afrikaaner Apartheid regime) use a "form" of democracy to legitimize themselves. They pretend that the voting was fair, they rig and terrorize the opposition (these all are things the National Party did to establish themselves). What you are not getting is that the notion of giving these like minded thinkers their own country in the middle of South Africa is a slap in the face to everyone else. It would be like saying Charles Taylor's followers should be given their own district in Liberia. How sad it was that he was even given free reign to become president. one of Africa's biggest problems is that the people who have power are supported by the outside (european interests), while those who have none are left with no one, except maybe the U.N. and some friendly individuals. But the bottom line is that collectively the European and EUropen oriented groups will out of habit or disdain lean towards factoring blacks and mixed people out of any meaningful equation especially where powersharing is involved. That kind of attitude has to change! --208.254.174.148 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boers are an amalgamtion of Dutch French German Frisian Frlemish & Walloon. With a significant admixture of Indian Khoi & Malay. The Boers might consider themselves White but they do not consider themselves to be European. It was the British Prime Minister McMillan & other foreigners who considered the Boers & Afrikaners to be "European" while the Boers had long since considered themselves to be African. The BBC even called them "the White trible of Africa". The Boers are an African culture with distant European roots.

Well not yet ant any rate. All one has to do is to look north to Zimbabwe to see it happening & what is in store for South Africa. Furthermore: do not forget about the notorius Idi Amin of Uganda during the 1970s.

Where is the "white"?

Sorry Zaph, you are being very POV yourself. South Africa is not a "black" country, but one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world, and proud of it, the National credo is "unity through diversity". The "white" population numbers more than the populations of Norway, Denmark or Finland each and the "Indian" population is the largest outside the Asian Subcontinent.

Whatever. that's like saying that France isn't a white country because 20% of the population is non-white European. Unity through diversity means UNITY through diversity. Not Unity (except for the white part) through diversity (except when the white segments want to opt out). The overall numbers may be greater in S.A. than Norway, Denmakr, or Finland, but the proportional population of S.Africa is 90% Black African. Get over it. Your not going to fenaggle and gerrymander statistics to make S. Africa look like it's "not really black". GET OVER YOURSELVES. Being white does not automatically give you more consideration, respect, or the right to get more compassion from the world. Your people in S.A are still the worst racists in the world, still #1 baby. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, per this source [1] South Africa is 79.4% black, 9.3% white, 8.8% colored, and 2.5% Indian/Asian. 69.137.220.179 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Democracy has a very poor track record when it comes to protecting ethnic minorities. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, so was the Hutu government of Rwanda. Democracy did not protect the Jews during the Holocaust, nor did it protect the Tutsi's during the Rwandan genocide.

Democracy certainly did not help the majority populations of South Africa either... or whatever it was you guys called S.Africa Apartheid from 1945-1990. Obviously that "white seperation" ideology doesn't work either. Adolph Hitler, and Rwanda are not examples of democracy. Those are examples of Democracy being destroyed by racist pigs... similar to the craziness in South Africa during Apartheid. Do you guys think that your weak attempts to articulate your positons in this confounding way will work while I am here? You want to redefine concepts and ideas to justify a white-seperatist socieity in Orania? Up is down, white is black, murder is freedom? Do not think anyone here is that stupid. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the people of Orania have ever perceived of the idea of re-generating the Apartheid movement. I looked, but was unable to find any rhetoric on their side that insinuated that only "whites" are allowed in Orania. It seems to me that English and German "whites" would be as unwelcome in this town as "blacks". Is it now the Afrikaners' curse that their ethnic group's skin is white? It is also known that President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (democratically elected) is the latest ruler who took Apartheid to the extreme.Gemsbok1 15:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

THAT IS APARTHEID! What they want in Orana is Apartheid. What planet are you on? I am in the U.S.A. and this silly spinning of facts and figures is so obvious, you should just stop trying, its pathetic. You compare anything white to anything black even when the examples are stupid. Mugabe is a terrible leader, and is not even a democratically elected president. He is a dictator, and putting him in this conversation is another act of dishonesty on your part. No one sane wants that clown, nor his silly stupid policies to remain in place. What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, no matter what your skin color. You talk as if you do not belive that black people are capable of seeing this fact. that is another example of the extreme contempt I see ffrom people like you. MUGABE? For crying out loud. What next, you will bring up some black devil worshipper to compare against the racist ideology of the Afrikaaner Christians? Yes I certainly agree White Apartheid seperatists are morally superior to the worst of the worst in the black race. I am however not understanding why you want to compare ignorance to stupidity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The town of Orania is not Aparthied. Look up what Apartheid actually was before making these asinine assertions. Apartheid ruled the entire macro state which was vested in a centralzied capital. All the Oranians want it to govern themselves according to the rules of self determination & the Constitution. Furthermore: you should be the last person to bemoan about a group of people living in an Apartheid state or condition.

I recall the fact that it was none other than your Black American cousins who originated the first Apartheid type laws on the African continent in the country of Liberia! Click here for the link. Some Christian you claim to be. I seem to recall a statement from the Bible concerning not fussing over the splinter in your brother's eye when their is a block in your own! The Americo-Liberians imposed Apartheid laws onto the local indigenous Africans of Libeia in ways which eclipsed the Apartheid of the Afrikaner / Anglo rulers of Apartheid South Africa yet all I ever hear form you is one long offensive anti Afrikaans tirade after another.

Furthermore: the fact that Canada exists separately from the USA is a clear example of (vertical) Apartheid. Just as the independence of all other states are all examples of Apartheid in the world yet I hear not a word from you on this glaring fact. Therefore beating up on the Oranians for simply exercising the very same right that other people & other countries have is entirely hypocritical to say the least. Furthermore: I hear not a word from you concerning the the current horizontal Apartheid which is occurring in Mauritania. The Other Apartheid. I wonder why that is even though the ruling regime is of Arab-Berber extraction while its victims are of Black extraction. Ooops I forgot: Mauritania can "keep its" Apartheid simply because there are no resources there of interest & its rulers are not those hated Afrikaans folks.

The White population is all of 4 million compared to over 30 million Blacks. Hardly diverse. The Whites of South Africa are mostly living in gated communities because of the post-apartheid massive surge in crime. Volksgeist 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The White population was at 1 million while the Black population was at just over 3 million at the beginning of the 20th cent.

What does Mugabe, the president of a different country have to do with this south african town? To even bring his actions into the reasoning screams of arguing politics, not informing of information. There are far too many subjective 'racialist' pro-white supremacy comments here, most of which seem to be advocated by 'Gemsbok'. This page seems to be about more than informing, but rather advocating white separation, and supremacy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but isn't wikipedia supposed to be a knowledge tool for everyone who wants (unbiased) knowledge, not just pro white-seperatist? Lnstr 2:15, 24 May 2006

Lnstr is clearly unable to follow an argument. Neither Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe or the Rwandan Hutu's have anything to do with this town, except to prove the argument that ethnical minorities are extremely exposed to violence in democratic states. Lnstr must also take note of the fact that this page is used for arguments relating to the article, and therefore does not serve as an informing tool, but to discuss the merits of the contents of the article. No mention of Robert Mugabe is included in the article. I have never added supremacist or racist propaganda to any article in Wikipedia. Lnstr must start providing proof, rather than just accusing everyone who disagrees with his views of being racist and supremacist. Gemsbok1 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Gemsbok you're talking like a spinmeister. The issue here is the POV of the article and it's slant. The issue is also the non-mention of the absurdity of justifying a whites only (or whatever you want to call it only) city in the middle of a black country which was recently under the grip of white oppression. The irony is dripping all over the place. --208.254.174.148 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Afrikaans Cultures are Centuries Old

Great points Gemsbok1. Note to Zaph: The various Afrikaans cultural identities are 350 years old. What is 100 years old was the attempt at uniting them under a single designation. Those who trekked away from the Western Cape during the turn of the 1700s became known as distinct groups: from Trekboers (semi nomadic pastoralists) to Grensboers (established eastern Cape border farmers) to Voortrekkers (the pioneers who left en masse from the border regions of the Cape to trek into the veld in the north) to Boers (which described those associated with the above groups) while those who remained in the Western Cape tended to be called the Cape Dutch & were more affluent than their estranged trekking rustic cousins. The term Afrikaner as used in the 20th century was an attempt at politically uniting the various White Afrikaans speaking people under one designation after the partial genocide of the Boers during the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War.

No they are not 350 years old. They started SETTLING S. Africa 350 years ago. They didn't establish a nationwide identity until 1900. You guys are Europeans, and that's the end of it. Constant immigration from Europe is what helped the population grow. It wasn't a seeding population in the 1700s and that was the end of it. And in any event this doesn't matter. The Boers are still acting like racist Europeans. Their cultural identity is a nuance to the world. True it matters more to them themselves, but the fact is, all of this is willy nilly to the cultural and social problems of S. Africa. Trying to empathize the cultural identity of the Boers to the point of establishing a rationale for "preservation" is absurd. They are still taking the European "purity" clause as a requirement to be respected as a memeber (without the hatred, without the exclusion, without the sub-human treatment). That has to go. Period. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The Boer identity is indeed 350 years old. The very first arrivals began to amalgamate with other national & racial groups to form the basis of the Boer nation. The so called nation wide identity under the rubric of Afrikaner was nothing of the sort. It was simply a convenient term imposed onto all of the Afrikaans speakers by the British rulers. The term Afrikaner was a device the British used in order to recruit a surrogate colonial power in the face of an English speaking minority within the local White population.

The Boers are not Europeans. The fact of the matter is that they broke their ties to Europe early on particularly when they began trekking eastwards into the northern & eastern Cape frontiers from the 1690s & into the 1700s. The Boers certainly have never historically considered themselves to be Europeans. The Boers are not even 100 % White so calling them European is a complete misnomer. The Boers are significantly descended in part from Indians (former slaves of the VOC) / Khoi (the local aboriginal group) & Malays (Muslin slaves from Indonesia) which makes up about 5 - 7 % of their genes & many Boers can have up to 20 % non White genes. This is a fact.

Boers consider themselves to be white. They do not relate to the Blacks and they do not consider themselves colored. Like White Americans, they relate based on how well their faces appear to be purely white. Surely there are some exceptions to a degree, but the Boers who are 21%-50% are called "colored" and "black". Why are we having this absurd conversation? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing here is equating White with European. The fact that the Boers consider themselves White does not automatically translate into considering themselves European. Remember: Europe was the continent that their ancestors were thorwn out of in the first place & was considered to be oppressive. The first Boers considered themselves African not European.

The parents of Sandra Laing were considered to be at least 20 % non White but appeared rather White. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There was not constant immigration from Europe after 1707. The Boer people germinated as a distinct ethnic group in near total isolation.

No they did not, those Boers are a mixture of about 5 different European groups, french, Walloons, British, germans, and dutch, who incidentally continued to immigrate to S. Africa up until 1830s. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

True but large scale immigration has stopped after 1707.

How in the world are Boers allegedly acting like "racist Europeans"? for simply working for the inherent & unalienable right of self determination. Furthermore: I think you confuse the truly racist attitudes of Europeans to the humble pride that some Boers have in their cultural indentity. One Boer once explained on shortwave radio that he is "only racist" in the sense that he prefers his own people but is not hostile to any other culture / people / race or ethnic group. He stated that in the same way is also a houseist & dogist & a carist because he & one naturally prefers their own houses / dogs & cars. If this is what your mean by "racism" then it is certainly the most benign "racism" I have ever heard of & is certainly not comparable to genocidal racism of the likes of Hitler or Mugabe.

They are exclusionist. They want to keep their society seperated politically and legally. that is racism. This is nonsense! The Boers founded the National Party and ruled S. Africa for 50 years. ENOUGH! --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The Afrikaners of mainly Cape descent descent funded the National Party. Those Boers of Voortrekker descent who did support it did so as part of the government's handouts to the farmers. The National Party had to earn a large section of the Boer vote mainly as a result of farming policies & not because of racial ones. Furthermore: a one Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 in order to persue to goal of restoring the former Boer Republics at least in some form or another. Robert van Tonder later went on to found the Boerestaat Party in 1986 after he became disillusioned with the other political parties for not pursuing to goal of Boer national independence. The Boers did not rule South Africa due to the fact that they were marginalized in it.

Furthermore: the Boers are recognized (both internationally & locally) as an indigenous group.

Please reference a link. "INDIGENOUS" Yes, Indigenous to Europe, not Africa. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Referenced Link.

A group is considered indigenous to the region where their culture & people were formed. Remember the Boers never existed in Europe. The fact is that Africa is the only home that the Boers have ever known. The Boers were formed on African soil as a result of the amalgation of diverse national origins with an absorption of even other races.

Lets get real, Ordinance 50 in 1828, which guaranteed equal rights before the law to all "free persons of color", was a significant cause of Boer discontent with the British. This is in addition to the formal end of slavery in the british empire. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this erroneous assertion is that most of the Boers on the eastern frontier did not own slaves as noted by both Canadian professor Wallace Mills & the Encycopeadia Britannica.

From: The Great Trek chapter by Professor Wallace Mills.

Town located in low populated mixed race region

The fact of the matter is that the town of Orania is not even located in a "black" section of the country as Black people do not have a history of settlement there as they do particularly the south-eastern regions. Most of the people living in the Northern Cape including the Western Cape are a series of Afrikaans speaking mixed race groups (such as the Griquas & the Basters & others) who are descended from the Khoisan (the aboriginal people of the Cape of non-Bantu (non-Black) origin & whose ancestors were also the original people of much of Southern Africa before being displaced & annihilated by migrating Bantus) peoples whose societies were still intact when the first Europeans arrived due to the fact that the Black-Bantu peoples did not penetrate the Kalahari dessert barrier. Significant numbers of Black people did not settle the Western Cape until the 19th century & are still a minority there. The Cape Coloureds (as they were classified) of mixed White / Khoisan / Indian / Mozambican & Malay descent are the majority population. The Northern Cape province is also the least populated region of South Africa & is the main reason why those who seek to establish an Afrikaner demographic consolidation aimed at territorial indpedendence or autonomy are promoting resettlement to this region.

Now I know that you want to describe the Khoi as "colored" and "not Black", and that's all cute and gives us all goosebumps. But as far as I and most Black people are concerned, they are Black and in any event (whether or not that's agreed or not) they are respected and I cannot find a black person around who has an ethnic emnity against Khoi people. I have always found this transparently obvious attempt to divide black people racially for the sake of exploitation laughable. Oh its the Khoi vs the Bantu and the nice old Afrikaaner wants his Khoi buddy to win. Imagine if the Zulu come from way over on the other side of the planet and colonized Britain, and then used the British/Irish conflicts as an excuse to colonize the island. You stole Khoi AND Zulu land. The only reason a Khoi would say "i am not Black" in S.Africa is because the goodies that still come with the label "colored" are still doled out socially. You guys are stuck in the 1950s. I have just as much love for the Khoi as I do for the Zulu and Xhosa. All deserve the same treatment of respect. The Afrikaaners however, you guys if you want to stay in S. Africa need to start acting like it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bantus did not historically ever live on land west of the Kalahari desert. Therefore when you assert that they are entitled to another man's identity or land that it invoking racial colonialism.

The Oranian whites do not want even a mixture of people in their community. And the mixture includes BLACK, which is a part of the overall composition of the country. What? The non-black mixed people have a different amount of consideration than the blacks and the mixed blacks (The Griquas)... heck I find it fascinating that the word "basters" (which comes from the derogatory word Bastard) is used to describe a mixed group of people by someone in this discussion so casually... oh well allow me to respond to that. The whites (Boers and the Apartheiders) should get out of the way while the other group (the Khoisan) whom you seem to soooo care about, let THEM determine their self determination. The magical barrier of the kalahari desert was not a barrier to the various black people whom had already inhabited parts of South Africa by the time the Europeans arrived. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I never said that I wanted to describe the extinct Khoi people as "Coloured" all I pointed out was that the town in question is located in an area which is not populated by majority Black population.

Just take a look at the Botswana government & they way they treat the San / Bushmen of the region. Just take a look at how even the current South African government marginializes & disrespects the Coloureds or Brown Afrikaners.

Give me a break! I am not attempting to divide any group in the least. The division between those of Khoisan descent & Bantu descent is rather obvious & clear for the whole world to see. What you are attempting to promote is nothing other than racial colonialism.

There is no division. It's a tribal or group nuance and the ignorance will in itself be the cause of any problems in the society. However, the Afrikaaners are not helping the situation with this Orania nonsense. Racial colonialism? How can Black people colonize land they lived in? What is it with you borrowoing words used by the opposition to describe your policy, then you use them to describe points in opposition to your position? Colonialism? What, we will debate how the colonizers became the colonized by the colonized? The slave's master's is slave to the slave? Please, stop insulting my intelligence with that simple rhetoric. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I never stole a single piece of land. Furthermore: your constant use of the term Khoi only shows your ignorace as the Khoi have largely ceased to exist after they were amalgamated into the Coloured (such as Griquas & Basters & others) or Brown Afrikaner demographic population.

YOU benefit from that theft. YOu benefit from the policies that were in place. Yes I know the Khoi are no longer a distinct ethnic group. GEE I WONDER WHY! Once again you talk about history as if the "who knows" fairy came and magically did it. They were colonized by the Boers and pushed off their own lands, and after so many times of that they ended up being assimilated by all other groups. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I never benefited from a sinlge South African policy namely due to the fact that I am a Canadian. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The Boers did not steal Zulu land. The Voortrekker leader Piet Retief obtained a land treaty from the Zulu King Dingane to settle the empty land to the south west of the Zulu kongdom. It was Dingane who double crossed & killed Retief along with 300 Boer civilians. The land that the Natal Boers later aqcuired for their short lived Natalia Republic (until the British annexed it) was a direct result of having entered into an alignment with the new Zulu King Mpande. Furthermore another Zulu King named Cetswayo gave another piece of land to Boers which became the New Republic or Vryheid Republiek which was later incorporated into the Transvaal Republic.

THERE IT IS! There's the "land treaty" excuse I was talking about. They never gave the ENTIRE thing to them. They gave a small tract of land. It wasn't enough for the Boers so they conspired with the British (Sir Frere) and created a pretext, some silliness with two women to invade and take moer land. There is no way you will convince anyone in here that the entire colonized provinces of Orange, Transvaal and Natal were "treatied". Oh Cethswayo and Mpande said "Here we sign ALL OF OUR LAND TO YOU". The amount of land treatied (without coersion, without a gun to their heads) was much much smaller than what was ultimately taken. Even then the "only whites allowed on the land" was not a part of the deal. They were given land to USE, not to unilaterally own. Not "oh we give you this land and we will never step upon it again." --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing but a diatribe. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I know you have completely lost it. No one from the Coloured or Brown Afrikaner community would ever call themselves coloured in order to get "goodies" since the Bantu regime in fact doles out "goodies" to those Coloured who agree to call themselves "Balck". Those who do not are left out in the cold.

not NOW. I am referring to the Apartheid period my friend. This whole nonsense about "colored" vs "black" is a well held carry over from Apartheid. But you know what, that's why I am glad I am American. That BULLCRAP doesn't entrench itself THAT far into the Black consciousness, even though there are issues. But again, this is way off the subject about Orania, a bunch of white ultra-purists who want to have their own racial homeland. No. It's not happening, not in South Africa. They can participate in the S. Africa society as South Africans, if they want to be pure-white-whatevers then they can take that nonsense to Germany or wherever and buy some land in the mountains and live there. When they were unnaturally pushing the Khoi out of existence they didn't care about their cultural heritage. Now, with NATURAL circumstances making their impact, again the whites want unnaturally exclusive consideration to be given yet again. Yall are given too much consideration. If you are so exceptional, achive your goals without the extra help. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The often Coloured lament is: "first we were not White enough & now we are not Black enough".

I have never even been in the 1950s as I was not born until the 1970s.

I do not refer to the Basters casually as you infer but refer to the term out of cultural accuracy as this is the very term that they themselves use to describe themselves. Sir you need to dispense with this all encompassing hatred & check the facts. I refer to the Basters out of respect & have openly acknowledged them as cousins of the Boer & Afrikaner people in the Afrikaner article -even to the point of reverting an edit with attempted to remove the Coloureds / Griquas & Basters as cousins of the Boer & Afrikaner peoples.

The fact that they were initially called "basters" (an Afrikaans word: also the language of the Basters) by the early White community does not negate the fact that the term Baster has since been elevated to the noble name for their people & culture. The term Boer came about in much the same way when it was once used as a term of derision by the Cape Dutch & the British but was later elevated to a noble term of an entire ethnic group which had it roots in the trekkers who settled the eastern Cape frontier.

I agree entirely with this statement. Similarly you & others should get out of the way & let the Boers & other Afrikaans people (& others) decide their own self determination.

OH that is fine with me. Only thing is neither group gets to exclude the other anywhere in the country. both have the FREEDOM to travel through out the country without hinderance. :) That's FREEDOM. Not some elaborate "non=freedom to achieve freedom" nonsense I was hearing earlier. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation Error?

Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok ("literally: whistle corral share block")

I am not sure who translated this, but to my knowledge "kraal" refers to a "homestead" rather than corral which would be "koraal" in Afrikaans.

"Corral". Not Coral :)

Zaph

You seem to be on a anti-Afrikaner crusade. I do not know how I have wronged you, but you are dripping hatred of me. You stated that you are from the U.S.A, do you therefore then consider yourself to be an African living in America or an American? People in the U.S.A also had their fair share of white supremacists. Do you remember the Clu Clux Clan? Did you forget that you also had Apartheid as an official policy in all your Southern States before the advent of Martin Luther King? At least we did not murder all the natives in South Africa, as you had done with the Native Americans in the U.S.A!

I did not compare Mugabe to Hitler, I compared their actions to the security that minorities have in democratic countries. What guarantee do we have that a future Hitler or Mugabe does not come to power in South Africa?

I have donated my own money and have built Christian Missionary schools for black children in South Africa and Mozambique with my own hands. What have you done for black people here, except for attacking me? Why is it wrong for me as an Afrikaner to want exactly what the Tswana's have in Botswana? I do not want to be German or Danish. I want to be an Afrikaner in my own country in Africa. You do not have any right to deny me this.

Your rabid attack on me smacks of foul motive, clearly coinciding with your use of foul language. You are not a good example of a Christian. --Gemsbok1 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaph's reponse

Firstly I want you to know that your opinion is not the same as a universal fact. I do not have an interest in you personally. The "you" in question is your philosophy and your general attitude. So I think you know this. Secondly, it is BECAUSE of the hatred in the USA, with the Klan, and the Apartheid (which you obviously recognize as morally wrong) that I have the position I have. YOu did not murder ALL of the natives, but you murdered many, using many dispicable tactics. (Notice that you say "we didn't murder" and "we this" and "we that", that is why I refer to "you" in that same collective sense. You personally can understand this, so do not pretend I am personally attacking you). You wonder, what guarantee do you have that a future Hitler or Mugabe does not come to power in S. Africa? Guess what, a regime like that already RULED south Africa for over 100 years. That's the part that doesn't make sense. It's like you don't seem to understand that you already HAD your hitlers. Now you question the new leadership based on a fear or assumption that the KIND of hitler will be the kind that hurts you and people like you. Well guess what, that's just not happening. The government of S. Africa has not come even CLOSE to matching the atrocities of the Afrikaaner ruled Apartheid regime. It would take eons for the body count to match. In addition, what the Afrikaaner regime did for the people of S. Africa throughout its ENTIRE existence was just as bad if not worse than Hitler. Hitler lasted for 10 years. Your government killed millions, tried to annex Namibia, attacked Zimbabwe and Zambia. Your government's CBW germ warfare was no different than the gas chambers of the Nazi's and the Rodeplat RResearch Labs developed the "native american genocide" option, by putting poison and germs in blankets and clothings then "giving" these to Blacks. The Rebels of Renamo in Mozambique was known for using chemical weapons...I could go on and on. But you live in a world where you want everyone to focus on every single crime by the blacks and in doing so thus forget of the overwhelming evil by the Afriakkaners. There is no "forget". And as far as Christian goes. I never forced a white person to pray to God with "To the Father, whom you are" instead of "OUR Father". Amazing Christians Afrikaaners are, "To the Father, whom thou art". Oh and lets not forget, only in S. Africa are all of these crimes non-punishable by a mere confession by the perpetrators. "Truth and REconcilliation Commission" should have been called "Trade Black equality for White pardons". It is too bad for you that you will not have what the Tswanas have, since they did not come from the other side of the planet to take it. This is the reason why. YOu say "I am not dutch or german" so that is why you wish not to go to Germany. Well you want to say "I am South African" then well, live AS A SOUTH AFRICAN, not as a "White" South AFrican. Germans don't have a seperatist nation in the middle of their country for some "other kind of germans'. The Dutch don't have a "such-and-such enclave for some other kind of dutch". All this talk of yours, you trying to sound reasonable "oh all I want is just to be treated like everyone else" kind of talk, well ACT like it. Keep building your schools and what not with your bare hands and accept that you are a part of a bigger society which is not centered around people that look like you. Maybe if you really think about it, those Christian Missionary Schools will be capable of teaching the children more than what the Afrikaaner system did. Maybe 50 years down the line, those students will be able to run their own farms, and hire white south africans as assistants, and maybe those black south africans whom you build schools for, maybe they will be able to run the cities and governments effectively without a hinderance from a lack of experience and unity from his OWN PEOPLE!... oh you DO consider yourself one of the PEOPLE of South Africa right? Or does that respect only extend to the "white" South Africans? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I for some ODD reason thought you had a more human and compassionate attitude. You didn't say or imply you want to be a part of a better South Africa, you instead said "I want to be an Afrikaner in my own country in Africa. You do not have any right to deny me this." SO you(again collectively speaking), for some ODD reason think that you have earned the "right" to have your own country. YOu know, I looked up Botswana... did you know that other people live in Botswana? Whites, Asians, Europeans, other Africans.... not just the Tswana? I could not find a single law in Botswana that supports the ideal that native members in that country who are NOT Tswana are excluded in any way. Don't you therefore HAVE your own country? It's called South Africa. And didn't you already HAVE your "own" country in S. Africa? The Blacks had to live on "reservations" based on white notions of who "earned" the land? That didn't seem to work out too well, and you want to try AGAIN? A nicer, more friendly Apartheid? I really feel sorry for you that your mind and attitude is as it is, and you go around with your bare hands doing what I don't do. Amazing. Will those Christian Missionary Schools encourage the students to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and responsible statesmen? Or will the teachers there encourage the students to develop trades only? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The Hitlers of the Southern African region were the Cecil Rhodes & the Horatio Kitcheners. They bar far more closely behaved like the proto Nazis that they were. The Boers & even the neo colonial Afrikaners never came close to the kind of brutality that the British engaged in. Furthermore: While the various Apartheid regimes were violators of human rights: they never came close to what Hitler & the Nazis did.

Here we go again in circles. Shooting up children in Soweto comes close. Creating "bantustans" comes close. Forcing Blacks to walk around S. Africa requiring "passes" is close. Not allowing the majority of the people of South Africa to vote, own land, run businesses, and to just live. It's close enough. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

White people were required to carry passes too even within the various Black homelands. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember: D F Malan -the very Prime Minister who was elected (though he did not receive a majority of votes just like in the USA 2000 & even in Quebec in 1998 when the Parti Quebecois won but with one percent less of the vote than the opposition) in fact was an opponent of the more overt Fascist groups with which he competed with. This was even mentioned on the Helen Suzman Foundation (the lone White anti Apartheid member of South African Parliament) web site. Malan always stressed & believed in adhering to Parliamentary democracy -such as it was concerning the limited franchise- within South Africa proper.

Furthermore: it should be stressed that what made the Apartheid laws themselves so draconian was the fact that they emanated from the artificial macro state that the British had created. Had the state of South Africa not existed on such a macro level the said laws would certainly not have had the expansive scope that they had. In fact Apartheid has been described as such: Apartheid arose as an unnatural means of maintaining an artificial unitary state under the influence of & directed by Britain.

I ask again, explain how Britain caused the nationalist party to impose racist policies against Blacks and non-whites of S. Africa. Explain to us here how this logically comes about. Britain does wrong, so the logical conclusion is that the S. Africans would thus behave immorally against the Blacks? --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The National Party's Apartheid laws were a direct path from the British segregationist laws. The British created & placed the Afrikaner regime in control of the state the British created. The British & Afrikaners (-of whom many fought against their Boer cousins during the Anglo-Boer War- both marginalized & attempted to co-opt the Boers.

The Boers just like the Basques also never agreed to be part of the macro state of South Africa created by the British. The state of South Africa was imposed onto them after the war crimes of the second Anglo-Boer War. The Boers would have never surrendered were it not for the fact that the British began to use despicable & inhumane methods against the Boer civilian population. Remember: most of the Boer victims of the concentration camps were in fact children under the age of sixteen. The British also burned down a great number of Boers' houses & farms.

And they also did the same to the Blacks. So again, how does this explain the Boer and Afrikaaner commitment to FURTHER oppress the Blacks? --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore. The Boers did not create Apartheid. The Boers were a humble pastoral people who were conquered & subjugated at the end of the second Anglo-Boer War. The British enacted the first Apartheid laws in the Cape & Natal while the 1950s Afrikaners of mainly Western Cape descent passed what was termed Grand Apartheid. The Boers had fought against the creation of the State of South Africa which had made the Apartheid laws such a centralized regiment.

Bull. The Boers were the primary group that founded the National Party. They killed and displaced the Khoi, they chaffed at the Zulu for merely being in their way when they went further east, and they participated on a GRAND scale (as they ARE the majority of white population... 60% remember???) Their first act was to introduce color bar employment discrimination as LAW! --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boers were not the primary group which funded the National Party that was the Afrikaners most of whom were of non Voortrekker descent or were descended from those Boers who were pro British.

The combined Afrikaner population is at 60 %. Remember that the Boer segment is about at least under half of that. While the Afrikaans speakers were at 60 % of the White population the Boer segment was at about 25 % of the White population.

One must remeber that it was always the horizontal features of Apartheid which made the laws so oppressive. The Apartheid laws were merely the symptom of the repressive state. Notice how the modern state of South Africa is just as oppressive & repressive as before with even new Apartheid type laws passed by the new neo colonial rulers.

You're sugar coating. "horizontal features". No, the Apartheid laws were a symptom of a delusional and self-centered culture. Boer, Afrikaaner, british, and so on. All were a part of the problem. Each having power at some point perpetuating the same stupidity. However the BOER led National party made it a very clear cultural and social issue to exacerbate the division of race into such a psychological level. What Apartheid type laws are still in effect now? Where are white people not allowed to work, swim, eat, live??? COME ON. Where are whites of any kind told they must speak Zulu in schools? You consider reparations "apartheid" because to you, to give up any of the unearned benefits from Apartheid is to go into another form of Apartheid. WRONG.

No I am not "sugar coating" the horizontal features of Apartheid. I am pointing out that it was precisely because of the horizontal features that Apartheid was so oppressive. The National Party was not Boer lead. It was lead by Afrikaners that the British placed in control.

The Affirmative Action laws. The Black Economic Empowerment laws. The Communal Land Rights Act. Which was described as being worse than during Apartheid.

SA's "apartheid-style Land Bill" sparks fear of abuse.

White people are being pushed out from & discouraged from holding certain employment positions.

People are being forced to learn English in schools. Odd how you appear to justify the Soweto Uprising in revolt of being educated in Afrikaans yet you downplay the fact that people are now being forced to be educated in English the true colonial language. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Laws are not the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the state as it always is -yet this is the state you aver about & assert must be defended (a la "territorial integrity") despite the inherent injustices that its existence dispenses as a result of its natural macro related inertia.

Well the inherent perceptions of injustice against the Boers will have to take a backstep towards the 70 years of deferred justice which is still taking time to be administered for the 5 times greater population of people who were abused far much more. Did Boers vote from 1950-1994? Yes. Did the blacks? no. Are Boers allowed to vote now? yes. Will you stop equating Apartheid with the current situation? Stop trying to make that extreme overtly racist delusional White Superiority garbage somehow "equal" to the problems in the country today? It's only "as bad" to you because now YOU experience SOME of the inconvenience of not having it all go your way. BUT EVERYONE is struggling. Xhosa, Zulu, White, Black. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Boers are allowed to nominally vote does not negate the fact that their votes are virtually useless as they are out voted.

The National Party was representative of an Afrikaner nationalist perspective not the Afrikaner peoples as a whole who were een dived into at least two main culural camps.

They do not speak a Dutch language but in fact a language based on an archaic Dutch dialect with strong Malay Frech German & other influences. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of Namibia. While it is true that the then South African government did indeed act as if Namibia - the then South West Africa - was a fifth province: the fact of the matter is that Namibia or rather SWA was granted to the South African government in 1919 as a result of the League of Nations mandate to administer it after the South African effort in World War 1 due to the fact that the then SWA was held by Germany. South Africa was on the side of the Allies as it was also in World War II.

More deadpan history talk. I know what happened. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is once again beyond the pale to make comparisons between the former rulers & the Nazis. For one thing the alleged germ warfare programs only ever went after what the state viewed as terrorist leaders (one more reason to abolish the state since states can be arbitrary with whom they might view as a terrorist) & not the general population.

Well you know what you need to start creating a new philosophy. But all of this in order to bob and weave yourself into an excuse to have a white (Boer) only state within S. Africa. No, the answer is no. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it is not up to you but God. Furthermore the Boer prophet Siener Nicolaas van Rensburg (who was right about many other predictions) stated that the Boers will once again govern themselmes. So much for your no answer. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While the Afrikaner nationalist government was indeed harsh: one must remember that they were a REGIME & not representative of an entire people whom were not even united under a single cultural designation. Therefore blaming an entire ethnic group for the actions of a regime is unfair & unjust to say the least.

THEY RECEIVED THE MAJORITY OF THE WHITE VOTE. Where are you? Are you on Earth? The ethnic group voted in majority for them and their policies. 1945 and 1961. READ: [[2]] The Apartheid in question was not invented when the National party was in power, like I SAID EARLIER, they exaserbated the situation! Turned it into some kind psychology. A wierd S. African Afrikaaner philosophy somewhere between NAZIsm and the Jim Crow laws of America. I see it in how you respond to things and how you reason. I see the "personality" of Apartheid in your comments. Your comments are deceptively innocent and pleading. But I see a sense that you perceive only the whites as important, and the changes... you seem to view them as "ok fine we got the blacks what they wanted now back to us". The Boers enjoyed a lot of benefits during Apartheid. They participated very well in the Apartheid regime. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I never once said that only White people are important. Furthermore the National Party never received the majority of the vote. A majority of seats in Parliament but not a majority if the electorate. The Boers might have received so called "benefits" but were marginalized. No they did not participate very well in the Apartheid regime. Ron7 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore when you assert the "overwhelming evil by the Afriakkaners. (sic)" you are lumping an entire ethnic group in with the actions of an unrepresentative repressive regime which you admit were akin to Fascists thereby admitting that they were not entirely democratically elected (as is the case in most countries for that matter) nor intrinsically repesentatve of the Afrikaner peoples.

YEs I not only assert, I clearly state unequivocally "extreme hate filled arrogant disgusting morally decrepit hypocritically anti-christian self absorbed white supremacist evil nastynuss.(sic)" . But to clarify, once again you are using ambiquity to present a point in a misleading way. The ethnic group voted for this repressive regime which was UNrepresentative because it did not allow OTHERS (who are not a part of the ethnic group) to participate. They were intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, as the Afrikaaners were the ones to voted them in. NOW, your dishonest deceptive and totally misrepresenting at the very LEAST the message I know you clearly understand. The Afrikaaner government was intrinsically representative of the Afrikaaner people, lopsidedly so, it was NOT representative of the South African people. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you made some factual errors. Wrong. Hitler was in power for 12 years not 10. Furthermore: the forces behind his political party were in power long before him & are still in power in much of the world. "Google it" as the expression goes.

I've noticed that you've made a lot more. Your perspective is very skewed, and your nitpicking of 12 years or 10. He officially was in power from 1934-1945 as the Furher and I do not consider the last few months of allied bombing of Germany as "in power". Now this is why the discussion gets offensive. You should stop with the smarty-pants corrections especially when you yourself are the one with your interpretation of facts in the wrong. I would say the forces behind his political party were in power ever since the time of the Berlin conference of 1880s. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What you conveniently forget (or perhaps demagogically forget) is that the TRC was instituted for BOTH SIDES to admit their crimes while fighting for or against Apartheid. Otherwise the ANC would never have been able to asume power without these pardons. Think about it. The ANC committed just as much heinous crimes if not even more gruesome than the Nationalist (& previous) government did. The TRC was not just about pardoning White (or rather state of many races) perpetrators but also those Black / White / Coloured & other who used violence & terror AGAINST the system as well.

What you forget and certainly dogmatically forget is that the responsible party was the established government. The ANC, acting certinly out of desperation committed acts of violence for that reason. I do not recall the ANC supporting a regime whose only goal was to establish a Xhosa only country or a Zulu only country. And no the TRC was not about those who used violcence and terror against the system, but those who committed crimes against people!

No but their ancestors did in fact come from central Africa. The Boers did not "come from the other side of the planet to take it." The Boers did not exist in Europe & were only formed on African soil out of even significant numbers of Khoi. I have noticed an interesting M O from the anti Boer / anti Afrikaner bigots such as yourself: you folks (if in fact it is not the same person simply posting all over the internet) always seem to talk about "coming from the other side of the planet" when mentioning the Boers yet you folks always give a pass to the Bantus who came from the other side of Africa to take it. The hypocricy is most interesting & a dead give away as to your true motives. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes their ancestors came from central africa. The Boers did not come from the Khoi people. Once again, you try to mislead the readers here with your decptive nuancing. Another way to look at it, if the whites never came to Africa, there would be no Boers. If the Khoi never mixed with the whites, there would still be Boers. Stop trying to be clever, it's not working. "Were only formed on African soil out of even significant numbers of Khoi". You use an interesting hodge podge of prepositional phrases and objects to say "The Boers are partly mixed with Khoi". But here is the thing, Boer identity is not dependant on Khoi ancestry. Many (most) Boers are not of Khoi descent, or of such an insignificant amount that their physical character is not relevant to them. Boers do not have any legacy with the Khoi and the Boers consider themselves unrepentantly white. They speak a dutch language, not a Khoi language. They are no more Khoi than the average white person in America is Indian, or the Average white Australian is Aboriginal. The admixture is not relevant to their identity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BINGO --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is because they do not need one as they are a majority in their own country whereas the Boers & Afrikaners in general including just about every other ethnic group in South Africa is a minority in their own country -an injustice that just can not last forever. Just look at the erstwhile Czechoslovakia & Yugoslavia & East Timor & Eritrea & so on.

Being a minority is not an injustice. What is wrong with you? There are minorities all over the world, from Germany to Japan. Those examples you bring up have more to do with dissimiliar factors than with some "identical root cause" you imply. You think that you can switch names and places and bring about the same conclusion, then you are a fool. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well being a minority is an injustice in the sense that the minority will always be at the mercy of the majority. The danger of allowing two wolves & a sheep to "vote" on what's for dinner.

I am simply pointing out the fact that other communities which were composed of different nations / peoples have dissolved in the past & that South Africa will likely be no different for much the same reasons.

This is where you are so wrong once again. No one should ever be expected to be "good little statists" (more like good little Fascists) simply because you believe in the Fascist notion of "territorial integrity" of a state that was formed as a direct result of war crimes. The Boers / Griquas / Indians / Zulus / Xhosas / Tswanas etc never consented to the impositon of the macro state onto them. Pressuring people to be part of "a bigger society" is a euphemism for pressuring them to become denizens of a macro state which by its inherent nature actively works against their best interests & also forces them to commit cultural suicide.

Well then the Afrikaaners should have thought of that when they left the British commonwealth in the 1960s. They didn't want to restore things to a equitable situation, they wanted to force people to their psychology of racism. "Cultural suicide" and "micro state" is a "buzz phrase", a nice catchy dramatic flair of cheap talk. The Boers do not need to worry themselves of maintaining some cultural identity that only came about from some racist notion of purity. Britain does not control their destiny. If they want to live in Orania, fine, they cannot exclude people from living there, and they cannot unilaterally dictacte territorial claims and cry "injustice" simply because the rest of the country refuses to allow them. Be glad that they were not deported to Europe or put into some isolated Gallo-stans with no rights and no chance to uplift themselves. The Afrikaaners expected the Blacks to be good obedient statists, and they didn't even have a right to vote. I really don't care if the Boers live in their little enclaves in South Africa, all I care about is that they have no exclusive political or economic control based on their race (or however you want to sugar coat it, what.... cultural identity?) --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it fascinating you tried to say that the Boers are descendants of Khoi (with a little extra prepositional gerrymandering). But ok I will play dumb. SINCE the Boers are Khoi descendants, then i think it's only sensible that we have Khoi based poeople (the coloreds especially) inhabit Orania, and live side by side next door. LEt them run businesses too, and own land and so forth. Yea, you can't have it both ways my friend. Let the Boers simply absorb into the "colored" group... (yet still maintain their cultural heritage). How do you like those apples? After a few generations, there will be no white boers left and the Boer existence will be colored. GREAT IDEA RON!--Zaphnathpaaneah 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all I do not know what you are implying with your assertion of "prepositional gerrymandering": I doubt my Quebec based English is really that hard to follow.

Furthermore: the Boers absorbed significant numbers of Khoi / Malays & Indians.

As a matter of fact I have long thought that the Boers would become browner in time mainly as a result of absorbing member of the various Coloured communities considering the commonality of the Afrikaans language among these groups.

Reply

All the different peoples in the world have an internationally recognized legal right to self determination. This is why there are different countries in the world, and not just one country. This concept is enshrined in the UN Charter as well as in the South African constitution. It is not only us who want it, the Basques and the Tamils also want it, but strangely you only attack us.

For one I find the Basque and Tamil claims worthy of merit. They were there long before any Spaniard or Aryan-Hindu came along. But regardless, their situation is extremely different than the AFrikaaner. (I'm sure you are wondering how...right?) Well, with the Basque, they never agreed to be a part of a unified spain. I do not have an opinion one way or another however, as Spain was unified about 500 years ago. With the Tamils, they have dealt with oppression from the Hindu government and they were not given a sayso in the establishment of INdia 60 years ago. However, with Afrikaaners, they came from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over from Europe, displaced 87% of the population of S. Africa, and in an ironic twist stole 87% of the land of that area. They were not and never have been related in any ancient way with any other group of indigenous people. The BASQUE and TAMILS have been living in their areas for eons. NEither group oppressed the Spaniards nor the Hindus(ARyans). So here we are again, you taking a dense approach to something that you know we are all intelligent enough to discern clearly. Why? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

No one ever "earns the right" to have their own representation. People are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. One of them is the right to liberty which can only come when a person is free from suzerainty & colonialism. All of your specious talk of being a part of "a bigger society" is just your sophistic way of telling the Boers & Afrikaners to accept their continued suzerainty & to avert their attention from the fact that they are a colonized (or rather co-opted) people which the macro state of South Africa only intensifies the repressive situation.

Ok let me get this straight. The Boers settle in SW corner of South Africa. Some then "trek" westward, and displace the Khoi (ding), then get into fights with the british (or other settlers), then trek again, displacing more Khoi (ding ding), then trek, then displace Xhosa (ding ding ding), then trek, then displace more Xhosa (ding ding ding ding), then trek again, then displace Zulu (ding ding ding ding ding!).... THEN, after a couple of wars against the Zulu, and other "bantu" then fight a couple more wars with and against the British with and against the Zulu, the Germans, and again the British. Now, after a while, SOME of the Boers want to remain seperate from the other whites (including other boers) who establish the country... ALL want the Blacks to be nothing and to have nothing, but you can't kill em all, so you all mutually agree to push them into bantustans (ding!). Oh wait we aren't done yet. THEN you make up those chump rules called Apartheid (and believe me, Apartheid was such a chumpy way to be like Jim Crow America. Silly three-caste system. Then you try to force them to speak Afrikaans (ding!). Kill some kids here, kill some there. Now, after 12 years of disengagement, you are trying to "reason" on this talk page about "suzerainty of the Boers". So your issue isn't that the Boers displaced and stole land that was not theirs, but that the British stole what was rightfully stolen by the Boers. OH WAIT, its not theft by the Boers, because the Blacks weren't REEEAALY there. LOL. Or wait, Let me guess, there was a treaty signed by some idiot chief who was double teamed by another tribe (supported by Boers or Brits) into a peace treaty. Or, oh wait a minute, it's coming to me now. The Zulu attacked first. They started it, so of course the Boers have every right to just colonize. What a nice beautiful Afrikaaner logic again! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong the Boers never settled there. There ancestors did. The Boers then trekked northward & eastward not westward. They never displaced the British or the Xhosas or the Zulus. This whole diatribe of a paragraph was nothing but a complete fabrication & exaggerations & distortions. When has the centralized capital ever been legitimized by the majority of its constituents.

Well well well the hatred comes right out again. What you conveniently forget is that the various groups which colonized Britain also had no right to do so: but no one is denying the English people the right to govern themselves on Celtic land.

In fact you might also want to remember that your native American ancestors also had no right to colonize North America & displace the various earlier peoples who settled there.

Now this constant anti Boer attitude has got to go. For one thing they are not responsible for the fact that they developed on African soil. The ancestors of the Boers & Afrikaners were practically kidnapped from Europe by the tyrannical Jan van Riebeeck who flooded out many Frisians.

The Frech Huguenots came as refugees escaping religious persecution. The Dutch Frisian German & Belgian ancestors of the Boers came as servants of the VOC. The Boer cultural group was spantaneously formed out of those who were taken to Africa against their will but had no choice but to survive in their new home & meger conditions.

When they began trekking inland it was not meant to "steal" land from the Khoisan peoples but to simply find better grazing lands & to escape the authoritarian rule of the VOC.

This constant blaming the Boers for conditions that they had no control over is tanatamount to blaming the African Americans communities for their development in North America.

If you want to blame someone for the development of the Boers then blame the Dutch East India Co - VOC - for transporting their ancestors there in the first place. Do not blame the Boers themselves as this is a rather foolish & craven act.

Odd how you deflate the British role in the creation of South Africa but do not cite the VOC role in the creation of White settlement. Now you say that the Boers should "take it up with the British" concerning their grievences (which some have indeed), but I would suggest that you should take it up with the successors of the VOC about the transportation of the ancestors of the Boers from Europe & Asia to Africa which lead to the creation of the Boers (though intesretingly against the wishes of the VOC) themselves & to lay off of blaming the Boers over a situation which was beyond their direct control.

The right to a country is not "earned" but rather is generally the result of cultural & sociological maturation or the natural progression or socio-evolutionary order & nature of things- of a given people / culture or nation.

DING! And nothing NATURAL happened with the Boers besides the typical garden variety unnatural exploitation of the Khoi and manipulation of the Zulu. The silly treaties and the crazy stuff with Henry Frere and Cetshwayo. In the end those kind of things gave, WRONGFULLY, gave the Boers more land. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make if a people are under the colonial or suzerain control of a far away power or it that power is in the centralized Capital of the macro state which illegitimately assumes this colonial & suzerain power (which it in fact inherited from the erstwhile colonial powers) to itself.

It makes a difference if the centralized capital is LEGITIMATELY empowered by the majority of it's constituents. Are the blacks dealing with another oppressive regime? Or... is the legitimacy of this government only determined by the whites? Well your issue of legitimacy is so overly hypocritical I am suprised you haven't burst a blood vessel from the contradiction. The blacks form the majority, they voted, they decided that it's now established as legitimate. you don't accept that because they are blllaaaaacccckkk, and blacks can't (even when the majority) have a compelling say into what is legitimate where Mr. White man is concerned! Oh the blacks should have gotten the whites permission first. Bull! This is what I am talking about. Did it ever cross your mind that legitimacy was a matter of the greater population? That's the legitimacy. Now, if you want to bid for some retroactive interpretation of the laws or the history, you will have to SKIP the Republican and Crown colony era, and also petition the ruling government. If you want to be really "technical" the existence of the Boers is illigetimate. They had no right to colonize S. Africa and displace the Khoi, Xhosa, and Zulu. TRANSVAAL is your most famous colony? Isn't that ZULU-LAND??? How did the Boers get WAAAY over THERE from Capetown??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not associated with the Boer or Afrikaner people as I am an Anglophone Quebecer.

Wrong. The Zulus & Zululand are located in Kwa Zulu Natal. The Transvaal region was depopulated by Shaka during the Difaqane.

From centuries of natural trekking patterns. Then the large scale trek known as the Great Trek. The Boers began trekking from the areas around Cape Town / Franschhoek / Paarl & Stellenbosch from the 1690s & into the eastern Cape frontier throughout the 1700s. The established Boer communities on the eastern Cape frontier -descended from the Trekboers of decades to a over a century earlier- were the main group which embarked on the Great Trek.

Wrong. The state of South Africa was imposed onto the Boers. The Boers in fact did have their own countries. The Boers had a total of about 15 Boer Republics during the whole history. The most famous ones were the Transvaal Republic also known as the South African Republic (Zuid Afrikaanshe Republiek) from 1852 until 1900 created as a result of the Sand River Convention. The Orange Free State (Oranje Vrij Staat) from 1854 until 1900 created as a result ofthe Orange River Convention. Both of these Boer Republics were internationally recognized by Britain / the Netherlands / France / Belgium / Germany & the USA.

OK. Let me yell it to you. THE BLACK PEOPLE IN SOUTH AFRICA WERE THERE FIRST. IT IS THEIR COUNTRY. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. THEY WERE TREATED WRONGFULLY BY THE BOERS AND THE BRITISH. DOES THAT COMPUTE? I am so tired of you talking about this topic as if the only people in that country were British and Boers. Their priority is first, BEFORE yours, because THEY are 1. majority. 2. Their lands were stolen. 3. They were marganialized when the society was formed, worse off than the boers. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. The Black people were not there first. The yellow-brown skinned Khoisan people were there first. The Khoi were yellow-brown skinned not black. This is nothing but racial colonialism & is frown upon by anthropologists. Furthermore if South Africa is supposedly a "Black country" (despite its history which demonstrates otherwise) then Denmark would have to be considered a "White country" which would never be allowed to be mentioned.

There was also the Natalia Republic from 1839 until 1843 which was created as part of an alliance with the Zulu King Mpande. Then there was also the New Republic created from an alliance with the Zulu King Cetswayo in 1884 & incorporated into the Transvaal Republic in 1887.

Aww here we go. Look at how you go on and on with your history lesson like everything happened all nice and neat and orderly. Stop giving me a sanitized history lesson. The boers got those "republics" from stealing, taking, and annexing land from Mpande and Cetswayo. They worked with the British, even complaining when the British didn't give them what they think they should get! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The very first Boer Republic was at Graaff-Reinet in Jan 1795. Followed soon in June 1795 by the republic at Swellendam.

Wrong the Boers are related to the aboriginal Khoisan peoples.

THIS IS BEAUTIFUL. Explain how the Boers (who are white) and who came exclusively from Europe are related to the Khoi, who are the original BLACK inhabitents of S. Africa, and are perhaps of the oldest people in the PLANET??? Is this what... forget this, I'm going right to YOUR talk page! Explain this! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NO even better, I am going to PUT THIS ON THE KHOI and BOER pages! I cant wait to see this!

Montenegro elected to gain independence from Serbia during last month. You are wrong about Germany and the Dutch, as Austria is a different German country, while in Belgium there is a different Dutch community, called the Flemish. Italy now has three independent territories inside its territory.

I don't CARE. Montenegro ELECTED to gain independance which was respected BY Serbia, another country partitioned from a colonization campaign by the communists. They are sorting out THAT confusion. And again they ALSO have been in that region for thousands of years. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Other people, including black people, will be welcomed in the Afrikaner volkstaat, if they are willing to be a minority.

Oh lets give them another chance? Maybe they won't be so evil this time? No I don't think so. Thats another (of the long list of reasons why NO is the answer). No, they don't EARN... let me correct myself... they IRRESPONSIBLY SQUANDERED and WASTED the trust they never even earned in the first place. "will be welcomed"... just "tell them what they want to hear" huh? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the first to admit that terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of Apartheid by individuals. These individuals had the opportunity to obtain amnesty for their actions by appearing in front of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, those who did not, received heavy sentences by our courts of law. There was however no orchestrated killing campaign of millions, you are lying. Where is the evidence that support this claim of yours? Why do you not present it to the international court in The Hague?

No you are not the first to admit. You can't even admit WHO committed the terrible atrocities. They were just committed, like by some atrocity fairy. By "individuals". Not by groups? Not by a coordinated nearly unanimous social and cultural group of millions? Heck in that instance the NAZI policies against Jews were just "terrible attrocities commited by individuals". Why millions? Because I don't count bullets and direct assualts. I count the starvations and the misery and the wars and the collateral damage. We can argue about if it was millions or a few dozen all year long. There were many orchestrated campaigns. I'm sure you will not count the murder of a hundred thousand Herero in Namibia when it was called German S.W. Africa. How many Sharpville massacres? Maybe it's not a million. Maybe it's just 200,000? --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The ANC killed more innocent Black civilians during the struggle in South Africa than the South African security forces. The ANC killed over 6000 black civilians through the practice of necklacing during the struggle. Please keep to the facts as this is an encyclopedia, or is your motto “not to allow the facts to interfere with a good story”?

Oh please. HEre we go with the dense routine. How many "unsolved" murders in Apartheid S. Africa history? Your country created biological warfare weapons against blacks. The ANC is not the issue here, it's not a question about "should the ANC be vindicated or not". All of this chaos, all of this madness you bring up yourself, was directly resulted by Apartheid and racist policies of a non-indigenous transplanted group of self-rightous bigots that felt they deserved to inhabit a land that was "empty" when it was not empty at all. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The schools I supported, are free to appoint their own teachers and they subscribe to the curriculum as prescribed by the department of education. The children can decide their own calling. Do you know anything about the official ANC credo of "liberation before education" used during the struggle?

Yes yes yes, we will see how these schools turn up. Considering your point of view, it seems difficult to believe that these schools will do anything revolutionary for the children. Do I know this, DO I know that. Do you need to feel vindicated? No you cannot have a single speck of dust on the continent of Africa to call your own. You had your chance, you botched it, you had 50 years to do things like train the Blacks to participate responsibly in the infrastructure, nope, you excluded them. Education? Nope, not allowed to attend. Trade? Nope, no businesses were allowed to flourish outside of the "reservations" (which were thus run by cronies). And now we talk about "black on black" crime. Oh I love that Mariam Makeba song. "They say it's black on black, but we know they are all behind it!" --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you stop to think that all Orania is about, is becoming one of those "reservations" you so demean? \ Yes, and have YOU thought about what Orania is ultimately about, what deep down, beneath the naive interpretation of facts and figures and history.... what Orania is REALLY about? No. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here--Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Americans also moved from the other side of the world to take the USA from the Native Americans, you are not holy you know.-- Gemsbok1 09:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a white person. Secondly, much of my heritage is native american. Thirdly, I do not make excuses for what white Americans had done. Fourthly, there is no "white American" reservation in the U.S.A. Finally, I do not have any problem with Native Americans being compensated (without reservation, without delay) for the lands stolen. So what now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. SOME Americans moved from other side of the world. A substantial and growing minority did not "move" willingly and were already here. You guys didn't even succeed in killing off all of the Native Africans. Are you paying attention? The power of that country resides in the people, and at this point, the Afrikaaner Tribe is no longer in power. Oh and by the way, much of my background IS native American. IS there something else you want to discuss about American history? I mean we are going sooooo way off topic here. Orania, an enclave of whiteness in a country filled with black people. Again, where is the Nazi-german village in Israel? Please show me this village. Seriously, when will you take the attitude that the only real honest virtuous option is to work hard TOGETHER with the blacks to resolve the cultural, moral, and economic crisis in your country? Why are you trying to find your own "enclave" when your country is in the midst of a crisis? Heck, what did you think would happen? Blacks would magically start running things smoothly? MOst never had any experience in a scale such as this! Come on! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I amtrying to get across is this. Morally,ethically, your position is as weak as quicksand. There is no way anyone can trust your (and you know im referring to the Afrikaaner position on Orania) people. That's like trusting the Sudanese government,or their Janjaweed militia. YOu have to earn that trust, and you have a couple of centuries of COOPERATIVE nation building. A lot of schools and a lot of GIVING UP of the UNEARNED benefits that you received over the past 50 years. You don't get to keep all the benefits. Sorry. And the payment is not solely a lifting of a burden of conscience called the Truth and Reconcilliation Condition. Your country needs to begin (which it has barely done after 10 years) building itself into a real society. Those Oranians who feel they are soooo self sufficient, they have a responsibility to pass those values and ideas to the ENTIRE country if they are wanting such a "peaceful" coexistence. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that final sentence sounds a lot like a threat. The fact of the matter remains that the current suzerain & neo colonial situation facing the various peoples of the artificial British created macro state of South Africa is not going to be able to go on forever.

yea YOU perceive anything that doesn't put your concerns first as a threat. Take care of the whites before everyone else, lest they feel threatened. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What to expect in Orana

What will the penalty be for speaking Zulu in Orania? If a Oranian woman gets married to a Xhosa man what reprucussions (if any) would there be? How can one identify a non-boer from a boer if both are white? Are Jews excluded from living in Orania? Are Jews excluded from running businesses there? Are Blacks excluded from running businesses there? I've got so many more questions. In due time. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good questions Zaph, here are the honest answers:

• There is no penalty for speaking Zulu in Orania, but it will probably be difficult to find someone who can understand the speaker.
• The bride and groom will be congratulated, but they will be requested to move to the neighbouring town of Hopetown, where the children of this couple are free to explore and build on their Xhosa cultural heritage as well. The same procedure applies if the bride chooses to marry a Jew, Greek or English groom.

Well lets assume they intend on NOT moving, and after being asked, they decline to move. Then what. Lets take this to the logical conclusion. What happens next. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will happen, but everyone will be unhappy. It will be like shooting an endangered black rhino in a wildlife reservation. --Gemsbok1 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• An Afrikaner's mother tongue is Afrikaans. Also a unique pride in the Afrikaner culture. You will have to speak to the person to find out.

Interesting, you can't tell by looking unless they are mixed with non-white especially Black. In addition, there is no reason to expect a Boer/non-boer-white mixed child and their family to be "asked" to move elsewhere if the family adopts Afrikaans. Same cannot be said for our mixed race friends a couple of questions up? Realistically these theoretical policies will not be adoped so blindly. That lack of acknowleding realism is also irritating. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They will definitely be asked to move, as they will not share the same culture, even if they adopt Afrikaans. --Gemsbok1 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Jews, Greeks, English and all other non-Afrikaners are excluded from living in Orania
• Yes, Jews, Greeks, English and all other non-Afrikaners are excluded from running businesses there.
• Yes, black people as non-Afrikaners are excluded from running a business there.

I will be glad to answer other questions. Regards, --Gemsbok1 16:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not going to work out. Unfortunately they will be requested to renounce this policy as it is racist and prejudiced. I am sure you can understand that. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions do not change the facts and we do not need your permission to carry on either. We already have the permission of the South African judicial system. --Gemsbok1 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have permission to create the city and what not, what i am saying is you have no permission to legally ban people form living there based on race. Maybe right this moment the issue is ambigious legally, but soon enough the legal ramifications will come to a head. that one Black or colored person will try to move there, and there will be a new issue to contend with and in the end the racists will lose. And no it's not racist for someone of a different background to have a right to move to Orania. --208.254.174.148 01:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The people of Orania has continually offered to share their knowledge of community economic development to any community in South Africa who is interested in the lesons learnt by Orania. They have communicated to the ANC government that community development is the only sustainable way of uplifting all South Africans. --Gemsbok1 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then let us do that, and we will put this obsession of racial/cultural purity to the side for the foreseeable future. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not racial purity, that is why English people who adopt Afrikaans is not welcome either. It is cultural purity. --Gemsbok1 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How is a cultural purity based on genetic ancestry? Afrikaaners/Boers are genetically/ancestrally mixed (as you say). Therefore it makes no sense to reject those who assimilate into the culture. That is why this is a RACIAL issue not a CULTURAL one. The Afrikaaner/Boer "culture" is a front for Boer racial seperatism and exclusivity. You cannot have it both ways Gemsbok. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems evident that the Volkstaater promoters in this discussion are motivated by a predestined interpretation of history and facts, to such a degree that I must say truthiness is the inevitable product. But don't trust me, hear it from the founder of Orania himself "If South Africa stays peaceful, if no conflict breaks out, then I do not think I will see the realisation of a Volkstaat in my lifetime," says Carel Boshoff, 76, founder of Orania and son-in-law of late prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid. [[3]] --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The founder of Orania stated that he did not believe that Afrikaners will have an Independent homeland before he died, as he is already aged 76. He did not re-interpretate any historical facts.--Gemsbok1 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

that's not the context. He is saying "IF S. Africa stays peaceful..." Which means he knows that his desire for a homeland is based in part on the situation in S. Africa. Which is why it is clear that the violence by the right-wing afrikaaners is motivated by a desire to make S. Africa undesirable for the whites so they could come to Orania. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

See Gemsbok, you talk about "my opinions" and how they are not facts. Yet the facts speak for themselves. You have no compelling arguement to support a racially based society in the middle of S. Africa. True enough the S. African government is tolerating it for the time being, I am certainly awaiting the inevitable when these volkstaaters will try to expand or will bump into a neighboring black/mixed city or something. It WILL happen, and the Volkstaat purity clause will crumble. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

how does it come that a village with 700 inhabitants is considered as such a threat by some users? --Severino 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it that an obscure facist party in Germany wasn't considered as such a threat in Germany in the 1920s? Any group involved in white racial purity (regardless if it is a byproduct of some cultural interpretation) is a threat, especially in areas where White supremacy affected the character of the country and terrorized people. That's like having an Al-queda only village somewhere in Afghanistan where the members swear they will never threaten anyone.

Though what you neglect to mention if that the German Nazi party had powerful financial backers who were politically connected while the Oranians do not.

Well there are still Taliban strongholds. Al-Qaeda does not exist in the manner in which the big media asserts. See The Power of Nightmares for more on this.

I find it odd & interesting how you always blame the bit players while never blaming the true powers who finance & promote the bit players.

"Be glad that they were not deported to Europe or put into some isolated Gallo-stans with no rights and no chance to uplift themselves." (quote zaph) i think a comment like this is very questionable...i mean, its partially interesting to follow zaphs arguments but the point is that he says, the boers/afrikaners dont have the right to do this or to do that BECAUSE they came from outside africa. my god, the world history is full of migrations.even the natives of the american continent migrated from asia...--Severino 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh "my god" my butt. This is far beyond any kind of reasonable comparable situation. In S. Africa, during Apartheid, it was so bad that Black kids couldn't pray to God using the Our Father prayer. The psychological insanity of Apartheid culture (which has certainly continued on in Post Apartheid Afrkiaaner society. This psychological sickness has not even been acknowledged in this discussion, let alone in Orania. "my god my god" where else on Earth does that hatred get to have so much justification, only to conveniently "dissappear" and have "cultural survival" take it's place? Severino, many people will densely follow a conversation in a vacuum, pretending that history (recent history) is not a relevant factor in judging circumstances. They did that in WW1 which is why there was WW2. They do this in America, which is why we are in Iraq now. The Boers don't have the right, not only because they came from outside Africa (which by itself is not a reason). But because they participated to such a destructive degree in the psychological insanity of Apartheid. That legacy lives on, as they show no interest in letting their hatred go. They only dress up their hatred with a irrational fear. In classic spinmeister fashion, you use key words in interesting ways. This was not a "migration", this was a land steal, along with hateful, contemptuous oppression and atrocities. And since you seem to only view this historical events in your "naive innocent" mentality, that confirms to me that you view the perspective of the blacks as so irrelevant, that you would not even acknowledge the true aspect of the events. That shows me how self-centered and hateful those that think like that are. And you as well as the Orania people acknowledge no accountability, because what was done to the blacks is nothing to account for. And with conservatives, everything is relative when accountability comes their own way. So how to react? Oh throw the words at the other side first. Use "hatred" to describe Zaph's position, so no one will see the hatred in your own. Speak with an innocent defenseless "why is this happening to me" tone, in order so that the readers will forget this is how the Blacks were subjected. Finally, talk with a "live and let live" philosophy after the fact that historically speaking white supremacists only wait for the right moment to strike. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boers did not come from "outside Africa". The Boers never existed until they were formed on African soil. The Boers did not exist in Europe (or Asia where some of their ancestors came from) then suddenly transplant themselves in Africa. If you had even bothered to read even one of my various responses to you which I posed here on June 22 you would have known that the Boers only came about on African soil after the various ancestral communities amalgamated with one another to form the said cultural / ethnic group.

Furthermore: you must remember that the ancestors of the Boers did not bring themselves to Africa. Most of the Dutch / Frisian / Flemish & Germans came as servants of the VOC. The French Huguenots & numerous Walloons & Germans came as political & religious refugees at the direction of the VOC.

Accusing the Boers of coming from "outside Africa" is tantamount to accusing the African American from coming from outside America despite the fact that their culture & language developed there.

The Boers did not exist in Europe & blaming the Boers for the fact that their ancestors were taken to Africa by the Dutch East India Co. is a not so clever attempt at holding them responsible for the origins of their distant ancestors.

I doubt you would appreciate being accused of coming "all the way from Asia" or of being asked "how did you folks get waaaaaay over there from Asia to the Americas your most famous colony?".

The Boers only marginally participated in the Apartheid era due to their smaller numbers. The Afrikaners & the British before them were the driving force. The Boers were marginalized during the Apartheid era.

The Voortrekkers only represented about 25 % of the total White population at the Cape preceding the era of the Great Trek. While a number of Boers remained in the eastern Cape or trekked elsewhere: their numbers were still less than the numbers of those in the Western Cape who would later go on to control the emerging Afrikaner designation following the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War.

While there were indeed some Boers who were promoted within the Cape based Afrikaner designation: they largely stopped representing the Boers -who were mainly destitute or dead after the war- & began to play a subservient role within a larger Afrikaner (which was composed of mainly those who were never historically Boers) nationalism which was really more of a neo colonialism (on behalf of their British masters who created the macro state) than true nationalism. Much the same way that the Republic of South Africa created in 1961 was not a true republic.

first of all, i am a person of asian origin who lives in europe. i have actually nothing to do with south africa, i havent even been there yet. there is nothing more than an interest which connects me with south africa. when i wrote "migration", i didnt mean the whole history (including land stealing,displacements of others, the apartheid,...)of the white south africans, i was only talking about their ORIGIN. and that this origin alone cant be reason to exclude them from any rights in post apartheid south africa. these rights in my view are the same as all other south africans enjoy and do NOT include the right to separate from the rest of the country. but i think that a country with 40 mil. inhabitants can cope with a village with 700 inhabitants, whose character and goals are -to my standard of knowledge- not as evil as you want to make it believe ("nazi-village", "al quaida-village"). orania is connected with the freedom front, which participates in the democratic process of the country since 1994 unlike other parties of the white (afrikaner/boer) right and is considered by them as traitor. all that doesnt mean that i'm a fan of this section of the white right.! neither do i consider the perspective of blacks as irrelevant or do i deny the crimes of apartheid. do you know more than the south african authorities or are they still racistic, zaph? now its your turn to "interprete" my statement the way you are accustomed to do it. --Severino 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Severino, I am not interested in "you" personally. The "you" (as I have said before) addresses those who share the opposing philosophy and who refer to themselves as the "we" in question. I could care less if you are a black-african republican from Iowa who wants to have his white buddies pat him on the back for being black republican of the year. Their origin alone is NOT the reason, and if you had read my entire position then you would see that it is their attitude and their past atrocities and their lack of interest in correcting the damage that is the reason. See, what if the whites came peacefully, and had not committed apartheid, and what if their concept of "identity" wasn't based on how restrictive their geneology is (how many people base their identity on some notion of purity besides whites and japanese), there would be no issue here would there? No there would not. The founder of Orania is the son of the founder of Apartheid and both share the same ideals, the son never deviated from the ideals of Apartheid. YOu say "do i know more than the south african authorities or are they still racists"? Here's an answer: You tell me what day, month, or year all of the white afrikaaner racists in authoratitive positions decided to stop being racist in their hearts and minds. What magical spell can cause people so bent on hatred to just magically stop. It's one thing to be restrained from carrying the conecpts out, its another to wholly in your soul say "it's wrong and I really will stopp." That takes integrity and it also takes a willingness to change. Those Orania people, they don't want to change. They will always feel "under seige" in Orania and only feel the need to expand and annex more land as a way to offset their endless (and tiresome) victim-seige mentality. Your statements need no "interpretation" because it's obvious you are coming from a naive background. (I said this earlier that your statements sound naive, as if there was no past to balance them with). See, no one ever talks to white supremacist/seperatists like that. No, we are to just take their endless quest for seperation/superiority as a given and work around it. No F--- that. Wake up Severino. Asians are no different. The most annoying supporters of "innocent white supremacy" are people from India or Japan. Oh please let the white supremacists have their way just a little bit, they will suffer without their comfortable white supremacy atmosphere, they can't breathe without it. OH boo f---king hoo. WAKE UP SEVERINO. I wish they did that to your asian country. I wish White Brits from Australia or Britain, or wherever had a no asians allowed village right in the middle of your country of origin. And I'd love to hear you explain it away. You would be the sellout traitor of your people, you'd lose your citizenship and be exiled. Dang, I'd love to see that act of betrayal explained away. OH Ghandi, these british have been here since the days of Jaafar (the first chump that sold his people out to Britain, look him up, why do you think Disney uses him as a bad guy in their Alaadin movies.). Please, we should let them have their "Rajistan village" in the middle of Gudrat or Punjab state. (no it doesnt matter if you are Indian or not, you get the point dont play dumb) --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are accusing the Boers of stealing land & committing atrocities while letting the VOC / the British Empire & the Bantus (see Difaqane of the hook.

First of all he is the son-in-law not the son. Verwoerd's grandson btw is a prominent member of the ANC. Furthermore Verwoerd was the founder of Grand Apartheid which attempted to turn the neo colonial Apartheid of the British into a form of Separate Development.

Furthermore: you are accusing people of hatred even though many people who supported Apartheid (as wrong as it was) did so not because they hated anyone but because they felt that it was the best way to deal with the heterogeneous cultural populations which were forced into a single state for the first time in most of their histories.

Well that's a stupid reason. They felt that apartheid was the best way to "deal with" the heterogeneous cultural populations? That's an example of coddling racial prejudice. They, the white minority felt it was the best way for THEM to deal with THEIR retarded "issue" with the hetergeneous cultural population. Oh and I like the second part "which were forced" into a single state. Could you help me understand something, did the British force the Zulu and Khoi and Xhosa to live in the region? And it's fascinating that these nice people wanted to find a nice way of dealing with the terrible problem of other cultures living among them. Can you please stop with the sanitized version of events? I am so tired of the White Afrikaaner S. African white innocent-prim-and-proper-naive-yet-wounded excuse talk. Sick of it Ron. Those people didnt have to "force" everybody else into some crazy screwed up ghettos and crappy "3rd class" schools, and what not. Damn it, they didn't mind having them around as servants!! Just stop it Ron. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all it was not their "issue" but an "issue" that was & is facing all of the various cultural groups within the sub continent. The British forced the various groups into one single macro state under a single administration. Prior to this advent it was reported that there existed a balance of power in the region.

From: Southern African Societies.

No. The terrible problem (as you put it) was not that other cultures were living among them (as had long been the case) but that the various cultures were now in conflict with one another as they were forced into a single macro state which was run by British imperialists & racists.

Furthermore the whole point I was making here was to counter your hateful assertion that all of the supporters of Apartheid were motivated by hate. While I was & am also against Apartheid I am reasonable enough to acknowledge that there were many supporters who were simply attempting to deal with the situation created by Britain & were not necessarily motivated by hatred. What you were doing was claiming that al of them were motivated by hatred & that is just absurd.

Wait a minute here. In one breath you deny that the British forced the various cultures into a single macro state but then in the next breath you lambaste the Afrikaners (which is never defined) & accuse them of forcing people into ghettos when that was long since initially done by the English speaking gold mining magnates. Remember: Johannesburg was a mining town which was run by the English speaking outlanders much to the chagrin of the Boers of the old Transvaal Republic.

The best point you made was that the White elite did not mind having them around as servants. This is the exact same critique that I & others have leveled against the White elite of South Africa too. This fact alone made the whole Apartheid nightmare even more ridiculous than it otherwise could have been but the Afrikaner nationalists tried to have it both ways which proved to be absurd.

No sir: you just stop it. Stop distorting my points & stop blaming the Boers for things which were initiated & maintained by others.

by writing "south african authorities" i meant of course the present day authorities, which are definitely not whites only. but, ok. if there were not again stupid generalisations like "Asians are no different. The most annoying supporters of "innocent white supremacy" are people from India or Japan.", maybe i could start thinking about your position. henceforth i leave the field for you. --Severino 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Severino, you want to go on and on, but you know good well that I have no support of an anti-asian villiage in your country. I would never justify some whites exclusively living in any part of your country. Why do I say India or Japan? Not generalization, I mean that the experiences I have encountered. Maybe you should just start thinking about the position regardless. You speak of generalizations coming from a position that is based on racial seperatism, isn't that just wacky to you??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

hm, i wanted to stop our discussion but your statement needs an answer, zaph: i'm not sure if i understood you correctly, but anyway: i do not support racial separation in your country (usa?) or in south africa. first, we're on the talk page of an international it-encyclopedia and whatever position i represent, it wont be a support for any party there. second, i do not approve the "volkstaat"-concept. i have questioned your notion of orania. but i never endorsed any concept or ideology of white supremacy over blacks in africa or elsewhere. finally i would like to know how relevant the positions of south african blacks (zulu, xhosa,..)are for you, of the government or of parties like the anc, the ifp or pac. as this discussion is already quite off-topic (the purpose of this site is to improve the article), maybe you should answer on my talk-page, if you wish to answer. --Severino 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I wanted to stop the discussion long ago, but you had to say some of the things you said, so here we are. I was not talking about racial seperation in my country, I was talking about it in YOUR country. I do not see how you "misunderstood" what I was talking about, it's very clear. I said it clearly a few times, yet your response (to no surprise) tries to dodge and weave... so now we are having a converstaion about whether or not you support racial prejudice in "MY" country. Beautiful. Let me clear all of this rigamorole up. No white-only Orania. I do not care if they say "it's a cultural coiencidence" or not. No, the answer is NO. You already have your answer here. THere is no excuse for Orania, there is no justification for it. The excuses I hear in this discussion are repugnant. They had to deal with being forced to live with other cultures?? Oh my god, I forgot how traumatic it is for white people to endure the painful suffering calamity of living WITH other people who aren't white. Oh Apartheid was an "understandable" reaction. Just saying "yes it was wrong, and shouldn't be repeated in any way" just isn't something you can do? I mean for some reason, we are trained to look at white sensibilities regarding other races through some "extra special" consideration? If whites feel uncomfortable just with non-whites being AROUND them, then oh that's something that the non-white has to cope with and contend with, otherwise we are doing the white person some kind of injustice. Heck, its cultural suicide for whites to merely coexist culturally with non-whites. AWFUL DISGUSTING. --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

interesting how YOU dodge my questions. sometimes i think you dont know much about south africa. nelson mandela described in his autobiography the ideological debates within the ANC during the 1940s and 1950s. they came to the conclusion that south africa is a multiracial country and also the whites have their place there, despite the crimes of apartheid. the goal of the freedom fight therefore would not be to expel the whites but to end apartheid. in the 1990s the PAC changed its position towards the whites, saying now that south africa is the home of all those (regardless their race) whose allegiance belongs only to africa. regarding topics which are debated here, this means that it (the initial position)is not "aliens vs. south africans" but "south africans vs. south africans". and if you say "No white-only Orania", you shouldnt address that to me but...for example to the government of the northern cape province. i dont expect that your distortions and allegations will stop here. --Severino 16:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I like the guy that said that Boers have black mixture some as much as 20%. Oh wait oops MY mistake, the Khoi aren't considered black because the white afrikaaners see them as "colored"... oh another boo-hoo don't let the mixed ones that LOOK mixed into the village, just the mixed ones that look strictly "white enough". Find one Boer that LOOKS like a mixed black guy in Orania. YOu wont find him. They all look like "pure" Europeans. Go ahead guys, say something else to make the readers think. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Researchers have asserted that certain Boer & Afrikaner individuals can have as much as 20 % non White genes.

Ron... who cares? Really? Even those Apartheiders in Orana don't care about that. Racism is all about judging how someone LOOKS on the OUTSIDE. YOu know the phrase "its whats on the inside that counts"? Well, that whole concept is so ignored and spurned by white supremacy and white racial sensibilities (like the one where the whites have to cope with living among non-whites). A boer with 2% non-white genes, and that 2% shows in his face with dark skin, kinky hair, and whatever else, will be treated worse, rejected more, and classified as color, where as mr 20% non-white boer gene guy, whose genes do not show in his face will be welcomed in Orania with open arms. And you know Ron, thats what gets me about this new-wave movement with right-wing...white-ring... punditry. DNA. Oh my god, DNA this, hapolytes that, this gene, this trait, etc... when all the while white supremacy and racism has been based solely on how you look or what ethnic group your parents were from. There is no such thing as Boer, Afrikaaner, or Nazi, or Jewish, or German, or American genetic disposition that trumps the "look" that others in the group approves of. When a boer with 20% non-white genes looks white, or white with a tan, they are considered a hot commodity with the other boers... "wow, your part khoi? sexy! cute! fascinating"! But the Boer still LOOKS WHITE. The Boer that is so dark that they look more LIKE a Khoi, comes in to Orania and says "i'm 80% boer", Guess how they will be treated. No, don't guess, because I forget, here we pretend that things operate naively. Let me TELL you what will happen, that black boer will be treated like shit. ENOUGH ron... ENOUGH!--Zaphnathpaaneah 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree as there are quite a number of Boers & Afrikaners who have tanned skin & even non White features. I find this whole conversation somewhat amusing as it was non other than an anti Boer Black nationalist just like yourself -even down to the same eerie language- who pointed out this fact to me back in 1999. I had known prior about those with darker complexions & non White features but I had never really investigated it until this Black nationalist brought it to my attention. My response must have annoyed him as I simply said: well considering that they have some Khoi ancestry they are even more indigenous to the region than I had previously thought. He knew it was true & simply stopped trying to delitgitamize the existence of the Boers after having done such a convincing job at presenting his case of partial non White heritage. His attempts had backfired as he had inadvertently presented evidence that the Boers had ancestors which went back not just hundreds but tens of thousands of years in the region.

I only raised the point of the well known non White admixture among the Boer & Afrikaner population solely in response to your erroneous assertion that the Boers do not have any relation any local culture in the region. I was simply setting the record straight.

The Oranians are not Apartheideres as they are committed to doing all of their own labour & do not wish to oppress or repress a single person based on race or culture. Now the repression of the state against the average individual is a different matter as states big & small can be repressive -though it is much easier to ward off the oppression of a smaller state than a larger one- but when one culture is attempting to pry itself out from the suzerainty of another culture or state: the given culture often has to create a quasi state of its own.

I am not even a supporter of Orania per se & have wondered in another talk page whether this is the right or most effecient form of Afrikaans self determination. What I do support however is the right of a people to decide for themselves the manner of dispensation that they wish to live under as this is a fundamental human right.

Oh you know what I did? I RFC'd myself for you guys. I know your tired of me busting the spins and half-truths of the Volkstaat positon. I know you are tired of me rudely responding to your ignorance and pretend stupidity. "Duuuh... Zaph, there just twyin ta keep their culture gee whiz buddy!". NOT A GRAIN OF DUST. I cant wait a decade or so when those numbskulls in Orania finally come to a head with some blacks or what not and have to "let them in" or "pack up and vacate themselves". It WILL happen. Gemsbok, remember this discussion when it does. I WILL BE CHEERING. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Apparently it will not happen. Within a decade things might be going into quite another direction.

The predictions of the Boer prophet Siener Nicolaas van Rensburg would counter your petulant assertion.

Therefore: no you will not be cheering considering that van Rensburg (1860 - 1927) predicts that the Boers will not govern just small piece of land but will once again govern at least the regions in which they had established their republics.

And the only way that will come to pass is if the S. African government gives up that territory which will never happen. Not even a succeession war will make that happen. THEREFORE: I will be cheering if those fools in S. Africa try to incite a war against the black majority, because they will lose. It does not matter that they are generally poorer or have less access to infrastructure, they are too numerous and the goals of your false Siener prediction is to re-establish a white dominated society in South AFrica! You put your hope in a racist man who died 80 years ago is your inspiration? Nicolaas Pieter Johannes? The Boermag terrorists are your hope? I consider your comments beyond inflammatory, but I doubt anyone of a administrative position will agree. SO Therefore "this". The day Afrikaaners try to re-establish Apartheid in the cape or anywhere else in S. Africa (heck anywhere else in Africa period) is a day that they will bring war and destruction to themselves. So therfore THIS, they will lose and cause more misery for the whites in the process. LIke I said earlier, the ignorant attitude is to take care of whites first, lest they feel threatened and take everyone else into an abyss of destruction. Here Ron speaks. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your hatred & ignorance both flabbergasting. I do not support any act of violence nor do I support a single racist person. Whether the Boer prophet Nicolass van Rensburg was racist or not -I doubt he was- is completely besides the point. Nor do I put any hope in his predictions. I pointed out what he predicted as a counter to your constant hateful absurd & anti Boer tirades. Considering his accurate track record I just though it was of note to mention that he predicted the complete opposite of your hateful rants. I have just about had enough of your constant distortions / lies & all encompassing hate. I have never encountered such a hateful person as you in all my years working on this encyclopedia. I have never once ever said that the so called Boeremag -which is nothing but a government front group aimed at creating a false flag operation look it up < link > & read up on Operation Northwoods too- represents any hope for the Boers & demand an apology for this latest distortion as well as a retraction.

Well for one thing it is impossible to know if his prediction is false until a famous Black leader dies then a week later violence erupts in which a significant portion of the White population in Johannesburg is killed leadinig to German intervention. So do not get ahead of yourself. At any rate: I do not put hope on him but used his prediction as a counter to your constant anti Boer diatribes. Furthermore I would also hold off on calling van Rensburg a racist as you never met him nor ever even knew him. Once again I see you are making assumptions.

Let me tell you ONE more time. I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION about Boers and Afrikaaners. That means I do not love nor hate them. WHat I have an opinion and hatred about is white predominance in the middle of South Africa, and white preferential treatment through the use of land-grabbing schemes, and white prejudice under the auspices of company "policy". THAT is what I hate. What you cannot (or will not do) is seperate the hatred of what a person (or group) DOES from the opinions of a group. What you consider hateful is simplay your inability to admit "they are wrong". You believe in white exceptionalism. Whites should have their own seperate territory in Africa, thats what you believe, but you just want to soften it with this talk. YOu say "enough" I told you I had enough DAYS ago. But do you respect that. No. You continue on. You haven't encountered so much hate? Well you need to look up the word "hate". Here let me help you. hate. I "hate" white supremacy. I am indifferent to white people. You are preferential to white people and you are indifferent to equality. You support white rights at the expense of the rights of others. You get what I am saying? I have not found your name ANYWHERE else regarding minority rights to secede from any majority country. Not Basque, not even FRENCH QUEBECKERS. I am sure you are here somewhere in one of the French Canadian discussions, but I have not found you. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is falling this little trick of claiming that you do not "have an opinion" about the Boers & Afrikaners then in the next breath you accuse them of "stealing land" & committing atrocities & then denying a small group of them the right to create their own enclave. The fact is that you are insulting people's intelligence by painting an entire group as extremists then turning around & laughably claiming that you have no "opinion" of them -this is a joke. You claim that you do not like land grabbing schemes yet you seem to be quite comfortable with the land grabbing schemes conducted by states which rule over mini empires. I do not believe in White exceptionalism. I have openly supported the right of the Rehoboth Basters / the Zulus / the Xhosas & the Tswanas to do exactly the same thing that the Oranian Afrikaners & Boer irredentists are claiming. I am in favour of the right of any group to pursue greater self determination.

No. I do not believe that White people -it's not Whites- per se should have their own territory -what I was pointing out was that the any indigenous or local established group has the inherent right to self determination & the right to form an enclave. Nothing more nothing less. Furthermore: it is up to the various groups to decide on these matters & not up to those of us who are not even part of the group or groups/ peoples in question.

No. I do not support White rights at the expense of others. I support the right of a people to decide the manner of dispensation that they wish to live under & most importantly: I support the right of a people to defend their culture from hostile regimes which are bent on eradicating them.

Well obviously have not looked hard enough as I spent close to a decade on various forums defending the right of the Basques to become independent & the right of the Quebecois -whom I know first hand- to become fully independent. My name was in the Canadian Sympatico discussion groups for years defending these two topics -among others- for many years. I only ever just lightly discussed South African issues there as it was a Canadian forum. I have in recent years become more interested in the various peoples of South Africa as a result of the escalating genocide against the Boer farmers which will lead to full scale famine as in Zimbabwe if it is not brought under control.

After reading up on the long arduous history of the Boers & their many struggles & the fact that they have had an uphill fight just to maintain their existence has opened my eyes to their modern day struggles. The early Boers on the northern & eastern Cape frontier were semi nomadic & lived in the wagons that they travlled in. The modern day Boers are descended from those hardy folks & the language they speak -called "die taal"- & their culture comes directly from those Boers who trekked away from the Western Cape & eastwards from 1690s & into the 1700s. I have since reailized that they are an authentic homegrown group who have been oppressed by the Dutch / the British / the Afrikaners & now the new London backed Xhosa (who are less numerous than the Zulus) regime. The Boers were marginalized within the Afrikaner desingnation which was controlled by those who were not descended from Boers who who historically actively worked against their best interests. These White Afrikaans non Boer folks -known coloquially as the Cape Dutch- who ran the Afrikaner designation even derided the Boers & the Great Trek claiming that nothing good would ever come of it & that they would all soon end up dead. Still a modern wish of the anti Boer folks.

This is the main reason why I have become detemined to counter the constant hatred & erronous propaganda which is generated by the anti Boers propagandists & those who are ignorant of the facts.

Furthermore if you had bothered to look up the actual prediction which van Rensburg made: he stated that the Boers would regain their self determination with the help of the Germans after the Black population kill off about 500 000 White people in Johannesburg one week after a famous & renown Black leader dies. It appears that the Boers will be aided as part of a humanitarian effort similar to how NATO stepped in (which was more than it appeared) to defend the Kosovans.

IN OTHERWORDS AN ACT OF WAR. And the Boer seperatists are putting their hope in a war or agressive act. Hmmmm... ISNT THAT WHAT OUR GUY WAS SAYING? YES! --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. For one thing the aggressive act predicted is on the part of those who will "go to war" with the White population in general. Are the Boers supposed to just let themselves be killed off? Ooops I forgot: in your distorted view of things it would be "racist" for them to defend themselves no matter how aggressive the attacks against them are.

Sir you have just crossed the line. I do not respect anyone who would distort his opponents to the point of claiming that his opponent supports a terrorist group -even it the group was genuine. This is the lowest I have seen from you yet as you have just shown the whole world that you are capable of the worst form of demagoguery imaginable. I have been a long time opponent of terrorism all my life & will never support terrorism in any circumstance. I model my resistance against Statism based on Gandhi not your bomb throwing heroes. Van Renburg himself did not even use a gun when he fought in the second Anglo-Boer War.

YOU RON CROSSED THE LINE POSTINGS AGO! You continue to post comments that are either irrelevant to the topic, or out of context to the point. You then continue on with your own self-centered "white rights" philosophy, ignoring the obvious. In essence, with your writings, you continute to insult my intelligence. Let me cut and paste some of your doubly offensive statements:

you are accusing people of hatred even though many people who supported Apartheid (as wrong as it was) did so not because they hated anyone but because they felt that it was the best way to deal with the heterogeneous cultural populations

Researchers have asserted that certain Boer & Afrikaner individuals can have as much as 20 % non White genes.

an anti Boer Black nationalist just like yourself

Well I disagree as there are quite a number of Boers & Afrikaners who have tanned skin & even non White features.

and on and on... you just keeping making statements that are so aggrivating misleading, and you just go on and on. So you want to keep escalating the situation. I will too. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is another bald faced lie. I have never posted comments (they are responses to your arrogant assertions & hate) which are irrelevant or even off topic. I have better things to do then to respond to your hatred. But I am not going to just let you demonize of whole group of people. I do not support a White rights philosophy just because I support the principle of self determination & the right to independence that the Oranians & various other peoples wish to observe. If you actually read what I posted to you before you would have noted that I even supported the right of the Xhosas to have the Transkei become a tenth province. So much for your theories about what I supposedly support. This is why you have no credibility here: you do not research the history of the region in question & do not read what the posters respond to you with on top of that then you distort what they actually said & take their words out of context.

I fail to see what in the world is so allegedly offensive about pointing out the confirmed fact that a number of those who supported Apartheid do so not because they hated anyone as you offensively assert. Do you not even see your own hypocricy? You offensively assert that everyone who supported the nightmarish Apartheid laws were all "haters". Can you not see the how that is offensive to those whose only motivation was in supporting a form of decolonization? Even the progressive editor of the Johannesburg Star newspaper called Apartheid "intellectually acceptable" during the 1960s so you can not just extrapolate that all Apartheid supporters were motivated by hatred or racism.

What in the world in offensive with pointing out the well known fact that researchers have discovered that certain Boer & Afrikaners can have as much as 20 % non white genes. This proves that you did not read my response to you here on the 22nd. I noted in one of them that the parents of Sandra Laing were considered to have as much as 20 % non White genes! Stop shooting the messenger. It is all a very clever trick to claim that I am being "offensive" for reporting this finding when perhaps you should take it up with those researchers who made the discovery in the first place if your really do find it offensive. I think you are just pulling another one of your demagogic tricks again.

Concerning the fact that I noted that you sound a lot like an anti Boer Black Nationalist (who used to disrupt the Orania discussion forum with vulgarities on their site): well you do & no feigning of "offense" can change this fact.

I have no idea how in the world is it that you could even find offense with my observation that there are a number of Boer & Afrikaners who have tanned skin & non White features. Look here: you are the one who started this by claiming the the Boers have no connection to any local culture. All I did was set the record straight. If you find that offensive then you have more problems that I had thought.

How in the world is it misleading to point out facts? What planet are you on for crying out loud. If you do not like the fact that many Apartheid supporters were not motivated by hate (as you assert) or that the Boers & Afrikaners can have significant non White lineage or that you sound just like an anti Boer Black Nationalist too bad. Take it up with the actual researchers & historians in question.

Sir I consider your comments way beyond inflammitory & bordering lible. From day one you have come in here & have spewed nothing but hate. I have watched you jump all over anyone who would dare to stand up for a beleaguered community while you spew forth one angry tirade after another all while distorting the words of your opponents. I am sick of it!!!!!! Just sick it. People like you should be held accountable for their hate & constant distortions.

Well good, you already committed libel by calling me an Anti Boer black nationalist, you keep accusing me of hating whites and Afrikaaners, which is false. And you yap on about your "beleagured community". You will never be held accountable for misleading statements you have over and over. Come on Ron, earlier, when you "corrected" me by telling me that there are quite a number of Boers with non white features... was THAT something you were RESPONDING to? Or did you forget that I had already acknowledged that fact with the statement "A boer with 2% non-white genes, and that 2% shows in his face with dark skin, kinky hair, and whatever else, will be treated worse, rejected more, and classified as colored,". After all that has happened, many times over in S. AFrica, boers mixed with black are called "Guiche" and "Colored". So you MISLEAD (thus offend, thus break the integrity of Wikipedia, and of honest discussion) by going from a discussion about 'dna' to 'there are boers that look non-white'. I already KNOW that a big CHUNK of "boers" are "colored". That is not the issue. The issue is that the more mixed a "boer" looks, the less respect they have of being a part of the "white" Boer identity. Find me a photograph of a black or mixed Boer Ron. You won't find it in ORANIA because they aren't THERE. In fact, as THIS article indicates, a group of COLORED (that is most likely boers mixed with black) were EVICTED from part of the land and are suing. Were they "OFFERED" to "JOIN" the Afrikaans/Boer settlement? NO. They were EVICTED! --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if you are a Black Nationalist. I noted that your comments sound exactly like one. I was responding to the fact that you accused the Boers of not haing any connection with any local cultures. I set the record straight by correcting you. Look it up. I notice that you flew into a rage over this & have still not recovered. Furthermore: you only acknowledged the non White lineage after I responded with the case of some having high percentages to your earlier statement. You are having a circular argument by claiming that you made the acknowledgment before I even pointed it out to you in the first place. These conversation are date stamped in the history section.

Now look here. I have never denied that those who are more overtly mixed race looking were not treated the same as someone with more White looking appearances. This is not what I am disputing at all & the suggesting that I am disputing it is disingenuous. I pointed out the fact that there are in fact established & accepted Boers & Afrikaners who have some of these features. For goodness sakes. I am not making breaking news here. Do a search.

Now while you correctly note that there are a group of Coloureds who are suing Orania you conveniently neglect to mention that the individuals in question see themselves as part of a distinct cultural group. This is what you are not getting. The Boer & Coloured groups are distinct cultural & ethnic groups. Despite the historic & even constant connection between the two. This does not mean that all of the Coloureds look mixed (some look almost Bantu while others look quite White) or that all of the Boer & Afrikaners all look pure White -as some look almost Coloured. Are you getting it yet? Those Colourdes who are suing are doing so as part of a distinct ethnic / cultural group & not as part of the Boer ethnic / cultural group. Now if they had been assimilated into the Boer group than they would be Boers & not Coloureds. Do you get it now. Remember: there are a number of Boers & Afrikaners who even openly accept the notion of more overtly assimilating some Coloureds into their group.

What you have done here is sufficient to warrant a life time ban.

Doubly so for you Ron. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say that you will be cheering when an entire ethnic group vanishes is truly reprehensible. Odd how you accuse your opponents of being terrorists (this is a new low for you) yet you think that you can issue terrorist threats against an entire ethnic group & get off scot free! The whole world is watching & the whole world can see you for the hateful bigot that you are. If you do not like a given ethnic group fine: but refrain from issuing terrorist threats against them sir.

Yes I will be cheering, because I know their true motivations. You can play dumb. I won't. You accuse me of more libel (world, readers, please watch THIS as well), by saying that I am issuing terrorist threats. Please cut and paste your quote and refer it. Where did I threaten ANY body on here? For that false accusation I will be seeking some kind of administrative response from Wikipedia on you. See it is this kind of lying that you do about history that is consistent with the kind of lying you are doing now. Now you put your own self under scrutiny. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the controversial based gulf that it evident in this concersation. You accuse the Oranians of being un-reconstructed Apartheidists & racists based on the most flimsiest of evidence while I on the other hand note that they have publicly renounced Apartheid & racism & have also claimed that they are not interested in reviving it in the least. I am not "playing dumb" I am simply pointing out precisely what they themselves believe & state. You on the other hand are violating the NPOV policy here by accusing them of things which they themselves even repudiate.

Well the above quote from you just about torpedoes any chance of that considering that it is a red handed quote advocating ethnic cleansing & violence against the Afrikaans Oranians. I also notice how you are siding with the state: the oppressor of any presumptive conflict & are accusing the peaceful Oranians of "inciting" war against the "black majority" (thereby cleverly implying a race war when many Zulus / Griquas & Twsana would probably come to the defense of the Oranians as they share common aspirations to escape the suzerainty of the state) when even if Orania should God forbid have to defend its self with force at some point: it would only be a fight against the state (which is composed of many races / in fact fellow White Afrikaans folks in the state's army might have to shoot at their own cousins as tragiclly happend on the Rand in 1922) & not the so called "black majority" (there is not "majority" as each ethnic group is a minority). The distortions in your advocating of violence against the Afrikaans Oranians (which is what it is) is mind-boggling. The Oranians do not dream of ever "inciting" a race war. The founder is even on the record stating that if South Africa can become a peaceful place then the Orania project will not even be seen as relevant.

If anything ever does any inciting it will be the state as it always is. One only has to remember Waco / Ruby Ridge / Sharpeville / the Grant Bristow Affair / Operation Gladio & Operation Northwoods.

When & if the State incites or initiates violence against a peaceful people: it is immoral to blame the victims themselves & claim that they are responsible for the Fascist reaction of the State. Though based on you above red handed comments: it appears that this is exactly what you are doing.

Oh and another thing. You libelously lie again. I never said I would be cheering if the Afrikaaner ethinicty vanishes. I said:

I cant wait a decade or so when those numbskulls in Orania finally come to a head with some blacks or what not and have to "let them in" or "pack up and vacate themselves". It WILL happen. Gemsbok, remember this discussion when it does. I WILL BE CHEERING. I will be cheering if those fools in S. Africa try to incite a war against the black majority, because they will lose.

So we see here the consistent misleading and distortion of what I say here and now. We see Ron's misappropriation of facts, and gerrymandering of historical events. Ron we are going to let WIkipedia admins handle it from here. This conversation has ended. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So I looked up and down this article, I could not find a violent threat on my part. Not to punch, kick, stab, shoot, or physically assault anybody. Not a boer, not a white, not a black, no one. The only thing I mentioned is that I would volunteer for the S. AFrican army if the Boer seperatists went to trying to create a civil war to secede. That is not a terrorist threat and you know that. So here you are Ron, your arrogant mouth taking this process to a whole new level. [[--Zaphnathpaaneah 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a terrorist threat?! It is & you know it! You are on the record advocating the use of violence to solve of civil conflict. You can not deny this as your own red handed words clearly state this. The fact that you cleverly attempt to pin the blame on the Oranians (which is a repugnant "blame the victim" approach) does not negate the fact that you are publicly advocating the use of violence & military force -state terrorism- & that you yourself would become a mercenary in the cause of advancing the state terrorist action against an entire community! You sir have completely lost it. There is never a rational or a justification for using state terrorism against a people whose only crime is to strive towards self determination.

The whole bottom line with the Volkstaater Boers is that they want to "establish" the right to exclude non-whites from their territory. If they can't tell blacks to stay away from them, then they feel like they are being oppressed and marganialized. If that's not the "real reason" then that shouldn't be a PART of the reason at all. DO you GET IT YOU RACIST PIGS? Once you make anti-black exclusion a part of your goal, it becomes the bottom line, the most significant issue to contend with. Just because they are BLACK doesn't mean that the issue is any less human or significant. Not one speck of dust in S. AFrica is to be set aside exclusively for whites, not in a million years. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The Volkstaat people are not interested in establishing the right to excluse anyone form their territory as much as they are interested in merely obtaining the self government that can come with obtaining a demographic majority in a particular region.

The Afrikaans people in general (& that includes those from the Coloured communities as well) are in fact being oppressed & marginalized. Get informed & look it up. These peoples are being oppressed & marginalized in ways that mirror & in many cases surpass the regimes of the past.

The issue here is not even about any land being set aside for White people. The issue if about redressing the wrongs of the past which took away the independence of the Boer people -in particular- after the devastation & partial genocide of the Anglo-Boer War. The issue is not about race (as many other cultures are striving for the same thing in South Africa) but about culture.

I am not defending the position of the Oranians. I do not even agree with all of their positions. What I defend is the right of a people to decide for themselves otherwise it is no better than being an imperialist. Furthermore: I do not put hope in the Seer van Rensburg: but the fact remains that he has a very long track record of making accurate predictions. Some of which occurred even in his lifetime. Considering that he has been proven to be right on so many other topics: I just thought it would be prudent to point out what he had to say about the Boers reacquiring their independence as a means to counter you anti Boer diatribes. Nothing more nothing less.

I would suggest that you go to Orania yourself & call them these hateful names to their face if you really believe this nonsense. Stop being a coward & issuing you hatred against a Canadian. The Afrikaans peoples are indeed being oppressed & marginalized. They are being forced to speak English & Afrikaans education institutions are dwindling. I for one am not even in favour & any racial exlusion as I have noted in the past that many Boers & Afrikaners have expessed an acceptance of the Afrikaans speaking Coloured peoples with some Orania suporters even supporting the idea of admiting them. What I support is the right of a people to decide for themselves the manner of dispensation that they wich to live under & the right of self determination.

Excuse me you're the one defending their position, and with the hope in a mystic prophet??? I have no problem telling any racist TO THEIR FACE that they are wrong. You being a Canadian seemed to be more driven by some other motive other than "objectivity". WHO is oppressing them? Who is marginalized? The larger society is just that, larger than they are. Your solution is to CREATE a seperatist bloc in a physical area then argue for "self-determination". They are not being "forced" to learn english. No one is putting a gun to their heads. Afrikaans is only a century old, it's a dialect of Dutch, but that's not the point. If you are arguing for a linguistic preservation, then you need not worry. But "which" Afrikaans speakers are you most interested in? The white ones. I don't care one way or another what happens to the Dutch dialect called "Afrikaans". What i do care about is some white seperatists using a language as a pretext to gain political power in the middle of south africa. It is never simply enough for some white people to say "ok we get our fair share", no the concept of fairness even has to be manipulated for this nonsense you are spouting Ron. Everyone doesn't get to make their own country, just because they are a minority. IF that were the case, then the Southeast United States should have been a Black ruled "country" over 100 years ago. But I highly doubt I will ever find your screen name in any Black seperatist movement website, article, or anything. You wont find "Ron" talking about how some cities in America should be reserved for Black self-determination. (Oh but i surely expect you to comPLAIN about any Black "affirmative action" policy). Come on Ron, put your 2 cents into this discussion [[4]] --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have to actually ask whether the Afrikaans peoples (of all races too) are being oppressed & marginalized then you are just not paying any attention to the facts on the ground or the news reports. The Afrikaans language (which was developed on African soil out of an archaic Dutch & Malay derivative with French / German & other influences) is openly being repressed & people are being forced to adopt English just as the British Empire (clue) originally wanted in the region.

The President of Genocide Watch Dr Gregory Stanton has gone on the public record stating that the Boer farmers are at stage 6 for complete genocide & that the violent military style planned attacked & killings against them constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention.

They are indeed being forced to learn English as the Afrikaans education facitlities have been shrinking & are destined to be nill. The language of the court & the state is conducted in English. Just as it was before the Great trek & when the British conquered the entire region & created the artificial macro State.

Tell that to the victims of farm (& other) violence.

Absolute nonsense & you know it! Afrikaans was created among the various peoples (including the imported servants from the Orient) who settled the Cape in the 1600s. Afrikaans is 350 years old. Now I know that you do not do any research as a simple search would have informed you right away that Afrikaans was developed by many different cultures & peoples back in the 1600s. Afrikaans is a separate language from Dutch & can barely be understood by both sides. Quebecois French can be considered a dialect of French (& us even still called French) but Afrikaans is its own language & uses a lot a Malay / Khoi & Indian based words / grammar & cadence.

From: History of the Afrikaans language in South Africa

All of them sir. I even pointed out the existence of the Afrikaans speaking Basters but was summarily defamed by you as you ignorantly insinuated that I was using a slur when if once again you had done any research you would have known that the Basters are a proud & distinct Afrikaans speaking group of mixed Boer & Khoi descent with Tswana elements. I am equally interested in preserving the Afrikaans dialects of the Griquas / Basters -which are based on Orange River Afrikaans as well as the Afrikaans of the Cape Malays -based on West Cape Afrikaans as I am in preserving the Afrikaans of the Boers of Voortrekker descent -based on Eastern Border Afrikaans from the eastern frontier.

I am also interested in preserving the Afrikaans people of mixed race as I have even publicly supported the Rehoboth Basters.

Sir you claim not to be spreading hate but then state that Afrikaans is Dutch when any reference will tell you otherwise. You claim that Afrikaans is nothing but Dutch (which is demonstrably false) is subtle but pure hate speech.

Of course they do: it is a little concept called freedom.

As a matter of fact you will. I have indeed in the past spoken publicly about how Black Americans have this exact right. I have even postulated that they should create a demographic consolidation within at least one state if they so choose. I support self determination for anyone who chooses it. Contrary to you ignorant assertions about myself: I do not reserve the right of self determination for just one race but for any culture who chooses to be free from the suzerainty of the state.

So now that we have played the "accuse each other of terrorism" game. And the "your a racist first" game. And the "you are libelous" game. Now we deal with the facts. The fact is the Orania movement is not interested in including mixed boers, unless of course the mixture does not reveal too much of a "non-white" phenotype. I have looked all over the internet for Orania photos Boer photos, anything to support the nnotion that the white boer identity is non-exclusive. I cannot find a SINGLE black or mixed black boer whom is in identical relationship with "white boers". I cannot find a single article where black looking boers are accepted (not as colored, not as guiches) as legitimately boers by the white boers. You won't find it. A pretext to being a boer is that you must fit within the white phenotype identity first. DNA mixture is irrelevant. Boer politicans were largely responsible for Apartheid (even if they had 20% black DNA it doesn't matter). Boers are by and large people who are indistinguishable from Europeans or Eurasians. They are NOT people who are known to be indistinguishable from mulattoes or mixed-black people. Those kind of "boers" are and were classified as "coloured" and "guiches". Those latter groups are not a part of the Orania or Volkstaat identity. Ron this conversation has ENDED. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you deem a conversation "ended" based solely on your arrogant assertions based on ignorance without even consulting the facts speaks volumes. The erroneous assertion on your part about Afrikaans being Dutch & the other most notable erroneous assertion that the marginalized & destitute Boers were the main force behind Apartheid & the National Party are classic examples of this.

Well you are either lyinig or did not search long enough.

Ehibit A.

I am reticent to post a link to the image above to this page as it is written in a derisive manner & the author gets a number of facts wrong ie: Arthur Kemp (whom he appears to have a problem with) is not an Afrikaner or Boer for that matter & the language of the Boers of the frontier was Eastern Border Afrikaans not Orange River Afrikaans. Orange River Afrikaans was & is spoken by the Griquas & other Coloured groups.

Another apparent example.

The above gentleman even has the famous Afrikaans surname of Pretorius.

Wrong Boer politicians were not largely responsible for Apartheid. How in the world could they be when they were marginalized within the neo colonial Afrikaner designation. The Afrikaners of non Boer descent were the ones who created Grand Apartheid & the British created the initial Apartheid laws starting with the Native Pass Laws Act of 1809 shortly after they acquired the Cape. The creator of Grand Apartheid was a one Hendrik Verwoerd who was from Holland with no ancestors in South Africa at all. The Prime Minister who was elected on the grand Apartheid platform a one Daniel Francois Malan (a French name all around) was in fact from the Cape & not descended from the defeated Boers. Therefore: I ask you once again sir to heed the historical record & to stop accusing the humble pastoral Boers of creating Apartheid when the fact of the matter is that it was not passed by them but by those who were long since estranged from them & even adversarial to them as well.

Oh the token black-boers will be used

I will make a prediction. My name is Zaph von Seer de Wikipedia. I predict that colored people in S. Africa will be recruited to legitimize the white boer movement. Boer-mixed-coloreds will be used to "show" that the Boer seperatist movement is not purely skin-color-racial. I predict that a marginalized minority of coloreds will be "accepted" into the Boer seperatist movement, but of course they will not be allowed to marry white boers, especially not a black male boer marrying a white female one! No Black boers will have any say, any relevant say in policy in the boer seperatist movement, and they will be mere participants, never influencing any of the outcomes... that is unless they look white enough. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I also predict, that despite the patently clear false statements made against me by Ron7, I, not he, will bear the brunt of a Wikipedia RFC, or warning. I predict He will only be cautioned to be nice and to understand that some people are just too difficult to talk with objectively. I predict little or no action will be taken against him for his false accusation of terrorism. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See? This is why I am here!

Second Paragraph: "Critics claim that it is an attempted to revive Apartheid, even though Orania strongly prohibits the exploitation of black labour, which was common practice under Apartheid."

That statement is a typical bob-and-weave divert attention spinmeister strategy. EXPLOITATION is not a part of the critical concern and everybody knows it. Exclusion is the issue. Apartheid wasn't called APART-heid for nothing. Certainly not for "exploitation". And therfore the ARTICLE is woefully lacking in honest scholarship. This article starts off as a propaganda pamphlet. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Critics claim that it is an attempted to revive Apartheid since black people are not allowed to work or live there. Supporters contend that Orania strongly prohibits the exploitation of black labour, which was common practice under Apartheid. Critics respond that exploitation or a lack thereof is not the defining issue of the Orania controversy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be greedy Zaph, you cannot possibly have it all.

Oh my anonymous friend... we are going to the abyss! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I officially cite this article for failing to observe Wikipedia's code of neutrality. The tag has been filed. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the motives of those supporting Orania has nothing to do with an article on the subject on Wikipedia. The tag should be lifted. Wizzy…☎ 10:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag isn't there BECAUSE of the motives of those supporting it. The tag is there because the ARTICLE is not neutral (it's becoming more so now). WHy did you assume that the reason the tag was there was because of disagreements about the motives of those supporting Orania? Especially when i said very clearly that the article is not observing the wikipedia code of neutrality AND I placed a clear example above? --Zaphnathpaaneah 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)