• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Afrikaner History

StryderFL

Member
Aug 8, 2006
11
4
Florida
✟22,651.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I am afraid I will have to come back and provide more details about the actual AFRIKANER history, as this is merely an overview about the history of apartheid, and how it became such a hated and misunderstood concept. Please read this and understand that the whites in South Africa DID do a great deal of good for the country. They built the country, established an economy, etc. The problems associated with racism did not exist untill much later.


Apartheid and Separate Development
Johann Wingard - 6/6/2005

A common misconception exists that the Afrikaners (Whites of West European descent who lived in southern Africa for 350 years) introduced the apartheid to South Africa when they assumed political power in 1948.

This perception is widely promoted by Britain's liberal press, as well as the African National Congress, which now governs the country. The result is that Afrikaners are being demonised as not worthy of any form of self-determination, as they cannot be trusted with any power.

It also serves to justify the ANC's policies of black economic empowerment and affirmative action. Part of the ownership of all businesses, including commercial farms, should in the future be handed to black partners. A ceiling is placed on white employment, as the labour market "...should reflect the demographic realities of the country as a whole..." These measures are justified on the moral grounds of rectifying the injustices of the past, but is nothing other than a redistribution of wealth, a common philosophy in African history and based on the premise of collective guilt, widely promoted by the international liberal establishment. Politicians refer to those measures as the 'cuckoo syndrome'.

It must be remembered that South Africa became the Union of South Africa in 1910. After the Anglo Boer War, and up to 1910, the four colonies were governed directly by Whitehall in London. British Law was applicable to these colonies. The Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 as an autonomous state within the British Commonwealth.
The situation only changed in 1961 when South Africa left the Commonwealth and became the Republic of South Africa. In order to pin the responsiblility for the evolution of apartheid on somebody, it would be an interesting exercise to take a helicopter snapshot of South Africa's racial policies to establish where or when the apartheid system of racial segregation really originated.

- The Native Pass Law of 1809 was promulgated by the British Government, which required that every black person should carry an ID document, called a pass. Failure to do so was a criminal offence.
- In 1865, the British Governor, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, ruled that black people in Natal shall not have the right to vote.
- Apartheid in sport can be traced back to 1894 when Cecil John Rhodes (British) prevented Krom Hendriks, a colored cricketer, to accompany the Cape team to England.
- The South African Native Affairs Commission (SANAC) was appointed by Lord Milner (British) in 1903 and published their findings in 1905. Scholars today recognise their recommendations as having laid the blue-print not only for the policies of racial segregation from 1910 to 1948, but also apartheid and separate development up to 1990.
- Apartheid in the schools was introduced in 1905 when Rhodes introduced compulsory segregation of black and white children in Cape schools. No such laws existed in the two Boer Republics, where an easy relationship existed between the Afrikaner and the African, as children were largely home taught by their parents or visiting teachers.
- Lord Balfour, intervened in the house of Commons in London and warned about the dangers of extending the franchise to the 'natives' as the black community was known at the time. Chamberlain, Lord Milner, J.A. Froude, Anthony Trollope and Lord Bryce, among others, were dead-set against extending the franchise to the 'natives.' The South African colonies were to join the 'white' commonwealth in the form of the Union of South Africa to become 'a white man's country like Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
- The South African Act, which was adopted by the British Government in 1907, determined that only persons of European descent may be elected to parliament in South Africa.
- The infamous Native Land Act 2 of 1913 prohibited private ownership of land by black people. That is also the official cut-off date today for the land restitution process that is currently being implemented.
- Minister H.W. Sampson introduced the concept of job reservation in the Mines and Industry act of 1925.
- Interracial marriage or sex was prohibited between whites and others by the Natal Immorality Act of 1927. The Immorality act of 1957 was based on that act.
- General Smuts, then a leading light in the British Commonwealth, introduced separate representation of race groups in Parliament in 1936 so as to preserve the British dictate that South Africa shall be a white man's country. In that Act the blacks were removed from the common voters roll and the recommendations of the Lagden Commission were implemented, namely "separation of Black South Africans and White South Africans as voters". The term 'apartheid', was coined by Gen J.C. Smuts when he was Prime Minister, and not by Dr Verwoerd as politicians would have us believe.
- During Smuts' last term of office he introduced the Native Urban Area Act 25 of 1945 which determined that a black person may not be present in a white area for longer that 72 hours without a permit. (Similar to the provision in Russia where a resident of one city needs a special permit or visa to visit another city, even today.)
The concept of racial segregation was therefore firmly entrenched in South Africa after the Second World War when the National Party defeated the Pro-British United Party of General Smuts at the polls to become the new government.

Afrikaner nationalism was skilfully mobilised by leaders in the theological, political, cultural, economic, agricultural and industrial sectors as well as in government service. A strategy of massive economic development was introduced to make South Africa less dependent on Britain and to create thousands of job opportunities. It was at that time when Britain offered autonomy to the contiguous colonies, namely Lesotho, situated in the heart of South Africa, Swaziland and Botswana. They gratefully accepted the offer and all three were newly independent by the time Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd came to power.

He realized that the political situation that evolved over the previous century under British rule in South Africa had become untenable. This led Dr. Verwoerd to extend the same offer of autonomy to South Africa's own black tribes, who in most cases were economically and numerically more viable than the three fledgling ex-protectorates Britain gave independence to. Botswana for instance had a population of only 292,755 according to the 1948 census. "…There is little opportunity for wage earning within the protectorate and most of the people live the life of peasant farmers." (P 354 Encyclopaedia Britannica 1963)

The story of Lesotho is not much different, even though the population at the time was double that of Botswana. At any one time about a quarter of Lesotho's population would be finding employment in adjacent white South Africa in the mines or on commercial farms. Lesotho's annual budget in 1960 was only ?2 million, much less than the annual budget of a medium sized South African municipality like Germiston. Land in the protectorates was communal property and administered in trust by the local chiefs, similar to all Britain's other colonies in Africa at the time. The same land ownership philosophy applied to the black homelands in South Africa.

Dr. Verwoerd's policy of 'separate development' was implemented and is regrettably commonly confused with Gen. Smuts' apartheid. Separate Development sought to pre-empt the need for large scale migration of people to the towns and cities, by developing the economies of the homelands instead.
Verwoerd argued that a policy of economic decentralization would make for a peaceful multicultural society, with each community exercising its right of political self-determination, the political catch phrase after World War 2. Industrialists were encouraged with all sorts of tax incentives and labour benefits to establish industries on the homeland borders, resulting in a symbionic relationship between labour and capital within a common economic system. During the sixty's and seventy's, the country experienced an unprecedented economic growth. Unemployment was at its lowest in history. Each homeland had its own Development Corporation. Large communal estates were established, which provided jobs for thousands of peasant workers and which injected millions of dollars into the communal coffers. Tea estates, coffee plantations, citrus and dissiduous fruit estates with their own canning and processing faclities earned valuable foreign exchange for homelands and the region as a whole. Universities and Technikons were established for each language group, decentralised in line with the overall policy and turning out thousands or literate black professionals.

New capital cities were built, each with its own parliament and administration complexes. South Africa' taxpayers gladly paid for "...these excesses of apartheid..." as they are being called nowadays. Mother tongue education was the philosophy for primary, as well as high schools where practicable. Ironically, these intitutions became the training ground for South Africa's black rulers of the New South Africa.
The problem of international recognition for these black homelands cut much deeper than economic or political issues only. The matter of the indivisibility of sovereignty of nation states seemed to have prevented the international community from accepting Verwoerd's policy of separate development. While Britain could give independence to protectorates and colonies with historically defined borders, the same principle could not apply to a country trying to carve itself up for the same political ends. The international community determined that South Africa should remain a unitary state and retain its colonial borders as defined in the 1880's. The policy was therefore inherently flawed from an international law point of view. The same principle that provides for self-determination to nation states, also witholds that right from nations within multicultural states on the basis of the integrity of national borders.

Seen also against the Cold War that existed during the seventy's and eighty's, Africa's role in that conflict, as well as the United States' problems with its own emancipated black community, it is easy to understand why the policy of separate development, which maliciously was intertwined with racial segregation at socal level, could not be supported by the international community. In short, it was never understood that social apartheid was a distorted product of the country's colonial history, whereas separate development is the application of the modern concept of self-determination for ethnic groups to preserve their identities and to foster peaceful co-existence with others without competing for the same resources.
There is no comparison between the economic development of the South African black homelands and the development of the independent neighbouring black states outside our borders. Tragically, those 'apartheid' training grounds that served today's black leaders so well, have become relics of an apartheid past. The development corporations have been disbanded. The estates have been allowed to go to ruin. Millions of jobless and roofless people are flocking to the cities and towns and live in abject poverty conditions in tin shacks, posing serious health and security problems in breeding grounds for crime.

Is that not perhaps too high a price to be paid for a simplistic democratic system, now recognized by those familiar with the situation as a majoritarian tyranny? Is the untennable social engineering process of nation building sustainable in a country with its deep historical ethnic fault lines? I have often wondered how one could convince the authorities to stop believing their own lies about the appropriateness of the liberal dream of a unified nation perpetually served by the same political clique and to recognize the crucial role Afrikaners could play in the development this country and the African continent. All they ask for is to be accepted and respected as white Africans with their own peculiar cultural needs, which they want to transfer to their children without interference and be allowed to participate freely in the economy.

Johann Wingard is a retired industrialist who actively participated in the industrialization of South Africa from 1960 to 1993. Since 1989 he was executive chairman of a large engineering and project management company, which served the mining, power and synthetic fuels industries. From 1994 to 1996 he chaired the Volkstaat Council, a statutory body instituted by Nelson Mandela's government to investigate minority rights for the Afrikaner community. All their recommendations had been ignored. Today, Mr. Wingard believes it was established to deceive Afrikaners before the 1994 elections, rather than to address their need for self-determination.
 

.Sabre.

Aliens ate my custom title.
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2006
14,779
679
36
Chasing the sun's fading light
✟85,588.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
:thumbsup: *high-fives all round* Woohoo brilliant there!

I'm from SA and so's my better half. I will show him this thread when he is here in England. I'm off to another thread now. *high-fives again*
 
Upvote 0

OttovonBismarck

Iron Chancellor
Apr 22, 2004
302
30
38
✟15,602.00
Faith
Lutheran
Okay, sure it is true that the basis for Apartheid was started by the British. The British simply did what they always did: Divide and rule. But, after 1948, Afrikaner parties were the ones responsible for turning the pre-existing social system into the Apartheid we all know and love to hate(Or not hate, if you're silly in the head). The Afrikaners basically just took old colonial laws and made them more severe. An example can be found in "separate development" you seem to glorify. Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd basically just took the old reservation system and expanded on it. When he did this, he removed voting rights for the majority of the "blacks" scattered throughout the white(British or Afrikaans) "homelands." Not to mention over 3 millions blacks lost their property because they were located in "white" territory. And you say that "Unemployment was at its lowest in history" but for who? I'm sure unemployment for blacks was lower than it is now, but I'm willing to bet it was much higher than it was for the whites, and the quality of jobs the blacks had were probably no where near the same as the whites. So, at the very, very, very least the Afrikaans are guilty of idiotic, knee-jerk nationalism, but they were probably just gripped by traditional racism. I will say this: the blame does not fall entirely on the Afrikaans. I'd say it's a 50/50 split between both the English and Afrikaner communities.
 
Upvote 0

mahalia

barefoot rural kid
Sep 30, 2006
3,189
113
35
✟26,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
jig ek voel naaaaaaaaar!

okay, firstly that wasn't a bad OP, BUT can we please not call it Afrikaner history? let me tell you why: Afrikaner implies the person who speaks...Afrikaans! like me. and let me tell you something: Afrikaans is not the language of the oppressor and it was not only the Afrikaners who oppressed. i have several English friends who are horrible, horrible, horrible racists. my parents were, in fact, activists. they worked for equality in the very heart of the oppression circles and i am not racist at all.

i agree, the europeans did a lot of good for this country. but then again, you see, Africans were smelting iron at least 150 years before Europeans were doing so efficiently - long before Abraham Derby I started with his "ingenious" smelting processes.

btw, i consider myself an African and not a European, however white my skin may be.

i don't totally disagree with the OP and i hate the way people are prejudiced against whites. to me, i live a daily struggle, being both white and Afrikaans speaking. luckily my friends - a large circle of different ages, races and religions - are open minded concerning such matters and try not to make me feel outcast.

what one must do, however, is weigh up the different things - industrialisation/infrastructure vs the things such as apartheid - and decide whether they were worth it, or whether the one outweighs the other.
 
Upvote 0

.Sabre.

Aliens ate my custom title.
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2006
14,779
679
36
Chasing the sun's fading light
✟85,588.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
jig ek voel naaaaaaaaar!

okay, firstly that wasn't a bad OP, BUT can we please not call it Afrikaner history? let me tell you why: Afrikaner implies the person who speaks...Afrikaans! like me. and let me tell you something: Afrikaans is not the language of the oppressor and it was not only the Afrikaners who oppressed. i have several English friends who are horrible, horrible, horrible racists. my parents were, in fact, activists. they worked for equality in the very heart of the oppression circles and i am not racist at all.

i agree, the europeans did a lot of good for this country. but then again, you see, Africans were smelting iron at least 150 years before Europeans were doing so efficiently - long before Abraham Derby I started with his "ingenious" smelting processes.

btw, i consider myself an African and not a European, however white my skin may be.

i don't totally disagree with the OP and i hate the way people are prejudiced against whites. to me, i live a daily struggle, being both white and Afrikaans speaking. luckily my friends - a large circle of different ages, races and religions - are open minded concerning such matters and try not to make me feel outcast.

what one must do, however, is weigh up the different things - industrialisation/infrastructure vs the things such as apartheid - and decide whether they were worth it, or whether the one outweighs the other.
I feel as ill as you do.

Skin colour doesn't make anyone superior or inferior.I agree with that.
 
Upvote 0

mahalia

barefoot rural kid
Sep 30, 2006
3,189
113
35
✟26,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Dutch were equally hated in Indonesia (Dutch East Indies).
the question arises as to why? because of the people they took as slaves? because of the raw materials they took? because they had an attitude of superiority?

don't get me wrong, i'm not racist against my own race and culture and i am angry about the cruelties done to the whites (cos there were cruelties) but neither am i blind to the wrongs of the whites.
 
Upvote 0

indra_fanatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2005
1,265
59
Visit site
✟24,233.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This needs to be posted. For too long everything about Boers has been demonized, and we seem to be overlooking the fact that the ANC government of today is doing its own form of apartheid via its affirmative action programs, the elimination of Afrikaans from public places, and mass land transfers from Boer farmers to party supporters. The political party responsible for the wonderful gift of necklacings has absolutely no business running the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deornie
Upvote 0

mahalia

barefoot rural kid
Sep 30, 2006
3,189
113
35
✟26,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
This needs to be posted. For too long everything about Boers has been demonized, and we seem to be overlooking the fact that the ANC government of today is doing its own form of apartheid via its affirmative action programs, the elimination of Afrikaans from public places, and mass land transfers from Boer farmers to party supporters. The political party responsible for the wonderful gift of necklacings has absolutely no business running the country.

i know that. but going as far as saying it is being another form of apartheid... i won't go there. i've said it before: being white and afrikaans is a daily struggle for me (my poor brother - white, afrikaans and male) and there are many things i do not agree with. i'm the first person to sign petitions against name changes, i'm in front of the line at protests... but there is still a long time to go. i agree: the government has to be careful of not turning AA into another form of racial discrimination (and, if you think about it, it's also discriminating against non-whites) and yes, it scares me to think that, in spite of the fact that i'm top of my age in my province, i might not make it into med school oneday. i hope that one day we really will be living in a country where race does not matter.

and for all the bad that has happened, i know that a ton of good has happened. i was born in 1990. my dad is disabled, he's got genetic macular degeneration (afr: swaksiende) and he passed university with a first class mark in '88, but no-one would give him a job cos of his disability. the new government brought with them more understanding for the disabled: also for my family. my dad got a job and today he's of the top in the country. and don't think people went soft on him, oh no, people still like discriminating. but it's better than it was!! and i am thankful for that.

seeing as i wasn't born in the struggle, could someone explain this to me: i always understood that necklace deaths were done by gangs. were they actually ordered by the ANC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCGirl
Upvote 0

.Sabre.

Aliens ate my custom title.
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2006
14,779
679
36
Chasing the sun's fading light
✟85,588.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
As far as I know, they were TRC(Truth&Reconciliation Commission).Weird, I heard about that on my psychology course(we were studying obedience so witch-hunts and the excuse of "following orders", you get it?).I recommend Googling it.
 
Upvote 0

OttovonBismarck

Iron Chancellor
Apr 22, 2004
302
30
38
✟15,602.00
Faith
Lutheran
It was basically just gang doing it. The ANC always condemned it. Winnie Mandela supported it...but c'mon, it's Winnie Mandela.

There's something I've been wondering; has anyone done any studies on what effects AIDs will have on the demographic balance in South Africa? Is AIDs mainly concentrated among the blacks, or do an equal amount of whites have it? If it's mainly the blacks who have it, wouldn't that gradually shift the population heavily in favor of the whites? I need to look into this...
 
Upvote 0

mahalia

barefoot rural kid
Sep 30, 2006
3,189
113
35
✟26,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
As far as I know, they were TRC(Truth&Reconciliation Commission).Weird, I heard about that on my psychology course(we were studying obedience so witch-hunts and the excuse of "following orders", you get it?).I recommend Googling it.

TRC? no, as far as i'm concerned the TRC was involved with trials and stuff after apartheid, very much like the nuremburg trials after WWII? but then again, i could be wrong.

It was basically just gang doing it. The ANC always condemned it. Winnie Mandela supported it...but c'mon, it's Winnie Mandela.

There's something I've been wondering; has anyone done any studies on what effects AIDs will have on the demographic balance in South Africa? Is AIDs mainly concentrated among the blacks, or do an equal amount of whites have it? If it's mainly the blacks who have it, wouldn't that gradually shift the population heavily in favor of the whites? I need to look into this...

yeah i was also told the ANC condemned it, but you get people who will dispute that.

about AIDS: firstly, obviously more blacks will be HIV positive because they are the majority of the country, so, say, ten percent of blacks is a lot more than ten percent of whites.
also, i wouldn't be surprised if at this stage more blacks have HIV, not that i'm prejudiced or anything, but a large percentage of black live in dire poverty and in townships and the percentage of black girls being raped is significantly higher than that of white girls.
however, there are huge campaigns that are educating the youth about AIDS and the like - also in the privileged schools. our grade, doing the infamous new syllabus (which isn't so bad after all) just started with a peer education campaign all over the province, and it's gonna focus on things like breast cancer, AIDS, contraception/abstaining and so forth and so forth.
hopefully, ignorance about AIDS is one thing our government can't be accused of.

I can use the OP for my report(for school)!

I am doing a 7 page report on the history of Apartheid in South Africa before 1948.

that could help, just try getting contradictory sources, then you can use the two "extremes" to acquire a blanced viewpoint. that's what i do for my history projects in order to decrease potential bias.

1948 was 110 years after all slaves in the Cape Colony were officially freed (their apprentice-ship years ended in 1838) so you could also draw on that, if you wanna.
 
Upvote 0

deornie

Senior Veteran
Dec 14, 2003
2,848
375
✟27,586.00
Faith
Christian
hopefully, ignorance about AIDS is one thing our government can't be accused of.

Hmmmm... what was that about beetroot helping agains AIDS? Or Jacob Zuma's showering after sexual intercourse was supposed to protect him against AIDS?

I do not belive SUCH ignorance could be ever found in Western Countries.... Africa after all....
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am afraid I will have to come back and provide more details about the actual AFRIKANER history, as this is merely an overview about the history of apartheid, and how it became such a hated and misunderstood concept. Please read this and understand that the whites in South Africa DID do a great deal of good for the country. They built the country, established an economy, etc. The problems associated with racism did not exist untill much later.

Did you catch Mike Smith in Global Politician last month? A long history lesson comparing the plight of the Carthaginians to that of Afrikaners. Smith writes:
This is where many parallels between Carthage and South Africa enter.

* Both were colonies in Africa settled and run by white people.
* Both built majestic cities, ports, infrastructure, etc.
* Both made use of locals as cheap labour.
* Both treated their locals well.
* Both employed the locals into their militaries.
* Both fought against the whole known world...and lost.
* Both had excellent generals who won just about every battle, but eventually lost the war.
* Both countries were wealthy with minerals and the wars against them were always about money.
* Both countries went down, because of liberal diplomacy with the enemy.

Today we see South Africa in the same boat as Carthage. We went through everything that the Carthaginians went. South Africa even took on the entire world (Not just the communists but also the West) with our best generals and won every battle with the best soldiers, yet we lost the war through liberal politician's treaties with the enemy that was going to "Secure our future". We would be allowed to practice our language and culture, our own schools, etc. So far the ANC has broken every single treaty or agreement.

The Punic wars against Carthage did not stop with the signing of any treaty, ever. It carried on, and on, and on...

There could only be peace when Rome had achieved her goal; total destruction of Carthage. Every peace treaty was just another step closer to the total destruction of Carthage, an insignificant little colony of white people in the way of a global empire rising. They wanted the gold, silver, trade routes etc. and Carthage was simply in the way . . .

http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3498&cid=12&sid=113
 
Upvote 0

OttovonBismarck

Iron Chancellor
Apr 22, 2004
302
30
38
✟15,602.00
Faith
Lutheran
Did you catch Mike Smith in Global Politician last month? A long history lesson comparing the plight of the Carthaginians to that of Afrikaners. Smith writes:

That's the most absurd thing I've read in some time. Giving blacks the same rights as whites = War? And the Carthaginians may be "Caucasian" but they fall into the Semitic category and we know how all the White Nationalists feel about Semites...so I doubt they'd really be considered "white." And that's the first time I've heard anyone talk about South Africa having an outstanding military with outstanding generals. They didn't really do all that great considering the amount of technology they were given by western countries. They ddid lose Namibia in the end and that wasn't entirely because "the west" conspired against them.

I can't believe people actually get paid to write trash like this.
 
Upvote 0