TO HELP POOR WHITES FARMERS SHOULD HELP!!

FARMERS SHOULD ADOPT THE ” BYWONER” POLICY TO HELP POOR WHITES AND PROTECT THEMSELVES

FARMERS SHOULD ALLOW JOBLESS WHITES TO STAY ON THEIR FARMS AND HELP THEM WITH THE FARMING AS WELL AS SECURITY AGAINST FARM ATTACKS

 Article by: White Nation correspondent- Western Cape December 20 2013

South African famers need to adopt the old “bywoner” policy of offering accommodation to needy Afrikaner families to assist them and also to boost farm security, the president of the International Afrikaner Society (IAS), TJ Ferreira, has said.

Mr Ferreira, a former mayor of Boksburg, the third largest city in South Africa, pointed out on his organization’s website that South African farmers are regularly assaulted, dehumanized and subjected to extreme forms of torture regularly by white-hating black criminals.

“Almost nothing is done to protect them, or change this state of affairs,” he said. “This leaves them at the point where they need to take care of themselves—an impossible task as a single family. “I wish to call on our farmers, to have a look at the past, the days of the “bywoner”, the days when farmers would allow other white families to live in a second dwelling on their farms,” Mr Ferreira said, referring to the time in the early twentieth century, when many Afrikaners, impoverished by the tribulations of the Second Anglo-Boer War and post-war anti-Afrikaner discrimination, were given refuge on agricultural holdings by fellow Afrikaners.

Carnegie Commission of Investigation on the Poor White Question in South AfricaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“We have thousands of poor whites living in hazardous conditions in squatter camps. Most of them will give anything for a place where they could live a normal life,” Mr Ferreira continued. “Farmers need to give something in order to gain something—in this case their security and safety. “Farmers must do what their forefathers did—invite some of those dispossessed families to join them on the farms. “There, they can set up decent housing, and maybe even cut out an acre or two where they can do a little farming on their own,” he said.

“In return, this will go a long way to assisting the host farmer to creating a safer environment for himself. Numbers create safety, and with more bodies moving around on your homestead—people you know—the less the chance of surprise attacks and ambushes. “In this way, farmers can help fellow Afrikaners and themselves at the same time. Ask yourself this: How many more farmers have to die before we wake up and protect ourselves?”

"The Poor White Problem in South Africa: Report of the Carnegie Commission" (1932) was a 

study of poverty among white South Africans that made recommendations about segregation that 

some have argued would later serve as a blueprint for Apartheid.^[1] The report was funded and published 

by the Carnegie Corporation.

Before the study, white poverty had long been the subject of debate in South Africa, and poor whites the subject 

of church, 

scholarly and state attention. White poverty became a social problem in the 1890s, when whites began to be 

dispossessed of their land, 

especially in the Cape and Transvaal. It was not uncommon to find whites who were driven into wage labour 

managing a lifestyle similar

 to that of African wage labourers. As white proletarianisation proceeded and racial integration began to 

emerge as an urban phenomenon, 

white poverty attracted attention and concern. In the 1870s, for example, a colonial visitor to Grahamstown 

wrote that ‘miscellaneous herds 

of whites and blacks lived together in the most promiscuous manner imaginable.’^[2]

According to one memorandum sent to Frederick Keppel, then president of Carnegie, there was "little 

doubt that if the natives were given full 

economic opportunity, the more competent among them would soon outstrip the less competent whites"^[3] 

Keppel's support for the project of 

creating the report was motivated by his concern with the maintenance of existing racial boundaries.^[3] 

The preoccupation of the Carnegie 

Corporation with the so-called poor white problem in South Africa was at least in part the outcome of 

similar misgivings about the state of poor 

whites in the American South.^[3]

The commission report encompassed five volumes that dealt, in turn, with the economic, psychological, 

educational, health, and sociological 

facets of the "poor white" phenomenon.

At the turn of the century white Americans and whites elsewhere in the world felt uneasy because poverty 

and economic depression seemed to strike people regardless of race.^[4]White poverty contradicted notions 

of racial superiority and hence it became the focus of "scientific" study. The report recommend that 

"employment sanctuaries" be established for poor white workers and that poor white workers should 

replace "native" black workers in most skilled aspects of the economy.^[5] The authors of the report 

suggested that unless something was done to help poor whites racial deterioration and miscegenation 

would be the outcome.^[3]

Although the ground work for Apartheid began earlier, the report provided support for the idea that the 

maintenance of white superiority would require support from social institutions. This was the justification 

for the segregation, and discrimination^[6] of the following decades.^[5] The report expressed fear about the 

loss of white racial pride, and in particular pointed to the danger that the poor white would not be able to 

resist the process of "Africanisation."^[3] In seeking to prevent a class-based movement that would unite

 the poor across racial lines the report sought to heighten race as opposed to class differences as the 

significant social category.^[4]

The findings of the report helped bolster support for segregation and strict limits and laws for black 

South Africans. The hope was that the program of segregation would help poor whites, by giving 

them institutional assistance, and thus prevent race-mixing and maintain racial purity and economic 

power. Because of the "poor white problem" institutional racism in South Africa would differ from

 institutional racism in other parts of the world where scientific racism, which supposed intrinsic 

racial differences, played a more prominent role (many white Afrikaners have multi-racial ancestors).

Although scientific racism played a role in justifying and supporting institutional racism in South Africa, 

it was not as important in South Africa as it has been in Europe and the United States. This was due,

 in part to the "poor white problem", described by the report. The report raised serious questions for 

supremacists about white racial superiority.^[7]Since poor whites were found to be in the same situation 

as natives in the African environment, the idea that intrinsic white superiority could overcome any 

environment did not seem to hold. As such, "scientific" justifications for racism were not as widely 

used in South Africa as they were in other parts of the world.^[7]

SOURCE : https://www.facebook.com/GEVREKTEVOLK  GEVREKTE VOLK