THE BRITISH ROOTS OF THE AFRIKANER DESIGNATION

The term Afrikaner - as anyone studying its roots knows - is a political term that was first used to describe a political abstraction within a political context during the late 19th cent & was initiated by a Cape organization composed of Cape Dutch intellectuals & two individuals from Holland. As such, this term was significantly influenced by the British colonial power. The following are some quotes further outlining this fact.  

Quote: [ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identity, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ]

From: Professor Dr. Tobias Louw. Open Letter to the Institute for Security Studies. September 16 2003.

---

Quote: [ As a point of departure it should be stated that Cape Afrikaners, upon encountering British occupation, possessed only a rudimentary collective consciousness. The process of collective consciousness formation among them took place largely, as we have seen, under the aegis of British rule. Generations of Afrikaners had been born as British subjects before this process matured in the 1870s in ethnic political mobilization. British colonial experience, with all its contradictory ramifications, left a deep impression on their evolving collective consciousness. The manifestations of loyalty by the Afrikaner Bond serve as clear evidence thereof. It may sound somewhat speculative, but the admiration and love for the Queen may suggest that she played a role in the formation of Cape Afrikaner group identity and consciousness. They seem to have adopted Queen Victoria as a collective mother figure. Praising and congratulating the Queen on her birthday in 1890, the Z A suggested that if a president were to replace the Queen, the centrifugal forces in the Cape would increase. Cape Afrikaners seemed to have internalized their imperial monarchical experience. Beyond that, it was the balance of their colonial experience which influenced their disposition. ] 

From: Page 61. Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin. 

---

Quote: [ THE "AFRIKANERS"

7.1 Thus at the time of the ending of the Second Anglo Boer War, there were three distinct ethnic groupings amongst the broad White population of South Africa:

(i) the internationally recognized and indigenous Boer people;
(ii) the Cape Dutch Settlers, loyal to the British Empire; and
(iii) the English speaking White settlers, also loyal to the British Empire.

7.2 The British Empire realized that it had to bring the Boers under control for once and for all, and therefore devised a plan to neutralize the Boer Republics - a plan to make them join up with the other two White segments of their colonies in South Africa.

7.3 The British masters of Southern Africa therefore engineered the National Convention of 1908, which saw the creation of the Union of South Africa. This union consisted of the former Cape Colony, the Natal Colony, and the two former Boer Republics. This union was not merely a geographic convenience, but a deliberate plan to try and destroy the independence minded Boers by mingling them with the Cape Dutch & English settlers.

7.4 It is worth noting that the British Empire used their technique in other parts of Africa as well -reference can be made to the short lived federation of Nyasaland (Malawi); Northern Rhodesia (Zambia); and Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) to name but one.

7.5 The prime representative of the British Empire in South Africa, Sir Alfred Milner, put it this way: "The new tactic (to subjugate the Boers) must be to consolidate the different areas of British South Africa into one nation. Although unification will be initially put the Boers into political control of the entire South Africa, it will, ironically, eventually lead to their final downfall."

7.6 This was of course precisely what happened - but not until a new name had been developed for the new "nation" which Milner spoke about. They could not continue to call the new nation a "Boer" state, because the Boers had been subjugated. They could not call it a "Cape Dutch" state, as the Dutch colonialists were now British colonialists, and they could not call it a British state, for obvious reasons. The answer then was to give a general term to all White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners". Although the word originally meant "African" it was politicized by a group of Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers took up arms to fight the British colonialists) in literature of the time. It was then decided to try and blend the Boers into the Cape Dutch and English speaking White populations but calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real ethnic bases.

7.7 This then is how the world began to hear of "Afrikaners" - although only 80 years ago there was no such word in the international vocabulary.

7.8 By forcing the Boers into the Union of South Africa, the British made them co- responsible for the policy of racial segregation, which had of course been established and legislated by the British colonial government.

7.9 The new "Afrikaners" - in fact a coalition of Cape Dutch, English speaking Whites and some Boers - tried as best they could to come to grips with the racial and geographic legacy left to them from the British colonial times - and it was from this disaster that the policy of Apartheid was developed.

7.10 It is of supreme importance to note here that the Boers were dragged unwillingly into the Union of South Africa - and at the first opportunity which presented itself they tried to extricate themselves by force of arms. This was the unsuccessful 1914 Boer rebellion, which ended when some Boer war era generals were killed or imprisoned by the pro-British Union of South Africa government.

7.11 It is thus unfair of the international world to regard the "Boers" as having been responsible for what happened in South Africa during the second part of the 20th century - the Boers were just as much victims of the colonial powers as were any other indigenous people of Africa. ] Source: [ http://www.arthurkemp.com/whoaretheboers.htm ] 

From: The Boers of Southern Africa. Arthur Kemp. 

The Boers Are Not Afrikaners.

This gets complicated but the Boer people are in fact a distinct cultural group who are not part of the bulk of those who were labeled Afrikaners despite the fact that the Boers were among the first to be considered African before the descendants of the Cape Dutch took the term Afrikaner for themselves then later forced the Boers into this term to the detriment of their unique identity which was formed on the Cape frontiers away from the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners. While a number of modern Boers also often refer to themselves as Afrikaners & often justify it by noting that its definition is: African - the problem with this term is that it marginalizes the Boers & puts them under the domination of the more dominant Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners. The term Afrikaner obscures the fact that the Boerevolk are a distinct & independent nation which gets marginalized when lumping them in with those who are not part of their particular nation.

The main point though is that there is not & has never been a single macro White Afrikaans population group as the Boer segment is the smaller / poorer / less powerful segment within the total greater White Afrikaans speaking population. Just as not all North American English speakers are Canadians. The purpose of this blog is to inform the West about the history of the Boer people in particular & their current struggles who have [ as history as shown ] been dominated by the Afrikaners as well. 

There are just 1.5 million Boer people / Boer descendants out of a total White Afrikaans population of 3.5 million. The purpose of pointing out the distinctiveness of the Boers is not about "diving" Afrikaans speakers [ which is as asinine as asserting that pointing out the distinction of the Canadians from the Americans "divides" North American English speakers ] but rather about empowering them in their struggle to regain their self determination which was robbed of them after the Anglo-Boer War. 

The Boers have a distinct & unique history / culture & character which shaped them into a discernible & distinct people who are not part of the bulk of the Afrikaners who are mainly of Cape Dutch descent & have never historically engaged in the struggle for self determination. The macro State of South Africa as created by the British with the South Africa Act of 1909 marginalized the Boers as it forced them under the domination of the Cape Dutch descendants who were are more numerous under the Afrikaner designation. The Afrikaners were conditioned into usurping Boer history during the 20th cent & the Boers were conditioned into viewing themselves as Afrikaners stemming from political movements of the 1930's which promoted Afrikaner Nationalism [ a Cape Dutch controlled / Afrikaans version of British Imperialism ] which aimed in part to co-opt the impoverished Boer people & to prevent them from reclaiming their Boer Republics as they had initially tried to do during the 1914 Maritz Rebellion.

Furthermore to address your final sentence / contention. The Boers have had alliances with some local tribes in the past & do not "hate" the local cultural groups but just can not stand the growing genocide being inflicted upon them. The difference in culture includes a different dialect of Afrikaans [ which historians have noted was from what was termed Eastern Border Afrikaans ] to a historical strong desire for freedom & independence in Africa complete with historical dates of significant importance while the Afrikaners have had an ambivalent attitude towards independence & even towards the Boers themselves & do not share the same history as the Boer Nation.

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