01.26
I am sure that the large majority of whites, Afrikaans or English-speaking, would agree that South Africa under ANC rule has become a nightmarish, third-world hell-hole, replete with uneducated tin-pot megalomaniacs screaming down the roads in blue-light convoys, often mowing down innocent pedestrians, corruption, anarchy, decaying infrastructure, rubbish in the streets, heretofore unknown levels of violent crime, as well as the quasi-religion of state racism, known as transformation (a.k.a. ethnic cleansing) aimed against whites in the form of affirmative action and BEE. This black-on-white racism has reached such endemic proportions that Eskom, the state electricity supplier, is importing black Americans to fill posts at Eskom to sit and twiddle their thumbs, rather than deigning to appoint a white South African citizen.
The mistake many whites made with the coming of South Africa’s so-called democracy in 1994, was to delude ourselves into believing that we were somehow different to all other African hell-holes. We were sadly mistaken, however. The ANC regime is not different at all. It rather has everything in common with Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF. The deterioration of a formerly orderly and prosperous country loudly attests to this.
Given the above African reality, self-determination or emigration is the only way of whites to avoid either a Zimabwe situation, or even a Rwanda-type genocide. More than a million whites have left, but what about those who cannot emigrate? Self-determination can also include an independent country, but doesn’t have to do so. The Basques and Catalans in Spain are an example of peoples with a large degree of self-determination, but without an independent country. Section 235 of South Africa’s constitution does make provision for self-determination by ethnic groups. Up to now, the quest for self-determination amongst whites has been almost exclusively driven by Afrikaners. Praag, the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, is one of the Afrikaner-organizations working towards self-determination.
Although Praag is by definition an Afrikaans organization, it is also a fact that there are significant numbers of English speakers that support us, or perhaps are united in their opposition to the racist and criminal ANC regime. This piece was prompted by one of the regular contributors to the comments section of the Praag site, who asked questions like:
• Who are the Afrikaners?
• What is the role of English-speaking whites in any effort towards self-determination? (I’m going to abbreviate English-speaking whites as ESWs in the rest of this piece.)
The first question is the easier one to answer, although it is admittedly not quite that easy in all cases. I will use Wikipedia’s definition:
Afrikaners or Boers are an Afrikaans speaking ethnic group in Southern Africa. They are mainly of northwestern European descent (mostly Dutch, German and French ancestry), but their native tongue is Afrikaans, a language closely related to Dutch.
Note that there is a clear mention of ethnicity in the above definition (once again: it isn’t my own definition.) Ethnicity is PC-speak for “white.” In other words: Afrikaners are white, Afrikaans-speaking descendants of European settlers. Politically correct people and liberals may not like a national definition in terms of race, but it is a fact, just like it goes without saying that a true Irishman is a white inhabitant of an island country in the Atlantic Ocean. For those who wonder how to define a white person, I refer them to the ANC regime. Please ask the Afro-fascists of the ANC how they decide against whom to discriminate when it comes to affirmative action. You could even ask a four-year-old, before the adults teach him or her to start lying about the obvious.
Whilst we’re on the topic, I may as well grasp the nettle of the coloured question too. In certain circles, for example the liberal Afrikaans-speaking media, it is considered politically correct to group Afrikaans-speaking coloureds with Afrikaners and to pretend we somehow form one ethnic group. One particular media group, Naspers, with has gone as far as to even invent an absurd name for this combination: the so-called “Afrikaanses” (sic). This is the equivalent of pretending white Americans and Mexicans are one nation, and calling them: “Amerexicans” or something similar. However, the interesting thing is that this is very much an extremely tiny minority’s opinion, and only the most whisky-soaked Naspers journalist would even consider taking this seriously. Most coloured intellectuals would not see themselves as Afrikaners at all.
For example: the coloured academic (to any American readers: “coloured” in South Africa refers to mixed-race people, mostly of Malay, Khoisan and white ancestry), professor Jonathan Jansen, goes as far as to deny that there is even an Afrikaner nation at all, by which he bizarrely seems to suggest approximately 3 million Afrikaners all suffer from the same delusion, as opposed to Jansen’s own paranoid delusions. When the formerly Afrikaans-speaking and formerly coloured University of the Western Cape was “democratized” in 1994, they wasted no time in getting rid of Afrikaans. With few exceptions, Afrikaans music, culture, academia and commerce are driven by Afrikaners, not coloureds. Coloured intellectuals are almost united in their preference for English. Whilst I don’t pretend to speak for the coloured community, American-style gangsta culture and hip-hop music seems to hold a bigger appeal to many of them, than does the Afrikaner culture.
Things aren’t all that simple as saying Afrikaners speak Afrikaans, adhere to an Afrikaner culture and are white, however. Many Afrikaners have intermarried with English-speaking whites. A good example of this is the popular Afrikaner singer Steve Hofmeyr, who, in spite of being passionate about the language, nevertheless married an English wife and is raising his children in English. In addition, some Afrikaners have deliberately chosen to abandon Afrikaans and have voluntarily become English-speaking. A good example of this is the Afrikaner actress, Charlize Theron, who these days sports a pretty passable Californian twang.
The above logically leads to the second question: what, if any, role is there for ESWs if and when Afrikaners achieve self-determination?
I am not going to dwell on the Anglo-Boer War and the remaining bitterness still being felt in some circles towards the English-speakers. As far as I am concerned, both the Afrikaners and ESWs are currently in the same boat, and should be united against a common enemy, rather than dwelling on the past: the racist ANC regime and its criminal accomplices (if not the ANC’s criminal officials and office bearers.)
One reality in terms of most ESWs is that there is not such a clear sense of a national identity among ESWs. I’ve yet to hear an ESW describe himself as anything but a South African. However, most sane realists realize by now that there is in fact no such a thing as a South African nation, especially not if you’re white. To call yourself a South African is therefore pretty vague and to my mind an unsatisfactory description. The ANC regime constantly makes it abundantly clear that whites are, in Thabo Mbeki’s immortal words, “settlers who have yet to depart” or “colonialists of a special kind.” If there is a South African nation, as opposed to a geographical area, it is definitely uniformly black, with very little room for whites.
Perhaps because most ESWs lack a separate national identity, it will of necessity have to be Afrikaners who will lead our own struggle, similar to the ANC’s, to achieve self-determination. Except for a few ESWs who think an independent Western Cape is a good idea, I detect very little separatist thinking amongst ESWs. As for the question as to whether Afrikaners will welcome only Afrikaners into the fold, should we achieve self-determination: there’s no simple answer. I once again refer to the example of Steve Hofmeyr’s children. Are they Afrikaners? Do we do a language test and grant citizenship in an Afrikaner republic to Steve on the basis of that, but not his kids?
Another question is whether ESWs would like to associate themselves with Afrikaners, even if offered the opportunity.
It is a fact that ESWs have historically been of a much more liberal persuasion than most Afrikaners. Helen Suzman, with her almost exclusively ESW and Jewish constituency in Johannesburg’s leafy suburbs, was for years the sole liberal member of parliament. Would liberal, northern-suburbs ESWs want to have anything to do with the Afrikaners at all, or are they happy to rearrange the deck chairs on the South African Titanic and flee back to London when the chips are down?
On the other hand, it is a fact that ESWs are for reasons of ethnicity and intermarriage the closest relations Afrikaners have in Southern Africa. A lot of ESWs no longer have any British roots or relatives. Afrikaners have much more in common with ESWs than with Zulus (or Mongolians), for that matter. A large proportion of the ESWs are equally as disillusioned with the so-called Rainbow Nation as Afrikaners are. They also suffer the same racist discrimination at the hands of the ANC regime as Afrikaners do. Do Afrikaners abandon the ESWs if Rwanda’s genocide becomes South Africa’s reality too?
If I am really pressed to provide a straight answer as to whether I think Afrikaners should allow ESWs to participate in Afrikaners’ self-determination, and knowing full well many ESWs would have political, cultural and linguistic objections, I would have to say a qualified yes.
One thing that I think most Afrikaners striving for self-determination agree upon, is that our language and culture are completely non-negotiable. If there is an independent Afrikaner Authority, similar to the Palestinian Authority, or an independent Afrikaner state, Afrikaans will be its sole official language. Nobody wants to control what languages people speak behind closed doors, but all government functions and all state broadcasting will for example be in Afrikaans, finish & klaar. There is in this sense no difference between Afrikaners, the Germans and the French, who also wouldn’t dream of having other languages as their official language. This in and of itself may discourage many ESWs from joining the Afrikaners’ cause. Many of them may rather consider English-speaking countries such as Australia or the UK.
Does that leave ESWs as mere potential immigrants? I agree with Dr Dan Roodt, the leader of Praag, when he says that any independent Afrikaner Authority or Afrikaner state should apply the same immigration criteria as European countries. Afrikaners, as defined by the definition elsewhere in this document, should in my opinion automatically qualify for citizenship. Anybody else would be free to apply for citizenship, subject to an oath of loyalty and to other criteria like skills, lack of a criminal record, health, education, a waiting period and a language test. All of these are nothing sinister and are in fact exactly the kind of criteria countries like the UK and Germany would apply to prospective immigrants.
I would personally also say there is a case to be made for extending a once-off offer of asylum or refugee status to ESWs who suffer from racist persecution and crime at the hands of the ANC regime. Afrikaners could certainly not stand idly by if, God forbid, South Africa threatens to become another Rwanda and our ESW brothers are about to suffer a genocide. This should, however, be subject to the understanding that any Afrikaner self-determination or independent state would be of an Afrikaner nature in terms of language and culture, and that refugees would be expected to assimilate and adopt the Afrikaner culture.
The above will admittedly not appeal to all ESWs, but then they are free to savour the many delights Africa and the so-called Rainbow Nation have in store for those of an unfashionable shade of pigmentation.
Hi Anton,
I started writing a comment to your article, and it got so long that I made it into a post: What place for “Border Reivers Swearnots!” in Afrikaners Self-Determination?. It starts as follows:
I started writing a comment to Anton Barnard, at his post, What place for English-speaking whites in Afrikaners’ self-determination?; but my comment got so long, so I decided to make it into a post.
I agree with Anton’s argument, among others:
The mistake many whites made with the coming of South Africa’s so-called democracy in 1994, was to delude ourselves into believing that we were somehow different to all other African hell-holes. We were sadly mistaken, however. The ANC regime is not different at all. It rather has everything in common with Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF. The deterioration of a formerly orderly and prosperous country loudly attests to this.
Given the above African reality, self-determination or emigration is the only way of whites to avoid either a Zimabwe situation, or even a Rwanda-type genocide. More than a million whites have left, but what about those who cannot emigrate?
I don’t particularly want to emigrate, as my first choice; although I am seriously considering doing so, for personal reasons, combined with South African political realities.
Given the absence of the latter, I would prefer to stay in Africa, I consider myself a white Boer African; considering my families history of life in Africa.
But I find myself in a difficult position. So, herewith a little background to my perspective, as an English speaking Boer.
……………..
An opinion with which I find myself in general agreement, as I usually do, when the opinion is that of Anton Barnard.
Its not only anglophone white South Africans that pose a problem. Several other identities do so too. Before considering these specific identities that could be as detrimental to the Afrikaner in an Afrikaner homeland, as they have been in facilitating the precarious position Afrikaners now find themselves in, I need to preface with the following three points:
1. Serious consideration of a Afrikaner homeland (by the Afrikaners) will only occur once the greater mass of Afrikaners accept that they are under real and present threat of genocide. I believe that only when the vast majority of Afrikaners panic sympathetically will there be a significant (probably frantic, haphazard) attempt towards self-determination.
2. The Afrikaners’ lack of serious discussion of the matter, despite the looming genocidal implications of their intransigence, brings into question whether these people, who remain apparently indifferent to their own survival, are worth saving at all. Projecting into the future, it is probable that within two or three decades hence, Afrikaner numbers will have reduced to less than a million, as the ones who remain in the NSA become too old to reproduce and those who manage to reach early adulthood seek a future elsewhere.
3. I do not foresee a negotiated, i.e. peaceful homeland solution for the Afrikaners. The current rulers of South Africa are very much a nepotist, corrupt fraternity that would neither be likely to amputate the goose that lays the golden tax egg, nor allow its comparative ineptitude to become apparent to the whole world, should the new Afrikaner state flourish, as it is likely to do. If the Afrikaner wants a homeland, he will have to physically go to war for it.
Now, on to the matter of accommodating anglophone white South Africans, and other potentially troublesome groups in a future Afrikaner homeland.
a. The majority of anglophone SA whites have always been hostile to Afrikaners, and despite the fact that we are all in the same boat, remain so towards their Afrikaner countrymen. Whereas our shared fate on the Titanic has to some extent galvanized Afrikaner-English self-protectionary cooperation, I believe that the level of goodwill fluctuates in positive correlation to perceived mutual threat, and has all the potential to quickly recede to what it was in the 70’s, when Afrikaners voted almost exclusively for the NP, the English for the UP, and the two groups hated each other. If the anglophone group is accommodated in the Afrikaner homeland, their potential detrimental effect on Afrikaner culture can be easily countered by constitutionally enshrining Afrikaans as the only official language of the homeland. This will encourage the resistant anglophone whites to immigrate elsewhere, whilst allowing those willing to assimilate into Afrikaner culture the opportunity to do so.
b. A subset of anglophone white South Africans that I personally find particularly offensive are the ‘Van duh Mewwe’s’, ‘Crawnjee’s’ etc. I have even had the misfortune of encountering a ‘Grizel’ (Griesel). This group is anticipated to opportunistically go with the socio-political flow, and will marvelously transform back to Afrikanerdom when the time comes. I would not be surprised to see Liesbet Theron returning to her Afrikaner roots quite supportively, should a Afrikaner homeland eventuate and flourish. Though this group will not get their hands dirty in the actual establishment of the Afrikaner homeland, they will become enthusiastically vocal once it becomes clear that such a position could be to their advantage, and as such might lend weight to the drive towards self-determination at a critical time. Control over this group can also be effected by the solution suggested under (a).
c. We will of course have our Uncle Toms, who will make their comebacks for leadership. This might include people such as Roelf Meyer and Pieter Mulder. The simplest way of dealing with them is to make sure that all political leaders of the Afrikaner homeland must, as a matter of immutable principle, (i) be required to offer their leadership free of charge and without expectation of any form of state remuneration or benefit and (ii) understand that they remain solely responsible to lobby their constituents for redress of any financial or material losses they incur in the process of providing leadership. This will get rid of virtually all current politicians and lawyers intent on entering the Afrikaner homeland legislature for personal gain.
d. The Dominees and Pastors of South Africa must surely have the worst track record of all professions/vocations when it comes to clear and consistent formulation of ethics and principle. Our religious ‘leaders’ seem to inevitably align their theology to the political philosophy of the day. The most recent example of this in SA of course is the scriptural validation of Apartheid during one decade, only to be followed by the scriptural disqualification thereof, during the next. Examples of politically motivated theological interference abound in South African history and include Dominees promoting pro-British pacifist and ‘hensopper’ policies by discouraging the Boers from self-determination at various historical junctions, such as the Great Trek and Anglo-Boer wars. The way to deal with potential theological prostitution of course, is to deny all theological organizations any input whatsoever in matters of public policy in the Afrikaner homeland. The Dominees have had their opportunity and have come out short. It is time to dispatch the whole lot to the failed-experiment trashcan. Let them forthwith pursue their vocations in humble servitude to their fellow man, in simple emulation of the example set for them 2000 years ago.
e. Short on the heels of our dominees, and with an enthusiasm intended to demonstrate to their masters their willingness to serve (as this is their only meal ticket), the majority of our academicians in the literary arts and humanities adhere to egalitarianist delusions with religious zeal. These unprincipled and occupationally sheltered simpletons, who are incapable of forming an opinion on an acceptable level of autonomy, are allowed to roam free amongst our impressionable youth and to propagate their prescribed garbage without fear of rebuttal. However, their servile response to simple operant conditioning make them useful in a realistically oriented educational system, and if well controlled, should be allowed in the future Afrikaner homeland, irrespective of how much the thought aggravates me, personally.
f. Finally, there are the treasonous Afrikaners. These are the REAL enemies. You will find that they actively work against anything that may benefit the Afrikaner, are funded internationally and are involved in things such as journalism or on the board of organizations that have socially reconstructive/deconstructive agendas. I am aware of several of them, as I am sure any astute reader of the South African political history would be. They should never, ever be allowed to become citizens of a Afrikaner homeland. And just in case you wish to challenge me with an accusation of delusions of conspiracy: We’re all on the continuum between naivete and paranoia. So pick your spot.
charlize theron’s mother is german and killed her husband in front of charlize before
she left south africa.
When Afrikaans was called “Kitchen Dutch” correspondence was either in English or “Hoog Hollands”
If you want to know how my family became “Verengelsed” – My paternal grandfather was a Janse Van Vuuren and adopted his mother’s maiden name “Foster” to join the Cape Constabulary. Why? — because the “rooinekke” couldn’t pronounce Janse van Vuuren and so we became rooinekke – more about that further down. My maternal grandfather was Liebenberg and was in a POW camp in Ceylon “Diyatiwala” The education he received from fellow prisoners was in English and he became “verengels” to that degree. Remember their was no “Taalbond” at that time.
When I joined the SADF in 1960 – I was tolerated as an “Engelsman” due to my soldiering and leadership abilities. The degree of toleration depended on how much those in higher rank wanted to “gat-lek” the politicians of the time.
Fortunately most army “Afrikaners” in the early sixties were not particularly into the “Herenvolk” mentality. But some were. For them God spoke only Afrikaans and to rise to higher rank you had to belong to one of the mainstream churches and have a background of Voorterkkers, Rapport Ryers and Broederbond.
Membership equated to patriotism.
Boy Scouts, Free Masonry, etc were regarded with utmost suspicion. “Internasionale gemors”.
So guys – go ahead and form your little exclusionary Afrikaner bond. It will eventually merge into a “verengelsing ” You are already debating what qualification “Engelse” must have to be admitted. You can be very certain that those whom you think have no distinct culture – the ESW – I think you call us, will not be doing “opening en sluitings gebede” as second class citizens in your homeland. We will be driving through and taking some of the more sensible, pragmatic afrikaner women away to verengels them.
As I said in my original post – there will be ESWs like you who won’t want to live in a country where Afrikaans is the dominant language and culture. Therefore: be my guest. Enjoy your bloody, violent, chaotic second Zimbabwe future, to which the New!, Improved! Azania is speeding at an ever-increasing rate. You are most welcome to be discriminated against by racist policies such as AA and welcome to enjoy seeing your wife and daughters raped. But hey! At least you won’t have to speak Afrikaans, and THAT’s what really counts, is it not?
I love Afrikaans and the liberal Afrikaans culture . There are some things that can only properly be said in Afrikaans, such as kaalgat, ag moeder, vooitog, etc.
The way to ensure that the language and culture persist is not through occupation of land and exclusion of others but through writers, poets, musicians, and scientific endeavor. And by avoiding the likes of Robert van Tonder and those like you who want to go into a laager and stagnate.
BTW – Why are you posting in English?
Secondly you will find that many “ASW’s” and ESW’s identify with fellow so called colonial Caucasians in Australia, Canada, NZ. Britain is a bit dicey except for Scotland and Ireland who dislike the English.
Stop pounding the patriotism drum and rather get stuck in defending our right to bear arms and form defensive associations. The future is ours. Just look at the recent Matric results, and the number of A and ESW’s who have become entrepreneurs. Lets exploit the potentials of the country.
Patriotism is a group solipsism stating that your country is the best because you were born in it.
No, sorry, I have to disagree with you. A language cannot survive unless there is some state support. For example: if Stellenbosch and UNW become completely English, very few Afrikaner academics will even bother to carry on producing work in Afrikaans. As soon as that happens, the language is as good as dead.
I posted my piece in English because it concerned English speakers, and also to prove that just because I’m Afrikaans, doesn’t mean I can’t speak English
Once again: nobody would force any English speakers to live in an Afrikaner homeland, and they are free to savour the many and varied delights of Azania.
So then without state support how did Afrikaans originate? There was absolutely no state support for Afrikaans immediately after the Anglo Boer war. I recall my mother telling me that before and during the second world war, if she spoke Afrikaans in Johannesburg she would get a reply, “We don’t speak dutch here.”
I think the considerations that separate us are as follows:
1. I believe in individual freedom of choice and association – You want collective/group freedom.
2. I believe the smallest minority possible is the individual – You want to protect a particular group’s rights. – Wasn’t that how Apartheid came about? And if one analyzed the current situation in the country – it is because like the Nats – the current collectivists are protecting THEIR group at all costs. Collectivist think is what is messing up the world today.
There is no sign that diversity through evolution is diminishing, i.e. that nature’s diversity is narrowing down to some drab pattern of uniformity. Human individualism conforms to this pattern. The aspiration for freedom is simply an expression of man’s evolutionary need for individuality.
The opportunity to emancipate to freedom (i.e. individualization) is lost without a sense of security, and birds of a feather flock together for this very reason. Association on the basis of likeness in kind offers protection of kindred interests, without which security does not exist, and emancipation will not occur. Association on this basis, and the protection it offers, has been true for mankind as far back as history has been recorded. It finds its expression in family and communal prehistoric caves, hunting grounds and modern civilizations.
It is therefore not surprising to find the principle of freedom of association (and by implication, of disassociation), enshrined as a cardinal right in The Declaration of Human Rights of The United Nations.
Joe – I agree with you, but pragmatically, what would the “civilized” solution be to the current situation we find ourselves in?
Separate living areas has been tried and due to numerous factors not least of which was the Wests sympathy for the so called “downtrodden” we were forced to relinquish our sovereignty over our own education, land, production etc. This occurred in every country in Africa and the more “downtrodden” the downtrodden become, the greater the consensus, that it is the white mans fault. Collective politics does not discriminate – It appeals to those who want the fruits of others labour.
The reason the ANC currently hold power is because they promote and defend THEIR black collectivism whilst pretending to defend individual rights.
Our so called democracies are a pretense in which we elect chosen dictators and are content that because an election was held we had some say.
By promoting individual rights we possibly have a chance of having freedom of association but by trying to seclude groups, on the basis of language only, will surely fail.
I’m more than willing to be otherwise persuaded – What do you suggest?