![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This whole page is ambiguous and subtle in asserting whom this ethnical group is. European or African? If we, wish to be in the middle and therefore non biased about this, since this classification is disputed by individuals, historians, institutions, organs of states or institution of global governances, non governmental organisation, then this page should clearly state either those who classify themselves as White Africa or just White, or European African or African for that matter.
The Republic of South Africa headed by the African National Congress, or former government, the National Party, should not dictate who we are. I know, and thus concede this is a disputed topic throughout digital, public and private sphere. I'm an Afrikaner, and I have proclaimed myself as African. I simply wish to alter how this page reflect among the masses who roam the intranet for information regarding this distinct group on the continent of Africa.
My proposal is to alter the current content from "Afrikaners (including the Boer subgroup) are an ethnic group in Southern Africa whose native tongue is Afrikaans..." to "Afrikaner (including the Boer subgroup) are a distinct African ethnic group in Southern Africa whose native tongue is Afrikaans..."
Please comment on this page. Hendrik Biebouw ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I accede: it being tautological. Nonetheless, as you state it boils down to the "meaning of the word "indigenous"" to really assert if this distinct ethnical group is African or not. The definition around "indigenous" is not absolute. Then answer my question: European or African.
Either one of those, I will choose, and someone who comprehends history, not ahistorical, who is an Afrikaner, never have stepped a foot on the European continent, nor do I see those of the Bantu ilk as indigenous, only the Khoisan mind you, I will choose African. So African or European? Hendrik Biebouw ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have moved my draft article about identity politics to Draft:Afrikaner identity politics, I don't have the time to really do a good job by myself so please feel free to participate in writing it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There are no scientific grounds for the believe that Afrikaners vote 82% or 85% for the Democratic Alliance (DA). The sources given are one opinion of a writers with no research referenced and the other source does not mention Afrikaners. 85% is also more then usual total participation in elections. From result it may be guessed that the DA is the strongest political party among Whites, but that is were it ends. There is some good reasons to believe that most Afrikaners don't participate in elections at all. -- 197.229.144.123 ( talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a community project, and I believe major changes to the article should be made by WP:consensus. It has been proposed that the lead be altered as such..."Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group..." to "Afrikaners are a Germanic ethnic group..." by an anonymous contributor. Bear in mind that in the previous revision, it was already noted that Afrikaners were a Germanic people under the first section, paragraph 1, entitled "Nomenclature". The new revision simply edits this information out of this section and moves it to the lead. I have objected on several grounds, namely:
1) The Germanic peoples article to which this links barely mentions Afrikaners, and has no information pertaining to this ethnic group whatsoever. Linking to Southern Africa firstly would be more constructive.
2) The same link is disruptive to the continuity of the paragraph. "Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group...descended from predominantly Dutch settlers first arriving in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries..." Take out all references to Southern Africa, and where would they be arriving?
3) This doesn't boil down to excluding one or the other, simply that only one description belongs in the lead. How do Afrikaners firstly identify? As a Germanic people, or as Africans? I think we can safely argue that it's constructive to begin the lead by introducing them to the reader as an African ethnic group. I'm sure it's what most would appreciate.
-- Katangais ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
we do not need the article introduce that they are african twice! they are a white european africans not "native africans" 120.50.35.122 ( talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the intro start with "southern african ethnic group" or the original version of "ethnic group in southern africa" ?
the original version was used in different but similar wording for a long time and then it was changed [1] by Katangais on 01:00, 13 April 2014, the new version is confusing because it does not say whenever the are white african or black african and it implies that afrikaners are native to south africa 120.50.35.122 ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summary and on the edit warring IP's talk page, white South African is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised mid-sentence. The article title begins with a capital letter by default. There is nothing " normal" about capitalising a common noun [or adjective] mid-sentence. Helen Online 14:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am very sceptical that a "Boer subgroup" exists, or has existed. There are Afrikaners of a particular political view and outlook on the world who like to argue that there is difference and who like to identify themselves as "Boere" rather than Afrikaners. "Boere" are considered by them to be better. I'm an Afrikaner myself and like that is what I like to be called.
I think Afrikaners were called "Boers" before 1902 and there is nothing wrong with that. Nowadays if Afrikaners refer to themselves as "Boere" it is generally in jest. Or, rarely, if the modern, conservative, religiously fundamentalist "Boere" refer to one as "Boer" it must be a compliment. However, if anybody who is not an Afrikaner calls one a "Boer" is generally meant in a derogatory sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.199.189 ( talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron7 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
NB: The sentence above which I marked in bold cannot be upheld.. Linguists have found innumerable exambles (in all parts of the world) of parts of ethno-linguistic groups which have developed their own dialiects. -- Aflis ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong in this but a Boer and a Afrikaner are two different thing. A Afrikaner stayed behind in the cape when the Boere moved (after they had enough of British occupation). Culturally Afrikaners and Boere are as different as black and white, to the point where if you call a person of Boere decent a Afrikaner it would be the equivalent of calling a black person a the n word (wont use the word for obvious reasons). As a person that actually lives in South Africa I may not be 100% incline to accept the fact that the rest of the world would think that the Boer is a branch of the Afrikaner tree when its clear that the Boer and the Afrikaner are two different branches that just happened to come from the same trunk. Think it would be more correct if the page said that both Afrikaners and Boere are sub groups of the Dutch rather then saying the Boere is a sub group of Afrikaners
Sorry if I am typing this incorrectly have no idea how this page work lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.168.3.6 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This is what I mean when I note or point out your ignorance as you do not even know that the Cape Dutch were on the side of the British & it was only the Cape Boers of the frontier who were fighting on the side of the Boers of the Republics. The founder of Randburg Robert van Tonder noted in Chapter 13 of his 1977 book Boerestaat that many of the Cape Dutch were assisting the British war effort & helping to round up Boer civilians into concentrations camps. Quote from Chapter 13: "The Afrikaners of the Cape also supported the British war effort logistically by allowing them the use of their railways to transport troops and equipment to the north. Eventually they volunteered and fought on the British side against the Boere in the colony." End of quote. The Cape Dutch were historically pro British [ as well as anti-Boer ] & this was pointed out in depth within the book: Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. The problem with your use of the term Boer is that you are using it in the derogatory context in stead of the cultural context. The cultural context is much older than the derogatory context thus when you use it in the derogatory context that you do: people will presume that you are talking about the actual Boer people. No. That is a blatant lie! All Afrikaners were NEVER all called Boers! Only the folks of Trekboer descent were ever called Boers & this was even documented by Professor Hermann Gilimoee when he noted that is was only the folks of the frontier / interior who were called Boers. The Cape Dutch people were never called Boers for the simple reason that they were not descended from the Trekboers. Once again you do not use much discernment because the the government of the 1960s was in the process of stamping out the term Boer & was teaching children that everyone was an "Afrikaner". Which is another problem. There is no such thing as an "Afrikaner" in an ethnic context since this was a POLITICAL term that was used to describe all White South Africans [ this was pointed out in The White Tribe of Africa by David Harrison - though he too confuses the Cape Dutch with the Boers early on in his book mainly due to the Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda he was exposed to via the various people he interviewed ] regardless of language. Even Jan Hofmeyr of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape during the 19th cent. used the term Afrikaner to describe all local White inhabitants of the region. Prime Minister JBM Hertzog coined the terms: "Afrikaans Afrikaner" & "English Afrikaner" to describe them but the terms were further shortened to English & Afrikaner thereby leaving the false impression that the Cape Dutch & Boers were part of the same ethnic / cultural group.
I never said that people from the Boer ethnic group never held power in South Africa - BUT they clearly did so as part of the Afrikaner political group. Other examples would have been Louis Botha / Hans Strijdom & possibly John Vorster & perhaps also F W de Klerk. There were very few Boers who held power under the Boer name or were acting as representatives for the Boer people. Unfortunately due to the significant influence of the old Broederbond [ which controlled so much ] it is hard to find someone who was not brainwashed by their propaganda. I pointed out that even British authors like David Harrison was certainly influenced by this skewed perspective as he sought out a lot of Broederbond members. The whole point of the first reenactment of the Great Trek [ which was a word that the Broederbond / National Party actually coined along with Voortrekker ] was specifically to co-opt the Boer people into the fold of the Afrikaner Nationalist [ which was actually much more socialist then true nationalist as a matter of fact ] political program because they did not want a rerun of the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which was largely a Boer rebellion against the Afrikaner & British controlled government of South Africa & an attempt at restoring the Boer Republics. The Afrikaners under Malan did not want the Boer Republics to be restored or to loose control over the Boer population group so they used a notable episode of Boer history to graft the Boer people onto the Afrikaner project in the public consciousness as the centenary of the Great Trek fell right into their laps ripe for just such a project.
@Ron7 "The folks who deny the evidence that the Boers are distinct from the Cape Dutch Afrikaners are folks with a political agenda to dispossess the Boer people of their own hard won identity and their long running struggle for self determination." I think that it is important here to remember that the true issue at hand is not and never has been the Boer Peoples struggle for self determination. The Boer are slavist thieves as were all the other european whites who turned up. The issue as to the injury to the feelings of a righteous thief must of course remain forever mute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 ( talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That is hateful & despicable nonsense & total slander & distortion. The issue has always' been over the Boer people's struggle to self determination. From the time they emerged on the Cape frontier through the various treks & liberation wars / their struggle against Dutch colonialism then later British colonialism which cost the Boer people over half of their child population within the British created concentration camps & their hard won internationally recognized Boer Republics which the British conquered at the conclusion of the second Anglo-Boer War & a struggle which continued throughout the 20th cent with the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 & other failed self determination movements which followed. To call the Boers "slavist" [ which is not a proper word ] is very one dimensional considering the fact that most of the Boers of the frontiers did not own slaves as noted by Professor Wallace Mills among other sources - & respected the independence of the local groups. The Boers are not "European White [ people ] who turned up"! The Boer people are an African people who emerged on African soil LONG BEFORE THE ARRIVAL of the European powers who oppressed & later conquered the Boer people as well. The Boers were not given any special consideration by the European powers when the latter came to Africa despite having a significant Caucasian heritage & origin. The Boers were treated as just badly as any other African people & were seen as such by the British. Asserting that the Boers are "thieves" is ridiculous when they purposely settled into depopulated lands & specifically skirted the densely populated region. The Bantu population groups who entered southern Africa could certainly be described as "slavist thieves" seeing as how they displaced & massacred the indigenous Khoisan population groups & took their land yet I doubt that you would use this as a pretext to dispossess them of their rights to inhabit the region. The Boer people treded much lighter yet they are routinely singled out for opprobrium by those who cannot see past their paler skin color. The Boer people are not related to the European Colonial Powers which came & Colonized / killed / dispossessed & conquered them as well. The Boer people emerged on the Cape frontier from the various groups the VOC dumped at the Cape & cannot be blamed for being a people within Africa since it was a heritage forced upon them centuries ago by a corporation.
The population stats in the infobox need to be changed. Australia's 5000 and NZ's 1000 are based on census results where people identified as "Afrikaner". However, we all know these figures are tiny and wrong especially when you see that Afrikaans speakers (who are very likely the majority white) are numbering in the tens of thousands. I don't think we should put down Afrikaans speakers as the infobox figures but simply find another source or simply a question mark. Bezuidenhout ( talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
According to NZ census 2013, there are 27 000+ Afrikaans speakers in NZ. This number does not include the many of Afrikaners who did not participate in the census or did not fill in Afrikaans as a language, nor those of Afrikaans decent who no longer speak the language. The actual number is still higher, at least 40 000 and maybe as high as 60 000. Just search Afrikaans surnames in NZ on Linked in... more than a 100 van der Merwe professionals and large numbers for every Afrikaner surname you can think of. Afrikaner and South African immigration to NZ in general are being underestimated for political reasons. The total number of South Africans in NZ must be approaching 100 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.137.147 ( talk) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Author & researcher J A Heese who authored the book: Herkoms van die Afrikaner noted & documented that the origins were: Dutch 34.8%, German 33.7%, French 13.2%, Non White 6.9%, British 5.2%, Other European nations 2.7%, Unknown 3.5%. GFC de Bruyn used a different form of calculation and his results were: Dutch 34.1%, German 29.2%, French 24.7%, British 0.3%, Other European nations 2.4%, Non European 5.4%, Unknown 3.9% Both of these calculations demonstrate that the Dutch origins were not the predominate group as it was nowhere near the 51% threshold. Furthermore Dutch based journalist Adriana Struijt found that most of the so called Dutch arrivals were in fact taken from the Frisian ethnic minority group not the Dutch. Canadian Professor Wallace Mills noted that the VOC in fact took mostly folks from the German ethnic group to the Cape. The Huguenot Society of South Africa noted that the French Huguenot roots account for close to 25% of the White Afrikaans roots. I noticed in your terse & obtuse comment that you failed to factor in the salient fact that a large amount of German & French names were RESPELLED to conform to a Dutch spelling!!! The book: Les Huguenots qui fait l'Arfrique du Sud by Bernard Lugan pointed out how many of the Huguenot names were respelled to conform to a Dutch spelling ie: Lombard was changed to Lombaar / Guillaumé was changed to Giliomee / Jourdan was changed to Jordaan / Cronier was changed to Cronje / Pinard was changed to Pienaar etc. The fact of the matter is that the cavalier assertion that their roots were "predominantly" of Dutch origins: is quite viably demonstrated to be quite contested.
I have read on different Wikipedia articles as well on different paragraphs in this subject, that the Afrikaner or European population in the Dutch Cape Colony (DCP) has been numbered and estimated quite differently a lot on the same historical occasions. For example: in the year 1695 it ranged from 16.000 up to more than 60.000, while in the year 1806 or 1814 it shared that same range. It's also for some reason unclear, as it seems from the lack of population information on this page, as to what the historical population of the Afrikaners actually were during the inception of the Dutch Cape Colony at Cape Town in 1652 all the way up to 1814. Is there a reason for this? Is it because there are no clear sources at hand, as to what the definite population was at that time? Didn't the VOC government in the DCP hold a census every year or decade? This would sound strange to me. Because firstly, I would assume that it would be a casual thing for a multinational enterprise to keep track of their business right? Secondly, that even though the VOC was declared bankrupt in 1795 and the DCP was formally ceded to the British Empire in 1814, the VOC would still hold these kind of census records and otherwise some government. If there is a place where you would be able to find this information on the exact number of Europeans or Afrikaners in the DCP between 1652 and 1806??-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have both read and heard that the VOC indeed didn´t paid much attention towards their Colony. It´s a real shame though. It does explain though why the VOC finally went bankrupt in 1795, because of heavy corruption like that. They were more interested in making money than the human toll it would take, and also blind for the fact of creating and building a great free settler colony, like the British with Australia did for example, which would have been a lot better for them and for their profit. So it´s understandable with that mentality and attitude they were unwilling to invest a lot in a so called ´´refreshment station´´. It also makes sense as to why it took 13 years to complete the Castle Of Good Hope btw. It´s a nice piece of work though.
BTW, by a serious overestimation that 16.000 Afrikaners lived in the DCP, you meant the 17th or 18th century? Because you said the 17th, I thought you were talking about the 1600´s and there was never that amount of Afrikaners counted at that time. I read somewhere that the number of Afrikaners in the year 1706 was counted as between 1700 and 2500. And between 4000 and 5500 in 1740. I guess from these samples, you could count your source population of 26,720 as true, but I estimate it not to be in the year 1806 and I could be right. Because you pointed out the British arrived and took over the Cape Colony in 1806, while that happened much earlier in 1795: after the Dutch Republic became a French satellite state under Napoleon in that same year. Hence the British invaded this strategically important Colony with the goal of securing their trading interests. So through the use of interpolating from those samples and the fact I just told, I estimate the Afrikaner population to be 27.000 in 1795 instead. Although I have no source for this except myself, it would be most logic to ask if you would know where I could find the DCP and British Cape Colony Afrikaner population census records and can put the information right on this page and put all the doubt behind us?-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link and the information. I will try what I can. Lucky that I can read Dutch though, as I have been studying it for the last 8 years. You will hear from me as soon as I have figured it all out.-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 09:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I take issue with the way the new chart is worded. For one, it describes "European families" when in fact most of these individuals had been born in Africa by the time it ends (1795) and the first expression of Afrikaner identity had already occurred. Secondly, by using the terminology "that have settled...in different periods" the chart suggests that we are denoting immigration figures, rather than the number of residents - both new arrivals and the settled who have lived there for generations. Thirdly, the figure of "1,526" is equally misleading, since it is calculated by adding together all the figures cited for each given era. That means some families are counted twice, others thrice, and so on. It almost reads like a deliberate attempt to inflate what was (then) actually an incredibly small population group. There weren't 1,526 white families in the Cape until well into the nineteenth century. -- Katangais ( talk) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP:Linkfarm in the external links section should be trimmed. Some of the entries are simply linkspam, others represent fringe POVs and some are simply not specifically relevant. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Author, your article refers to Afrikaans as a "dialect which evolved from the Dutch vernacular of medieval Brabant".
The main article on Afrikaans says otherwise( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans). So does that of Dutch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language). Take the time and check the citations; I am sure you will find them more, uhm, relevant. 197.76.145.11 ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I have some running commentary relating to this section in the article: "Boers" is an anglicisation of "Boere"; which is Afrikaans (and Dutch) for "farmers" (singular would be "boer"). And then, "burghers" is another anglicisation ("burgers"); which is Afikaans (and Dutch) for "citizens", which I would imagine is how one would've distinguished oneself from a slave, during that period?
In the second paragraph, Hendrik Briebouw (1707) referred to being "African" not an Afrikaner. In other words, reference to his heritage as apposed to race and language. So I think the article can go without this section. Comments? ruan ( talk) 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I disagree: "African" refers to anything relating to Africa (the continent) - in the case of Briebouw, a native African. In 1707 saying to a magistrate (i.e. the authorities) that you are not European would land you in trouble, as African natives were associated with the Khoisan and Black populace (also slaves). Nothing to do with the Afrikaans language. ruan ( talk) 19:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read your source material (Kaplan et al), quite an interesting read. However, it was most certainly not penned with only history in mind - check the introduction. Secondly it was produced in the 70's - since then there has been several watershed events. When I read your post above, I get the impression that you (and some other users) are giving history way too much weight. At the end of the day, when "defining" myself as an Afrikaner, any historian's point of view is ultimately irrelevant. The same applies to when referring to my mother-tongue, Afrikaans. and BTW, there are no sub-groups in the Afrikaner populace. Complete nonsense. ruan ( talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It is baffling that somebody seems to have proposed replacing "Afrikaner" by "Dutch" throughout the article - after all that is said in the artice itself about the origin of the Afrikaner not only from the Netherlands, but also from France and Germany, and about their social identity that is clearly distinct from that of the Dutch. -- Aflis ( talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Apparently, this kind of exchanging arguments could go on endlessly. As I have only a side interest in this article, I am opting out. "Let us agree not to agree".. Aflis ( talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
As some of you may have noticed, the population figures for Oz and NZ in the infobox have recently been updated to include all Afrikaans speakers. I feel this has partly been my fault as I started the practice of adding figures based solely on the use of Afrikaans. However, I feel this needs to come to an end. Wikipedia typically classifies people according to self-identification; therefore, those who choose not to identify explicitly as Afrikaners but rather simply as Afrikaans speakers should be excluded from our tallies.
Why? Well, the more I interact with white South Africans the more I realise most of them speak both English and Afrikaans, regardless of which one is their first language. The Australian census simply asks if another language is spoken, and if so to specify. Well, the majority of white SA English speakers in Oz (native Durbanites probably being an exception in general) can also truthfully answer Afrikaans. Therefore, it's erroneous to assume that all white Saffies in the diaspora who are also fluent in Afrikaans are Afrikaners. The growing intermarriage with English speakers has also produced any number of 100% bilingual households where the children speak flawless Afrikaans but do not call themselves Afrikaners.
And it's not just Australia. I propose that the Swazi and Zambian figures also be struck from the infobox, as they also ignore this fact and the former in particular also has quite a few Coloureds who are predominantly Afrikaans speakers.
Language fluency alone does not correspond to ethnicity.
Let's stop unilaterally assigning people an ethnic group based on their Afrikaans fluency alone, and stick to self-identification for the infobox figures.
-- Katangais (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have twice removed this segment for a number of reasons. Firstly, the built-in ambiguity of the sentence (what that sentence actually says is that because only approximately 2% of Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans vote for the ruling ANC, this favours the majority blacks). But that's a minor. So, let's focus on substance. What is that segment actually saying? That its policies are geared towards favouring blacks? So, is the FF+ not geared towards favouring whites? That its policies are geared towards improving the lives of the underprivileged/ marginalised etc? It so happens that these are overwhelmingly black, so in essence we are saying that the ANC favours the underprivileged. Or is that segment saying that the ANC pure and simply favours blacks? Well, blacks are its constituency - is it not the nature of political parties to favour their constituencies? I believe that that is the very nature of political parties - "vote for me, I will fight for your causes (favour you)". So, if it really means something, there must be a better — and clearer — way of saying it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Afrikaners. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about it, and, what would people think about an article on Afrikaner-Americans? It would make more sense as they are an ethnic group just like any other American ethnic group (English, German, Italian, etc.)? Nickeleh ( talk) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickeleh ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear coleagues. I have now for the second time removed this section, which Discott ( talk · contribs) insists on including. It says:
"According to Mahmood Mamdani the Afrikaans community has dealt with their diminished profile, feelings of social insecurity, and lack of ' ethic rights' in South Africa by taking a dual approach that combines the approach taken by the Ugandan Asians and the Zanzibar Arabs. With mostly poor Afrikaner's agitating for an ethnic homeland -most actively with the establishment of the Afrikaans settlement at Orania- with its own native authority that can enforce its own customary laws, whilst wealthier Afrikaners have embraced privatization and liberalization of the economy as a means to secure their position in society."
I originally removed it, leaving the following edit summary: Meaningless addition. A one-liner tangential reference to Afrikaners in a 17-page paper hardly counts as evidence of anything. Not to mention the starting error of "mixed approach" entirely different from "dual approach")
So, in terms of Discott's text:
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Afrikaners. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Afrikaners/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*Very full coverage of topic.
|
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This whole page is ambiguous and subtle in asserting whom this ethnical group is. European or African? If we, wish to be in the middle and therefore non biased about this, since this classification is disputed by individuals, historians, institutions, organs of states or institution of global governances, non governmental organisation, then this page should clearly state either those who classify themselves as White Africa or just White, or European African or African for that matter.
The Republic of South Africa headed by the African National Congress, or former government, the National Party, should not dictate who we are. I know, and thus concede this is a disputed topic throughout digital, public and private sphere. I'm an Afrikaner, and I have proclaimed myself as African. I simply wish to alter how this page reflect among the masses who roam the intranet for information regarding this distinct group on the continent of Africa.
My proposal is to alter the current content from "Afrikaners (including the Boer subgroup) are an ethnic group in Southern Africa whose native tongue is Afrikaans..." to "Afrikaner (including the Boer subgroup) are a distinct African ethnic group in Southern Africa whose native tongue is Afrikaans..."
Please comment on this page. Hendrik Biebouw ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I accede: it being tautological. Nonetheless, as you state it boils down to the "meaning of the word "indigenous"" to really assert if this distinct ethnical group is African or not. The definition around "indigenous" is not absolute. Then answer my question: European or African.
Either one of those, I will choose, and someone who comprehends history, not ahistorical, who is an Afrikaner, never have stepped a foot on the European continent, nor do I see those of the Bantu ilk as indigenous, only the Khoisan mind you, I will choose African. So African or European? Hendrik Biebouw ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have moved my draft article about identity politics to Draft:Afrikaner identity politics, I don't have the time to really do a good job by myself so please feel free to participate in writing it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There are no scientific grounds for the believe that Afrikaners vote 82% or 85% for the Democratic Alliance (DA). The sources given are one opinion of a writers with no research referenced and the other source does not mention Afrikaners. 85% is also more then usual total participation in elections. From result it may be guessed that the DA is the strongest political party among Whites, but that is were it ends. There is some good reasons to believe that most Afrikaners don't participate in elections at all. -- 197.229.144.123 ( talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a community project, and I believe major changes to the article should be made by WP:consensus. It has been proposed that the lead be altered as such..."Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group..." to "Afrikaners are a Germanic ethnic group..." by an anonymous contributor. Bear in mind that in the previous revision, it was already noted that Afrikaners were a Germanic people under the first section, paragraph 1, entitled "Nomenclature". The new revision simply edits this information out of this section and moves it to the lead. I have objected on several grounds, namely:
1) The Germanic peoples article to which this links barely mentions Afrikaners, and has no information pertaining to this ethnic group whatsoever. Linking to Southern Africa firstly would be more constructive.
2) The same link is disruptive to the continuity of the paragraph. "Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group...descended from predominantly Dutch settlers first arriving in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries..." Take out all references to Southern Africa, and where would they be arriving?
3) This doesn't boil down to excluding one or the other, simply that only one description belongs in the lead. How do Afrikaners firstly identify? As a Germanic people, or as Africans? I think we can safely argue that it's constructive to begin the lead by introducing them to the reader as an African ethnic group. I'm sure it's what most would appreciate.
-- Katangais ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
we do not need the article introduce that they are african twice! they are a white european africans not "native africans" 120.50.35.122 ( talk) 20:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Should the intro start with "southern african ethnic group" or the original version of "ethnic group in southern africa" ?
the original version was used in different but similar wording for a long time and then it was changed [1] by Katangais on 01:00, 13 April 2014, the new version is confusing because it does not say whenever the are white african or black african and it implies that afrikaners are native to south africa 120.50.35.122 ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summary and on the edit warring IP's talk page, white South African is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised mid-sentence. The article title begins with a capital letter by default. There is nothing " normal" about capitalising a common noun [or adjective] mid-sentence. Helen Online 14:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am very sceptical that a "Boer subgroup" exists, or has existed. There are Afrikaners of a particular political view and outlook on the world who like to argue that there is difference and who like to identify themselves as "Boere" rather than Afrikaners. "Boere" are considered by them to be better. I'm an Afrikaner myself and like that is what I like to be called.
I think Afrikaners were called "Boers" before 1902 and there is nothing wrong with that. Nowadays if Afrikaners refer to themselves as "Boere" it is generally in jest. Or, rarely, if the modern, conservative, religiously fundamentalist "Boere" refer to one as "Boer" it must be a compliment. However, if anybody who is not an Afrikaner calls one a "Boer" is generally meant in a derogatory sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.199.189 ( talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron7 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
NB: The sentence above which I marked in bold cannot be upheld.. Linguists have found innumerable exambles (in all parts of the world) of parts of ethno-linguistic groups which have developed their own dialiects. -- Aflis ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong in this but a Boer and a Afrikaner are two different thing. A Afrikaner stayed behind in the cape when the Boere moved (after they had enough of British occupation). Culturally Afrikaners and Boere are as different as black and white, to the point where if you call a person of Boere decent a Afrikaner it would be the equivalent of calling a black person a the n word (wont use the word for obvious reasons). As a person that actually lives in South Africa I may not be 100% incline to accept the fact that the rest of the world would think that the Boer is a branch of the Afrikaner tree when its clear that the Boer and the Afrikaner are two different branches that just happened to come from the same trunk. Think it would be more correct if the page said that both Afrikaners and Boere are sub groups of the Dutch rather then saying the Boere is a sub group of Afrikaners
Sorry if I am typing this incorrectly have no idea how this page work lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.168.3.6 ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This is what I mean when I note or point out your ignorance as you do not even know that the Cape Dutch were on the side of the British & it was only the Cape Boers of the frontier who were fighting on the side of the Boers of the Republics. The founder of Randburg Robert van Tonder noted in Chapter 13 of his 1977 book Boerestaat that many of the Cape Dutch were assisting the British war effort & helping to round up Boer civilians into concentrations camps. Quote from Chapter 13: "The Afrikaners of the Cape also supported the British war effort logistically by allowing them the use of their railways to transport troops and equipment to the north. Eventually they volunteered and fought on the British side against the Boere in the colony." End of quote. The Cape Dutch were historically pro British [ as well as anti-Boer ] & this was pointed out in depth within the book: Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. The problem with your use of the term Boer is that you are using it in the derogatory context in stead of the cultural context. The cultural context is much older than the derogatory context thus when you use it in the derogatory context that you do: people will presume that you are talking about the actual Boer people. No. That is a blatant lie! All Afrikaners were NEVER all called Boers! Only the folks of Trekboer descent were ever called Boers & this was even documented by Professor Hermann Gilimoee when he noted that is was only the folks of the frontier / interior who were called Boers. The Cape Dutch people were never called Boers for the simple reason that they were not descended from the Trekboers. Once again you do not use much discernment because the the government of the 1960s was in the process of stamping out the term Boer & was teaching children that everyone was an "Afrikaner". Which is another problem. There is no such thing as an "Afrikaner" in an ethnic context since this was a POLITICAL term that was used to describe all White South Africans [ this was pointed out in The White Tribe of Africa by David Harrison - though he too confuses the Cape Dutch with the Boers early on in his book mainly due to the Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda he was exposed to via the various people he interviewed ] regardless of language. Even Jan Hofmeyr of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape during the 19th cent. used the term Afrikaner to describe all local White inhabitants of the region. Prime Minister JBM Hertzog coined the terms: "Afrikaans Afrikaner" & "English Afrikaner" to describe them but the terms were further shortened to English & Afrikaner thereby leaving the false impression that the Cape Dutch & Boers were part of the same ethnic / cultural group.
I never said that people from the Boer ethnic group never held power in South Africa - BUT they clearly did so as part of the Afrikaner political group. Other examples would have been Louis Botha / Hans Strijdom & possibly John Vorster & perhaps also F W de Klerk. There were very few Boers who held power under the Boer name or were acting as representatives for the Boer people. Unfortunately due to the significant influence of the old Broederbond [ which controlled so much ] it is hard to find someone who was not brainwashed by their propaganda. I pointed out that even British authors like David Harrison was certainly influenced by this skewed perspective as he sought out a lot of Broederbond members. The whole point of the first reenactment of the Great Trek [ which was a word that the Broederbond / National Party actually coined along with Voortrekker ] was specifically to co-opt the Boer people into the fold of the Afrikaner Nationalist [ which was actually much more socialist then true nationalist as a matter of fact ] political program because they did not want a rerun of the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which was largely a Boer rebellion against the Afrikaner & British controlled government of South Africa & an attempt at restoring the Boer Republics. The Afrikaners under Malan did not want the Boer Republics to be restored or to loose control over the Boer population group so they used a notable episode of Boer history to graft the Boer people onto the Afrikaner project in the public consciousness as the centenary of the Great Trek fell right into their laps ripe for just such a project.
@Ron7 "The folks who deny the evidence that the Boers are distinct from the Cape Dutch Afrikaners are folks with a political agenda to dispossess the Boer people of their own hard won identity and their long running struggle for self determination." I think that it is important here to remember that the true issue at hand is not and never has been the Boer Peoples struggle for self determination. The Boer are slavist thieves as were all the other european whites who turned up. The issue as to the injury to the feelings of a righteous thief must of course remain forever mute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 ( talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That is hateful & despicable nonsense & total slander & distortion. The issue has always' been over the Boer people's struggle to self determination. From the time they emerged on the Cape frontier through the various treks & liberation wars / their struggle against Dutch colonialism then later British colonialism which cost the Boer people over half of their child population within the British created concentration camps & their hard won internationally recognized Boer Republics which the British conquered at the conclusion of the second Anglo-Boer War & a struggle which continued throughout the 20th cent with the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 & other failed self determination movements which followed. To call the Boers "slavist" [ which is not a proper word ] is very one dimensional considering the fact that most of the Boers of the frontiers did not own slaves as noted by Professor Wallace Mills among other sources - & respected the independence of the local groups. The Boers are not "European White [ people ] who turned up"! The Boer people are an African people who emerged on African soil LONG BEFORE THE ARRIVAL of the European powers who oppressed & later conquered the Boer people as well. The Boers were not given any special consideration by the European powers when the latter came to Africa despite having a significant Caucasian heritage & origin. The Boers were treated as just badly as any other African people & were seen as such by the British. Asserting that the Boers are "thieves" is ridiculous when they purposely settled into depopulated lands & specifically skirted the densely populated region. The Bantu population groups who entered southern Africa could certainly be described as "slavist thieves" seeing as how they displaced & massacred the indigenous Khoisan population groups & took their land yet I doubt that you would use this as a pretext to dispossess them of their rights to inhabit the region. The Boer people treded much lighter yet they are routinely singled out for opprobrium by those who cannot see past their paler skin color. The Boer people are not related to the European Colonial Powers which came & Colonized / killed / dispossessed & conquered them as well. The Boer people emerged on the Cape frontier from the various groups the VOC dumped at the Cape & cannot be blamed for being a people within Africa since it was a heritage forced upon them centuries ago by a corporation.
The population stats in the infobox need to be changed. Australia's 5000 and NZ's 1000 are based on census results where people identified as "Afrikaner". However, we all know these figures are tiny and wrong especially when you see that Afrikaans speakers (who are very likely the majority white) are numbering in the tens of thousands. I don't think we should put down Afrikaans speakers as the infobox figures but simply find another source or simply a question mark. Bezuidenhout ( talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
According to NZ census 2013, there are 27 000+ Afrikaans speakers in NZ. This number does not include the many of Afrikaners who did not participate in the census or did not fill in Afrikaans as a language, nor those of Afrikaans decent who no longer speak the language. The actual number is still higher, at least 40 000 and maybe as high as 60 000. Just search Afrikaans surnames in NZ on Linked in... more than a 100 van der Merwe professionals and large numbers for every Afrikaner surname you can think of. Afrikaner and South African immigration to NZ in general are being underestimated for political reasons. The total number of South Africans in NZ must be approaching 100 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.137.147 ( talk) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Author & researcher J A Heese who authored the book: Herkoms van die Afrikaner noted & documented that the origins were: Dutch 34.8%, German 33.7%, French 13.2%, Non White 6.9%, British 5.2%, Other European nations 2.7%, Unknown 3.5%. GFC de Bruyn used a different form of calculation and his results were: Dutch 34.1%, German 29.2%, French 24.7%, British 0.3%, Other European nations 2.4%, Non European 5.4%, Unknown 3.9% Both of these calculations demonstrate that the Dutch origins were not the predominate group as it was nowhere near the 51% threshold. Furthermore Dutch based journalist Adriana Struijt found that most of the so called Dutch arrivals were in fact taken from the Frisian ethnic minority group not the Dutch. Canadian Professor Wallace Mills noted that the VOC in fact took mostly folks from the German ethnic group to the Cape. The Huguenot Society of South Africa noted that the French Huguenot roots account for close to 25% of the White Afrikaans roots. I noticed in your terse & obtuse comment that you failed to factor in the salient fact that a large amount of German & French names were RESPELLED to conform to a Dutch spelling!!! The book: Les Huguenots qui fait l'Arfrique du Sud by Bernard Lugan pointed out how many of the Huguenot names were respelled to conform to a Dutch spelling ie: Lombard was changed to Lombaar / Guillaumé was changed to Giliomee / Jourdan was changed to Jordaan / Cronier was changed to Cronje / Pinard was changed to Pienaar etc. The fact of the matter is that the cavalier assertion that their roots were "predominantly" of Dutch origins: is quite viably demonstrated to be quite contested.
I have read on different Wikipedia articles as well on different paragraphs in this subject, that the Afrikaner or European population in the Dutch Cape Colony (DCP) has been numbered and estimated quite differently a lot on the same historical occasions. For example: in the year 1695 it ranged from 16.000 up to more than 60.000, while in the year 1806 or 1814 it shared that same range. It's also for some reason unclear, as it seems from the lack of population information on this page, as to what the historical population of the Afrikaners actually were during the inception of the Dutch Cape Colony at Cape Town in 1652 all the way up to 1814. Is there a reason for this? Is it because there are no clear sources at hand, as to what the definite population was at that time? Didn't the VOC government in the DCP hold a census every year or decade? This would sound strange to me. Because firstly, I would assume that it would be a casual thing for a multinational enterprise to keep track of their business right? Secondly, that even though the VOC was declared bankrupt in 1795 and the DCP was formally ceded to the British Empire in 1814, the VOC would still hold these kind of census records and otherwise some government. If there is a place where you would be able to find this information on the exact number of Europeans or Afrikaners in the DCP between 1652 and 1806??-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have both read and heard that the VOC indeed didn´t paid much attention towards their Colony. It´s a real shame though. It does explain though why the VOC finally went bankrupt in 1795, because of heavy corruption like that. They were more interested in making money than the human toll it would take, and also blind for the fact of creating and building a great free settler colony, like the British with Australia did for example, which would have been a lot better for them and for their profit. So it´s understandable with that mentality and attitude they were unwilling to invest a lot in a so called ´´refreshment station´´. It also makes sense as to why it took 13 years to complete the Castle Of Good Hope btw. It´s a nice piece of work though.
BTW, by a serious overestimation that 16.000 Afrikaners lived in the DCP, you meant the 17th or 18th century? Because you said the 17th, I thought you were talking about the 1600´s and there was never that amount of Afrikaners counted at that time. I read somewhere that the number of Afrikaners in the year 1706 was counted as between 1700 and 2500. And between 4000 and 5500 in 1740. I guess from these samples, you could count your source population of 26,720 as true, but I estimate it not to be in the year 1806 and I could be right. Because you pointed out the British arrived and took over the Cape Colony in 1806, while that happened much earlier in 1795: after the Dutch Republic became a French satellite state under Napoleon in that same year. Hence the British invaded this strategically important Colony with the goal of securing their trading interests. So through the use of interpolating from those samples and the fact I just told, I estimate the Afrikaner population to be 27.000 in 1795 instead. Although I have no source for this except myself, it would be most logic to ask if you would know where I could find the DCP and British Cape Colony Afrikaner population census records and can put the information right on this page and put all the doubt behind us?-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link and the information. I will try what I can. Lucky that I can read Dutch though, as I have been studying it for the last 8 years. You will hear from me as soon as I have figured it all out.-- Vicaussie94 ( talk) 09:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I take issue with the way the new chart is worded. For one, it describes "European families" when in fact most of these individuals had been born in Africa by the time it ends (1795) and the first expression of Afrikaner identity had already occurred. Secondly, by using the terminology "that have settled...in different periods" the chart suggests that we are denoting immigration figures, rather than the number of residents - both new arrivals and the settled who have lived there for generations. Thirdly, the figure of "1,526" is equally misleading, since it is calculated by adding together all the figures cited for each given era. That means some families are counted twice, others thrice, and so on. It almost reads like a deliberate attempt to inflate what was (then) actually an incredibly small population group. There weren't 1,526 white families in the Cape until well into the nineteenth century. -- Katangais ( talk) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP:Linkfarm in the external links section should be trimmed. Some of the entries are simply linkspam, others represent fringe POVs and some are simply not specifically relevant. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Author, your article refers to Afrikaans as a "dialect which evolved from the Dutch vernacular of medieval Brabant".
The main article on Afrikaans says otherwise( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans). So does that of Dutch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language). Take the time and check the citations; I am sure you will find them more, uhm, relevant. 197.76.145.11 ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I have some running commentary relating to this section in the article: "Boers" is an anglicisation of "Boere"; which is Afrikaans (and Dutch) for "farmers" (singular would be "boer"). And then, "burghers" is another anglicisation ("burgers"); which is Afikaans (and Dutch) for "citizens", which I would imagine is how one would've distinguished oneself from a slave, during that period?
In the second paragraph, Hendrik Briebouw (1707) referred to being "African" not an Afrikaner. In other words, reference to his heritage as apposed to race and language. So I think the article can go without this section. Comments? ruan ( talk) 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I disagree: "African" refers to anything relating to Africa (the continent) - in the case of Briebouw, a native African. In 1707 saying to a magistrate (i.e. the authorities) that you are not European would land you in trouble, as African natives were associated with the Khoisan and Black populace (also slaves). Nothing to do with the Afrikaans language. ruan ( talk) 19:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read your source material (Kaplan et al), quite an interesting read. However, it was most certainly not penned with only history in mind - check the introduction. Secondly it was produced in the 70's - since then there has been several watershed events. When I read your post above, I get the impression that you (and some other users) are giving history way too much weight. At the end of the day, when "defining" myself as an Afrikaner, any historian's point of view is ultimately irrelevant. The same applies to when referring to my mother-tongue, Afrikaans. and BTW, there are no sub-groups in the Afrikaner populace. Complete nonsense. ruan ( talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It is baffling that somebody seems to have proposed replacing "Afrikaner" by "Dutch" throughout the article - after all that is said in the artice itself about the origin of the Afrikaner not only from the Netherlands, but also from France and Germany, and about their social identity that is clearly distinct from that of the Dutch. -- Aflis ( talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Apparently, this kind of exchanging arguments could go on endlessly. As I have only a side interest in this article, I am opting out. "Let us agree not to agree".. Aflis ( talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
As some of you may have noticed, the population figures for Oz and NZ in the infobox have recently been updated to include all Afrikaans speakers. I feel this has partly been my fault as I started the practice of adding figures based solely on the use of Afrikaans. However, I feel this needs to come to an end. Wikipedia typically classifies people according to self-identification; therefore, those who choose not to identify explicitly as Afrikaners but rather simply as Afrikaans speakers should be excluded from our tallies.
Why? Well, the more I interact with white South Africans the more I realise most of them speak both English and Afrikaans, regardless of which one is their first language. The Australian census simply asks if another language is spoken, and if so to specify. Well, the majority of white SA English speakers in Oz (native Durbanites probably being an exception in general) can also truthfully answer Afrikaans. Therefore, it's erroneous to assume that all white Saffies in the diaspora who are also fluent in Afrikaans are Afrikaners. The growing intermarriage with English speakers has also produced any number of 100% bilingual households where the children speak flawless Afrikaans but do not call themselves Afrikaners.
And it's not just Australia. I propose that the Swazi and Zambian figures also be struck from the infobox, as they also ignore this fact and the former in particular also has quite a few Coloureds who are predominantly Afrikaans speakers.
Language fluency alone does not correspond to ethnicity.
Let's stop unilaterally assigning people an ethnic group based on their Afrikaans fluency alone, and stick to self-identification for the infobox figures.
-- Katangais (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have twice removed this segment for a number of reasons. Firstly, the built-in ambiguity of the sentence (what that sentence actually says is that because only approximately 2% of Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans vote for the ruling ANC, this favours the majority blacks). But that's a minor. So, let's focus on substance. What is that segment actually saying? That its policies are geared towards favouring blacks? So, is the FF+ not geared towards favouring whites? That its policies are geared towards improving the lives of the underprivileged/ marginalised etc? It so happens that these are overwhelmingly black, so in essence we are saying that the ANC favours the underprivileged. Or is that segment saying that the ANC pure and simply favours blacks? Well, blacks are its constituency - is it not the nature of political parties to favour their constituencies? I believe that that is the very nature of political parties - "vote for me, I will fight for your causes (favour you)". So, if it really means something, there must be a better — and clearer — way of saying it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Afrikaners. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about it, and, what would people think about an article on Afrikaner-Americans? It would make more sense as they are an ethnic group just like any other American ethnic group (English, German, Italian, etc.)? Nickeleh ( talk) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickeleh ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear coleagues. I have now for the second time removed this section, which Discott ( talk · contribs) insists on including. It says:
"According to Mahmood Mamdani the Afrikaans community has dealt with their diminished profile, feelings of social insecurity, and lack of ' ethic rights' in South Africa by taking a dual approach that combines the approach taken by the Ugandan Asians and the Zanzibar Arabs. With mostly poor Afrikaner's agitating for an ethnic homeland -most actively with the establishment of the Afrikaans settlement at Orania- with its own native authority that can enforce its own customary laws, whilst wealthier Afrikaners have embraced privatization and liberalization of the economy as a means to secure their position in society."
I originally removed it, leaving the following edit summary: Meaningless addition. A one-liner tangential reference to Afrikaners in a 17-page paper hardly counts as evidence of anything. Not to mention the starting error of "mixed approach" entirely different from "dual approach")
So, in terms of Discott's text:
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Afrikaners. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Afrikaners/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*Very full coverage of topic.
|
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)