This page 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. |
As an estimate (or an accurate figure knowing Ron7, lol) what percentage of the Boer population can speak a language other than Afrikaans?
82.12.236.241 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a significant number among the White Afrikaans population which can speak a language other then Afrikaans -though there are also many who can only speak Afrikaans.
Deon is right about this not being a forum: if you would like to discuss the subject further, perhaps you should start a blog or a comment web page where I would be glad to continue the discussion.
There is indeed still such a thing as a Boer population. Even if one were to restrict the definition to the Afrikaans farming communities: there would still be a Boer population. Furthermore I find it odd that anyone would want to redefine the Boers out of existence. There are a people who are still called Boers to this day which is an independent expression of merely a political designation. After all: presuming that the Boers are right wing would be like presuming that the Tibetans are right wing for wanting to retain their culture independent of mainland China. To make a comparison: Just because a great number of French Canadians in Quebec call themselves Quebecois does not mean that they are not still the same sociological group that they were when they were still called les Canadiens. Which is basically my point concerning the Boers. While a number might no longer describe themselves strictly as Boers -due to the past influence of the Cape based Afrikaner nationalists- it does not automatically mean that there no longer exists a sociological Boer population.
The Cajuns in the United States still call themselves Cajuns even though most no longer even speak French. At least the Boer people still speak their language & have retained their customs. The Quebecois people have also somewhat intermarried with British people to a slight degree: yet they still speak French / have retained their customs & continue to exist as an independent & distinct sociological group.
The assertion the the Boers are now somehow now all Afrikaners is akin to asserting that the Acadians are now all French Canadians. While one can make the case the Acadians are a type of French speaking Canadian: the term French Canadian has historically referred to the French speaking residents of Quebec & Ontario as the Acadians are a distinct sociological group which was formed in the Maritimes region independently of the French Canadians. This is the point concerning the Boers. The sociological group once more widely referred to as Boers is a distinct sociological group which formed independently of those who remained in the Western Cape & would later usurp the term Afrikaner. Calling the Boers: Afrikaners muddies the waters as it is a disservice to the people who have been & continue to be a sociologically distinct entity from the Afrikaners. Presuming that the Boers are right wing is ironic when considering that it was right wing Afrikaners who co-opted the Boers into their designation in the first place. Therefore those who have continued to refer to themselves as Boers or who are reclaiming their designation are doing so based on cultural grounds not just political grounds.
Well this is incorrect as there are a significant number of Boers who have emigrated to places such as Mozambique, Nigeria, the Congo, Zambia.
``I watched the protesters on television. They'd say, `Kill the Boer! Kill the farmer!' " said Baumgarten. ``Well, I'm one of those farmers."
And so Baumgarten joined the vanguard of Afrikaners who are immigrating to neighboring black-ruled countries, nations that were once hostile to South Africa but now welcome the Boers and their agricultural skills.
While small groups of South African farmers have moved to other African countries such as Zaire, Zambia and Congo in recent years - not always successfully - the migration to Mozambique is potentially much larger.
Furthermore: the fact that a number of White Afrikaans people emigrate to Europe / Australia & North America is done for much the same reasons as any other people do including many Black Africans as well. Therefore the notion that they are not "truly African" for doing so is a ridiculous statement since many agonize & are tormented by the decision to leave. If this makes them not "truly African" then what does that make the Black Africans who emigrate to Europe & America as well. Furthermore: the European people who initially settled in North America certainly did not try to settle in a different place on the European continent but went straight to the new world.
I repeat again, currently there is no such thing as a "Boer population". There are farmers, there are Afrikaans speaking "whites", and there are Afrikaans speaking white farmers. These farmers aren't isolated, they live near towns go to the same schools and marry non-farmers, some stop farming while others are new to farming, in short they are fully integrated into society so how would they be unique??? The current Afrikaans speaking "white" farmers have absolutely no distinguishing feature be it genetic, language, culture, geography or otherwise, that sets them apart from any other white Afrikaans speaker. Please cite a reliable source that states otherwise. The discussions are once again straying from the article into the world of forums and original research ( Wikipedia:Original research). -- Deon Steyn 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we not place an infobox for them, Ron7's obtained population information (1 million roughly), they have their own customs, their own language, and are to all intents and purposes as much a people as the Afrikaners.
They have had a period of history in which they were independent, I think all of this warrants an info box.
82.13.45.78 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a most complicated matter. Though not as complicated as some people make it out to be. While the term Boer is considered "obsolete" or outdated by many it is still a term many others continue to use to describe themselves. The frontier Boers did in fact develop their own dialect which scholars have called Eastern Border Afrikaans. This dialect developed specifically among the Boers of the eastern Cape frontier. Hence its name / classification. Therefore: it appears the historical record disagrees with the notion that "they did not have a distinct language". Furthermore: the Boer designation has indeed referred to basically the same group of people or rather the same cultural group which started out among the Trekboers of the late 17th cent to the Grensboere on the edges of the frontier to the Voortrekkers who left the frontier to trek northwards & right up to their modern descendants. Their distinctiveness as a unique & separate cultural group was not just for a "short" period of time at all -but has been noted for hundreds of years. The frontier Boers who began trekking inland centuries ago have been a distinctive & unique sociological group which continues to exist. While one can argue that they might no longer be as distinct from the greater White Afrikaans population as they once were the fact of the matter is that this group is still intact -regardless of what they might call themselves- as it isn't even really important what they call themselves since they would still be a distinct group.
This is not a contradiction in the least. The fact that the Boers developed their own dialect speaks to the inherent distinctiveness of their language. Which is what my point was. The Australians have a distinctive dialect of the English language they developed. The different parts of the United States have distinctive forms of the English language. Particularly in the region which was once called "Dixie" where the inhabitants have a most pronounced dialect / accent with their own lexicon. The people of Quebec have a distinctive form of the French language. You claim that the different dialects of Afrikaans does not denote a separate ethnic group/peoples/nation when in reality the 3 main supra dialects denote specific macro ethnic / national / cultural groups.
Orange River Afrikaans is spoken by the Griquas & a number of Khoisan people. Eastern Border Afrikaans is spoken mainly by the (formerly) frontier Boers & their descendants. West Cape Afrikaans is spoken mainly by the mixed race populations (such as the Cape Malay) at the Western Cape. Then of course their are the other sub dialects like Oorlans & others (spoken by distinctive groups) as well.
Now on to the contentious & erroneous notion that the Boers allegedly do not exist. It is just incredible to come across such denial in the face of the plethora of documentation of the existence of this group. No one denies that the Acadians exist even though they could just as easily be dismissed as "French speaking Canadians living in the past" as Acadia no longer exists -but their culture & language still does. This is my point concerning the Boers. Boer culture & language still exist. Hence their exists a de facto Boer population. The Acadians have their own flags / culture & language / dialect just as the Boers (or Boer descendants) have & have had as well. Therefore: referring to the Boers as being the same thing as Afrikaners or of being just part of a greater generic White Afrikaans population is as insensitive as referring the Acadians as French Canadians -who are understood to be the inhabitants of Quebec. The following excerpts are documentation of the existence of the Boer population.
A series of frontier wars between Boers and Xhosa begins in 1779. The Boers appeal to Cape Town but get little help. In their frustration, in 1795, they declare Graaff-Reinet an independent Boer republic.
The Boers are by now, both in their own estimation and in reality, a people different from the Dutch at the Cape. They call themselves Afrikaners{2}, proudly emphasizing their birth in Africa. Their language, Afrikaans, already differs from Dutch. Their fierce independence is accompanied by an equally uncompromising variety of Calvinism. But in the very first year of their new republic a wider conflict intervenes. In 1795 the British seize Cape Town.
The authoritative Canadian journalist-author Noel Mostert, (who is a descendant of Afrikaners Huguenots who in 1947 had emigrated to Canada; and now lives in Morocco), draws a very clear distinction especially between Afrikaners and Boers, writing on page 1292 in " Frontiers", his comprehensive history of the Xhosa nation:
Afrikaner: "The word 'Afrikaner' has a long history among Dutch-speaking {3}; colonists, but its modern nationalistic associations are comparatively recent, starting around the 1870s but principally early in this century.
Boer: "The word Boer is used to describe Dutch-speaking {3} colonists both early and later in the nineteenth century, for the Cape Colony as well as Natal, the Orange Free State and Transvaal;. Trekboer, Voortrekker: "Trekboer" is used to describe the semi-nomadic Boers who moved outwards from the Cape of Good Hope into the interior between the end of the seventeenth century and around the end of the eighteenth.
" Voortrekker or " Trekker" is applied to those who moved in more or less mass emigration from the Cape frontier to the north at the end of the 1830s.
Colonist: "The word ' colonist ' has been used to describe all white colonials, but I have found it necessary to make some distinction between the (two varieties of Afrikaans-)Dutch speakers {3} in South Africa, as well as English speakers.
The term ' settler ' (in the South African connotation) therefore has been applied exclusively to English-speakers (in Mostert's book).
Coloured: A catch-all apartheid-era term used to officially register South Africa's large variety of creole peoples, including the Khoi-San descendants living in the Western and Eastern Cape; the millions of Afrikaans-speakers of Afrikaner-Malay-Khoi-San descent (such as the Boesaks); also English-speakers of Zulu-Scottish descent (the Dunns of KwaZulu-Natal);
ISBN 0-679-40136-9, publ. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. New York; Random
House Inc., NY.
That particular latest handle was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak and other like-minded people - and refers to all the people in South Africa who speak Afrikaans i.e. also Afrikaans-speaking people of colour.
President Mbeki meanwhile prefers to refer to everybody with a paler skin than his own with the racist nomer of "whites" - which he often uses as an insult during parliamentary debates.
Small wonder these people are confused about their own identity! A "trekBoer", a "grensBoer", a "Voortrekker" and a "Boer" all refer to exactly the same people who had founded and supported the Independent Boer Republics of Natalia, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (ZAR) and who were independent citizens in their own democratic republics for about fifty years before the British destroyed them in their ethnic-cleansing campaign.
History records that the British, the Dutch, the Germans, the French, the Americans and indeed many other foreign governments during those years invariably referred to the voters of these republics as "Boers." After they were defeated, they suddenly weren't allowed to call themselves Boers any longer by the British victors -- and the elitists Afrikaans-speaking collaborators who had worked with the British to defeat them and who had always referred to themselves as "Afrikaners" - after the language they spoke -- then started calling the former, defeated voters of the Boer Republics "Afrikaners."
One can generally still identify people who call themselves Boers these days as those Afrikaans-speaking paler-skinned people in South Africa who are mainly descended from working-class Afrikaans-speakers; many of those were mineworkers and technical workers at the former State-owned companies such as Telkom, Sasol etc. It's actually amazing how many of these people still privately refer to themselves as Boers even though they are being derided and sneered at from all sides.
Strangely back then, people who looked down on the defeated Boers were referred to in the news media such as The Star of Johannesburg as "racists" who should make an "effort at reconciliation". However most of the "reconciliation" came from the side of the defeated Boers who had to find a livelihood as working-class workers in the mines and factories of the cities. They were forced to relinquish their identity indeed as the Afrikaners of today are now being forced to start referring to themselves as "Afrikaanses" - people who speak Afrikaans, a term which was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak.
See how history repeats itself?
Notes.
1. The Boers were of course not just of Dutch origins but of French / German & others as well.
2. As in African. The term Afrikaner was yet to be used in the fasion it would later be used by the Afrikaner Nationalists of the 20th cent.
3. The description Dutch speaking is erroneous since as noted elsewhere here the language had changed & developed early on to a form of what would later be called Afrikaans.
The Yankees were indeed a sort of nation (or tribe) as it was the original Puritan based Eastern Establishment of New England. Though the original Yankees were more analogous to the Cape Dutch in that they were both the European originated immigrant ruling aristocracies of their prospective regions. The Cape Dutch government attempted to control the frontier Boers in much the same way the Yankees attempted to control the other inhabitants of the North American continent.
Fair enough Deon. You're hostile to me all over wikipedia, you watch me for God's sake! As I said you're an Afrikaner (or Boer, I didn't get it out of you), and I've just espoused admiration in it's purest and sincerest form for your people.
No offense but, I thought I'd found a friend in you, a firearms interested, Afrikaans, White South African. Until now I'd only met nice South Africans. Don't take it too personally. However, seriously, why do you watch me, I think wikipedia should consider removing that feature, it's legalised cyber- stalking.
82.3.81.225 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The following line has been removed.
While I did not write this line I do however concur that they are in fact an indigenous nation. I happened to post four sources which note this fact. The reason I did this was because someone once erroneously put the word " not" before the word "indigenous" which prompted me to demonstrated this fact with references. While I also did not write "which were internationally recognized as a nation in its own right for approximately two centuries." but also concur that the Boer people have indeed been recognized for about this length of time. The references I posted where specifically aimed at showing the indigenous or homegrown nature of the Boers & not for the line stating their international recognition as a nation for two centuries. Therefore the removal of the entire paragraph is unwarranted. Now: only one link (the fourth) was to a commercial game lodge while the first two were from authors who wrote about the subject in books & the third source demonstrates that a number of Bantus viewed the Boers as a tribe in the past.
The following line is a violation of the NPOV rule.
Furthermore it is a complete contradiction to assert that the Boers "have tried to build a new identity based on the past" since if they were indeed doing that then it would not be a new identity! It would simply be a reassertion of their historic designation. Furthermore the Boer portion of the Afrikaners (which is an artificial political label which lumped a wide variety of Afrikaans speakers into one loose camp) have only ever been a minority within the Afrikaner designation as they have always been numerically smaller than the Cape based Afrikaners. The so called Afrikaners who you accuse of "trying to build a new identity" are simply reclaiming their heritage (which they never renounced) & the right to call themselves by their original name before the Cape based Afrikaners came & subjugated them after the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War when many Boers were too poor & politically weak to prevent themselves from becoming dominated[1] by the ascending Afrikaners. The Boers never went away as a people although their culture was changed somewhat due the urbanization of many but they have retained most of their traditions & their dialect.
Note.
1. < The “Boer worker" was the focus of the culture-brokers’ attentions in the next decade as the urban labour market became an arena in which Afrikaner intellectuals sought to capture the cultural allegiance of the urbanising Afrikaans-speaker. >
From: The Construction of Eugène Marais as an Afrikaner Hero. Sandra Swart. Journal of Southern African Studies. 30.4, Dec 2004.
I would remind you you to refrain from posting a point of view which is not even substantiated by the observable facts.
I am new to Wikipedia. I was just wondering, would'nt it be better to put the Boer page under the Afrikaner page with a heading "Boere"? Almost all Afrikaners know what the word Boer mean, but the minority still uses it as a description of themselves. Most Afrikaans speaking whites, whether from the Cape Colony right up to the Limpopo river would call themselves Afrikaners.
-- Etherealscourge ( talk) 13:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There was very little difference between the pages Boer and Boere-Afrikaner. There may be nuances of interpretation between the two labels, but certainly nothing in the two articles seemed to justify having separate pages. I have copied most of the content from Boere-Afrikaner into this page in preparation for a merge. Zaian ( talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture to the right of the page, has a caption that reads Llama assualt unit, then claims the boer war was in South America. My attempts to remove the picture have all been undone by wikipedias editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.28.14 ( talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The section mentions the Boers' fight against the British annexes, but some of the wording may be made more clear and also if we're going to include their fighting off the British then why don't we also include their fighting of the native people? Invmog ( talk) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why in the world - in an article about Boers which also explains their history - is there absolutely no mention (so far as I can tell) of the Battle of Blood River? Many Boers still celebrate Day of the Vow (or Day of the Covenant - Dingane's Day) - my family among them. Invmog ( talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have another photo that gives a more balanced portrayal, rather than being purely militant in nature.-- Lionelbrits ( talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
When the Boers lost wars against Britishers, they were transported to various POW (Prisoners of war) camps. A group of Boers was exiled to British India and they were kept at Abbottabad(Now in Pakistan). The buildings where Pakistan Military Academy is situated these days were initially constructed as a POW camp for Afrikaner Boers. One can still find Old barracks besides PMA where these captives were kept. Boers were good farmers since centuries so they started farming around the area of Kakul for their livelihood. A good number of fertile farms around the Academy were developed by Boers during those days. They were very friendly people and retained good relations with natives of the town. Boer women used to make handicrafts which were sold in the local markets. By Syed Saqib Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ 10:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
BOER CEMETERY AT KAKUL, ABBOTTABAD, PAKISTAN
A small cemetery of Boer POWs still exists besides the village of Kakul (Abbottabad). It has 24 graves in dilapidated condition. The cemetery is about to wash away if left unattended. Boundary wall is broken and graves have almost come down to the ground level. These milestones of history will soon disappear due to lack of care. In the coming years these evidences of Boer footsteps on the land of South Asia will no more be found. Pakistan
I cannot for the life of me understand why any space should be given in the Wikipedia towards a very minute minority movement propagating the absurd idea that there are Afrikaners as well as Boers. Some members of my own family in the distant past were Capetonians, other were from the Free State. My father's uncle was shot by an English firing squad during the Boer War at Graaff-Reinet for being a Cape Rebel Boer. Others members of the family stayed in the Western Cape at Villiersdorp, still others had migrated northwards just after the Great Trek. Afrikaners are Boers and Boers are Afrikaners. It's as simple as that. Just look at our surnames comprising the core of the Afrikaner/Boer population to realize that we are one and the same. -- -- Guest 9 September 2009
I agree with you, however I would prefer to have two articles, because it refers to two different periods in history. But Boers are Afrikaners and Afrikaners are Boers, even though we don't farm (verb) on a farm (noun) any more. Invmog ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
In Swedish words : Bo and Bor means: to live, to inhabit .
I think the word boer originated from some of Netherlands dialects and could be ethymologically connected to those Swedish words. Originally Frisia spoke on the language, related to Anlo-Saxon and Low Saxon. After Frankish conquest the official language was changed to Middle-German or Old Frankish-which has evolved into Old Dutch. Edelward ( talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
86.46.80.234 ( talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) James A. Power, 3rd of November 2009.
A claim is made, quote:
"Recently, however, many Boers have found a spiritual home in the Christian Identity Movement, a white supremacist sect of Christianity."
but no citation is given. Where has this information come from? I cannot verify it. It should be properly cited or removed.
There are a number of misconceptions you make here as A: the article is mostly & overwhelmingly about the historical Boer people & only deals briefly with the fact that many descendents of the actual Boers have reclaimed & or retained the Boer cultural identity designation. It was decided here a long time ago that a separate article for the Boer people was necessary as the Boers are & have ever been a small section of the White Afrikaans speaking population. Seeing as the term Afrikaner describes all White Afrikaans speakers & the fact that most Afrikaners are descended from the erstwhile named Cape Dutch / non-Boer segment: which makes the Boers a minority segment of that designation. Ergo the necessity for the article. B: The vast majority of the Cape Rebels were from the Boer communities of the northern / eastern Cape frontier while comparatively fewer were from the generally pro British Cape Dutch Afrikaners. [ read more in the book: Cecil Rhodes & the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. ] Therefore most of your family members were either Boers or those who were absorbed into the Boers just as numerous English / Scottish & Portuguese speakers were in the past.
C: Lots of Boers have been conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners [ due mainly to Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda of the past ] but the Cape Dutch Afrikaners have never viewed themselves as Boers & even establishment historians like Hermann Giliomee admit that the term Boer was only ever applied to those who developed on the Cape frontier. Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit notes on page 1 of The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity that the Boers developed on the frontiers of White settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. Canadian Professor Wallace Mills notes that the Boers of the frontier were distinct & recognized themselves as distinct from the Cape Dutch. While many Boers also often refer to themselves as Afrikaners too: it is meant in a geographical context & not that they necessarily view themselves as part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners.
D: The Afrikaners were never "one & the same" as historians have noted that there was never any unity among all White Afrikaans speakers & that the idea of a "single" nation only emerged in the 20th cent by those whose political aim was to eradicate the identity of the Boers & to merge them with the estranged Cape Dutch. Surnames are an irrelevant measure of distinct ethnicity as the Quebecois & Acadians share some common surnames but are two distinct French speaking groups. The development of the Boers on the Cape frontier during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s shaped the Boers as a distinct cultural / ethnic entity from that of the Cape Dutch who developed in the south western Cape region.
Well the first thing you must understand that the growing reclamation of Boer identity by those of Boer descent is not meant to "offend" anyone who might view themselves as both as the are some folks who could due to having both roots. Furthermore an encyclopedic article is supposed to be more concerned with conveying accurate & necessary information than with whether the information is "offensive" or not. I would also challenge the notion that the term Boer was ever "rediscovered" when in reality it was often still used by Boer descendents to describe themselves because it was only suppressed in a narrow political context. One must remember that the term Boer was only ever removed in a political context as the National Party tried to suppress the usage of the term but Boers often still privately referred to themselves as Boers. [ This was noted by Dutch born South African journalist Adriana Stuijt. ] The academic establishment also propagated the term Afrikaner & since academia played a more prominent role in society - many Boers who entered into those institutions were conditioned out of their Boer id. The term Boer "came back" in a big way during the 1940s during the mass movement to restore the Boer Republics which incidentally was STOPPED by the Afrikaner establishment. Further highlighting the necessity of referring to Boers as Boers because the Afrikaner establishment was / is opposed to any authentic notion of Boer self determination as they try to claim the Boers as part of a manufactured macro group all under the dubious Afrikaner designation.
Robert van Tonder who left the National Party in 1961 in order to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics was a prominent figure who referred to himself as a Boer & often noted that Boers are not Afrikaners in the sense of belonging to the same group as the larger Cape Dutch & smaller Boers were arbitrarily lumped together under the Afrikaner designation.
There are indeed about 1.5 million Boers as the total White Afrikaans population is about 3.5 million [ some say even 4.5 million ] while not much more than about 34 % will be of Boer descent as per the statistics from the early 20th cent. Therefore this mathematical equation is better than no statistic at all & serves to give a picture of the size of the Boer population.
No. The term Boer is an accurate ethnic / cultural term which would have to be used no matter how small a group of folks who openly identify as Boers because the renaming of the Boers as "Afrikaners" [ which automatically lumped them in with the Cape Dutch ] was a political [ ie: a POV move by an established elite who arbitrarily decided to ignore & suppress Boer identity ] act which did nothing to actually eradicate the actual Boer people themselves. Consider the following: if a Quebecois elite suddenly claimed the Acadians as part of a broader French Canadian people [ as the Afrikaner elite did with respect to the Boers ] that act would not in & of itself eradicate the anthropological existence of an Acadian people nor of a Quebecois people for that matter - therefore composing articles on the Acadians would have to reference their accurate & historical designation & point out that the term French Canadian [ as used in the context for this example as I am well aware that the Quebecois actually often refer to themselves as French Canadians ] is just a POLITICAL term lumping two distinct French speaking peoples under one simplistic & trite designation.
Therefore the fact that the Boers were politically lumped in with the Cape Dutch under the simplistic & trite term Afrikaner [ as part of the Right Wing propaganda of the era ] does not negate the anthropological existence of a Boer people - even if they were arbitrarily renamed as "Afrikaners" within a political context.
The thing a lot of folks forget is that the term Afrikaner is itself a very problematic term due to its ever changing definition. It was first applied to a group of Khoisan before it was appropriated by the Cape Dutch in a political context circa 1875 during the rise of an Afrikaans language movement. Therefore claiming that the Boers are simply a "minority of Afrikaners" is extremely problematic to say the least & totally misleading as the Boers developed into an anthropologically distinct people on the Cape frontier away from the Cape Dutch by circa 1700. What is often arbitrarily referred to as Afrikaners are in fact two distinct Caucasian Afrikaans speaking population groups who were only political merged [ in a loose coalition ] for the purposes of an elite who wanted to capture the new macro State from the British & expand a race based dispensation.
Therefore the most accurate term to use for the Boer descendents is Boer due to its long historical association with the Boer people & is derived from the term Trekboer from whence the Boers were all originally from. While the term Afrikaner was initially propagated by some Cape Dutch intellectuals at a time when most of the Boers were independent within their internationally recognized Boer Republics. Applying the term Afrikaner onto the Boers is a POV because is was done from the top down & the bulk of the Boer people were too impoverished to resist the ascending establishment based Afrikaner dialectic. One must remember that the Boers were also colonized by the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners in the wake of the establishment of South Africa due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch population group. Therefore those Boers who openly reclaim their Boer identity are simply reinstating their own accurate identity that the Right Wing political establishment had denied them & would be similar to Burmese reclaiming their suppressed identity while under the Myanmar designation. The term Boer is a sociological term used to describe the descendents of the Trekboers [ & later Voortrekkers ] while the term Afrikaner is a quasi civil term amorphous in nature & used in an umbrella context to describe just about anyone whose home language in Afrikaans & marginalizes the Boer people because the Boers are a minority group under the manufactured Afrikaner designation.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Boer. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They like to defend themselves and often have firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 ( talk) 18:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this paragraph, because none of the sources supported this claim. In fact, several contradict it, by stating that the term Afrikaner and Boer are synonyms or using the terms as such. One sources states that the British government at one point recognized the Boer Republics, but this is clearly not the same as "recognition of a nation for two centuries". Please find reliable sources (not commercial websites for game lodges) clearly supporting this claim. See Wikipedia:Attribution or Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Deon Steyn 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
86.27.114.248 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have often wondered the same thing myself since there is a long running Afrikaner antipathy towards the Boer people which appears to go right back to the Trekboer era of the 1700s.
Much of the unsourced material in this article appears (by virtue of style and content) to be from some late-19th-C textbook. Does anyone know what this book may be?
I have attempted to modernise the text, without changing any essential facts, through more accessible style & vocabulary. Numerous of the statements appear(ed) to be repetitive, as though excerpted from various places of the same textbook whose author was providing chapter-head review of topics already covered in previous chapters. I attempted to eliminate redundant statements and did not alter or remove any essential facts. Such redundancy isn't flattering to Wikipedia style.
Most importantly, and most potentially contentiously, I have also attempted to neutralise an obvious pro-Boer bias in the sections clearly derived from this un-cited (textbook) source. The book from which these statements derive was clearly written from a pro-Boer, anti-British point of view, which may be deemed offensive to some Wikipedia readers and may also hinder neutral academic research. For example, a fine point (with no citations) was made that the Boers had/have a keen sense of nationalism. I don't see this as true. Earlier the same source (I must presume) made the point that the Boers had forsaken much of their original Dutch heritage. If anything the Boers of the 19th C were seeking an entirely-independent way of life, apart from any form of organised government. This doesn't constitute 'nationalism' in my book (it's really its opposite); so, again, I am curious as to what the un-cited source may have been to have promoted such a contradictory statement. Or perhaps it was the cultural bias of the contributor who used the book, attempting to cement Boers' reputation as cultural heroes when to many other minds they might be classified only as rebels. A properly neutral point of view would have avoided such potential contention; and that is the point of Wikipedia.
Thank you to all Wikipedians for your contributions to this and other matters. I rely on the policy of 'assume good faith' to remain in your good graces!
Jonnie Comet ( talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
EB1911 text moved from the article
|
---|
The most complete account of the company's tenure and government of the Cape was written in 1857 by E. B. Watermeyer, a Cape colonist of Dutch descent residing in Cape Town. He points out that it was only after failing to find a route by the northeast to China and Japan that the Dutch turned their eyes to the Cape route. The Cape of Good Hope subsequently "became not a colony of the Republic of the United Provinces, but a dependency of the 'Netherlands Chartered General East India Company' for mercantile purposes; and to this fact principally can be traced the slow progress, in all but extension of territory, of a country which was settled by Europeans within thirty years of the time when the Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of a mighty empire, landed at Plymouth to plant democratic institutions and European civilization in the West." [1] On the settlement under van Riebeek, and the position in it which the so-called "free burghers" enjoyed, Watermeyer asserts, "The people who came here with Riebeek himself were not colonists intending permanently to settle at the Cape…. The proposition that any freemen or burghers not in the pay of the company should be encouraged to cultivate the ground was first made about three years after Riebeek's arrival. Accordingly, some discharged sailors and soldiers, who received on certain conditions plots of ground extending from the Fresh River to the Liesbeek, were the first free burghers of the colony…. Here it is sufficient to say that, generally, the term ‘free burgher’ was a complete misnomer. The first burghers were, in truth, a mere change from paid to unpaid servants of the company. They thought, in obtaining their discharge, that they had much improved their condition, but they soon discovered the reverse to be the fact. And henceforward, to the end of the last [18th] century we find the constantly repeated and well-founded complaint, that the company and its officers possessed every advantage, while the freemen were not allowed even the fruit of their own toil…. The natural effect of this narrow and tyrannous rule was discontent, amounting often to disaffection. After a time every endeavour was made to escape beyond the immediate control of the authorities. Thus the 'trekking' system, with its attendant evils, the bane of South Africa, was born. By their illiberal spirit, which sought but temporary commercial advantage in connexion with the Eastern trade, the Dutch authorities themselves, although generally humanely disposed towards the natives, created the system which caused their oppression and extermination." [1] When it is borne in mind that the Dutch at the Cape were for 143 years under the rule of the Dutch East India Company, the importance of a correct appreciation of the nature of that rule to any student of South African history is obvious. No modern writer approaches Watermeyer either in the completeness of his facts or the severity of his indictment. [1] Referring to the policy of the company, Watermeyer says:— The Dutch colonial system as exemplified at the Cape of Good Hope, or rather the system of the Dutch East India Company (for the nation should not wholly suffer under the condemnation justly incurred by a trading association that sought only pecuniary profit), was almost without one redeeming feature, and was a dishonour to the Netherlands' national name. In all things political it was purely despotic; in all things commercial, it was purely monopolist. The Dutch East India Company cared nought for the progress of the colony—provided only that they had a refreshment station for their richly laden fleets, and that the English, French, Danes and Portuguese had not. Whatever tended to infringe in the slightest degree on their darling monopoly was visited with the severest penalties, whether the culprit chanced to be high in rank or low. An instance of this, ludicrous while grossly tyrannical, is preserved in the records. Commander van Quaelbergen, the third of the Dutch governors of the colony, was dismissed from the government in 1667, and expelled the service of the company, because he had interchanged civilities with a French governor bound eastwards, the United Provinces being then at peace with France. [2] Of this nature was the foreign policy of the Dutch company at the Cape of Good Hope; modified, indeed, in some degree from time to time, but governed by principles of jealous, stringent monopoly until the surrender of the colony by Commissioner Sluysken in 1795. The internal government of the colonists for the entire duration of the East India Company's rule was always tyrannical, often oppressive in the extreme. With proclamations, placaats and statutes abundantly filling huge tomes, the caprice of the governor was in truth the law. A mockery of popular institutions, under the name of a burgher council, indeed existed; but this was a mere delusion, and must not be confounded with the system of local government by means of district burgher councils which that most able man, Commissioner de Mist, sought to establish during the brief government of the Batavian Republic from 1803 to 1806, when the Dutch nation, convinced and ashamed of the false policy by which they had permitted a mere money-making association to disgrace the Batavian name, and to entail degradation on what might have been a free and prosperous colony, sought to redeem their error by making this country a national colonial possession, instead of a slavish property, to be neglected, oppressed or ruined, as the caprice or avarice of its merchant owners might dictate. [2] ...but in 1795 a number of burghers settled in the Swellendam and Graaf Reinet districts drove out the officials of the company and established independent governments. The rebellion was accompanied by an assertion of rights on the part of the burghers or freemen, which contained the following clause, the spirit of which animated many of the Trek Boers:— That every Bushman or Hottentot, male or female, whether made prisoner by commanders or caught by individuals, as well in time past as in future, shall for life be the lawful property of such burghers as may possess them, and serve in bondage from generation to generation. And if such Hottentots should escape, the owner shall be entitled to follow them up and to punish them, according to their merits in his discretion. [3] And as to the ordinary Hottentot, already in service, brought up at the places of Christians, the children of these shall be compelled to serve until their twenty-fifth year, and may not go into the service of any other save with their master's consent; that no Hottentot, in future deserting his service shall be entitled to refuge or protection in any part of the colony, but that the authorities throughout the country shall immediately, whatever be the alleged cause of desertion, send back the fugitive to his master. [3] After 143 years, the rule of the Dutch East India Company came to an end at the Cape. Watermeyer recapitulates its effects as follows:— The effects of this pseudo-colonization were that the Dutch, as a commercial nation, destroyed commerce. The most industrious race of Europe, they repressed industry. One of the freest states in the world, they encouraged a despotic misrule in which falsely-called free citizens were enslaved. These men, in their turn, became tyrants. Utter anarchy was the result. Some national feeling may have lingered, but, substantially, every man in the country, of every hue, was benehted when the incubus of the tyranny of the Dutch East India Company was removed. [3] References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Several Wikipedians have raised questions here about omissions in, and possible additions in edits of, the article in question. I submit, if these topics have substantive support from real textual documents, that they be added responsibly and that the editors duly cite their sources. If these topics are not currently represented, it's because no-one has done this or because sources acceptable to Wikipedia haven't been identified.
This isn't meant as a chat site for ethical opinions concerning the actual topic; it's about means and reasons for editing the article. I'm all for expanding articles to include pertinent points - so long as it's done without personal bias and done according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's the greatest research paper in the world and we need to keep in mind the worldwide audience and what's best for all.
I'm grateful to PBS for providing some of the text from what appears to be a 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; but this is still a woefully biased source and especially from a modern perspective its continued use here might best be regarded only sceptically.
Thanks, all, for all you do.
Jonnie Comet ( talk) 04:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if the views expressed here are shared by a significant portion of the Afrikaner/Boer community. I suspect that a dichotomy between Boere and Afrikaners is not advocated by many, although I don't have any statistics on this. It would be appreciated if any source could be provided which shows that there is a major group of people that consider themselves "Boere" but not "Afrikaners". Being an Afrikaner/Boer myself I haven't ever heard of this distinction before reading this article, and I'm from the Transvaal (not the Cape), so by all accounts I would have heard of it by now. Even the sources cited for this article all seem to claim that "Boer" a synonym for "Afrikaner". I suspect the group considering themselves to be Boere to the exclusion of being Afrikaners is small enough not to be notable in this way (as opposed to those who consider the two terms synonymous). Maybe I've just been living with my head in the sand, though; a reference as to the statistics behind this would be useful. -- Wolfie Inu 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Having a dedicated heading for only the 6th frontier war is lazy at best. The war in totality from 1779 - 1878 are excluded, also, the content makes no mention of any of the Boer involvements. An existing main article already exist on the Xhosa Wars. Thus a revision is required of said section. I will make the required changes to include the war in totality but not in too much detail since the main article already covers most part. The changes will place into perspective and have reference to the Boers since the page this is what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This page 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. |
As an estimate (or an accurate figure knowing Ron7, lol) what percentage of the Boer population can speak a language other than Afrikaans?
82.12.236.241 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a significant number among the White Afrikaans population which can speak a language other then Afrikaans -though there are also many who can only speak Afrikaans.
Deon is right about this not being a forum: if you would like to discuss the subject further, perhaps you should start a blog or a comment web page where I would be glad to continue the discussion.
There is indeed still such a thing as a Boer population. Even if one were to restrict the definition to the Afrikaans farming communities: there would still be a Boer population. Furthermore I find it odd that anyone would want to redefine the Boers out of existence. There are a people who are still called Boers to this day which is an independent expression of merely a political designation. After all: presuming that the Boers are right wing would be like presuming that the Tibetans are right wing for wanting to retain their culture independent of mainland China. To make a comparison: Just because a great number of French Canadians in Quebec call themselves Quebecois does not mean that they are not still the same sociological group that they were when they were still called les Canadiens. Which is basically my point concerning the Boers. While a number might no longer describe themselves strictly as Boers -due to the past influence of the Cape based Afrikaner nationalists- it does not automatically mean that there no longer exists a sociological Boer population.
The Cajuns in the United States still call themselves Cajuns even though most no longer even speak French. At least the Boer people still speak their language & have retained their customs. The Quebecois people have also somewhat intermarried with British people to a slight degree: yet they still speak French / have retained their customs & continue to exist as an independent & distinct sociological group.
The assertion the the Boers are now somehow now all Afrikaners is akin to asserting that the Acadians are now all French Canadians. While one can make the case the Acadians are a type of French speaking Canadian: the term French Canadian has historically referred to the French speaking residents of Quebec & Ontario as the Acadians are a distinct sociological group which was formed in the Maritimes region independently of the French Canadians. This is the point concerning the Boers. The sociological group once more widely referred to as Boers is a distinct sociological group which formed independently of those who remained in the Western Cape & would later usurp the term Afrikaner. Calling the Boers: Afrikaners muddies the waters as it is a disservice to the people who have been & continue to be a sociologically distinct entity from the Afrikaners. Presuming that the Boers are right wing is ironic when considering that it was right wing Afrikaners who co-opted the Boers into their designation in the first place. Therefore those who have continued to refer to themselves as Boers or who are reclaiming their designation are doing so based on cultural grounds not just political grounds.
Well this is incorrect as there are a significant number of Boers who have emigrated to places such as Mozambique, Nigeria, the Congo, Zambia.
``I watched the protesters on television. They'd say, `Kill the Boer! Kill the farmer!' " said Baumgarten. ``Well, I'm one of those farmers."
And so Baumgarten joined the vanguard of Afrikaners who are immigrating to neighboring black-ruled countries, nations that were once hostile to South Africa but now welcome the Boers and their agricultural skills.
While small groups of South African farmers have moved to other African countries such as Zaire, Zambia and Congo in recent years - not always successfully - the migration to Mozambique is potentially much larger.
Furthermore: the fact that a number of White Afrikaans people emigrate to Europe / Australia & North America is done for much the same reasons as any other people do including many Black Africans as well. Therefore the notion that they are not "truly African" for doing so is a ridiculous statement since many agonize & are tormented by the decision to leave. If this makes them not "truly African" then what does that make the Black Africans who emigrate to Europe & America as well. Furthermore: the European people who initially settled in North America certainly did not try to settle in a different place on the European continent but went straight to the new world.
I repeat again, currently there is no such thing as a "Boer population". There are farmers, there are Afrikaans speaking "whites", and there are Afrikaans speaking white farmers. These farmers aren't isolated, they live near towns go to the same schools and marry non-farmers, some stop farming while others are new to farming, in short they are fully integrated into society so how would they be unique??? The current Afrikaans speaking "white" farmers have absolutely no distinguishing feature be it genetic, language, culture, geography or otherwise, that sets them apart from any other white Afrikaans speaker. Please cite a reliable source that states otherwise. The discussions are once again straying from the article into the world of forums and original research ( Wikipedia:Original research). -- Deon Steyn 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we not place an infobox for them, Ron7's obtained population information (1 million roughly), they have their own customs, their own language, and are to all intents and purposes as much a people as the Afrikaners.
They have had a period of history in which they were independent, I think all of this warrants an info box.
82.13.45.78 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a most complicated matter. Though not as complicated as some people make it out to be. While the term Boer is considered "obsolete" or outdated by many it is still a term many others continue to use to describe themselves. The frontier Boers did in fact develop their own dialect which scholars have called Eastern Border Afrikaans. This dialect developed specifically among the Boers of the eastern Cape frontier. Hence its name / classification. Therefore: it appears the historical record disagrees with the notion that "they did not have a distinct language". Furthermore: the Boer designation has indeed referred to basically the same group of people or rather the same cultural group which started out among the Trekboers of the late 17th cent to the Grensboere on the edges of the frontier to the Voortrekkers who left the frontier to trek northwards & right up to their modern descendants. Their distinctiveness as a unique & separate cultural group was not just for a "short" period of time at all -but has been noted for hundreds of years. The frontier Boers who began trekking inland centuries ago have been a distinctive & unique sociological group which continues to exist. While one can argue that they might no longer be as distinct from the greater White Afrikaans population as they once were the fact of the matter is that this group is still intact -regardless of what they might call themselves- as it isn't even really important what they call themselves since they would still be a distinct group.
This is not a contradiction in the least. The fact that the Boers developed their own dialect speaks to the inherent distinctiveness of their language. Which is what my point was. The Australians have a distinctive dialect of the English language they developed. The different parts of the United States have distinctive forms of the English language. Particularly in the region which was once called "Dixie" where the inhabitants have a most pronounced dialect / accent with their own lexicon. The people of Quebec have a distinctive form of the French language. You claim that the different dialects of Afrikaans does not denote a separate ethnic group/peoples/nation when in reality the 3 main supra dialects denote specific macro ethnic / national / cultural groups.
Orange River Afrikaans is spoken by the Griquas & a number of Khoisan people. Eastern Border Afrikaans is spoken mainly by the (formerly) frontier Boers & their descendants. West Cape Afrikaans is spoken mainly by the mixed race populations (such as the Cape Malay) at the Western Cape. Then of course their are the other sub dialects like Oorlans & others (spoken by distinctive groups) as well.
Now on to the contentious & erroneous notion that the Boers allegedly do not exist. It is just incredible to come across such denial in the face of the plethora of documentation of the existence of this group. No one denies that the Acadians exist even though they could just as easily be dismissed as "French speaking Canadians living in the past" as Acadia no longer exists -but their culture & language still does. This is my point concerning the Boers. Boer culture & language still exist. Hence their exists a de facto Boer population. The Acadians have their own flags / culture & language / dialect just as the Boers (or Boer descendants) have & have had as well. Therefore: referring to the Boers as being the same thing as Afrikaners or of being just part of a greater generic White Afrikaans population is as insensitive as referring the Acadians as French Canadians -who are understood to be the inhabitants of Quebec. The following excerpts are documentation of the existence of the Boer population.
A series of frontier wars between Boers and Xhosa begins in 1779. The Boers appeal to Cape Town but get little help. In their frustration, in 1795, they declare Graaff-Reinet an independent Boer republic.
The Boers are by now, both in their own estimation and in reality, a people different from the Dutch at the Cape. They call themselves Afrikaners{2}, proudly emphasizing their birth in Africa. Their language, Afrikaans, already differs from Dutch. Their fierce independence is accompanied by an equally uncompromising variety of Calvinism. But in the very first year of their new republic a wider conflict intervenes. In 1795 the British seize Cape Town.
The authoritative Canadian journalist-author Noel Mostert, (who is a descendant of Afrikaners Huguenots who in 1947 had emigrated to Canada; and now lives in Morocco), draws a very clear distinction especially between Afrikaners and Boers, writing on page 1292 in " Frontiers", his comprehensive history of the Xhosa nation:
Afrikaner: "The word 'Afrikaner' has a long history among Dutch-speaking {3}; colonists, but its modern nationalistic associations are comparatively recent, starting around the 1870s but principally early in this century.
Boer: "The word Boer is used to describe Dutch-speaking {3} colonists both early and later in the nineteenth century, for the Cape Colony as well as Natal, the Orange Free State and Transvaal;. Trekboer, Voortrekker: "Trekboer" is used to describe the semi-nomadic Boers who moved outwards from the Cape of Good Hope into the interior between the end of the seventeenth century and around the end of the eighteenth.
" Voortrekker or " Trekker" is applied to those who moved in more or less mass emigration from the Cape frontier to the north at the end of the 1830s.
Colonist: "The word ' colonist ' has been used to describe all white colonials, but I have found it necessary to make some distinction between the (two varieties of Afrikaans-)Dutch speakers {3} in South Africa, as well as English speakers.
The term ' settler ' (in the South African connotation) therefore has been applied exclusively to English-speakers (in Mostert's book).
Coloured: A catch-all apartheid-era term used to officially register South Africa's large variety of creole peoples, including the Khoi-San descendants living in the Western and Eastern Cape; the millions of Afrikaans-speakers of Afrikaner-Malay-Khoi-San descent (such as the Boesaks); also English-speakers of Zulu-Scottish descent (the Dunns of KwaZulu-Natal);
ISBN 0-679-40136-9, publ. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. New York; Random
House Inc., NY.
That particular latest handle was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak and other like-minded people - and refers to all the people in South Africa who speak Afrikaans i.e. also Afrikaans-speaking people of colour.
President Mbeki meanwhile prefers to refer to everybody with a paler skin than his own with the racist nomer of "whites" - which he often uses as an insult during parliamentary debates.
Small wonder these people are confused about their own identity! A "trekBoer", a "grensBoer", a "Voortrekker" and a "Boer" all refer to exactly the same people who had founded and supported the Independent Boer Republics of Natalia, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (ZAR) and who were independent citizens in their own democratic republics for about fifty years before the British destroyed them in their ethnic-cleansing campaign.
History records that the British, the Dutch, the Germans, the French, the Americans and indeed many other foreign governments during those years invariably referred to the voters of these republics as "Boers." After they were defeated, they suddenly weren't allowed to call themselves Boers any longer by the British victors -- and the elitists Afrikaans-speaking collaborators who had worked with the British to defeat them and who had always referred to themselves as "Afrikaners" - after the language they spoke -- then started calling the former, defeated voters of the Boer Republics "Afrikaners."
One can generally still identify people who call themselves Boers these days as those Afrikaans-speaking paler-skinned people in South Africa who are mainly descended from working-class Afrikaans-speakers; many of those were mineworkers and technical workers at the former State-owned companies such as Telkom, Sasol etc. It's actually amazing how many of these people still privately refer to themselves as Boers even though they are being derided and sneered at from all sides.
Strangely back then, people who looked down on the defeated Boers were referred to in the news media such as The Star of Johannesburg as "racists" who should make an "effort at reconciliation". However most of the "reconciliation" came from the side of the defeated Boers who had to find a livelihood as working-class workers in the mines and factories of the cities. They were forced to relinquish their identity indeed as the Afrikaners of today are now being forced to start referring to themselves as "Afrikaanses" - people who speak Afrikaans, a term which was thought up by Mrs Elna Boesak.
See how history repeats itself?
Notes.
1. The Boers were of course not just of Dutch origins but of French / German & others as well.
2. As in African. The term Afrikaner was yet to be used in the fasion it would later be used by the Afrikaner Nationalists of the 20th cent.
3. The description Dutch speaking is erroneous since as noted elsewhere here the language had changed & developed early on to a form of what would later be called Afrikaans.
The Yankees were indeed a sort of nation (or tribe) as it was the original Puritan based Eastern Establishment of New England. Though the original Yankees were more analogous to the Cape Dutch in that they were both the European originated immigrant ruling aristocracies of their prospective regions. The Cape Dutch government attempted to control the frontier Boers in much the same way the Yankees attempted to control the other inhabitants of the North American continent.
Fair enough Deon. You're hostile to me all over wikipedia, you watch me for God's sake! As I said you're an Afrikaner (or Boer, I didn't get it out of you), and I've just espoused admiration in it's purest and sincerest form for your people.
No offense but, I thought I'd found a friend in you, a firearms interested, Afrikaans, White South African. Until now I'd only met nice South Africans. Don't take it too personally. However, seriously, why do you watch me, I think wikipedia should consider removing that feature, it's legalised cyber- stalking.
82.3.81.225 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The following line has been removed.
While I did not write this line I do however concur that they are in fact an indigenous nation. I happened to post four sources which note this fact. The reason I did this was because someone once erroneously put the word " not" before the word "indigenous" which prompted me to demonstrated this fact with references. While I also did not write "which were internationally recognized as a nation in its own right for approximately two centuries." but also concur that the Boer people have indeed been recognized for about this length of time. The references I posted where specifically aimed at showing the indigenous or homegrown nature of the Boers & not for the line stating their international recognition as a nation for two centuries. Therefore the removal of the entire paragraph is unwarranted. Now: only one link (the fourth) was to a commercial game lodge while the first two were from authors who wrote about the subject in books & the third source demonstrates that a number of Bantus viewed the Boers as a tribe in the past.
The following line is a violation of the NPOV rule.
Furthermore it is a complete contradiction to assert that the Boers "have tried to build a new identity based on the past" since if they were indeed doing that then it would not be a new identity! It would simply be a reassertion of their historic designation. Furthermore the Boer portion of the Afrikaners (which is an artificial political label which lumped a wide variety of Afrikaans speakers into one loose camp) have only ever been a minority within the Afrikaner designation as they have always been numerically smaller than the Cape based Afrikaners. The so called Afrikaners who you accuse of "trying to build a new identity" are simply reclaiming their heritage (which they never renounced) & the right to call themselves by their original name before the Cape based Afrikaners came & subjugated them after the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War when many Boers were too poor & politically weak to prevent themselves from becoming dominated[1] by the ascending Afrikaners. The Boers never went away as a people although their culture was changed somewhat due the urbanization of many but they have retained most of their traditions & their dialect.
Note.
1. < The “Boer worker" was the focus of the culture-brokers’ attentions in the next decade as the urban labour market became an arena in which Afrikaner intellectuals sought to capture the cultural allegiance of the urbanising Afrikaans-speaker. >
From: The Construction of Eugène Marais as an Afrikaner Hero. Sandra Swart. Journal of Southern African Studies. 30.4, Dec 2004.
I would remind you you to refrain from posting a point of view which is not even substantiated by the observable facts.
I am new to Wikipedia. I was just wondering, would'nt it be better to put the Boer page under the Afrikaner page with a heading "Boere"? Almost all Afrikaners know what the word Boer mean, but the minority still uses it as a description of themselves. Most Afrikaans speaking whites, whether from the Cape Colony right up to the Limpopo river would call themselves Afrikaners.
-- Etherealscourge ( talk) 13:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There was very little difference between the pages Boer and Boere-Afrikaner. There may be nuances of interpretation between the two labels, but certainly nothing in the two articles seemed to justify having separate pages. I have copied most of the content from Boere-Afrikaner into this page in preparation for a merge. Zaian ( talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture to the right of the page, has a caption that reads Llama assualt unit, then claims the boer war was in South America. My attempts to remove the picture have all been undone by wikipedias editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.28.14 ( talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The section mentions the Boers' fight against the British annexes, but some of the wording may be made more clear and also if we're going to include their fighting off the British then why don't we also include their fighting of the native people? Invmog ( talk) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why in the world - in an article about Boers which also explains their history - is there absolutely no mention (so far as I can tell) of the Battle of Blood River? Many Boers still celebrate Day of the Vow (or Day of the Covenant - Dingane's Day) - my family among them. Invmog ( talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have another photo that gives a more balanced portrayal, rather than being purely militant in nature.-- Lionelbrits ( talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
When the Boers lost wars against Britishers, they were transported to various POW (Prisoners of war) camps. A group of Boers was exiled to British India and they were kept at Abbottabad(Now in Pakistan). The buildings where Pakistan Military Academy is situated these days were initially constructed as a POW camp for Afrikaner Boers. One can still find Old barracks besides PMA where these captives were kept. Boers were good farmers since centuries so they started farming around the area of Kakul for their livelihood. A good number of fertile farms around the Academy were developed by Boers during those days. They were very friendly people and retained good relations with natives of the town. Boer women used to make handicrafts which were sold in the local markets. By Syed Saqib Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ 10:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
BOER CEMETERY AT KAKUL, ABBOTTABAD, PAKISTAN
A small cemetery of Boer POWs still exists besides the village of Kakul (Abbottabad). It has 24 graves in dilapidated condition. The cemetery is about to wash away if left unattended. Boundary wall is broken and graves have almost come down to the ground level. These milestones of history will soon disappear due to lack of care. In the coming years these evidences of Boer footsteps on the land of South Asia will no more be found. Pakistan
I cannot for the life of me understand why any space should be given in the Wikipedia towards a very minute minority movement propagating the absurd idea that there are Afrikaners as well as Boers. Some members of my own family in the distant past were Capetonians, other were from the Free State. My father's uncle was shot by an English firing squad during the Boer War at Graaff-Reinet for being a Cape Rebel Boer. Others members of the family stayed in the Western Cape at Villiersdorp, still others had migrated northwards just after the Great Trek. Afrikaners are Boers and Boers are Afrikaners. It's as simple as that. Just look at our surnames comprising the core of the Afrikaner/Boer population to realize that we are one and the same. -- -- Guest 9 September 2009
I agree with you, however I would prefer to have two articles, because it refers to two different periods in history. But Boers are Afrikaners and Afrikaners are Boers, even though we don't farm (verb) on a farm (noun) any more. Invmog ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
In Swedish words : Bo and Bor means: to live, to inhabit .
I think the word boer originated from some of Netherlands dialects and could be ethymologically connected to those Swedish words. Originally Frisia spoke on the language, related to Anlo-Saxon and Low Saxon. After Frankish conquest the official language was changed to Middle-German or Old Frankish-which has evolved into Old Dutch. Edelward ( talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
86.46.80.234 ( talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) James A. Power, 3rd of November 2009.
A claim is made, quote:
"Recently, however, many Boers have found a spiritual home in the Christian Identity Movement, a white supremacist sect of Christianity."
but no citation is given. Where has this information come from? I cannot verify it. It should be properly cited or removed.
There are a number of misconceptions you make here as A: the article is mostly & overwhelmingly about the historical Boer people & only deals briefly with the fact that many descendents of the actual Boers have reclaimed & or retained the Boer cultural identity designation. It was decided here a long time ago that a separate article for the Boer people was necessary as the Boers are & have ever been a small section of the White Afrikaans speaking population. Seeing as the term Afrikaner describes all White Afrikaans speakers & the fact that most Afrikaners are descended from the erstwhile named Cape Dutch / non-Boer segment: which makes the Boers a minority segment of that designation. Ergo the necessity for the article. B: The vast majority of the Cape Rebels were from the Boer communities of the northern / eastern Cape frontier while comparatively fewer were from the generally pro British Cape Dutch Afrikaners. [ read more in the book: Cecil Rhodes & the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. ] Therefore most of your family members were either Boers or those who were absorbed into the Boers just as numerous English / Scottish & Portuguese speakers were in the past.
C: Lots of Boers have been conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners [ due mainly to Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda of the past ] but the Cape Dutch Afrikaners have never viewed themselves as Boers & even establishment historians like Hermann Giliomee admit that the term Boer was only ever applied to those who developed on the Cape frontier. Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit notes on page 1 of The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity that the Boers developed on the frontiers of White settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. Canadian Professor Wallace Mills notes that the Boers of the frontier were distinct & recognized themselves as distinct from the Cape Dutch. While many Boers also often refer to themselves as Afrikaners too: it is meant in a geographical context & not that they necessarily view themselves as part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners.
D: The Afrikaners were never "one & the same" as historians have noted that there was never any unity among all White Afrikaans speakers & that the idea of a "single" nation only emerged in the 20th cent by those whose political aim was to eradicate the identity of the Boers & to merge them with the estranged Cape Dutch. Surnames are an irrelevant measure of distinct ethnicity as the Quebecois & Acadians share some common surnames but are two distinct French speaking groups. The development of the Boers on the Cape frontier during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s shaped the Boers as a distinct cultural / ethnic entity from that of the Cape Dutch who developed in the south western Cape region.
Well the first thing you must understand that the growing reclamation of Boer identity by those of Boer descent is not meant to "offend" anyone who might view themselves as both as the are some folks who could due to having both roots. Furthermore an encyclopedic article is supposed to be more concerned with conveying accurate & necessary information than with whether the information is "offensive" or not. I would also challenge the notion that the term Boer was ever "rediscovered" when in reality it was often still used by Boer descendents to describe themselves because it was only suppressed in a narrow political context. One must remember that the term Boer was only ever removed in a political context as the National Party tried to suppress the usage of the term but Boers often still privately referred to themselves as Boers. [ This was noted by Dutch born South African journalist Adriana Stuijt. ] The academic establishment also propagated the term Afrikaner & since academia played a more prominent role in society - many Boers who entered into those institutions were conditioned out of their Boer id. The term Boer "came back" in a big way during the 1940s during the mass movement to restore the Boer Republics which incidentally was STOPPED by the Afrikaner establishment. Further highlighting the necessity of referring to Boers as Boers because the Afrikaner establishment was / is opposed to any authentic notion of Boer self determination as they try to claim the Boers as part of a manufactured macro group all under the dubious Afrikaner designation.
Robert van Tonder who left the National Party in 1961 in order to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics was a prominent figure who referred to himself as a Boer & often noted that Boers are not Afrikaners in the sense of belonging to the same group as the larger Cape Dutch & smaller Boers were arbitrarily lumped together under the Afrikaner designation.
There are indeed about 1.5 million Boers as the total White Afrikaans population is about 3.5 million [ some say even 4.5 million ] while not much more than about 34 % will be of Boer descent as per the statistics from the early 20th cent. Therefore this mathematical equation is better than no statistic at all & serves to give a picture of the size of the Boer population.
No. The term Boer is an accurate ethnic / cultural term which would have to be used no matter how small a group of folks who openly identify as Boers because the renaming of the Boers as "Afrikaners" [ which automatically lumped them in with the Cape Dutch ] was a political [ ie: a POV move by an established elite who arbitrarily decided to ignore & suppress Boer identity ] act which did nothing to actually eradicate the actual Boer people themselves. Consider the following: if a Quebecois elite suddenly claimed the Acadians as part of a broader French Canadian people [ as the Afrikaner elite did with respect to the Boers ] that act would not in & of itself eradicate the anthropological existence of an Acadian people nor of a Quebecois people for that matter - therefore composing articles on the Acadians would have to reference their accurate & historical designation & point out that the term French Canadian [ as used in the context for this example as I am well aware that the Quebecois actually often refer to themselves as French Canadians ] is just a POLITICAL term lumping two distinct French speaking peoples under one simplistic & trite designation.
Therefore the fact that the Boers were politically lumped in with the Cape Dutch under the simplistic & trite term Afrikaner [ as part of the Right Wing propaganda of the era ] does not negate the anthropological existence of a Boer people - even if they were arbitrarily renamed as "Afrikaners" within a political context.
The thing a lot of folks forget is that the term Afrikaner is itself a very problematic term due to its ever changing definition. It was first applied to a group of Khoisan before it was appropriated by the Cape Dutch in a political context circa 1875 during the rise of an Afrikaans language movement. Therefore claiming that the Boers are simply a "minority of Afrikaners" is extremely problematic to say the least & totally misleading as the Boers developed into an anthropologically distinct people on the Cape frontier away from the Cape Dutch by circa 1700. What is often arbitrarily referred to as Afrikaners are in fact two distinct Caucasian Afrikaans speaking population groups who were only political merged [ in a loose coalition ] for the purposes of an elite who wanted to capture the new macro State from the British & expand a race based dispensation.
Therefore the most accurate term to use for the Boer descendents is Boer due to its long historical association with the Boer people & is derived from the term Trekboer from whence the Boers were all originally from. While the term Afrikaner was initially propagated by some Cape Dutch intellectuals at a time when most of the Boers were independent within their internationally recognized Boer Republics. Applying the term Afrikaner onto the Boers is a POV because is was done from the top down & the bulk of the Boer people were too impoverished to resist the ascending establishment based Afrikaner dialectic. One must remember that the Boers were also colonized by the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners in the wake of the establishment of South Africa due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch population group. Therefore those Boers who openly reclaim their Boer identity are simply reinstating their own accurate identity that the Right Wing political establishment had denied them & would be similar to Burmese reclaiming their suppressed identity while under the Myanmar designation. The term Boer is a sociological term used to describe the descendents of the Trekboers [ & later Voortrekkers ] while the term Afrikaner is a quasi civil term amorphous in nature & used in an umbrella context to describe just about anyone whose home language in Afrikaans & marginalizes the Boer people because the Boers are a minority group under the manufactured Afrikaner designation.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Boer. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They like to defend themselves and often have firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 ( talk) 18:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this paragraph, because none of the sources supported this claim. In fact, several contradict it, by stating that the term Afrikaner and Boer are synonyms or using the terms as such. One sources states that the British government at one point recognized the Boer Republics, but this is clearly not the same as "recognition of a nation for two centuries". Please find reliable sources (not commercial websites for game lodges) clearly supporting this claim. See Wikipedia:Attribution or Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Deon Steyn 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
86.27.114.248 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have often wondered the same thing myself since there is a long running Afrikaner antipathy towards the Boer people which appears to go right back to the Trekboer era of the 1700s.
Much of the unsourced material in this article appears (by virtue of style and content) to be from some late-19th-C textbook. Does anyone know what this book may be?
I have attempted to modernise the text, without changing any essential facts, through more accessible style & vocabulary. Numerous of the statements appear(ed) to be repetitive, as though excerpted from various places of the same textbook whose author was providing chapter-head review of topics already covered in previous chapters. I attempted to eliminate redundant statements and did not alter or remove any essential facts. Such redundancy isn't flattering to Wikipedia style.
Most importantly, and most potentially contentiously, I have also attempted to neutralise an obvious pro-Boer bias in the sections clearly derived from this un-cited (textbook) source. The book from which these statements derive was clearly written from a pro-Boer, anti-British point of view, which may be deemed offensive to some Wikipedia readers and may also hinder neutral academic research. For example, a fine point (with no citations) was made that the Boers had/have a keen sense of nationalism. I don't see this as true. Earlier the same source (I must presume) made the point that the Boers had forsaken much of their original Dutch heritage. If anything the Boers of the 19th C were seeking an entirely-independent way of life, apart from any form of organised government. This doesn't constitute 'nationalism' in my book (it's really its opposite); so, again, I am curious as to what the un-cited source may have been to have promoted such a contradictory statement. Or perhaps it was the cultural bias of the contributor who used the book, attempting to cement Boers' reputation as cultural heroes when to many other minds they might be classified only as rebels. A properly neutral point of view would have avoided such potential contention; and that is the point of Wikipedia.
Thank you to all Wikipedians for your contributions to this and other matters. I rely on the policy of 'assume good faith' to remain in your good graces!
Jonnie Comet ( talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
EB1911 text moved from the article
|
---|
The most complete account of the company's tenure and government of the Cape was written in 1857 by E. B. Watermeyer, a Cape colonist of Dutch descent residing in Cape Town. He points out that it was only after failing to find a route by the northeast to China and Japan that the Dutch turned their eyes to the Cape route. The Cape of Good Hope subsequently "became not a colony of the Republic of the United Provinces, but a dependency of the 'Netherlands Chartered General East India Company' for mercantile purposes; and to this fact principally can be traced the slow progress, in all but extension of territory, of a country which was settled by Europeans within thirty years of the time when the Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of a mighty empire, landed at Plymouth to plant democratic institutions and European civilization in the West." [1] On the settlement under van Riebeek, and the position in it which the so-called "free burghers" enjoyed, Watermeyer asserts, "The people who came here with Riebeek himself were not colonists intending permanently to settle at the Cape…. The proposition that any freemen or burghers not in the pay of the company should be encouraged to cultivate the ground was first made about three years after Riebeek's arrival. Accordingly, some discharged sailors and soldiers, who received on certain conditions plots of ground extending from the Fresh River to the Liesbeek, were the first free burghers of the colony…. Here it is sufficient to say that, generally, the term ‘free burgher’ was a complete misnomer. The first burghers were, in truth, a mere change from paid to unpaid servants of the company. They thought, in obtaining their discharge, that they had much improved their condition, but they soon discovered the reverse to be the fact. And henceforward, to the end of the last [18th] century we find the constantly repeated and well-founded complaint, that the company and its officers possessed every advantage, while the freemen were not allowed even the fruit of their own toil…. The natural effect of this narrow and tyrannous rule was discontent, amounting often to disaffection. After a time every endeavour was made to escape beyond the immediate control of the authorities. Thus the 'trekking' system, with its attendant evils, the bane of South Africa, was born. By their illiberal spirit, which sought but temporary commercial advantage in connexion with the Eastern trade, the Dutch authorities themselves, although generally humanely disposed towards the natives, created the system which caused their oppression and extermination." [1] When it is borne in mind that the Dutch at the Cape were for 143 years under the rule of the Dutch East India Company, the importance of a correct appreciation of the nature of that rule to any student of South African history is obvious. No modern writer approaches Watermeyer either in the completeness of his facts or the severity of his indictment. [1] Referring to the policy of the company, Watermeyer says:— The Dutch colonial system as exemplified at the Cape of Good Hope, or rather the system of the Dutch East India Company (for the nation should not wholly suffer under the condemnation justly incurred by a trading association that sought only pecuniary profit), was almost without one redeeming feature, and was a dishonour to the Netherlands' national name. In all things political it was purely despotic; in all things commercial, it was purely monopolist. The Dutch East India Company cared nought for the progress of the colony—provided only that they had a refreshment station for their richly laden fleets, and that the English, French, Danes and Portuguese had not. Whatever tended to infringe in the slightest degree on their darling monopoly was visited with the severest penalties, whether the culprit chanced to be high in rank or low. An instance of this, ludicrous while grossly tyrannical, is preserved in the records. Commander van Quaelbergen, the third of the Dutch governors of the colony, was dismissed from the government in 1667, and expelled the service of the company, because he had interchanged civilities with a French governor bound eastwards, the United Provinces being then at peace with France. [2] Of this nature was the foreign policy of the Dutch company at the Cape of Good Hope; modified, indeed, in some degree from time to time, but governed by principles of jealous, stringent monopoly until the surrender of the colony by Commissioner Sluysken in 1795. The internal government of the colonists for the entire duration of the East India Company's rule was always tyrannical, often oppressive in the extreme. With proclamations, placaats and statutes abundantly filling huge tomes, the caprice of the governor was in truth the law. A mockery of popular institutions, under the name of a burgher council, indeed existed; but this was a mere delusion, and must not be confounded with the system of local government by means of district burgher councils which that most able man, Commissioner de Mist, sought to establish during the brief government of the Batavian Republic from 1803 to 1806, when the Dutch nation, convinced and ashamed of the false policy by which they had permitted a mere money-making association to disgrace the Batavian name, and to entail degradation on what might have been a free and prosperous colony, sought to redeem their error by making this country a national colonial possession, instead of a slavish property, to be neglected, oppressed or ruined, as the caprice or avarice of its merchant owners might dictate. [2] ...but in 1795 a number of burghers settled in the Swellendam and Graaf Reinet districts drove out the officials of the company and established independent governments. The rebellion was accompanied by an assertion of rights on the part of the burghers or freemen, which contained the following clause, the spirit of which animated many of the Trek Boers:— That every Bushman or Hottentot, male or female, whether made prisoner by commanders or caught by individuals, as well in time past as in future, shall for life be the lawful property of such burghers as may possess them, and serve in bondage from generation to generation. And if such Hottentots should escape, the owner shall be entitled to follow them up and to punish them, according to their merits in his discretion. [3] And as to the ordinary Hottentot, already in service, brought up at the places of Christians, the children of these shall be compelled to serve until their twenty-fifth year, and may not go into the service of any other save with their master's consent; that no Hottentot, in future deserting his service shall be entitled to refuge or protection in any part of the colony, but that the authorities throughout the country shall immediately, whatever be the alleged cause of desertion, send back the fugitive to his master. [3] After 143 years, the rule of the Dutch East India Company came to an end at the Cape. Watermeyer recapitulates its effects as follows:— The effects of this pseudo-colonization were that the Dutch, as a commercial nation, destroyed commerce. The most industrious race of Europe, they repressed industry. One of the freest states in the world, they encouraged a despotic misrule in which falsely-called free citizens were enslaved. These men, in their turn, became tyrants. Utter anarchy was the result. Some national feeling may have lingered, but, substantially, every man in the country, of every hue, was benehted when the incubus of the tyranny of the Dutch East India Company was removed. [3] References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Several Wikipedians have raised questions here about omissions in, and possible additions in edits of, the article in question. I submit, if these topics have substantive support from real textual documents, that they be added responsibly and that the editors duly cite their sources. If these topics are not currently represented, it's because no-one has done this or because sources acceptable to Wikipedia haven't been identified.
This isn't meant as a chat site for ethical opinions concerning the actual topic; it's about means and reasons for editing the article. I'm all for expanding articles to include pertinent points - so long as it's done without personal bias and done according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's the greatest research paper in the world and we need to keep in mind the worldwide audience and what's best for all.
I'm grateful to PBS for providing some of the text from what appears to be a 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; but this is still a woefully biased source and especially from a modern perspective its continued use here might best be regarded only sceptically.
Thanks, all, for all you do.
Jonnie Comet ( talk) 04:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if the views expressed here are shared by a significant portion of the Afrikaner/Boer community. I suspect that a dichotomy between Boere and Afrikaners is not advocated by many, although I don't have any statistics on this. It would be appreciated if any source could be provided which shows that there is a major group of people that consider themselves "Boere" but not "Afrikaners". Being an Afrikaner/Boer myself I haven't ever heard of this distinction before reading this article, and I'm from the Transvaal (not the Cape), so by all accounts I would have heard of it by now. Even the sources cited for this article all seem to claim that "Boer" a synonym for "Afrikaner". I suspect the group considering themselves to be Boere to the exclusion of being Afrikaners is small enough not to be notable in this way (as opposed to those who consider the two terms synonymous). Maybe I've just been living with my head in the sand, though; a reference as to the statistics behind this would be useful. -- Wolfie Inu 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Having a dedicated heading for only the 6th frontier war is lazy at best. The war in totality from 1779 - 1878 are excluded, also, the content makes no mention of any of the Boer involvements. An existing main article already exist on the Xhosa Wars. Thus a revision is required of said section. I will make the required changes to include the war in totality but not in too much detail since the main article already covers most part. The changes will place into perspective and have reference to the Boers since the page this is what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)