Discrimination Against Whites In South Africa

[lines]

Increasingly people are growing concerned with the situation of white south africans. Here is a video followed by some links and quotes related to this issue, what can we do to help the white south africans?

7rhq65sIe5A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rhq65sIe5A

The following is a link to Afriforum the organization that made the above video.

http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/

Afriforum is a organization dedicated to protecting the rights of minority populations in South Africa, with particular focus on the white south african community. The following is there civil rights manifesto.

http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/about/civil-rights-manifest/


We invoke internationally recognised principles regarding minority rights, as contained in a series of international conventions and declarations. These principles are not dependent on the policies or goodwill of governments or authorities, but are rights that enjoy widespread international recognition.

In the light of these conventions and declarations we will work unceasingly for amongst other things:

Equal rights and responsibilities for the total population, including the members of minority communities;

The organization genocide watch is growing concerned about south africe and the situation of white people there

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/SAfrica2002Over1000BoerFarmersInSouthAfricaHaveBee nMurderedSince1991.pdf

here are their south african articles

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

genocide watch is an alliance to end genocide throughout the world

http://www.genocidewatch.org/

We really need to organize and do something to help the white south africans, does anyone have any suggestions on how we could go about doing this?

[lines]

Please do what you can to raise awareness about the situation white south africans are in

[Manic Impressive]

I don't believe it's as bad as that. The youtube video is blatant propaganda "the farmers of south africa are the true heros" what? seriously?

There is a campaign against Julius Malema to make him out to be a racist because he sang a culturally historical song which was sung during the brutal oppression black people suffered there. I reckon there is an alternative agenda behind this campaign to discredit him. He advocates the redistribution of land from the hands of the wealthy who are the white farmers. He's standing up for the poorest in society and challenging the hegemony of the free market.

If white farmers are getting attacked and killed I would say it's due to the poverty in the country and not due to their race.

Here's a recent interview with Malema sorry only available in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010jt4k/HARDtalk_Julius_Malema_President_ANC_Youth_League/

[lines]

There is a campaign against Julius Malema to make him out to be a racist because he sang a culturally historical song

The lyrics in the song are "shoot the boer"... boer literally means farmer but has come to refer to white south africans


In March 2010, at a rally on a university campus Malema sang the lyrics "shoot the Boer" (Dubul' ibhunu[86]) from the anti-apartheid song Ayasab' amagwala (the cowards are scared)[87] ("Boer" is the Afrikaans word for "farmer", but is also used as a derogatory term for any white person[88][89]). His singing was compared to similar chants by deceased Youth League leader Peter Mokaba in the early 1990s, to "kill the boer",[87] which had previously been defined as hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission.[90]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Malema#.22Shoot_the_boer.22_song

[lines]

I don't believe it's as bad as that. The youtube video is blatant propaganda "the farmers of south africa are the true heros" what? seriously?

There is a campaign against Julius Malema

The video is criticizing the South African government for naming a stadium after Peter Mokaba, the video isn't about Malema

I dont recall the video saying anyone is the true heroes, it just talks about how south african farmers have been being killed in addition to talking about the aids problem and talking about naming a football(soccer) stadium after Peter Mokaba

[Manic Impressive]

The video is criticizing the South African government for naming a stadium after Peter Mokaba, the video isn't about Malema

I dont recall the video saying anyone is the true heroes, it just talks about how south african farmers have been being killed in addition to talking about the aids problem and talking about naming a football(soccer) stadium after Peter Mokaba
watch from 4 minutes on

Anyway to put the song in context I see it no different than an Irish person singing a rebel song or maybe even an American singing a song about their revolution. I bet there's a song out there somewhere talking about shooting Red coats or something. The point is the song is part of their history should they just forget it completely?

[lines]

If I was a white South African I would be worried about people chanting kill the boer and I would be worried by a South African leader singing shoot the boer. It seems like a valid concern.

Shouldn't minorities be concerned about hate speech against them and shouldn't they be concerned about attacks against them?

White South Africans are a minority.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I find it funny that you support and promote the propaganda of an almost exclusively white christian anti-communist trade unions front group.

[Manic Impressive]

I think attacks on white farmers are more to do with class rather than race.

[khad]

The thread starter is almost certainly a white nationalist troll. The only time I ever hear anything about so-called genocide of white south Africans is when it's being mouthed by neonazis. Such notions are even more mythical than the supposed "genocide" of Germans following WW2.

The murder rate among black South Africans, last time I checked, is far higher.


If I was a white South African I would be worried about people chanting kill the boer and I would be worried by a South African leader singing shoot the boer. It seems like a valid concern.

Shouldn't minorities be concerned about hate speech against them and shouldn't they be concerned about attacks against them?

White South Africans are a minority.

Next you'll be accusing rappers of wanting to genocide the police.

[redhotpoker]

There have been some killings of white farm owners both large and small. This is usually done out of frustration with the social and economic situation in South Africa or robbery not part of an orchestrated plan to oppress whites

Generally the frustration in SA is caused by the fact that the only thing the 1980s social revolution seemed to have brought about was that the suburbs and large gated communities seem to have added a few black faces, while the only thing thats changed for blacks in the shanty towns are how many white neighbors you have in the nearby shacks. All of this is on top of massive numbers of immigrants coming from other less developed areas of Sub Saharan Africa.


A lot of the problems in South Africa stem from the ANC betraying their mandate and abandoning the South Africans demands for nationalization and the formation of co-operatives. In fact the ANC jumped on the neo-liberal bandwagon of the 90s. (see Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine)

[maskerade]

I hate reading stuff like this...Yea, poor white farmers...It may only be anecdotal evidence, but I've traveled extensively in South Africa and the racist views of most Boers (the white South Africans descendant from the Dutch) haven't changed at all. They still own huge farmlands, treat their workers like shit (more like animals than workers) and use the end of apartheid to justify their continued racism. Some even hate other white people that aren't Boer, which I experienced when being accused of being English and told to leave a bar...

Also, black and white segregation still exists in South Africa. Black economic empowerment has only affected 5% of the African population in South Africa, the rest still live in poverty...legal apartheid has now become economic apartheid because the relations to capital were never challenged.

There is no genocide and there is not any systematic attempt to get rid of Boers...but I don't think anyone can deny that the Apartheid era has created strong feelings of animosity towards Boers in South Africa

[Red Future]

The thread starter is almost certainly a white nationalist troll. The only time I ever hear anything about so-called genocide of white south Africans is when it's being mouthed by neonazis. Such notions are even more mythical than the supposed "genocide" of Germans following WW2.

The murder rate among black South Africans, last time I checked, is far higher.



Next you'll be accusing rappers of wanting to genocide the police.

Exactly -bang on the mark...this white discrimination stuff is BULLSHIT!

[El Chuncho]

It would be foolish to think that racism towards whites doesn't happen, and foolish to think that discrimination towards whites doesn't happen, however, the video seems like nonsense and white racialist nonsense.

[Gorilla]

I knew a guy in college who wore a "FREE RHODESIA!" shirt when the land seizures started going down. lol what an asshole.

[Fulanito de Tal]

We can tell them to go back to Europe. :D

[the last donut of the night]

LOL yeah being a rich white dude is pretty fucking hard

[Desperado]

The lyrics in the song are "shoot the boer"... boer literally means farmer but has come to refer to white south africans


http://libcom.org/news/%E2%80%98black-boers%E2%80%99-other-revolutionary-songs-07042010

[Robocommie]

LOL yeah being a rich white dude is pretty fucking hard

Can you imagine the terror of living in a country your ancestors invaded, surrounded by people who you've stolen all your wealth from? The insensitivity of your sarcasm is AWFUL.

[Tim Finnegan]

White South Africans are a minority.
A numerical minority and a sociological minority are distinct things. White South Africans are the former, but not inarguably the latter, and that complicates things.

[lines]

The organization genocide watch is a credible organization, genocide watch isn't a bunch of far right nutters and they have raised the South African issue before. This leads me to believe that the claim that white South Africans should be concerned for their situation is a valid concern of theirs.

The issue is this: are white South Africans accepted by the wider society as being African.

There is no such thing as indigenous. The history of humanity is the story of migrations. When anglos and saxons immigrated to Britain from continental Europe they established a system of apartheid against the Scots that have legal preference to them and discriminated against the Scots. Eventually though that system of legal discrimination was abolished.

Everyone in Britain today now accepts that English people are a British people. But are white South Africans today accepted as African?

Unfortunately we all have ancestors who were discriminated against and who in turn discriminated against others. And one of the aspects of being a civilization is trying to overcome discrimination against people. Black people in Africa have ancestors who discriminated and oppressed other black tribes and at times they may have even had ancestors who could have oppressed groups of whites. All people white and black have ancestors who were discriminated against.

It is racist to support discrimination against white people even if you think they deserve it. The truth is is that they don't deserve it. No race deserves to be discriminated against. All races have practiced discrimination in the past... there is no race that is innocent of that. The point of civilization is to create a space where people of all races don't have to fear racism. That is why we should be supportive of minorities who face potential discrimination regardless of what their race is.

[The Red Next Door]

The thread starter is almost certainly a white nationalist troll. The only time I ever hear anything about so-called genocide of white south Africans is when it's being mouthed by neonazis. Such notions are even more mythical than the supposed "genocide" of Germans following WW2.

The murder rate among black South Africans, last time I checked, is far higher.



Next you'll be accusing rappers of wanting to genocide the police.

Can we have lines restricted for this bs?

[Gorilla]

The organization genocide watch is a credible organization, genocide watch isn't a bunch of far right nutters

Genocide Watch is practically an arm of the US State Department. Besides which none of the articles on their website point to anything other than Julius Malema being a loudmouth, Helen Zille whining about personal slights, and that racist fucker Eugene Terreblanche getting what was coming to him.

What else you got?

[robbo203]

I don't believe it's as bad as that. The youtube video is blatant propaganda "the farmers of south africa are the true heros" what? seriously?

There is a campaign against Julius Malema to make him out to be a racist because he sang a culturally historical song which was sung during the brutal oppression black people suffered there. I reckon there is an alternative agenda behind this campaign to discredit him. He advocates the redistribution of land from the hands of the wealthy who are the white farmers. He's standing up for the poorest in society and challenging the hegemony of the free market.

If white farmers are getting attacked and killed I would say it's due to the poverty in the country and not due to their race.

Here's a recent interview with Malema sorry only available in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010jt4k/HARDtalk_Julius_Malema_President_ANC_Youth_League/

As an ex-white South African myself it strikes me as a little surreal to talk of whites facing systematic discrimination and even genocide - though I dont doubt that there is an element of black racism and there certainly have been a number of killings of white farmers which may or may not be racially motivated. But in the larger scheme of things how significant is this? The homicide rate among blacks is significantly higher.

The point has been made many times before - not much has changed on the ground since the formal abandonment of apartheid in terms of the distribution of wealth at least as far the great majority is concerned. What is perhaps different is the emergence of a black bourgeoisie (although even under late apartheid the nationalist goverment had begun to encourage this development , albeit tied to the black "homelands" policy)

Actually, Julius Malema who you mention is a good example of this emergent black bourgeoisie. This frankly obnoxious capitalist career politican is not short of a bob or two - he apparently owns two multi-million rand homes, several flashy cars and a R250,000 watch to boot - and has been embroiled in corruption charges. To say "He's standing up for the poorest in society and challenging the hegemony of the free market" is ridiculous. The guy's an opportunist scumbag and, I suspect, is playing the race card for his own ends. Dont be conned by the rhetoric he and others like him use.

All racism is contemptible - be it white racism or black racism - and we should not assume that one's proneness to racist ideology depends on the colour of one's skin. That ironically would be a racist position to adopt

[graymouser]

That is why we should be supportive of minorities who face potential discrimination regardless of what their race is.
The question of descendants of white settlers, who within my lifetime held the black majority of their country in apartheid, and who still control the majority of their country's wealth, facing "potential discrimination" is so remote from the significant problems facing the world today as to be irrelevant. The plight of Africa is awful, these are some of the best off people south of the Sahara, possibly in the whole continent. Your concern for them rather than the dozens of other groups in the "United Snakes" and abroad indicates that your concern is possibly driven by their skin color and not genuine anti-racist sentiment.

[lines]

@graymouser
If I mentioned all the people I have concern for on this thread and made the thread about that then this thread wouldn't have any focus to it, in fact I don't think any thread is like that. Each thread focuses on one issue.

[robbo203]

The question of descendants of white settlers, who within my lifetime held the black majority of their country in apartheid, and who still control the majority of their country's wealth, facing "potential discrimination" is so remote from the significant problems facing the world today as to be irrelevant. The plight of Africa is awful, these are some of the best off people south of the Sahara, possibly in the whole continent. Your concern for them rather than the dozens of other groups in the "United Snakes" and abroad indicates that your concern is possibly driven by their skin color and not genuine anti-racist sentiment.


While largely in agreement with this I dont think one should one should talk so loosely of "whites" as some kind of monolithic bloc "who still control the majority of their country's wealth" . Just as there are blacks workers and white capitalists so there are also black capitalists and white workers in South Africa. Most whites in South Africa are not capitalists but workers and some of them - though certainly not remotely on a scale comparable to their fellow black workers - do endure quite severe economic hardship.

Historically the "poor white" problem as it was called was one of the things that exercised the minds of various capitalist politicians in the early 20th century. Strange as it may seem today there was a concern that these poor white workers might seek common cause with black mine labour in pushing for better conditions and wages. This was one of the considerations that led to the industrial colour bar and though liberal industrialists and politicians later claimed to oppose capitalism it is interesting that people like Oppenheimer were quite content to settle for a floating colour to overcome the shortage of skilled labour.

[graymouser]

While largely in agreement with this I dont think one should one should talk so loosely of "whites" as some kind of monolithic bloc "who still control the majority of their country's wealth" . Just as there are blacks workers and white capitalists so there are also black capitalists and white workers in South Africa. Most whites in South Africa are not capitalists but workers and some of them - though certainly not remotely on a scale comparable to their fellow black workers - do endure quite severe economic hardship.

Historically the "poor white" problem as it was called was one of the things that exercised the minds of various capitalist politicians in the early 20th century. Strange as it may seem today there was a concern that these poor white workers might seek common cause with black mine labour in pushing for better conditions and wages. This was one of the considerations that led to the industrial colour bar and though liberal industrialists and politicians later claimed to oppose capitalism it is interesting that people like Oppenheimer were quite content to settle for a floating colour to overcome the shortage of skilled labour.
That's a perfectly valid point, well made and I won't dispute any of it. I freely admit to bending the stick - but in the case of a relatively privileged minority that until recently elected apartheid governments, I can't muster up more than a token dose of compassion. My heart breaks rather for the Palestinians, who are in a far greater immanent danger from a state that is bound and tied to the United States.

[Manic Impressive]

As an ex-white South African myself it strikes me as a little surreal to talk of whites facing systematic discrimination and even genocide - though I dont doubt that there is an element of black racism and there certainly have been a number of killings of white farmers which may or may not be racially motivated. But in the larger scheme of things how significant is this? The homicide rate among blacks is significantly higher.
That question is directed at me? Well I was responding to the OP placing significance on it and I agree with everything you just said there.:confused:


The point has been made many times before - not much has changed on the ground since the formal abandonment of apartheid in terms of the distribution of wealth at least as far the great majority is concerned. What is perhaps different is the emergence of a black bourgeoisie (although even under late apartheid the nationalist goverment had begun to encourage this development , albeit tied to the black "homelands" policy)

Actually, Julius Malema who you mention is a good example of this emergent black bourgeoisie. This frankly obnoxious capitalist career politican is not short of a bob or two - he apparently owns two multi-million rand homes, several flashy cars and a R250,000 watch to boot - and has been embroiled in corruption charges. To say "He's standing up for the poorest in society and challenging the hegemony of the free market" is ridiculous. The guy's an opportunist scumbag and, I suspect, is playing the race card for his own ends. Dont be conned by the rhetoric he and others like him use.
Maybe, but when I hear someone talking about nationalizing the farms, the mines and banks for the benefit of the poor then I have respect for them. When I then see campaigns to discredit that person from people whose interests directly oppose the redistribution of wealth I don't tend to take the accusations at face value as we've seen it a million times before whether criticizing communist leaders or Chavez or any countries leader that is being primed for invasion.
In the interview with the BBC he's asked about his houses which he claims are heavily mortgaged and his car is also financed on credit. That actually seems like it wouldn't be too hard to verify so why would he tell a lie that could be easily disproved. It's very easy to say look at those cars look at that house he's a rich fucker but when compared to politicians in the west he's pretty poor. As for allegations of corruption I'll wait until they are proven before condemning him. To me it stinks of a campaign to discredit someone talking about making progressive changes instead of questioning his morals or motives we should be questioning those in the ANC who are opposing changes.


All racism is contemptible - be it white racism or black racism - and we should not assume that one's proneness to racist ideology depends on the colour of one's skin. That ironically would be a racist position to adopt
Totally agree

[lines]

What else you got?

A few other paragraphs you didnt address

[Gorilla]

A few other paragraphs you didnt address

Summarize. Even if I have time to read all those PDFs not everyone else does.

[lines]

To summarize

The English invaded and enacted apartheid upon the Scottish. Despite that the ENglish are accepted as fully British. Are white South Africans accepted as African?

Every group of people has in its history the periods where it has discriminated against others and periods where it was discriminated against. This goes for all people. The point of civilization is to get beyond discrimination.

All minority groups, regardless of race, deserve concern because whenever a group is a minority it becomes vulnerable to the majority.

[Tim Finnegan]

The English invaded and enacted apartheid upon the Scottish. Despite that the ENglish are accepted as fully British. Are white South Africans accepted as African?
You've got your analogy backwards there, m'fraid. Britishness is an extension of Englishness, an ideological construct invented to justify a political, economic and cultural hegemony, not some abstract indigenous identity that the English have been accepted into.

[lines]

You've got your analogy backwards there, m'fraid. Britishness is an extension of Englishness, an ideological construct invented to justify a political, economic and cultural hegemony, not some abstract indigenous identity that the English have been accepted into.

I am using the term British in this sense to refer to the island of Britain, I'm fairly certain English people are accepted as having a place on the island of Britain.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Assuming that this is true (which it probably isn't) and sensitivity aside, I wanted to point out the irony of the entire situation.

[Tim Finnegan]

I am using the term British in this sense to refer to the island of Britain, I'm fairly certain English people are accepted as having a place on the island of Britain.
That probably owes more to the fact that the Saxons have been here for 1,500 years, and the Britons- who make up the bulk of the ancestry of the average white Englishman- for 10,000, rather than any particular enlightened outlook on the part of the Scots and Welsh. There really isn't the sort of stark divided in Britain that we see in South Africa, so the situations really don't bear comparison of this sort.

[Gorilla]

Are white South Africans accepted as African?

Rhetorical questions don't really count as evidence of genocide.

[lines]

The boers have been in South Africa for 300 years. But the amount of time a people has been somewhere is irrelevant. The concept of an indigenous people is racist and it is what led to the extermination of 6 million jews. The Germans saw themselves as indigenous and thus believed they had more right to the land than other people.

[Tim Finnegan]

Here's the question, though: do the Boers seem themselves as indigenous, or merely resident? I would suggest that there's a difference, and that if the Boers fall into the second camp- if they view themselves as transplanted Europeans, set apart from and in opposition to black South Africans- then it would not be surprising that the black population don't consider them African.


The concept of an indigenous people is racist
Unless you're going to accuse the entire Native American population from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego of racism by default, you may want to add a bit of nuance to this claim.

[lines]

In your estimation what is the difference between indigenous and resident? I don't believe indigenous is a valid concept. To answer your question I am not sure how the majority of Boers view themselves.

[Gorilla]

The boers have been in South Africa for 300 years. But the amount of time a people has been somewhere is irrelevant. The concept of an indigenous people is racist and it is what led to the extermination of 6 million jews. The Germans saw themselves as indigenous and thus believed they had more right to the land than other people.

Subjective racism is all over the place in a million forms. Material structures of discrimination and subjection are not always present everywhere subjective racism is and don't even depend on their practioners having personally racist feelings to subsist. You started this thread with all kind of grandiose claims about genocide and how we have to organize to help the Boers. Against...um...a discourse of autochthony? Thanks for wasting my time.

[Tim Finnegan]

In your estimation what is the difference between indigenous and resident?
Broadly speaking, I would say that the distinction lies in where a people place their origins. Newly arrived immigrants are unlikely to think of themselves native to a country, and in certain circumstances their children my agree, but after a few generations they'll tend to settle, integrate (noting that this is a distinct concept from "assimilate") and come to see the country they live as their home, as much a part of their identity as their heritage; there's a difference between an Irishman in America and an Irish-American, as it were. Most Scottish Asians my age view themselves first and foremost as Scots, as much a native to the country land as I am. That their grandparents came from Pakistan, Bengal or wherever is, while hardly irrelevant- they still value their heritage- is no more an indication of where they locate their home than the fact that my great-great-grandparents came from Donegal.


To answer your question I am not sure how the majority of Boers view themselves.Well, it's rather key, so until we reach some conclusions on it, there's only so much that can be said.

[lines]

You seem to be placing a large emphasis on a peoples DNA. Earlier you mentioned that English people had DNA from the Britons as if it was relevant. If you believe it is relevant why is it relevant? We're all pretty much the same regardless of racial or ethnic origin anyways.

Jacob Zuma sees Afrikaners(Boers) as white Africans and he said they were the only white African tribe. So going by that I am going to guess that the Boers probably view themselves as African too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Bnp72Tft8

If I find any more info on this I might post it but please don't ask me to look for any more info on this, the issue of whether Boers see themselves as African. Because I don't see how its supposed to be my job to find that information, we both have google and if you really want to know something you can find it too.

[Tim Finnegan]

You seem to be placing a large emphasis on a peoples DNA. Earlier you mentioned that English people had DNA from the Britons as if it was relevant. If you believe it is relevant why is it relevant? We're all pretty much the same regardless of racial or ethnic origin anyways.
My point had nothing to do with genetics, it was that the English are not regarded as foreign because they are not a population of pure-bred coloniser, as the Boers are, but trace a good part of their personal and cultural ancestry to the same source as the "Celtic" peoples of the British Isles. The English as such, as opposed to the early Germanic settlers who lent them their name and language, were never a foreign population, and so never needed to achieve Britishness, which means they cannot be regarded as analogous to the Boers.


Jacob Zuma sees Afrikaners(Boers) as white Africans and he said they were the only white African tribe. So going by that I am going to guess that the Boers probably view themselves as African too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Bnp72Tft8Well, there you go, that could be just what I'm talking about. We still have to ask what this means in practice, of course, but that is yet another complex question which I don't think we can give much more than an impressionistic answer to.


If I find any more info on this I might post it but please don't ask me to look for any more info on this, the issue of whether Boers see themselves as African. Because I don't see how its supposed to be my job to find that information, we both have google and if you really want to know something you can find it too.I wasn't trying to test you, I'm just saying that it's a crucial point. It's something to consider, not an argument one way or the other.

[lines]

My point had nothing to do with genetics, it was that the English are not regarded as foreign because they are not a population of pure-bred coloniser, as the Boers are, but trace a good part of their personal and cultural ancestry to the same source as the "Celtic" peoples of the British Isles. The English as such, as opposed to the early Germanic settlers who lent them their name and language, were never a foreign population, and so never needed to achieve Britishness, which means they cannot be regarded as analogous to the Boers.


Are you sure Boers are pure-bred, and if they are pure-bred should that be of significance?

Whether someone is pure-bred or a mixed-breed is all the same because deep down inside we are not different anyways, there is just one race the human race.

Placing pressure on people to be either pure-bred or mixed-bred seems a bit like saying that people shouldn't be completely free in determining who they decide to be sexual with.

[Tim Finnegan]

Are you sure Boers are pure-bred, and if they are pure-bred should that be of significance?

Whether someone is pure-bred or a mixed-breed is all the same because deep down inside we are not different anyways, there is just one race the human race.

Placing pressure on people to be either pure-bred or mixed-bred seems a bit like saying that people shouldn't be completely free in determining who they decide to be sexual with.
You're taking me over-literally; my point was that the Boers, collectively are of European extraction, while the English cannot be described as being of similarly German extraction. This is a significant distinction, however you describe it.

[lines]

Are you suggesting the genes of the boers is relevant?

[jake williams]

Most remaining white South Africans are better off economically, as well as physically safer, than they were under the fascist apartheid regime. Cultural or personal racism against them exists, but it's a fairly marginal problem, especially among many others in South Africa.

One thing that it's important to recognize, however, is that the large scale abandonment of the class question among the ANC leadership has helped foster a situation where the white lumpenproletariat and lower petty bourgeoisie have absolutely no allies in the society except for the remaining white fascists. That much is a scary situation, not because of racism per se but because of the disappearance of the welfare state upon which poor whites could politically and economically rely, and the failure of the liberation movement to replace it with a really democratic, pro-worker state.

It's anecdotal, but when I was in South Africa a few months ago (around Pretoria and Johannesburg), it was striking how many white panhandlers myself and my friends encountered. These people really do have nowhere else to go.

Of course, most whites (and increasingly, the more affluent blacks) are locked away in castles and their European import cars. Those people have nothing to worry about except the nationalization of the wealth they've stolen from the natural endowment and hard work of (mostly black) South African workers. There's relatively little risk of actual political violence on any large scale against whites - and even if there were, these people can and will leave. There's much greater risk of political violence against the working class majority, and there's a big pool of hopeless protofascists to do it.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I do not recognize any ethnicity or race, and definitly not that someone would have some 'rights' out of it. Class is the only relevant thing, rich boer farmers and black buisness owners are the same kind of fuckers. And the workers rights is the only thing that counts, no matter if they are san, voortrekker or bantu.

[robbo203]

Are you sure Boers are pure-bred, and if they are pure-bred should that be of significance?

Whether someone is pure-bred or a mixed-breed is all the same because deep down inside we are not different anyways, there is just one race the human race.

Placing pressure on people to be either pure-bred or mixed-bred seems a bit like saying that people shouldn't be completely free in determining who they decide to be sexual with.

Not that it matters much, it is interesting to note that amongst white Afrikaaners it is reckoned that about 14% of their gene pool is black African. One has to remember that in the early period of white settlement in the Cape under the auspices of the Dutch East India Company miscegenation was quite common given the imbalance in sex ratios among settlers. This was the origin of the afrikaans-speaking "Cape Colured" or mixed race population (although Malay slaves brought over by the DEIC also figured in this).

The "Cape Colureds" are quite a significant minority in their own right and I think are somewhere in the region of 3-4 million. They had a rather ambivalent status under Apartheid - given their cultural and linguistic connections with Afrikaaners - and were perceived differently under the racial hierarchy of Apartheid. Along with the Asian population who owe their origins to indentured labourers brought over by the British to work on the sugar planations in Natal and elsewhere, they represented quite a serious conceptual problematic in terms of apartheid ideology since at the heart of that ideology was political apartheid and the putative linkage between "nations" and their supposed historical homelands. The Blacks for example were divided into a number of "nations" - Zula, Xhosa, Tswana and so - and their political fate was tied to scaps of land dotted around the periphery of South Africa (from memory I think about 13% of the total land mass according to the 1913 and 1926 Native Land Acts). With Cape Coloureds and Asiatics you could not exactly apply this same political formula. Thus, in late Apartheid you began to see attempts by the government to seek some way of accommodating these population groups within a tricameral parliamentary system in which the white population held power.


Point is though with regard to the black African component of the gene pool of Afrikaaners, this proved to be on ongoing source of huge anguish and distress under apartheid. Sexual relations between the four main population groups were forbidden under the Immorality Act but not infrequently among Afrikaaner families you would have children being born who appeared to be Cape Coloured. Appearance was what counted. Believe it or not there was something called the "pencil test". A child would have a pencil put in his/her hair and would be asked to bend down. If the pencil fell out he/she was deemed to be white; it not, then he/she was deemed to be Cape Coloured on account of the distinctive crinkly hair type of Cape Colureds. The outcome could be traumatic for the families involved. Siblings could be separated and sent to different schools for example in terms of regulations on racial mixing.

Apartheid was truly one of the must utterly surreal and horrendous forms of political arrangements imaginable and I can still remember vividly as a kid born and bred in South Africa what it meant. Howver, people here go on about the "Boers" - the white Afrikaaners - rather a lot but this is in many ways misleading. Many of the conceptual building blocks of apartheid originated not with the Boers but with the British - the pass laws and the native reserves for example. My ancestors on my mother's side were 1820 settlers - yeoman stock from England - who after the Napoleonic wars and the crisis in British agriculture were brought over to settle in a buffer zone between the Cape colony and the Xhosa tribes in the Eastern Cape. Essentially they were used as cannon fodder so to speak. Most gave up farming and moved to the towns but one branch of my ancestors married into Afrikaaner families and one or two of them I recently discovered ended up fighting the British during the Boer war.

And there's a huge irony in that too because during the Boer War many on the Left in Britain and elsewhere were overtly and strongly sympathetic to the Boers in their struggle against the "imperialist British"!

[lines]

This was the origin of the afrikaans-speaking "Cape Colured" or mixed race population (although Malay slaves brought over by the DEIC also figured in this).

Just so people know the word colored means mulatto, for those not familiar with the term


Most gave up farming and moved to the towns but one branch of my ancestors married into Afrikaaner families and one or two of them I recently discovered ended up fighting the British during the Boer war.

And there's a huge irony in that too because during the Boer War many on the Left in Britain and elsewhere were overtly and strongly sympathetic to the Boers in their struggle against the "imperialist British"!

Thats very interesting, do you recommend any books or movies about the boer war? The only movie I ever saw related to the boer war is the movie breaker morant.

[Tim Finnegan]

Are you suggesting the genes of the boers is relevant?
No, and I've already said as much. Try to pay attention.


I do not recognize any ethnicity or race...
I'm guessing you're part of the ethnic majority, yes? :rolleyes:

Really, this "race-blindness" stuff is just silly. Firstly, it leaves you unable to effectively address issues of race and ethnicity, and secondly because it leaves you unable to lend support to minority cultures trying to preserve their identity in the face of a hegemonic majority-culture. It's an extremely white attitude to race issues; it's easy to be race-blind when race is something that happens to other people, but not so much when it's something that happens to you.


Many of the conceptual building blocks of apartheid originated not with the Boers but with the British...
This is very true. There's an established myth that apartheid was the product of Boer barbarism, and that Anglo-South Africans were an enlightened minority helpless to prevent it; an extension of the bullshit dichotomy established in the Anglosphere between the "benevolent" imperialism of the British and the more readily condemned imperialism of the French, Dutch, Spanish, etc.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

@Tim Finnegan: You dont have to put a whole bunch words and in other peoples mouth and write opinions in theire foreheads just because you misinterperet one line.

Racism and ethic related problems do exist, no doubt about that, I just think its kind of strange how often when you discuss the situation in, for example, South Africa the arguments tend to take a very Generalizing and etnopluristic shape. Such as speaking about 'black' and 'whites' without regarding class which isnt materialistic and wont helr class struggle at all, and things get even stranger when people who in other cases are leftists tend to "pick a side" and speak about the ones theive choosen to have the right to some land just because of theire heritage, just like the nazis blut und boden. And it gets very contradicting by being against anti-immigrations nuts at home and to promote ethnic-belonging-to-nationstate when it is in other parts of the world. Also i find all this effort in preserving some cultures strange, since cultures arnt static, but they are dynamic and tend to change over time. Ofcourse you can document them, but to expect that they will exist forever isnt realistic, cultures exists as long as theire is someone into them. In Sweden the racist party Sverigedemokraterna want to give extra support for folk dances, its just that not to many people are into that today so it would just be like giving CPR to a dead person.

In the same way many people who passionatly defend indigeneous peoples rights tend to take a very elitstic and stereotypical view on 'them' by, fore example, if a inuit teenager in Greenland dont want to become a fisherman as his/her parents and prefer hip-hop then throat singing, it will be seen (often frome a westener) as the person has lost his/her culture, but that very same way of describing things wont be used on teenagers in the first world. Once ethnicity is mixed with a certain culture = etnopluralism. Just as talking about white attitudes, like if all spaniards, scandinavians, slavic and anglo-saxian people would have the same attitude. And i dont know what you mean by me belonging to the "majority" please explaine.

[RedSunRising]

Just so people know the word colored means mulatto, for those not familiar with the term


No it refered to Indians, "mulattoes" (what a horrible word) were black.

[maskerade]

No it refered to Indians, "mulattoes" (what a horrible word) were black.

Coloureds actually doesn't refer to Indians, but instead an Afrikaans speaking group of people of various origins - ranging from khoi, malay, indonesian, sub-saharan african etc. One of the largest and most well known areas they reside in is the Cape flats, an area defined by abject poverty. They were also discriminated against during the apartheid era (up until 1984 when they along with South Africa's Asian community were given voting rights), and their most vocal interest groups claim that they are being disregarded under the ANC government as well.

[Nial Fossjet]

What do black South Africans, in general, feel about non-Boer whites in SA?


Here's the question, though: do the Boers seem themselves as indigenous, or merely resident? I would suggest that there's a difference, and that if the Boers fall into the second camp- if they view themselves as transplanted Europeans, set apart from and in opposition to black South Africans- then it would not be surprising that the black population don't consider them African.

Aren't the Xhosa tribes in the area relatively recent settlers who displaced other peoples?

[Tim Finnegan]

Aren't the Xhosa tribes in the area relatively recent settlers who displaced other peoples?
They are, but as far as I know they feel themselves to be as autochthonic as any other African ethnolinguistic group. Besides, the Xhosa were themselves displaced by the Zulus, so the analogy is rather less than ideal.

[Nial Fossjet]

Ah, yes, I was actually thinking about the Zulu. I don't know if this is just hearsay or not, but aren't the Zulu as recent arrivals to the area as the Dutch are?

[Tim Finnegan]

Ah, yes, I was actually thinking about the Zulu. I don't know if this is just hearsay or not, but aren't the Zulu as recent arrivals to the area as the Dutch are?
Yes and no. They've been in KwaZulu-Natal region for around a thousand years or so, when the Bantu migrations displaced the indigenous Khoisan, but they inhabit a larger area now than the original Zulu territory, because of a period of aggressive expansion in the early 19th century. However, this process also involved the incorporation of a lot of the other tribes in the region into the Zulu kingdom and gradually into Zulu culture, so it's hard to say exactly to what extent the current distribution of the Zulu people represents any sort of colonisation or physical expansion by the original Zulu tribe.

[lines]

No it refered to Indians, "mulattoes" (what a horrible word) were black.

Mulattoes are included in the coloured classified population.