Talk:Boers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language?

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)

This is not a forum, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Furthermore, there is no longer exist such a thing as a "boer population". The term Boer has different meanings in different historical contexts. Please limit comments to details of the article. --Deon Steyn 07:28, 10 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.

    An interesting point indeed Deon, it says something strange, perhaps the global influence of English- speaking countries has made them seem more desirable than the smaller Dutch- speaking nations like Belgium and Holland. However I think that in a way they aren't 'truly' African, hear me out, because it's funny how they don't look first for oppurtunity in their own continent, rather in other places, external immigration is usually only resorted to after trying life in a different part of your home continent.

81.107.213.136 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this is incorrect as there are a significant number of Boers who have emigrated to places such as Mozambique, Nigeria, the Congo, Zambia.

    As blacks have assumed greater power in South Africa, Afrikaners like Baumgarten have soured on the country and lost the sense of security they had under white-minority rule.

    ``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.

Ron7 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Indeed

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)

They were for a short period a distinct political – and to some extent genetic – grouping, but even then did not have a distinct language. Furthermore, this page describes the various uses of the term "Boer" as it does not represent one unique people, because it varies with historic context. --Deon Steyn 07:01, 14 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.

Ron7 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statements contradict themselves Ron7, you refer to "Eastern Border Afrikaans" as a dialect. Even today there are many dialects of Afrikaans, they aren't separate languages (nor do they denote a separate ethnic group/peoples/nation). This "group" does not exist, please cite a reliable source that states otherwise. You are compressing several ambiguous terms ("boer", "afrikaner") and several hundred years of history into a few easy terms and this is not correct. It would be akin to speaking of the "yankee nation" you might want to call yourself a yankee, but a nation that does not make! --Deon Steyn 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


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.

    By the 1770s the Dutch{1} nomads have penetrated as far as Graaff-Reinet, some 400 miles northeast of Cape Town. They become known as Trekboers (Dutch for 'wandering farmers'), a word subsequently often shortened to Boers. When they go on raids, to rustle the cattle of the tribes, the Trekboers form themselves into armed bands of mounted gunmen known as commandos.

    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.

    Definitions of Boer, Afrikaner, South African Colonists, Settlers and Coloureds:

    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.
    These early Dutch farmers were joined by other Europeans and their populations grew. The Dutch East India Company imported slaves from Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar and other parts of the Dutch Empire to work on large plantations close to Cape Town. The semi nomadic Dutch farmers expanded their settlement further from the Cape and came into conflict over land with local African populations. Their contact with the local Dutch government became more and more tenuous and most of them lived hard rural lives, moving farmsteads frequently, and quite independent of government and education. By 1745 they were known as Trekboers, which means "wandering farmers," a term which was later shortened to Boers. They were unaware of the changing politics in Europe.

    These people have had so many different handles over the past 350 years that it's hard to keep track - and now they are being given another name, namely "Afrikaanses".

    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.

    There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the socalled Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the feat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled."

    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?

    The majority of the original white settlers, known as Cape Dutch, or in frontier regions Boers, maintained a nominal loyalty to the Dutch Reformed Church.

    Trekboers certainly recognised the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British; they had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete; the westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical ‘nation’.

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

    IN RECENT YEARS, historians have commented that Afrikaners were far from being one people. It is misleading, they say, to speak of ‘the Afrikaner’ or the ‘volk’ as if white, Afrikaans-speaking people were one, uniform mass. For at least 150 years, Dutch-speaking South Africans were divided, scattered and unaware of national unity. It was only when a systematic effort was made that national consciousness became widespread. In the nineteenth century, for example, settled Boers and townspeople in the Western Cape, differed greatly from the Voortrekkers (who themselves were not a united movement — many parties had split up to trek in different directions). Even in the Boer republics there were divisions between rich and poor, landowners and bywoners.

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.

Ron7 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


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)

Once again, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please sign (by logging in) and indent your comments. --Deon Steyn 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the references which note the indigenous or homegrown nature of the Boers.

The following line has been removed.

    The Boer Nation (Boerevolk) of Southern Africa were a White indigenous nation in Africa [1] [2] [3] [4]

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.

Ron7 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the paragraph. None of the sources support the statement that the Boers are an "indigenous nation". Yes, the one – very sloppy and un-academic – source just mentions that some (?) African tribes think of them as another tribe, but this isn't what the wiki article statement claimed either. --Deon Steyn 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Violation.

The following line is a violation of the NPOV rule.

    A small minority of Afrikaners have tried to build a new identity based on the past traditions and cultures and again adopted names such as "Boervolk" (or "Boerevolk").

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.

Ron7 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Afrikaner Page

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)

Merge from Boere-Afrikaner

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)

Llama Assualt Unit

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)

Concerning the Section on Nationalism

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)

Concerning the Section on The Great Trek

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)

Photo

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)

Thanks to whoever added Sarel Cilliers. (I'm related to him.) Invmog (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Boers in British India

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)

Well, that does sound like it merits inclusion in the article - do you have any sources for us to cite? — Gk sa (talk) 18:38, 18 April 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

Yes, Wolfie!

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

Ek stem saam met U, maar ek hoe meer van twee artikels hê omdat dit praat van twee verskillende tye van ons geskiedenis. Maar Boere is Afrikaners en Afrikaners is Boere, selfs as ons nie meer almal boer op 'n plaas nie. Invmog (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Translation of the above comment follows, this Wiki is English.
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)
translated by --86.5.226.63 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a part of the diaspora living in the United Kingdom, so don't know much about my cultural history, unfortunately, compared to others back home. But I know enough to have an opinion, and I still talk to people back home very often and keep up with the news over the Internet where I can. I disagree that the two are one in the same completely. My family identify themselves as Boers, a sort of subgroup of Afrikaner. Half of my family still farm back home, but even those that live in the cities add the prefix "Boer" when they refer to their own ethnic group. This issue is evolving, since the two names are heavily intertwined and a lot of people probably feel that the two have merged completely. (edit) I see that this topic was very thoroughly discussed below under a different title. I didn't notice, because of the seperate title. Well, you can take this as proof that there is still consensus of some sort of the existence of us. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Boer means

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)

Possibly so, yes, when I look at German, Dutch, and for example Danish, there are connections that could carry over to Afrikaans (though it sounds totally different when spoken). The word 'boer' means 'farmer' in Afrikaans. There's a seperate word 'buur', meaning neighbour, which is derived from Dutch also. I think that the word refers to how historically, Boer folk lived on farms and raised their families there. And, in agreement with what you are saying, the Wiktionary article (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boer#Dutch) on the word says that in Dutch it refers to 'neighbour' and has roots in an Old English word meaning 'habitation'. It's wonderful how it's all interconnected. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
One thing that bothered me about this article is the use of Boers vs Boere. Granted that this is an English article, and the English plural of the bilingual Boer is Boere, there are still more places than those already in the article where I would have found Boere more natural. Would anyone object if I changed a few of those? BTW, although I am perfectly bilingual, I have no axe to grind - this is just a discomfort with the language.Teachalakazi (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the section under Characteristics/Calvinism

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.

I agree. Invmog (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That statement is nonsense anyway, even if you'd accept the fictional two nations theory. Christian Identity is called Israel Vision or Israeliete in South Africa. They basically believe that Whites including Afrikaners are the biological offspring from the ancient Israelites in the bible. Among Afrikaans speaking Whites in South Africa they are a small minority of less then two percent, which again is splintered up in more then 20 different versions. Now some of them would call themselves Afrikaners, some will call themselves Boers. Of the later you will again find some that support the two nations theory. Since they themselves are even a tinier minority, it may be the case that "many" of the two-nations-theorists are "Israelites" at the same time. --197.228.30.71 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. This is a complex topic.

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.

Ron7 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, you make a valid point. While at first read of the "Modern Usage" section, I thought of flagging it for WP:NPOV issues, I see some of the reasoning behind it now. This section is still problematic, however, because it is offensive to those who would normally self-identify as both Afrikaner and Boer, but are apparently excluded by the listed definition. I think it deserves a bit of a re-write to reflect a more dichotomous view on the modern usage of the term "Boer". Failing that, I think the very first statement in the "Modern Usage" section should be that, what follows, represents a minority view in the broader Afrikaner community WITH a clear link to the Afrikaners page. In any case, by the current definition, the claim of a population of 1.5 million is patently false - and the source that supports it is hardly of high quality; rather it is merely repeating hearsay and right-wing propaganda. I think any reference to current population should be removed, since there is no-one that can claim to have done definitive research on the topic. To summarise:
  • The definition of the term "Boer" in the "Modern Usage" section reflects the view of a minority group among the broader group of Afrikaners.
  • The definition of the term "Afrikaners" in the "Modern Usage" section as referring "all Afrikaans speaking people in Africa irrespective of colour or nationality" is intensely problematic and NOT widely held.
  • The statement "Boer is the specific ethnic group within the larger Afrikaans speaking population" also deserves to be challenged.
  • Based on the definition of "Boer", the DA can be removed under "Politics", and perhaps replaced with AWB (or not replaced).
Gk sa (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some, but have to stress that this "Afrikaners and Boers are two nations" idea is a relatively new one proposed by Robert van Tonder and unsuccessful party politician in the old South Africa. Except for that there were some pro-British authors that proposed similar ideas. Prior to this all Boer heroes used the term Boer and Afrikaner (sometimes spelled Afrikaander) synonymous. All White Afrikaans speaking people did intermarry, were members of the same churches and never made any distinction between Boers and Afrikaners (or Cape Dutch, a term introduced by the British, for that matter). So no distinct ethnic groups apart from the figments of imagination of a tiny sectarian minority --197.228.14.225 (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a total lie & is typical of the Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda which still infests the myopic narrative espoused by those who promote an anti-Boer agenda. Robert van Tonder was not the first person to note the patent reality that the Boers are a different nation to the Afrikaners or rather to the Cape Dutch. Professor Wallace Mills noted that the Boers of the frontier during the 19th cent. viewed themselves as distinct from the Dutch of the Western Cape region. All Robert van Tonder did was simply noted the obvious much to the chagrin of the Afrikaner establishment which did not want to lose control over the Boer population nor especially over the old Boer Republic region. Robert van Tonder was not some "unsuccessful politician" as the above anti-Boer propagandist would have you laughably believe- since due to his small fortune: he was the most successful Boer self determination activist of the 20th cent. as the Afrikaner Broederbond could not control or manipulate or overshadow him as they were able to do with the poorer Boer activists. Robert van Tonder was the founder of the town of Randburg in 1959 he helped to created after he saw the Broederbond selling out the Afrikaans speaker in general & the Boer people in particular of the Johannesburg region. He went on to become an acclaimed author & ended up founding a political party aimed at reacquiring Boer self determination.
General William Butler noted during the era of the second Anglo-Boer War that there were three main local White groups within Southern Africa: The Cape Dutch / The British / & the Boers. The notion that some Boers of the 19th cent. also called themselves Afrikaners was not an endorsement of supposedly belonging to the same people as that of the Cape Dutch as the Boers employed the term "Afrikaner" in a GEOGRAPHIC sense, meaning that they viewed themselves as being African. Which incidentally the Cape Dutch NEVER saw themselves as African until their leaders USURPED the term Afrikaner in 1875 under the direction of a group of provocateurs from Holland. One other important reason why some Boers were calling themselves Afrikaners in the political sense was due to the propaganda of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape whose ideas were beginning to penetrate into the Boer Republics among some notables like F W Reitz but the bulk of the Boer people did not subscribe to such views & both President Paul Kruger of the Transvaal Republic as well as President Marthinus Steyn of the Orange Free State REBUFFED the overtures of the Afrikaner Bond. President Kruger did not want too many of the Cape Dutch coming to the Transvaal Republic as he felt that they were too pro British. Author Mordechai Tamarkin notes in Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaner that the Cape Dutch population were pro British & the Afrikaner Bond supported Cecil Rhodes not the Boers of the Boer Republics fighting against Britain. Robert van Tonder noted in Chapter 13 of Boerestaat that the Cape Dutch were assisting the British in their war against the Boers further demonstrating that the Boers are not part of the Cape Dutch.
These anti-Boer apologists who infer that the Boers & Afrikaners are the "same" never tell you those important facts neither do they ever mention the salient fact that the Cape Dutch [ who were pro British ] OUTNUMBER the Boer people - thus any political merging of the Boers with the Cape Dutch does serious violence to the smaller Boer people as it destroys their hard won identity which they acquired from centuries of HARDSHIP on the Cape frontier as well as deracinates the Boer people by implying that they are from the Cape Dutch instead of the Trekboers of the frontier. For the longest time the Boer people were not allowed to marry the Cape Dutch so the notion that "all" the so called White Afrikaans speaking people "intermarried" is an insulting lie! Which serves to only do further violence against the smaller & besieged Boer people / nation. The term Cape Dutch was not introduced by the British. Yet another despicable lie! The term Cape Dutch was coined in the 17th cent. by the Trekboers who were moving away from the Cape Dutch in DISGUST of the pro Holland & pro Colonial views of the Cape Dutch population.
Ron7 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

Ron7 (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Internationally recognized nation

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)

What's your problem Deon? Are you a Boerophobe? Christianophobe?

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.

Ron7 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The personal attack of "Boerophobe? Christianophobe?" comes from a blocked neo-nazi user (JBAK) and should have been removed (I did not see it until now). Please refrain from making personal attacks (WP:NPA) and keep the exchanges civil (Wikipedia:Civil) and kindly limit discussions to the article contents. --Deon Steyn 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of unsourced textual sections in this article

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)

Following on from the comment by Jonnie Comet I am moving the EB1911 text that is currently footnotes onto this talk page. If any of the text is still needed then copy it back but not as quotations so that it can be bought up to date. Personally I would suggest that if it is needed then summarise it and cite EB1911 as the source.
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

  1. ^ a b c Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "South Africa" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 469. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ a b Chisholm 1911, pp. 469–470.
  3. ^ a b c Chisholm 1911, p. 470.
--PBS (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional points and topics

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)

Boer/Afrikaner dichotomy?

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. -- WolfieInu 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this, as an Afrikaner and a Boer I've taken offense to being called a Boer and don't think I'll ever receive it in a negative way just like a U.S. citizen probably won't care if you call them an American. Invmog (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to write, "I've NEVER taken offense to being called a Boer." I'm proud to be a Boer/Afrikaner, whichever I'm called. Invmog (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There is something rather odd about this article. The term Boar went out of fashion in 20th century because of urbanization. The Afrikaners called themselves Boars in the 19th century because that is what they were. But it is strange to be calling oneself a Boar (farmer) if one lives in the city, which is where the majority of the Afrikaners have been living since the middle of the 20th century, which is why the term Afrikaner came into use. One would not know this from reading this article, but the change in terminology came about because of urbanization and the fact that the majority of Afrikaners are middle-class people. This article would benefit by noting this. --A.S. Brown (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)  

Frontier Wars

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boers/Archive_2&oldid=1088582324"