Popular Posts

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Addendum to Response to What is a Boer at ToxiNews Blog.

This article could also be called: One Dimensional Terms Dispossess the Boer Nation. 

This is an addendum to Response to What is a Boer at the ToxiNews blog. I was originally just going to add to that article but decided to create a new one as I went slightly into depth in rebutting & countering the erroneous assertions & one dimensional outlook of the author of the original article on his blog. 

The author claimed that the various White groups have somehow lost their ethnicities & used a cynical devise when he claimed that there are supposedly "only White South Africans" when this term is not a sociological term describing even a single ethnic / biological or national group but rather is a civil term describing a diverse array of various peoples solely on the basis of being White & having been incorporated into the British created macro / mega / super State of South Africa. Try going to Europe & asserting that there are no ethnic groups: "just White Europeans". They will think you have lost it. The terms White & Black when applied to people are dispossessing terms as it deracinates the various peoples & ethnic groups of the region. The fastest way to deracinate a population is to stop referring to their ethnicities & to refer to them along generic one dimensional racial lines. The tactic of deracination is a strategy that the global elite have always used in order to gain total control over a region through a blending & friction process. There are those who play into this process & talk of a purported "White minority" & a purported "Black majority" which is a most ineffective & incomplete manner of analyzing the peoples' of the region as peoples' ethnicities & cultural background play a much larger role in shaping identity & cultural tradition. 


                                                   
                                                                   Image from: Boerevolkstaat website.

The author asserted that the Boers have a superiority complex which is yet another example of his reversing the reality of the situation because it was the Cape Dutch that historically had this superiority complex & looked down on the Boers [ complete with claiming they have "no culture" ]  & even ridiculed them for trekking during the Great Trek. Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio even noted how the term Afrikaner was always put in a positive light creating an incentive for people to want to "be an Afrikaner" while the term Boer was always put in a negative light as part of a psy-op aimed at driving people way from "being a Boer" & thus from their actual ethnic identity. The Boers lost their countries in 1902 not 1994. What they lost in 1994 was the little say that thought they said had within the old dispensation as per their already dented self determination. [ As Professor Louw notes ] Robert van Tonder actually had no problem in communicating with folks in their own languages, therefore the assertion of the author is moot or at the very least questionable / debatable. A number of British individuals were absorbed into the Boer people so the author's assertion that having some British roots "disqualifies" one from being a Boer is utter nonsense. The Anglophones who accompanied the Boers on the Great Trek were absorbed into the Boer Nation. The author seems to go out of his way in promoting straw man arguments in a desperate but weak attempt at denying the existence of the Boer Nation. 

The author uses some faulty logic & downright double speak as he erroneously asserted that "there are no Boers" [ ? ] then goes on to define them as those who "stand with the Boers" thereby admitting that there must be some pre-existing Boers around with which to stand with in the first place. The truth of the matter is that the Boers did not just disappear [ this was dealt with at length in the previous article ] when the British then later the Afrikaner then later still the ANC regimes took over, as the Boers were simply renamed at an official level & strategically lumped in with the Cape Dutch population - & larger White citizenry as a whole - within a limited / one dimensional & marginalizing political context. 

The notion that "no one was born a Boer" is ridiculous & laughable as well as an obvious insult to the 1.5 million people who were born part of the Boer people / nation. No one would assert [ as far as I am aware of ] that "no one was born a Scot" yet the author seems to think that it is logical to claim that the Boers stopped reproducing. The notion that there are no Boers is old British & later Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda aimed at preventing Boer self determination & the fact that he was promoting this old discredited canard is quite telling. 

The author goes out of his way to promote the dispossessing & nebulous term White South African when in reality the Boer people pre date any notion of a White South African by centuries. By the time the notion of a White South African was declared: the Boers had already established upwards of seventeen Boer Republics & fought many liberation wars & lost half of their children within the British concentration camps. The terms White South African & Afrikaner are civil terms. Not terms describing actual ethnic groups. The term Boer is a sociological & cultural term describing a specific ethnic group which can never be trumped or overtaken by the terms White South African or Afrikaner as those latter two terms are civil terms which are applied in a very generic & loose manner to more than just the numerically smaller Boer people who are marginalized & dispossessed under both terms as a result.  

No comments: