I'm going to begin with a very short post.
Still today there are minor disputes on what constitutes the Afrikaners, and what constitutes the Boer nation.
What is known is that the Afrikaans language and its speakers developed in the Western and Eastern Cape provinces three centuries ago, and that they
merged from Dutch, German, Khoisan, Malay and French ancestors.
At the same time, the Sotho and Nguni peoples were colonizing southern Africa from the Congo (they are not truly "indigenous"), and just like the
whites, they displaced and mingled with the really indigenous Khoisan nations (Bushmen and Hottentots).
Never mind all the history, and how the British destroyed the Boer republics with concentration camps.
Almost all the whites, including the Afrikaners voted for change in South Africa in 1992.
Since then we've seen a slaughter of whites in SA, and also a degree of affirmative action under Black Economic Empowerment that is horrendous, and
I would challenge anyone to look at admission policies and quotas at our remaining medical campuses, for example.
Strange to think that under Apartheid over 80 percent of sub-Saharan African doctors were trained in SA facilities, like the now ruined Medunsa
We've even had protests in other countries, against the political hate speech of the ANC, for example.
Yet, I was very disappointed to see that "Occupy" in Oakland regards protests against white slaughter in SA as "Nazi protests" or "pro-racist".
That ruined the whole "Occupy" movement for me.
The protest against white farm murders in SA was declared open for anyone, so why did they hurt cops and horses?
Many white people in the past protested for black people, so why is it that nobody even bothers to check the facts before they attack peaceful
Is "Occupy" Marxist, anti-white and violent?
I'd say duh, well yeah!
I can only assume that they are.
Are they a dangerous Marxist cult?
Do they think it's OK for toddlers to be shot, for women to have their breasts cut off, and for racist slogans to be left on crime scenes that then
are just reduced to "common crimes"?
But maybe one cannot blame them, because there's a constant campaign of lies against minority whites in SA.
Currently there's several complaints against British newspapers, where the facts were totally twisted.
Why is that of over 50 million people in SA only 4 million (whites) are blamed as scapegoats?
Yet these are the people who are rarely accused of crimes, or hurting anybody else?
I think the Afrikaners have done more for black or indigenous nations than any other.
In the early 1980s it was said that blacks in SA had a higher living standard than in Harlem, or most of the black diaspora.
Maybe I'm wrong, or history is complex, but what is going on now is also wrong.
Even many black people say it is wrong.
I cannot believe that any good person of another country looks upon this as correct.
edit on 10-7-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason
edit on 10-7-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)