It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Afrikaners....Karma or Genocide?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by Monger

You are making personal attacks, but yet you seem to think you have the high ground.

Say what you want, we are not going to save your beloved africa.

Go, go give all your possessions to an african charity...I bet you've never donated a dollar to them, you just use internet forums to try and prove "you care".

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by MichellePike1111

Your opinions however are in violation of the T & C of this site

If you have opinions on whether or not the plight of the Afrikaner is worthy of UN interference or just karma in action and feel we should do nothing, or anything at all constructive to add please feel free to post. There are others here who disagree with my stance however they have the maturity to put their point across in a grown up and civilised manner

The annihilation of a race of people is entirely out of step with today's modern society and it would be nice to think that this one could be stopped before it escalates for once. The backlash on our world generations down the line from previous genocidal wars could be dire and historically we will live to regret such barbaric actions

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:59 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by phyllida

I never said I wanted any ONE race gone, I said I wanted ALL of africe wiped clean, to be started again.

Understand now, or is your skull too thick to undertand basi English writing?

Again, nothing I said was against the TOS.

Waahhhh Wahhhh!

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by phyllida

What a surprise that you couldn;t answer my question...

Again, what is so special that should be saved anywhere in africa?

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by MichellePike1111

How about the rain. "I love the rain down in Africa!"

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:07 PM
Thanks for the interesting thread Phyllida, and for an attempt to debate the issue in an objective manner.
Having seen many previous threads on SA, this is not always easy, even if one just wants to draw attention to wider governmental failures by illustrating the plight of one minority in SA.

The Afrikaners are not the only group currently in SA who feel they are the victims of tacit approval of racism, or policies that have a directly negative impact on communities.
The colored people for example (partly of indigenous Khoisan descent) feel marginalized by the ANC, and they've actually been told to distribute themselves from their historical core in the Western Cape to facilitate affirmative action policies.
The Asian population had some astoundingly racist music directed against it, bringing back memories of Uganda's expulsion of 80 000 Asians in the 1970s.
Then there are issues of tribalism, with the ANC being ruled by Xhosa and Zulu elites.

There are many conspiracies in SA history, and how some families became the elites, or what was previously known as the "Super Afrikaners", and under apartheid a secretive organization called the "Broederbond" essentially ran the country.

The Afrikaners certainly had a rough and sometimes tragic history.
The Wikipedia article on the previous page actually mentions that they are (to an extent) of mixed origins, including genes of the Khoisan people, going back to the first interracial marriage between the Danish sailor Pieter van Meerhof and the Khoi woman Krotoa.

When the Afrikaners moved into the interior from about 1820 the Black population (who had largely moved into the fertile eastern coastal region between the 9-17th centuries) was heavily decimated by the Mfecane (crushing wars) started by Shaka.

In 1905 the Native Affairs Commission counted the black population of British South Africa as 4.6 million (about 3 million in what is now South Africa).
By the end of apartheid in 1994 there were 40 million, and now probably around 53 million.
In 100 years the black population had increased by over 20 percent!
Thus it was always ironic when South Africa was lectured on racism by countries like the US or Australia, who had decimated their native populations to 0.8 percent.

Whatever happened in the 19th century, it is clear that SA was sparsely populated.
The British did give some black kingdoms independence within SA, like Lesotho, or the monarchy of Swaziland (both independent black states in SA until this day).

The Afrikaners founded two Boer Republics, and the British fought a war that claimed their territory and mineral rights, and over 20 000 women and children died in concentration camps (with no apology from the colonialists for their "scorched earth policy" against civilians).

They were then dominated by the British with a policy of "Anglicanization", which forbade the speaking of Dutch or Afrikaans in schools, and a "poor white" problem arose in urban areas.
By the depression of the 1930s many Afrikaners lost their land (especially the share-croppers), which was exacerbated by the "rinderpest" (a disease that kills livestock).
What historians regard as the template for apartheid was also founded then by the British, such as the Native Land Act of 1913.

By 1948 the National Party had won, and ironically this was founded on reconciliation (between the English and Afrikaners).
While it's dangerous to describe what followed without being accused of white nationalist or Africanist bias, it's fair to say that the point of apartheid was not to totally disregard the black people. Whites then didn't compare whites to blacks, instead they looked at newly decolonized countries in Africa with a sense of great fear (which was not always unfounded). So they compared black circumstances in SA with those of other African countries.
The aim was to give black people their independent "homelands", and the tribal living standards of the majority were considered so "premodern" that no amount of resources could immediately give everyone a house or electricity. The aim was to gradually bring them into the economy without destroying their culture, but essentially this created migrant labor from the rural areas for global capitalism.

In effect however, apartheid caused misery for many black people and it ignored the growing black population, and failed to draw mass industries to the homelands (which were not recognized by most countries).
However, while segregation was still the norm in US states when apartheid was founded, a main issue was the Cold War in Africa.
The ANC became a socialist funded and extremely violent liberation movement in the late 1970s, that ran gulags in Angola, and often employed children to create the terror of a "people's war" in the townships (with the slogan of "liberation before education").

White males were eventually conscripted for 2 years to fight an US inspired war in Angola, and both the white and black youth were heavily brainwashed by foreign ideologies.
edit on 1-12-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

Thank you so much for joining the thread and adding your insightful comments. African history is indeed a complex issue and one which a lot of people fail to educate themselves on before passing judgment. I am aware of the historical mixed marriages between the Boer and Khoikhoi and the elitist families. I will confess i rarely visit Wiki as a source of information as it can be unreliable but I'll read further.

I don't think there is a race or nation in African that hasn't had it rough. Quite why that is I'm not sure. I can only say that I believe the main problems to be tribal and forcing of European culture and values upon a people who already had their own culture & values who weren't ready to be integrated into a Europe theyd never heard of.

Thanks again

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by MichellePike1111

1. People
2. African wildlife
3. Historical sites like the pyramids
4..Natural resources that should be used by the African people to make a living for themselves, not Chinese nationals or anyone else trying to exploit them.

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by phyllida

Good points.

There is indeed no race or group in Africa that's had it easy, but there are elites, from the "super-Afrikaners" to the tribal royal families that have had a relatively good time.

On the issue of the cultures in SA tracing their problems to imposed and unknown European cultures ... that's a difficult point.

That's become an argument of many reactionaries, when many African people do want democracy, human rights, gender rights and a free press.

But what are "European rights"?
Was Europe ever a monolithic country or ideology?

What were African rights before colonialism?
The West probably knows of Shaka, but what about Moshweshwe?
He was a great and diplomatic statesman who gathered the survivors of many tribes (even cannibals) to form the Basotho nation, and eventaully Lesotho.
Yes, there was diplomacy and democracy in Africa too - Europe does not own that label of "human rights" and "democracy".

One concept of "African culture" is not a reason to deny people their human rights.

Especially in World War II black people fought for the rights of some Europeans, and this made them very aware of their own lack of equal rights.

In effect the system of apartheid also considered black people "too primitive" to understand and enjoy Western freedoms.

The Afrikaners certainly had their share of anti-apartheid activists, but the more rigid establishment also used the "Don't impose your Western values on us" argument, before 68 percent of white South Africans voted in a referendum to end apartheid in 1992.

It was not a conquest or a won battle, but a negotiated settlement.

That settlement acknowledged "fair discrimination" as affirmative action, however it did not allow racism, such as keeping posts vacant (if no blacks are found, yet qualified white and colored applications are rejected), or allowing unqualified people to get a job, or imposing national statistics on all provinces.

The option was kept open for an Afrikaner homeland in SA.
This seems to have been totally trashed.

There is a tiny semblance of such a homeland on a private area called Orania.
Even the ANC politicians visit Orania occasionally.

Although there's hardly much agreement on where such a larger place would exist, or who it will allow, the obvious sentiments of some separatists would be rather politically incorrect.

They'd say "political karma" would entail a homeland with funding for hospitals and eight accredited universities, modern housing for at least a million people, farming equipment and hospitals and more - because that's what the whites historically provided in SA.

edit on 2-12-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:48 AM
As some one raised by a family of the Afrikaner group,i have to tell you,in the vast majority of cases,i think its just plain genocide,the farm murders and robberies/hijackings/home invasions that end in the murder of the victims.In the case of farm murders,an Idiotic move,even if you had to see it as Karma at play-because it will indeed produce a Zim-type situation given enough time.Nothing but resentful,malicious,and in most cases misdirected acts of racial hatred.Btw,this has to be said,so to help spread the word,to anyone who may be friends with/have relatives who are farmers:THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONGO IS LOOKING FOR AFRIKANER FARMERS(Not to be confused with the DRC) to come live and farm there.To the Karma is where i consider it from a personal perspective-we were poor under Apartheid,we are poor still,when compared to most other whites. Although my adoptive mother was extremely racist,i resisted her influencing me from childhood-no matter what her argument,she could not sway me,i guess im just not wired for the ability to be racist-i go only on personal merit,and that is a trait one will not get out of me,its core soul stuff-even considering the atrocities visited on the race/population group im classified under.My children have black friends,and indeed,having grown up in the "New SA,the concept of racism is one they can comprehend,but foreign to their own daily lives*********I have to wonder, adoptive father died(of a heart attack) in the arms of a farm worker named Michael,bless his dear heart,my dad didnt have to die alone.Michael was a friend of many years to my dad,never just a worker to him.He didnt own a farm but managed one for the company he worked for,much beloved by all the farmworkers.That was in the days of apartheid,still.He didnt have any detectable racist convictions.I myself have hitched over 300clix in the dead of night,in post-Apartheid SA,and who stopped for me? First a black dude,who stopped at a shebeen when i was thirsty(he parked a distance away,cus he was worried i wouldnt be safe,then got me something to drink).At a further stage, the poorest of the poor-type black family,in a battered lil HiLux-and i had a safe ride with them.Is this Karma at play? I dont know,to be honest. There are people who get murdered in their homes-i put myself in a position to be killed,at least raped+robbed-yet received only basic helpfulness,even kindness.Makes one wonder.On the whole,in the case of farm murders-i think its a matter of:a large population of frustrated and sometimes hate-filled poor-misguidedly targeting the very ones essential to their own welfare.They should be (vocally and publicly)targeting the only ones who Are in a position to address their problems-THEIR OWN ELECTED GOVERNMENT.Otherways its flogging the decayed corpse of a long dead regime-it achieves nothing,and impoverishes us all even further(food prices).SKEWED PERCEPTIONS AND AN INABILITY/UNWILLINGNESS TO THINK,AIDED AND ABETTED BY A LEADERSHIP THAT WOULD RATHER INCITE MURDER OF A COMPLETELY POLITICALLY DISEMPOWERED GROUP(Farmers and all whites in general)IN ORDER TO DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM UNKEPT PROMISES TO THE POPULATION THAT ELECTED THEM,WHILE WALLOWING IN LUXURY AND RICHES THEMSELVES.My opinion on one of yr statements-if they Really wanted all Afrikaners dead-We would have all been dead.Before any country would/could lift a finger.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by MichellePike1111

What's worth saving in Africa? All decent,kindhearted people,people such as my children.You're obviously not a mother,you're obviously not some one who are living among the black population,in a mixed neighbourhood.You've obviously never been to a kindergarten school concert,and seen the shining little faces of the youngest of our different races,having a ball together,having the hair stand up on your arms,from the awe of all that purity,the innocence,the potential.Yet without meeting even one of these tiny children,you would see them obliterated,as if they were nothing.I have never said this to anyone on any site,but my children are presumably included in the population of Africa you'd like to see wiped off the face of the earth-SO GO # YOURSELF,YOU HEARTLESS BITCH.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:30 AM
My apologies to the OP for talking like that to another member,on your thread.My apology is to YOU,in case it offends you,but i stand by what i said to MichellePike1111.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:02 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Just to make you aware, there was no Genocide of Native tribes in Australia in the Late 1700s when White Europeans arrived.
Indeed it is thought the population of the 600 or so tribes in the WHOLE continent was anywhere from 300,000 to 1 million peoples. Barely at drop in the Ocean compared to the 10s of millions of different peoples in the African Continent at the same time.

There was no concerted effort to Kill every Aborigine, in fact they lived next to each other until skirmishes occurred, mainly due to Natives taking white fellas cows and sheep etc....and fair enough too, as there is no "Ownership Law" to the native people of was on the land, so therefore they could use what the land has provided for them.....

Also bear in mind that Europeans, generally, were a disease ridden race, and had coped with the common cold and many other ailments over millenia.

The Isolated tribes of exotic countries were Not Immune to these "Simple" diseases, and were easily overcome and often died, from common European ailments, that European's immune system could cope with.
Many many Hundreds of thousands of natives, around the World, died from these new diseases from the "Old" World.....which, to them, was the New World......

And yes, Afrikans are not a Race, they are just Europeans in Africa of Dutch origin, as someone pointed out, settled on the Cape as a stop off depot for the Dutch Trading companies, The Dutch East India company etc.
They didnt even settle in Africa with the intention of staying or colonising....Unlike the British did in America And Australia.

edit on 2-12-2012 by gort51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by gort51

Interesting, thanks for the information on Australia.

I'm just busy with a book: The Aborigines by Henry Reynolds and Bruce Dennett (Oxford U.P., 2002).

I can't really argue about Australia, but I think hunter gatherers often got worse treatment than settled agricultural people.
I'd compare the Aborigines more to the San (Bushmen) in SA, and although there was never a policy to kill them all, on the frontier there were certainly massacres, and and the eventual outcome was of making them laborers or annihilating them.

The agricultural people were inside the European frame of reference, and what was the core of their tribal land became reserves or homelands.

The African people kept livestock (the source of many infectious diseases like TB or smallpox), and they probably thus had the same immunity to these diseases as the Europeans.
In fact, I think the Zulus (for example) even had a form of inoculation from cow-pox against smallpox.
So the black tribes were not wiped out by disease, as the native people of the Americas.

Yes, the Cape started as a refreshment station, but the first "free-burghers" changed that quite rapidly, and it was not the only colony that was started for short-term gain by a company that became a settlement.

The Afrikaners are not just Dutch in origin, and the later Huguenot refugees left the surnames of many prominent Afrikaans families, like Du Preez, Du Toit or De Klerk.

Fascinatingly, in 1848 Lord Grey decided that the Cape Colony should become a penal colony.
This caused much outrage and shock, and the founding of an Anti-Convict League.
The first penal ship called The Neptune arrived in 1849, but protest kept the convicts from going ashore.
In Britain a 35-year-old millionaire named Charles Bower Adderly gave a rousing speech in the House of Commons in defense of the colony, and the ship sailed on to Van Diemen's Land.

In celebration 160 members of the Anti-Convict League held a memorable celebration into the early hours of the morning, with 16 toasts.
They also renamed Heerengracht Street (the main street of Cape Town) Adderly Street (which has been in another renaming fiasco this year).
Pity about the poor people on the ship, but I guess it was a bad idea.

edit on 2-12-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by phyllida

The option was kept open for an Afrikaner homeland in SA.
This seems to have been totally trashed.

There is a tiny semblance of such a homeland on a private area called Orania.
Even the ANC politicians visit Orania occasionally.

edit on 2-12-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your comments. Yes I've seen a few documentaries regarding Orania but I hadn't heard about an Afrikaner homeland. How was this trashed do you know? Was it just never mentioned again or was it actively not pursued?

In reply to Gort51 the Afrikaners are considered a race. They have their own language culture religion etc and they are recognised even by Nelson Mandela and the UN as a race. They are descended from Dutch German & French stock but unlike the majority of European colonists, they did initially mix with the native population and mixed marriages occurred, plus they have been there for 400+ years meaning that they have no other homeland.

We could look at this another way, the blacks ANC Government etc don't want the Afrikaners won't employ them and won't give them state benefits, that by our definition is racism. The Afrikaners don't and never will mingle integrate or cross marry and want nothing to do with the blacks if they can help it, again racism. For these 2 peoples this is now a way of life, it could be said part of their culture as Jacob Zuma said about singing the "Shoot the Boer" song. Regardless of our perceived wrongs and rights of the situation, no amount of sanctions or legislatiion or UN interference is going to change this part of their culture, therefore it seems logical to me that the people shouldbe kept apart as much as possible, then both sides can live their racist lives as they wish. Whilst we in the West declare ourselves the bastions of moral virtue and swear to stamp out racism regardless, I think we sometimes miss the point that our definition of racism is to some just historical and cultural values and they see no wrong in what they do because its been part of their lives for generations. Blacks on black racism has always existed, some tribes used to raid other tribes for slaves the same can be said of Native American Indians and their various tribal wars.

What I'm trying to say I suppose is do we actually and have we ever had the right to interfere with what some sociologists far more learned than I call the natural order? Is it not possible that by pushing the tribes of Africa or Indians of South America into the 19th & 20th centuries that we have interrupted that natural order and what is happening now is a result? Who knows but whether the Afrikaners are reaping what they sowed or not, they still deserve help and it seems once again so do the blacks who have been let down badly by the people they hoped to be their saviours!

Hope that all makes sense

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:26 AM
egyptians are white, black and asian. should we cut them into 3 sections and send each part back to its original genetic location ?

in the usa, we give preferential treatment to the MINORITY.
in south africa, they give preferential treatment to the MAJORITY.
in both cases, the preferential treatment is to black people.
this suggests to me that preferential treatment is another word for racism by political writ.

HOWEVER, because poorer cultures tend to need more help to acclimate, because their culture hasn't instilled the requirements necessary, it requires some measure of extra assistance (not racism). For some reason, that has devolved to racism in SA.

Personally, I think the underlying theme is being promoted and exacerbated by the eugenicists, who think there are too many people and occasionally work up various groups into a killing frenzy, over various perceived or real problems. This is probably the same thing.
edit on 2-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:38 AM
oh and one more thing:

people have various levels of psychological behavior, related to survival of the fittest. stalin and the rest of the marxist community, determined that caucasians display alpha characteristics, whilst non-caucasians are less so and tend more to be happy letting somebody else lead the show.

so it may be a symptom of global marxism, that their leaders would rather remove their alpha competition and retain the sheep. however, i think stalin was a racist and so are his compadres. there are alphas in every racial group. so it boils back down to eugenicists tinkering with the population numbers by abusing the social/racial structure of societies they can influence.
edit on 2-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by undo

I think also that whilst people readily attack the west and their capitalism, it should be noted that communism is racist in itself, and I think any totalitarian form of Government or regime tends to favour one group more than another.

But could it not be said that we are the causes of the problems in Africa and as such have a responsibility and duty to right the wrongs? To all intents and purposes, when the first inklings of revolution were heard the first people into the countries affected were North Korea and Russia albeit by the back door with training guerillas etc but we left and they and their ideologies took hold. So basically we allowed one regime to replace another as we did in SA then wiped our hands of the situation.Whilst the communists were not entirely in control of these regions as the Europeans were, we left the door open for them.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:05 AM
eek, and just one more thing! lol

notice in the usa, we have programs in place to help people of various minorities. a noble thing to be sure. but notice also that
never quite provides for a stable enough lifestyle to allow those who are using the service, to succeed. i believe this is deliberate because the plan is to use those who have never been able to rise above the poverty line, to kill those who have managed to, either as a result of skin color, gender, inheritance, community or just natural evolution of societies. in effect, all those trillions of dollars they spend every year, are being deliberately side tracked to ANYTHING except helping those in poverty on social assistance.

this is why both democrats and republicans should be calling for the quality of life issues of the impoverished to be drastically improved. we should force them to reveal their hand, that they aren't helping the poor because they're genuinely interested but because they want a ready made army of very ticked off poor people to use in their eugenicist wet dream. in effect, the eugenicists have a firm grip on the american government as well.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in