Press "Enter" to skip to content

Africans, Afrikaners and their determination of purpose

Paul Kruger (1825-1904), a symbol of Afrikaner resistance against the British, said, “One who wants to create the future must not forget the past.” If we, as South Africans, are determined to sweep away the perverse vestiges of racialism that afflict our society, we ought to appreciate the past in order that we do not repeat it. However, many would rather bury their heads in the sand, forget and ignore the past as though it never existed.

Our history is rooted on conflicting nationalistic aspirations between black people and Afrikaners; both imbued with the spirit of nationalism, Afrikaner nationalism and African nationalism – each proceeding from an ideological position that conflicted with the other.

Afrikaner nationalism was an impetus for the Great Trek, the migration of an estimated 12 000 Voortrekkers who were discontent with the imposed British rule, to Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal regions. These Afrikaners were unified in the belief that they were not only superior to the Africans but also shared common abhorrence of the liberals in the Cape Colony.

African nationalism required revolutionary liberation of Africa by means of unity among the colonised nations. African Nationalism demanded that Africans revive their cultures and their traditions from those least influenced by colonial rule. While Africans everywhere else in Africa were demanding liberation from colonial rule, Africans in South Africa were insisting on liberty from Afrikaner repression.

Anton Lembede (1914-1947) said, “A new spirit of African nationalism or Africanism is pervading through and stirring the African society. A young virile nation is in the process of birth and emergence. The national movement imbued with and animated by the national spirit is gaining strength and momentum.”

The history of Africans and Afrikaners is intertwined; it is a history of suffering courage and resistance against repression. The Afrikaners gained their independence from British rule after the Anglo-Boer war and 1948, when the National Party rose to power, heralded the beginning of legislated discrimination and oppression of Africans.

“What do Afrikaners talk about while standing around the “braai” — fire? There, where they are alone and need not be politically correct? They speak of feeling like strangers in South Africa – being powerless with no future. Each tells his own story of injustice and unfairness within the work place (just because he is an Afrikaner) – of his frustration with civil servants’ inefficiency. His children no longer qualify for bursaries and are unable to find jobs,” Dr Pieter Mulder, Leader Freedom Front Plus, remarked, highlighting irrational fears of the few who appear deeply paranoid about current political and economic circumstances. Fears that are far divorced from reality as it is and as it should be.

The dawn of the new political dispensation in 1994 presented hope that South Africans would be unified with common purpose to rebuild the country, but the unfolding political events post liberation indicate that a unified South Africa that we aspired to is still but a distant dream. There is a few Afrikaners that are determined to exclude themselves from efforts of nation building and reconciliation.

One would have expected that the political parties would have been making a determined effort towards deracialising politics and providing alternatives for all South Africans regardless of colour; that none of the political parties would be constituted along ethnic or racial lines.

The Freedom Front Plus (FF+) proudly proclaims that it is irrevocably committed to the protection and advancement of Afrikaner interests. The aim of the party is to establish a fair and legitimate dispensation for Afrikaners in South Africa, as well as to attain freedom for the Afrikaner in a territory of his own.

None of us would dispute the right of Afrikaners to protect and advance their own interests. The Afrikanerbond, a reincarnation of the Afrikaner Broerderbond, was established in 1994 to advance and promote the Afrikaans language and culture. It therefore defies logic that a political party such as the FF+ would be determined to take us back to 1948, when segregation was the root of all discontent. I do not believe that the majority of Afrikaners espouse the narrow-minded ideology pursued by the FF+. The majority of Afrikaners are progressive and want to see a country unified proudly under one flag instead of seeking a territorial autonomy that the FF+ is advocating.

The FF+ says, “This ideal can be realised by way of an evolutionary process commencing with group autonomy at local government level, leading then to self-determination at regional, provincial and finally national level.” Divisive politics take us a few steps back, when we attempt to make progression towards a truly rainbow nation. The FF+ is out of touch with reality.

Afrikaners and Africans share a common history and it is their commonness that would rapidly propel us to destinies far beyond the reach of the mortal eye. Let us then unite with one mind and one determined purpose. Let us restore the hope without which liberation and even life itself are but dreary things. If there be any among us who wish to defer this hope, let them stand alone, isolated as caricatures of dreadful absurdities.

“Africa unite!” — Bob Marley



  1. Xolani Xolani 16 September 2008

    To Lyndall:
    In light of the following: “Ons Kan
    Why should it be preserving culture for the San to be given their own RDP village, school, and clinic outside Kimberley; if the same does not apply to the Afrikaner in Oranje?”
    What you forgot to mention was that the San and the Khoi have forever lived isolated and separate from other ethnic groups in SA. They did not ask govt to grant them separation but they requested govt to ensure that their isolated and minute villages are protected from the influx of other fellow South Africans.
    Now the Afrikaners have forever been part of the greater South African nation. They have never existed in isolation. So why give Afrikaners land that they do not even own on the basis that they are a minority?
    Another thing she forgot to mention the fact that the San and the Khoi are natural and historical inhabitants of South Africa and Southern Africa (note that a great many of them still exist in Namibia, some parts of Botswana and many other places) whose vast exploitation by the west, Britain, former colonial masters and the Boere administration namely the NP has left them landless with a few remains of what still exists of their culture.
    We must agree that the heritage, culture, language and so forth of the San and the Khoi is by far the most dwindling and most needy for intervention and protection. In-fact their existence is under extreme extinction- even today! With the land and all in Kimberly. So the govt’s actions are warranted in protecting, preserving and securing –amongst various elements- their very existence.
    Lyndall forgets to mention that the very same Afrikaners who now must be given land are the very same that legislated the brutal slaughter and extreme murders of the San and the Khoi tribe. By allowing laws that permitted the killing, hunting, raping etc of the San and Khoi on the grounds that they were “animals”.
    And let’s agree that no animal –especially a wild animal, as they were referred to as- could ever possibly lay a charge of rape or theft of its property etc. ..
    So now those very Afrikaners must be given the same level of protection as the Khoi? That is just naïve, nonsensical and hugely irritating of Lyndall to suggest! How dare she think let alone utter such gimmick.
    This is the kind of opportunism the Afrikaner exhibits to hijack the Bill of Rights, constitution and law of this country to persuit his own self serving and dangerous actions and interest(s) –to mention but just a few attrocities.

  2. Liansky Liansky 16 September 2008

    Wow Xolani, i was under the impression that you were a coconut. You are freakin on fire man. I feel almost turned by the heat.

  3. Garg Unzola Garg Unzola 16 September 2008

    This is the kind of opportunism the Afrikaner exhibits to hijack the Bill of Rights, constitution and law of this country to persuit his own self serving and dangerous actions and interest(s) –to mention but just a few attrocities.

    Xolani, let’s look at the Bill of Rights, shall we?

    9.1 Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

    Woops. I guess that means no AA or BEE? That’s hardly treating every person as if they had equal benefit of the law. If this does not apply to certain groups within South Africa, then what is the use of this section of the Bill of Rights?

    18. Everyone has the right to freedom of association.

    I guess that means the San people can choose to associate with the rest of us South Africans, or not. Just like some of the Zulu people have been rooting for their own, independent homeland for years.

    Why should those Afrikaners who feel that they want to associate only with other Afrikaners be excluded from this Bill of Rights?

    And if they should, what is the use of the Bill of Rights if it is not universally applicable to all South Africans?

    The point of the Bill of Rights and the constitution is precisely to allow each and every one of us the pursuit of his own self serving, ‘dangerous’ actions and interests.

  4. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 16 September 2008


    The Afrikaners bought the Oranje land – it was not given to them, nor did they ask for land OR houses from the state.

    And why do you think the Koevoet guys had Koi trackers – they HATED the blacks. Buddy – the black tribes wiped out MANY more of them than the whites did! And WHAT laws that allowed anyone to be killed – give us YOUR references. Not that the blacks actually WROTE down any laws about killing Koi, or any other rival tribes for that matter – they just did it.

    And I have already given you the reference from the book “Beyond The Miracle” by Allister Sparks on the changes to the Constitution – and that is NOT the only book this is mentioned in. It actually surprises me we have such bad journalists that no-one has done an article on this!

  5. Cool Down Cool Down 16 September 2008

    Rewrite you last post and add in Black settlers
    or do see them as the original land owners
    of South Africa.Is this not a case of the pot
    calling the kettle black?

  6. David David 17 September 2008

    Regarding amendments, start by Googling “SA Constitution Amendments”.
    Regarding mis-interpretation, you stated “David your protection of the “autonomy” of the VF+” – protection I never afforded.

    Back to the topic at hand:
    Would you accept local autonomy if it were offered equally to all races and ethnic groups and prohibited any discrimination?

  7. Xolani Xolani 17 September 2008

    To Lyndall, Garg Unzola, David, Japes, Cool Down, Liansky and the likes:
    Moving on, you forgot to mention the balance test and exceptions that exist in our laws to allow for broader and greater equality. Section 9 of the Bill of Rights refers to Equality now upon further study the constitution states: “2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.”
    Now how do the Afrikaners fit into this category? And why should the AA and Bee/BBBEE be defaulted? If you consider the following excerpt taken from an academic journal entitled “African Study Monographs” Author: J Tanaka He/she clearly states in this journal that “

    Notice the part that says; “. .as well as by the immigration of the Dutch people . . .” Now ask yourself who those Dutch people were. Were they not Afrikaners? If, you think not go back to the traces of the Afrikaner, their independence and history. You will have no doubt that it was in-fact Afrikaners.

    It is clear from the numbers (or statistical information, if you prefer) above, let me quote them to you that; “The number of survivors up until the 20th century is estimated to be 50 000 to 60 000 (San and khoi people).” That the Khoi and the San needed that much protection from the govt as opposed to the Afrikaners.

    And more shockingly: “Out of these survivors most have been deprived of their lands and lead a life dependant on immigrated white and Bantu peoples.”
    Furthermore, J Tanaka continues to inform us that: “Only about 5 000 of them (the Khoi and the San people) are still hunter-gatherers as were their ancestors” Now clearly Lyndall’s crocket arguments, comments and question(s) in asking that: “Why should it (the government) be preserving culture for the San to be given their own RDP village, school, and clinic outside Kimberley; if the same does not apply to the Afrikaner in Oranje?” Cannot be given consideration in that they ignore the reality and absolute brink of an extinction crisis that the San and the Khoi face.

    I can gladly inform you that the whole of Free State has more than 60 000 Afrikaners. So why the need for this “so-called” “autonomy” when clearly there is no extinction crisis facing the Afrikaners?
    Do you see the hijacking I was referring to? Hhhmm!

    Lyndall authoritatively laments –as if she is about to cane me, to mention the very least- “The Afrikaners bought the Oranje land – it was not given to them, nor did they ask for land OR houses from the state.” But that was not my interest at all, my interest(s) however is if the Afrikaners as a minority SOLELY deserve the same kind of isolated protection as the Khoi and San people?
    Bearing in mind that Afrikaners –although a minority- still have the following:
    • Their Boere Land on condition that there is no Land claim on it.
    • Their solely Afrikaner medium schools, communities, towns, universities, newspapers, universities (more than 3 for that matter) and so forth.
    • Their language protected –amongst various other interventions- under the indigenous people’s language policy of the Dept. of Education.
    • To mention but just a few elements

    Now let’s turn the tables around. What do the Khoi and the San have?
    • Pretty much nothing!

    Therefore is the Afrikaner -although a minority- equal or even the same to the Khoi and the San in historical oppression, suffering and attrocity? Obviously NOT!
    Why then should the Afrikaner be given the same benefit(s)?

  8. Xolani Xolani 17 September 2008

    To David;

    In light of the following: “Would you accept local autonomy if it were offered equally to all races and ethnic groups and prohibited any discrimination?”

    No I wouldn’t support such a repressive and historically erroneous step. History taught us especially here in SA that homelands will never work in SA. In light of this new democratic dispensation, I do not want to go back to “autonomous” racist homelands.

    The Group Areas Act no.41 of 1950 clearly outlines how people should be separated and managed exclusively. An ideology that is against democracy, principles of human rights and dignity, constitutionality and fair governance -amongst various other important elements.

    I repeal and I am in complete refute of such a move which is why I have also mentioned that it is sinister for the Zulus –or any other African tribe- to think and demand that this democratic government give (sell or transfer etc) them land on the basis that they want to be governed separately.

    I cannot emphasize this more, the Afrikaners, Zulus and various other minorities in SA are not in a brink of an extinction (as the San and the Khoi) crisis therefore requests as bizarre as “autonomy” from SA or as part of SA cannot possibly be entertained especially if we claim to be a constitutional democracy.

    I am not a repressor an oppressor or a fanatic of such gibberish nonsensical ideologies. I see no benefit, good and democracy in being “autonomous” on the sole basis of language(s) or race!

  9. Cool Down Cool Down 18 September 2008

    Let me repeat my question.Do you see the Black
    settlers as the original owners of all the
    land in South Africa?Please refrain from
    selected quotes as this is a simple question.

  10. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 18 September 2008


    Most of what you write has been answered before. You are just continually rehashing. ALL cultures are supposed to be preserved – but there is little left of the San culture, except in Botswana.

    Not only were there NO laws that allowed the killing of the Khoi-Khoi or San, there was even a law that they could not be enslaved – and this when there still was slavery, during the days of the early Dutch settlement. This is not Australia!

  11. Xolani Xolani 18 September 2008

    To Lyndall:

    Kindly be advised to bury the hatchet!

    Which questions have already been answered because clearly David have not come out with specifics in their understanding of this “autonomy” you support so eagerly.

    As far as the San and Khoi being shot and hunted down. You should have watched that San movie on SABC:3. Oh! Boy would you have been informed.

    But there is no-need to dispare. I am still searching for my sources/references etc on the legislation that promoted the human slaughter of the San and Khoi. As soon as I conclude my findings, I will supply the appropriate information.

    So just hold onto your seat please!

    In light of the following: “ALL cultures are supposed to be preserved – but there is little left of the San culture, except in Botswana.” Do you still compare the minority of the Afrikaner to the Khoi and San people.
    Well if you still do, then you are so naïve it is not even funny!

    The Afrikaners DO NOT deserve “autonomy” in the same thinking that the Zulus, English etc will never be given independent kingdoms to run, manage and control- amongst various other things.

  12. Xolani Xolani 18 September 2008

    To Lyndall:

    Where is your proof that: “Not only were there NO laws that allowed the killing of the Khoi-Khoi or San. . .” Why not share the historical facts thereof?

    Now this you HAVE got to tell me where you got it from, really! “. . there was even a law that they (the San and Khoi people) could not be enslaved. .” Bull dust Lyndall and you know it!

    Let me refresh your memory on history.

    • When the Cape Colony became a British Colony in 1806 the Europeans needed cheap labour to persuit their interests in developing businesses and dominating the Cape, against the Dutch, as a complete British Colony.
    • As a result of the “First Black Wars” in 1779 where the Bantu fought with the San and Khoi for domination of land and so forth. The minority San and khoi were left dissolute without land, cattle etc
    • An easy target for slavery by the British (as they were so vulnerable and had lost many of their men in the “Bantu wars”) and that is how the San and Khoi people were enslaved by the British and Dutch.
    • The reason they could not enslave the Bantu was because of the newly resurrected powerful kingdoms of the Nguni(they were vengeful, had strong worriers and had just defeated the enemy and had ulatimately won the war, land, livestock etc) Hence the inception of Shaka’s “career” (in 1818) and development of the then to be extremely powerful Zulu Kindgdom by way of Shaka, the Sotho by way of King Moshweshwe (in 1823) and various other “Bantu” leaders of that time.
    • So you are blatantly lying by uttering “there was even a law that they could not be enslaved” Kindly tell me, which law exactly.
    • The San and Khoi were the most severely enslaved. Have you forgotten about Sarah Baartman? Then you must have no memory at-all.
    • Furthermore slavery was abolished in 1834 but ONLY in the Cape Colony.

    I would suggest that you read “ Racism and Apartheid in southern Africa” –South Africa and Namibia Compiled by the Anti-Apartheid Movement /Unesco Press-1974

    It is of note that you care to know that this history was well within the Dutch Settlement Era (beyond and above)1652. Your refusal of such FACTS is absolutely irritating to mention the very least.
    Your reference to Australia I find rather disturbing and utterly irrelevant.

    What has Australia got to do with anything in soputhern African history? I referred you to a source by J. Tanaka on the Kalahari –Namibia, South Africa and Botswana amongst various other African countries such as Angola. Now where on Earth is the reference to Australia, I most certainly never mentioned it!

    And for your own sake check you FACTS first before you jump the bandwagon please! Have you ever heard of the following?:

    I suggest you get down with research my dear!

  13. Xolani Xolani 18 September 2008

    To Cooldown:
    We must agree that much of the land was owned by the black inhabitants/black settlers and fellow Africans etc and not the Afrikaner or then referred to as Dutch Settlers and Europeans.
    Therefore, not ALL the land was conquered by these black inhabitants. And most definitely after the wars etc the San and Khoi lost most of their land. Hence why the govt had to protect them.
    Now that same kind of protection cannot be afforded to the Afrikaners as they are simply not in dire need of such protection as compared to the San and Khoi dwindling minority

  14. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 18 September 2008


    If you mean the programme “The Art of God” on SABC on 14 September – I watched it and I recorded it. SABC is hardly an unbiased source you know! And I did note the shooting of the Khoi – very dramatic, but one of the few parts of the documentary with no historic details. Not that I do not think that individual farmers did not shoot them – but it was definately against the law. And this is a MUCH later period in history than the original Dutch occupation – slavery had been abolished by then.

    Did you not notice that the British Magistrate who first wrote down interpretations of the paintings could do so because he had a San guide? Also that later these records were tied up to records taken by the Blakes in Cape Town, who had San prisoners boarding in their house? The San did get caught for sheep stealing and did land up in prison. I remember many years ago reading that certain colonialists were concerned because the San could not cope with confinement- it was too alien to their culture. So permission was given to concerned reigious groups to keep them in their homes during the period of their sentences. You did not notice those parts of the story did you?

    As far as I am concerned if the Xhosa, and Zulu, and Venda, and Sotho can all have kings – why not every other cultural group? Not that the Afrikaner would want a king! They are fierce Republicans!

  15. Cool Down Cool Down 19 September 2008

    I have been waiting for your reply because
    that is there your argument falls flat.
    If you had followed some of my earlier posts
    in which I supplied the best early population
    statistics it was impossible for the early black
    and white settlers to occupy ‘much’ of the
    land because they simply did not have the numbers
    to do so.
    If you study these population stats carefully
    it will show that only after population
    explosion of ‘black people’ claims were made
    and your own assumption came to the fore
    that blacks and other indigenous people
    occupied most of the land.
    Because if the early white settlers had arrived
    in droves like they did in America and whites
    here had numbered 60 million and more instead of 4.2million today this debate would not even have
    featured here.
    Strange that no one not even ‘Old fox’ came
    back and questioned the credibility of these stats.
    So the fact is that South Africa was a sparsely
    populated country which allow the early settlers to
    travel miles inland before encountering people.

  16. Xolani Xolani 19 September 2008

    To Lyndall:

    All that I wanted from you was an acknowledgement that white farmers shot the San and Khoi on the basis that they were savages of the bush and animals.

    The mere fact that you do admit that these inhabitants were shot on the basis of race is all I wanted from you.

    As far as the other parts of the history and the white magistrates. I did take note of particularly the stealing that the Khoi and San had now resorted to. Because of having no land, livestock, losing their traditional ways of hunting etc

    You will notice that they could no-longer move around freely as land (where they used to hunt) was now privately owned either by the Dutch farmers or the Bantu themselves.


  17. Xolani Xolani 19 September 2008

    To Lyndall:

    What I find irrelevant is the following; “As far as I am concerned if the Xhosa, and Zulu, and Venda, and Sotho can all have kings – why not every other cultural group? Not that the Afrikaner would want a king! They are fierce Republicans!”

    What erupted that statement, please enlighten me? I do not remember uttering that other black nations should have their own tribal Kingdoms (at the cost of other black nations or) while others do not! I really did not say that, therefore I find it shocking that you refer to me to such, when I clearly did not ask to be referred to such.

    What exactly is your point by raising that irreverent issue? Please tell/inform the “House of Traditional Leaders” about your concerns and not me!

    To begin with I am no “Traditional Leader” so I would be unfit –by that very nature- to have a conversation/argument/discusion etc with you about that -or any such relevant matters- nor have an appropriate opinion on such matters, really now!

    Furthermore, I do not recall repealing the “fierce republican” nature of the Afrikaners. Therefore your statement that so heavily defends -when there really was no request let alone provocation to defend Afrikaners so strongly, as if they were under complet attack or elimination- such a concept I find unwarranted, inconsequential, unfounded to mention the very least.

    What exactly were you trying to say? What were you trying to prove- amongst various other elements?

  18. Xolani Xolani 19 September 2008

    To Cooldown:

    Well you did not give any sources to those stats so kindly forward them to me so that I can assess, evaluate and scrutinize them –amongst various elements one of them being relevance.

    Do yourself a favour and provide a link to such “best early population statistics”. It is funny that you refer to info that you gave on an old blog with Oldfox about such statistics.

    I can’t really have any kind of discussion with you up until I have the info that you Oldfox and various others have/had access to.

    With all the mishaps you find the urge to say that my argument falls flat. Again where is the proof of this? Where are your reasons for my “poor” argument. Stop playing kindergarten “I won and you lost” please, spare us- me especially- the infant mentality.

  19. Cool Down Cool Down 20 September 2008

    First of all this is not kindergarten and I am
    not about to spoonfeed you.You made certain assumptions which I say are wrong.So it is up
    to you to prove me wrong.So go and do your
    own research in this regard.

  20. Oldfox Oldfox 20 September 2008

    Garg, Lyndall,

    Forcing China to firstly permit Opium trade and later (after 2nd Opium War in 1860) to legalize opium (opium distribution had been declared illegal in China in 1729) NOTHING to do with either British culture or medicinal uses of opium.

    It was all about economics. China was the biggest tea producer at the time, and Britain imported huge amounts of tea, but the Chinese imported nothing from Britain, leading to a huge trade deficit.
    China was self sufficient, and required nothing from other countries, so the British fought wars and forced the defeated Chinese to import opium, thereby ending the trade deficit problem.

    As many as 10% of the Chinese population became addicted to opium, accelerating the decline of China. Other sources say total no. of addicts addicted to opium, heroine and morphine was as many as 70 million in 1949. It took Communist rule to quickly end addition.

    Forcing the Chinese to import opium was one of the biggest injustices in world history.

  21. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 20 September 2008


    Where was the opium imported from – surely it was not grown in Britain? Some part of this story seems missing.

  22. Oldfox Oldfox 21 September 2008


    Nothing missing from my “story” as the source of the opium is irrelevant (provided it came from outside China).

    But, if you really want to know, the British got the Opium from India and had it shipped to China.

  23. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 21 September 2008


    You said the forcing of the Chinese to buy opium was to improve the balance of trade for Britain. How did importing it from India do that? And can you please give some reference for India growing opium. This is not a part of history I know much about, and I would like to know when India grew opium.

    Just for interest sakes, I have just been reading a Lawrence Green book, where he praises the doctor’s “opium powders” for the help he gave him! Opium was a medicine in the west – but then, at an earlier time, so was the deadly mercury.


    Have answered you twice – and been deleted twice. There are obviously some holy cows on Thoughleader!

  24. Xolani Xolani 22 September 2008

    To Lyndall:

    Has it ever appeared to you that perhaps your comments are not as the prescribed guidelines and procedures?

    Try editing them and try again.

  25. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 22 September 2008


    I quoted some published historians – they just don’t follow the party line. I am perfectly aware of the guidelines and procedures and did not flaunt them. This does not just happen to me – others have e-mailed me with the same problem.

    It would be much easier to post on my own blog and refer you to it, but Amagama has been down for 2 months, and I have been too lazy to start another blog.

  26. Oldfox Oldfox 22 September 2008


    Before the British forced opium upon the Chinese (who knew of its medicinal properties many centuries before) the British had to pay in forex for Chinese tea.

    The British got cheap opium at source in India, got the Chinese to pay for it, and used the profits from this heinous trade to pay for the tea, silk and porcelein they (the Brits) bought from the Chinese.
    So they ended up getting the Chinese goods with little or no British forex!

  27. Oldfox Oldfox 22 September 2008


    While doing some research into your (rather preposterous) argument that if blacks had been discriminated against in England the time of Dickens, he would surely have written about it, I came across yet more information that the 19th century Brits were certainly not the paragons of virtue you sometimes make them out to be.

    “There were never enough ‘voluntary prostitutes’ to meet the voracious Victorian demand. Consequently, enterprising entrepreneurs established a system of obtaining ‘involuntary prostitutes’ Men who wanted sex with little girls were prepared to pay a good price, and a standard pricing system brought about twenty pounds for a healthy working-class girl between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, a hundred pounds for a middle-class girl of the same age; and as much as four hundred pounds for a child from the upper class under age twelve… ”

    I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the above widely quoted statement, which comes from a book written in 1980.
    Be that as it may, people around the world have, for millennia, have engaged in cruel or revolting stuff, and I think we don’t lessen tensions between different ethnic or cultural or religious groups by adopting a “holier than thou” attitude.
    Every British child learns about the “Black Hole of Calcutta” I once read. How many British children learn that the British in the 19th century executed many Indians in India by tying them across the mouths of cannons, and then firing the cannons?
    Or that the British deliberately allowed around 3 million Indians to starve to death in Bengal in 1943?
    History, as they say, is written by the victors.

  28. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 23 September 2008


    I have now posted this 4 times. You are off the point. This debate took place first months ago – obviously you missed it. The argument then was that the MAJORITY of the poor in Britain were black, until the racists Brits “cleaned” Britain of blacks by shipping them to Sierre Leone.


    Hopefully whatever moron was moderating over the weekend is off the desk.

    I quoted the historians about how THE LAW was that the Khoi-San could not be enslaved. I also pointed out that the law was not always observed by the citizens – just like now.

    I specifically pointed out that no law in SA at present allows babies to be raped to cure AIDS, or farmers to be murdered to increase the status of the perpetrators when they get to prison (Reference: Johnny Steinberg “The Number”); but people ignore the law.

    My beef with you was you said it was the law to allow Khoi-San to be raped and enslaved – it was NOT!

  29. cf cf 12 October 2008

    I can only say that racism is WRONG!!!! Someone’s race or colour off their skin doesn’t matter, its about morals and values and integrity! It can be white against black, black against white and everyone against Asians! If it wasn’t the Afrikaners who went forward and defeated the British at the time, I am sure that South Africa would be in a similar situation to Zimbabwe putting the blame on colonialism ( The British), the real truth of it is if you ask me? It does not matter where in Africa you are it’s different to the rest of the world. If you were anywhere else in the world and you were claiming Landownership 200 years back from ancestors who occupied the land before they would most possibly laugh at you and give you forms to fill out that would take 20 years and then be denied any action. The only reason the rest of the world lets RSA go on as it is….we have Gold, Diamonds and the rest! Most of the land I think you will find was not taken but sold or exchanged through agreements in benefit of both seller and buyer at the time, however ignorant and uneducated both sides were as were not talking about our social and economic literate South African community of today…… But that’s now easily forgotten! I think it’s not directed in the proper manner and if these claims are subjective and applicable then Landownership should be divided between the current occupants and returning rightful if so,occupants and so labour and profit shared, that’s the only way that RSA will avoid the whole Zimbabwe situation!

  30. Lyndall Beddy Lyndall Beddy 13 October 2008


    The reason the missionaries and the British authorities insisted on tribal lands being set aside was so that the black chiefs could not sell them and the white farmers buy them.

    The Griquas for instance were granted most of the area around Kimberly by the Crown – and sold it (almost all the diamond fields!)

    Also our black racists forget that when land was carved up, protectorates were granted in Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana for the blacks, instead of allowing these to be incorporated into SA. So if you are going to fairly work out percentages you have to add these into the calculations.

  31. Mark Stuart-Howie Mark Stuart-Howie 19 March 2009

    Good article,but how about acknowledging English-speaking South Africans or have you unwittingly bought into the old NP “anti soutie” propoganda?

Leave a Reply