Press "Enter" to skip to content

The imagined threat of ‘die swart gevaar’

It is often difficult for human beings to readily discard particular views and prejudices that had long been imprinted in their minds through socialisation and experience. Often our worldview is informed by these particular conceptions, however preposterous they may be. People interpret facts before them according to their well-ingrained conceptions of what reality is and should be.

It was actually not surprising to see the panic-stricken reaction to the article I wrote that “We are not all Africans, black people are!” People responded not to the salient features and actual content of the article but to their own irrational fears of what could be implied and the motivation behind whatever it is they imagined was implied in the article. This is a problem with living in a paranoid society that is still haunted by its demons of its racist past.

There was a deliberate intent not to discuss the issues raised in the article, but rather to embark on mindless attempts at character assassination in order to distract other readers who had full control of their mental faculties and the ability to regulate their emotions.

There is a technique used by authoritarian and repressive regimes to suppress awful truths from being disseminated in society. These fascists employ underhanded methods against their opponents, the dismemberment of character, the advancement of “die swart gevaar” propaganda and the scaremongering. In some instances character assassination entails the hurling of childish insults and name-calling.

We have seen how apologists of the apartheid state of Israel are always are swift to silence any hard truths about the Jewish nation and the general influence of Jews in the US as “anti-Semitism”. These defenders of Zionism and apartheid Israel invoke archaic memories of the Holocaust through alarmist posturing and theatricals, while not dealing with the truth confronting them. We have seen how the SA Jewish Board of Deputies tends to get its knickers in a knot at every legitimate criticism of Israel. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been labelled anti-Semitic for daring speak the truth about the sad situation in the Middle East. Judge Richard Goldstone had been subjected to indiscriminate and vile attacks by Israel apologists because he revealed to the world the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza.

The New York Times in 2010 also reacted in similar measure of intimidation of Julian Assange when Wikileaks posted classified American military documents that exposed the US war crimes in Iraq. Their journalist made it his mission to personally target Julian Assange when he could have committed his time and energy to investigating war crimes exposed by Wikileaks. Assange was subsequently accused of terrorism and had threats made on his life by simple-minded US politicians because he exposed their duplicity when he released US diplomatic cables. He is now facing what appear to be manufactured charges of sexual assault, molestation and rape in Sweden.

It is laughable that the very people who accused me of wanting to take the country back to the era of racial discrimination and apartheid thuggery, are the very individuals who deal with unpalatable views through the employment of the same repressive tactics of that apartheid era. They became purveyors of untruths and malice reminiscent of PW Botha’s apartheid regime which instilled in whites the paranoid belief that blacks would take over what belonged to them, kill them, rape their women and lead the country to anarchy. The same irrational fear clearly persists today.

These hysterical respondents seem to believe that because racial categorisation was used in the past for nefarious ends, that because the apartheid regime enforced through brute force the preservation of white privilege and entrenchment of white supremacy and Afrikaner Nationalist ideology, these very same things would be repeated by liberated Africans. Africans are not the “barbarians and savages” they had been portrayed to be in the past through “die swart gevaar” propaganda or through collective brainwashing of minorities back then.

The nauseating hysterics in the country at the moment in reaction to anything race related serves to confirm the popular mistrust that exists within the very fibre of our society which pretends to be united, even without any coherent elucidation and deeper understanding of that which unites them.

In South Africa, the question of race is unnecessarily sensitive. To readily summon the ghost of Verwoerd when the subject of race is raised shows the level of immaturity, childishness and irrational paranoia among the minorities. Then there are those obsessed with political correctness, those who attempt to ingratiate themselves to whites through pretences of promoting unity, reconciliation and the preservation of the pretentious Kumbaya moment. What they are doing is placing a Band-Aid over a festering wound and creating the false impression of healing. Unity and reconciliation should never be promoted under false pretences. Openness about the reality that confronts a nation trying to make sense of the aftermath of apartheid should be promoted. We cannot be speaking in hushed tones because we fear to hurt the fragile feelings of some.

The paranoia that existed during apartheid towards African Nationalism cannot be tolerated. It is stupid of any person who claims to have progressed beyond the concept of racial polarisation to be troubled by the fact that black people are called “Africans”. South Africa is a constitutional democracy that affords all individuals protection from racial discrimination. There is legal recourse for any individual who falls or imagines him/herself a victim of racial discrimination. It is absolute nonsense to even attempt to create the impression that a discussion about race has a sinister motive for “reverse discrimination”. The infantile outbursts that seek to alter the truth must stop, lest some increase the risk of their vital arteries bursting from unnecessary self-induced stress. I am not sure how many pacemakers malfunctioned as a result of this nonsensical excitement.

After all the noise, the kicking and screaming, the fact remains what they were and what will continue to be in the near future. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act and the Employment Equity Act is unequivocal in its definition of black people, who are “Africans, coloureds and Indians”. The mid-year population estimates by Statistics South Africa clearly distinguishes the population in terms of how it’s racially defined: Africans, whites, coloureds and Asians (Indians and Chinese). What’s with the hysteria?

Those who see their commitment to Africa as being defined by the identity — “Africans” — should refocus their energy towards understanding and embracing all that is African; closing the racial gap and making a concerted effort to not merely tolerate other races but be part of them. That today we still have the majority of whites in South Africa who struggle to pronounce African names, never mind speak fluently at least one African language, is a shame. It raises questions about the claimed “Africanness”, commitment to national unity and general patriotism. I would advise Sarah Britten, Chris Roper and their legion of hysterical supporters to commit themselves to the abovementioned and let their actions speak louder than their words and hysteria.

Let Africans be! Let us pride ourselves in this diversity we forever preach about and the multi-racialism that is not imagined but real. Racial paranoia and hysterics are “counter-revolutionary” and distract the nation from its commitment to transformation, unity and general harmony among all races.



  1. V3 V3 9 January 2011

    Your logic and “facts” are so pathetic that (to paraphrase British author Jane Austen) I won’t pay you the compliment of rebutting it.

  2. Palaboran Palaboran 9 January 2011

    I believe the boere volk are missing an opportunity to overcome BBBEE and kindred discrimination. The vast majority of the volk carry black genes and therefore should proudly claim their africanism. The ANC would then have to redefine the definition of black and african and this definitley will prove to be an impossible task!! So my broer, take courage and have a genetic test to prove the point and stuff into the constitutional court!

  3. blogroid blogroid 9 January 2011

    I have no idea what a “kumbaya moment” is… please clarify. I would also note that i routinely seal off “festering wounds” with ‘band aids’ whether on myself or my kids. I find it seals off the wounds from polluting atmospheres and the wounds heal faster.

    This curious obsession you [and others] are attempting to prolong over race is becoming quaint. We are a country of about 50 million persons of whom approximately 3 million are white [or roughly 6 percent. In another decade it will be 3%. we are yesterday’s people… in another 20 years it will be less than 1%, and the majority of whiteys seen around may be tourists.

    This is now a black country, get used to it and pull finger. You should be concerned about this idea that whitey still ‘controls’ the “commanding heights” of the economy because it suggests that the economy is ‘SHRINKING’ … something borne out by the routine evidence presented by the treasury in its annual budgets [when discounting for inflationary theft.]

    It is moot that there are probably more ‘foreign’ black ‘immigrants’ in South Afrika today than there are so-called ‘white’ people.

    Get real… Stop obsessing about honkeys: we are on the way right out of the picture … and if the new ruling class don’t start performing then you may well find the picture terminally blurred.

    “A country that licks old wounds cannot go forward.” [Latvian President 7/11/2000 BBC Hardtalk]

    We are not going forward.

  4. Greg Greg 9 January 2011

    Selentse, Is it so difficult to comprehend that there are two meanings to the word “African”. The first being “African” as in “Black” African, as during the Apartheid times! Nobody can deny that during Apartheid that when anyone referred to an African, it meant a “Black” person! Coloured`s, Indian`s, Chinese, Japanese, American`s, where referred to a such (Even if some Americans where “black”). I was not a “European”, I was a “White South African”, classified under the “European” signs erected during Apartheid. If a white persons direct parents came from one of the European countries, they where referred to as being “European”, they where not referred to being “South African” as their children whch where born here!
    When I look in the mirror, I see a “white” person (I`m not an “African” – as per first definition), but I was born in Zambia and raised in South Africa, therefore I am an “African”, I am certainly not “European” ,I was not born or raised in Europe. Are White American`s or White Russians or White Australians referred to as “Europeans” or are they referred to as American`s, Russians, Australians? If you passed matric with more than 30% & logic prevails you should have an answer of firstly “South African” and secondly “African” (Even though i`m white)! Now that wasn`t to hard was it? Can you please start writing some sensible articles again, I rather enjoyed your writings before!

  5. Greg Greg 9 January 2011

    World English Dictionary
    African (ˈæfrɪkən)

    — adj
    1. denoting or relating to Africa or any of its peoples, languages, nations, etc

    — n
    2. a native, inhabitant, or citizen of any of the countries of Africa
    3. a member or descendant of any of the peoples of Africa, esp a Black person

  6. Greg Greg 9 January 2011

    Selentse, just a general comment, growing up during apartheid years, I was never led to be believe that other people of “Colour” where inferior to me, but rather that they where “Different” to me. Black`s from overseas for example where believed to be equal and where superior (Education, Status) they where afforded the necessary respect (It is still so to this day), what I was taught was that “Apartheid” meant “seperate development”, i.e Everyone was developed according to their own own cultural background & abailities (because the black`s development i.t.o the modern world was far behind that of their white counterparts), they had to be developed and exposed slowly to the modern education systems. (Think maths & science as an example). I was never taught by my parents, nor did I ever observe my parents treating any person of colour with disrespect, in actual fact our domestic worker (housekeeper or maid in those days) would often give me a good spanking or klap alongside the ear if I misbehaved, then she would tell my parents (If it was severe enough) and I would get another spanking from them. If I see class difference between races (They exist even within races) I am I a racist? No! We are all born equal, the opportunities we grasp and the decisions we make determines wether we become unemployed, working class, middle class or upper class or just plain criminals!

  7. Save SA vote DA Save SA vote DA 10 January 2011

    Ok, this version makes a little more sense than the orifinal piece Sentletse. I find that one of the best ways of understanding someone’s viewpoint, is to imagine yourself in their shoes.

    using this method, someone like yourself could perhaps understand the nervousness that exists amongst the white community at times. What with Julius threatening our death and using the cokroach word willy nilly, all without censorship from the ANC, only a stupid man wouldn’t be a tad nervous.

    I’m sure the Hutu commentators also laughed at the Tutsi’s when they expressed concern about the rhetoric being hurled at them in the months leading up to…..well we all know what happend to that minority.

    So although I still have some faith that we will be allowed to participate openly, and eventually be regarded as citizens beyond the threats of cheap politicians, I can understand why some are concerned. Your attempt to further de-Africanise us by virtue of our pigment levels, only throws salt into this wound.

    I hope you can perhaps spend 5 minutes thinking about what a white African feels when these things are said, and endorsed by senior politicians.

    It may open your mind up a little, and allow you to see us as fellow Africans. Ultimately we all aim at the same things, and our differences are a lot less than our similarities. Take away the pigment, and there’s no difference to our humanity.

  8. Themba Tantrum Themba Tantrum 10 January 2011

    As mentioned above by many posters there are 2 fundamental ways to look at this. African = Black skin and African = From Africa.
    On the first point it is obvious that the term african *usually* denotes black skinned people on this continent. ON the second point anybody who is born in africa is an african regardless of their heritage and it doesnt matter what the author or anybody else says as this is how the majority of sensible people will see it.

    This then begs the question as to what the point of Sentletse *thought* piece is? He is not actually saying anything that is not obvious to most people of average intelligence. I suspect, as some posters above have suggested, that like some other “thought leader” contributers that topics (often religious or race based) are chosen specifically for the reaction they will garner and the attention they will bring the author in terms of comments etc etc on this site and others.
    As for the target audience of this piece I suspect that Sentletse is aiming/angling for a new job where most of his readers will be of a less intelligent kind but he has succeeded in proving his worth for attracting readers and controversy. Hopefully he will succeed in whatever he is angling for and be too busy to punish us with more of his pointless pieces..

  9. Blah Blab Blah Blah Blab Blah 10 January 2011

    Well to make the author of this pseudo-intelectual ramble happy, I think everybody in south afica should pack their bags and head back to europe or north of the border. Because ultimately this land belongs to the San bushmen. The whities arrived from Europe and the “blacks” from North Africa so none of us are truely South African. If you want to be bring about racial reform properly, the ANC should vacate office and the country should be handed over to the bushmen while we all apologise for beating them senseless and chasing them into the desert. But I dont think the “africans” will buy that idea…Useless article.

  10. Ash Ash 10 January 2011

    I’d really really like to see you telling Mike Tyson that he is not an American …

  11. Ash Ash 10 January 2011

    LOL and also to see you telling the illustrious Libyan leader that he is not an African!

    So is it only in South African that Indians are ‘black’ people?, I wonder why Idi Amin didn’t know that …

  12. Mpho Mpho 10 January 2011

    @ ANGIE, Where in History’s name do you get your facts from?

  13. lizzy lizzy 10 January 2011

    I imagined the article would deal with the topic of ‘the threat of die swart gevaar’ in a more comprehensive way. for example, in michael moore’s ‘bowling for columbine’ he discusses the american media which (intentionally or not) agressively portrays the concept of the black man as a criminal, a character to be feared. It would have been great to read, how, despite the end of ‘die swart gevaar’ in a overt sense, the same kind of villification still takes place in SA. why are whites still generally afraid of this mythical construction of blackness? and how is this being countered?
    anyway, I’m sure that by the time you read through all the other angry or congratulatory comments this one will fall a bit flat. think its good that you made an attempt to justify the original argument, but feel that you could have taken the opportunity to make new and interesting points…

  14. anton kleinschmidt anton kleinschmidt 10 January 2011

    I posed a number of questions based on SDs retreat into the old apartheid “swart gevaar” laager. To whit:

    1/ How do you define “swart gevaar”
    2/ Does your definition of “swart gevaar” include the “gevaar” / dangers inherent in failing education, health care, power supply, crime prevention,service delivery riots, divisive alliance politics, divisive race relations and incompetent political adminsistration.
    3/ Is it only white people who are mindful of these dangers
    4/ And the crux…..Are you confusing “swart gevaar” with the more specific “anc gevaar”.

    The fears expressed by most whites (and many thoughtful blacks) relates to the inability of the ANC to govern effectively for the benefit of all South Africans. These are valid concerns which SD seeks to policise / racialise.

  15. Phila Phila 10 January 2011

    Setlentse You are spot on as before, you don’t say whites are not South Africans, but they should embrace their heritage Europeans to refer to their race as Indians and Chinese do. An African in France will be French citizen but that will not make his race European though he is a Europe citizen this is due to his heritage.

    When we say an American we normally refer to USA, South American as Latino’s. but still blacks in Latin America are referred to as African’s. Only in Brazil due to mix-race that they embrace to be Brazilian rather than Latino’s or American. French-Canadians are happily French and Canadians. Funny enough Canadians they don’t refer themselves as American.

    Afrikaans was forced on us therefore it was and it will remain a language of oppression in our eyes. Those who speak it let them do so with pride.

    @Greg you are so confused, think about it! a Chinese becoming African, the fact that he is defined as black for economic transformation it does not make his race to be African. I Chinese will be proudly Chinese he will not seek to change his race. The fact that you are called “White” (even though there’s no white part in you that is not present in black people) your heritage and race is European.

    Peter Tosh “don’t you where you come from, as long as you are a black man, you are an African.”

  16. Ash Ash 10 January 2011

    Kay, not every Dutch person understands Afrikaans and definitely not every person who speaks Afrikaans can immediately understand all a Dutch person says.

    Mpho, what kind of history did you learn about the Khoi and San? Why do you think that Xhosa has so many clicks in it? And then, be honest now, why do you think that Xhosa has so many words of Afrikaans origin in it?

  17. Greg Greg 10 January 2011

    @ Phila,
    You must be one of those that passed matric on the 30% scheme. I never said a “Chinese” can become an “African”, read my comment sllooowwwwllllyyyyy, what I said was:
    “Coloured`s, Indian`s, Chinese, Japanese, American`s, where referred to as such (Even if some Americans where “black””
    meaning they where & are still all referred to as e.g. “Chinese”, or “American”.

    …furthermore I wrote:

    “When I look in the mirror, I see a “white” person (I`m not an “African” – as per first definition), but I was born in Zambia and raised in South Africa, therefore I am an “African”, I am certainly not “European””.

    …meaning I cannot be “European”, my great, great, great, great, grandparents actually originated from Canada, (in between my families have come from South Africa, Rhodesia, Zambia, Ireland, and even USA, so what does that make me now in your book? and if I trace each parents family history the picture becomes even more skewed! It seems the only one that is confused here is you Phila!
    I am firstly a “South African” (I have an ID to prove it) and secondly an “African”(as in originating from the African continent, look-up the word in your dictionary for clarity (read sllooowwwllllyyy)? I am not “black”, neither do I ever wish to be, but i certainly am an “African”

  18. Greg Greg 10 January 2011

    Origins of light skin (wikipedia)
    The main hypotheses which attempt to account for white skin suggest it is an adaptation to inadequate ultraviolet radiation. As humans moved out of the tropics, a conspicuous latitude gradient of skin tones follows the OUT OF AFRICA dispersion, it is argued natural selection for sufficient ultraviolet penetration to enable vitamin D production gave rise to the evolution of skin pigmentation by the mechanism of evolution by natural selection. Deleterious health effects of insufficient vitamin D are also pointed to as confirmation that skin lightening was in response to strong selection pressure for maximizing vitamin D.[33][34][35] A variation of the vitamin D argument is that humans lived in Europe for several thousand years without their skin lightening and that it only became white after they adopted agriculture.[33][36] It is suggested that in Europe the latitude permitted enough synthesis of vitamin D combined with hunting for health, only when agriculture was adopted was there a need for lighter skin to maximize the synthesis of vitamin D , therefore it is suggested the elimination of game meat, fish, and some plants from the diet resulted in skin turning white several thousand years after modern human settlement in Europe…TO BE CONTINUED

  19. Greg Greg 10 January 2011

    A 2006 study concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection. According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, light skin probably arose in NORTH AFRICA or BOTH in the NORTH and EAST. Skin color is a quantitative trait that varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified. However, two genes that are known to contribute to skin color are MC1R and SLC24A5. The mutation resulting in the light skin version of the SLC24A5 gene has been estimated to have originated in Europe between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago, indicating that at least one of the genes responsible for pale skin colour in Europeans arose relatively recently.

    I guess the above also makes all us “Europeans”,”AFRICAN”!

  20. mgeve mgeve 11 January 2011

    Winnie, in an interview by Naipul said: “You know,sometimes I think we had not thought it all out. There was no planning from our side. How could we? We were badly educated(Bantu education) and the leadership does not acknowledge that. Maybe we have to go back to the drawing board and see where it all went wrong. The ANC was in exile. The entire leadership was in exile or in or in jail. And there was no-one to remind the people, African people, of the horror and tier daily reality; when something so abnormal as Apartheid becomes a daily reality. It was our reality. And four generations had lived with it – as non people. … The times dictated it, the world had changed(On when Mandela went to receive the Nobel Peace Price with de Klerk), and our struggle was not a flash in the pan,it was bloody to say the least, and we had given rivers of blood.” I could go on citing Winnie, but suffice to say that, the detractors of Africans, stripping them of the identity, language and culture, have come back n full force to make this a reality by telling us “Africans that we are not Africans”, that “Afrikaans is an African language”; That “they see themselves as Africans”- rushing pell-mell into claiming their being African, and still maintaining their European identity. At issue in the comment boxes, is “African Identity Theft” gibbberish. Africans in Aouth africa were not Africans… continued below

  21. mgeve mgeve 11 January 2011

    Africans were called Natives, Kaffirs, Bantu, Plural, and so forth, but never African. This comes down the Apartheid dark days, bestowing on a people it regarded as non-people the stigma of not being “Africans”. So, it is no wonder that some White people arrogate themselves the right to rename themselves in the place of the people they have never respected nor recognized as human beings, let alone as Africans! In reality, although Apartheid memories have been shredded and incinerated. the experience of being a victim under Apartheid, whilst blaming the victim of gross abuses of human rights[Africans], do not need to claim that they are Africans, they are, and the present ploy to de-Africanize Africans is not something new – same old same old. That then is “Die Swart Gevaar” in the psyche of white fears. Wilson states: “For oppression begins as a psychological fact and is in good part a psychological state. If oppression is to operate with maximum efficiency, it must become and remain a psychological condition achieving self-perpetuating motion by it own internal dynamics and by its own inertial momentum. European historiography legitimation and support , is essentially a “social machine” which manufactures a consciousness and behavioral orientation in African peoples designed to serve the purposes of White supremacy.” Wilson concludes: “We must be instructed by [African] history and should transform history into concrete reality, planning and development, construction and ensure our survival as as people.” Africans in South Africa have the right being Africans decisively.

  22. Ian Ian 11 January 2011

    When Africa and African Leaders show themselves to be a continent and people to be proud of – then I may aspire to that title for myself.

    Until then who really wants the title African anyway?

  23. Chris Potgieter Chris Potgieter 11 January 2011

    Maybe Ian should tell us if he subscribes to:

    Definitions of African on the Web:

    •a native or inhabitant of Africa
    •of or relating to the nations of Africa or their peoples; “African languages”

    My Dutch cousins call me an African because that is what I am.

    I cannot call the Eoropean because the are from Holland and they very quickly point out that they are my Dutch cousins not my European cousins.

    The border of “European”, as a country, have yet to be defined.

  24. The Crimson Rambler The Crimson Rambler 11 January 2011

    A friend of mine likes to remark that “minor surgery” is, by definition, surgery on SOMEONE ELSE, not me. On that analogy, I think, “archaic memories” are SOMEONE ELSE’S memories, not mine. Mine, of course, are vivid, vital, formative, imperative.

  25. fergie fergie 11 January 2011

    @AE, slaves that were shipped to the new world came from all over Africa and this includes SA. Along the gulf of Mexico, there was a lot of Zulu slaves in this area of the US. I find it to be sad that Africans know very little about the slave trade that went on for 350 years.

  26. fergie fergie 11 January 2011

    @Sentletse,I understand what you are saying in your article, if one is black one will be called an Africa regardless of what country that person comes from. However, for a along time in the US the blacks were not considered Americans because they were blacks even though these people were cultured part of the US.

  27. Wendy Wendy 12 January 2011

    Just so that we are all on the same page: Afrikaans is a West Germanic language, spoken natively in South Africa and Namibia. It is a daughter language of Dutch, originating in its 17th century dialects, collectively referred to as Cape Dutch.Although Afrikaans borrowed from languages such as Malay, Portuguese, French, the Bantu languages or the Khoisan languages, an estimated 90 to 95 percent of Afrikaans vocabulary is ULTIMATLEY OF DUTCH ORIGIN!

  28. Chris Potgieter Chris Potgieter 12 January 2011

    Q Wendy on January 12th, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    A language is defined by useage in a particular country. Afrikaans originated in South Africa and not in any of the Germanic speaking countries. It is therefore unique to Africa.

    Look at the origins of English then tell me it is language of origin in Great Britain.

  29. Wendy Wendy 13 January 2011


    There is nothing original or unique about something that is 95% derived from something else.
    If people from Netherlands(who speak dutch as a home language) and are not African People can understand what people who speak afrikaans (in South Africa)are saying then how can it be claimed as an original African Language. If Afrikaans was an Article it would be called plagiarism.

  30. Chris Potgieter Chris Potgieter 13 January 2011

    @ Wendy on January 13th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    The language is endemic to South Africa and no where else.

    Italians understand Spanish so which one of the two is then the dominant one?

    In my immediate family the mix of language is quite something else but they all claim to be Africans first and go to great lengths to foster the ideals of the country.

    Unfortunately we have in our midst people who do not want whites in the country.

    Please take a look at the reality of life, especially the last minute and a half of:

  31. Una Una 15 February 2011

    Sarah Britten et al have perfected the art of twisting the truth. Black people all over the world are known as Africans. Even those in America refer to themselves as African Americans including Obama. The acknowledgement of this fact has not barred African Americans from participating fully in American affairs but they know who they are. Obama at the congress that officially nominated him as the candidate for presidency, stated exactly who he is and where his father is from.

    Why are “some whites” afraid of acknowledging where they come from and that is Europe. This does not translate into their cizenship being taken away.Obama understands this perfectly. It is dark skinned people who originally come from Africa and it does not matter which part of Africa. The president of DRC did not originally come from that country and so is the disputed president of Ivory Coast, Ottara. South Africa is a country of Africans be it of Khoi or other ethnic group. All other ethnic groups who are not indegenous Africans are welcopme to leave here without fear and participate fully in politico-economic matters. What is the farce?


  32. frederic frederic 4 March 2012

    I think that the problem is that people are telling each other ghosts stories and they end up believing them. They keep alive the thought of “die swart gevaar”.

    I have been told over the years:
    There will be only one election, then we will be wiped out.
    When Mandela step down we will be wiped out.
    After the world cup we will be wiped out.
    When Mandela died we will be wiped out.
    When I walk to work I see very little white people in the street, “because it is not safe”, but at the crossing there is a white beggar lady collecting coins. ISN’T SHE SCARED TO BE KILLED OR ROBBED?. Strangely, black motorist are giving her something. I have seen her for weeks now and she is still alive.
    People! If you want these to be your country, regain it. Walk the street full, greet your fellow pedestrians. Know your neighbours, socialize. See each others as people and no more as tribes or races. Learn each other custom and language, even if it is a few words, to greet, to say thank you and please to each other. You are making your country, nobody else. When I walk in the street I mostly see black people, the biggest majority greet, surprised but none antagonistic.
    I prefer a busy road than an empty one. By keeping it empty we make it unsafe and surrender it to the thugs.
    Sentletse would be happy I am sure if his writing could trigger such a positive action. All the commenting is worthless, THE MAN IS RIGHT. “swart gevaar” is very much alive and it causes unity peace and…

Leave a Reply