Johncables402:


So you think xenophobia is peace . I prefer the whites , they are civilised and better than the blacks. You said yourself the blacks there only live in shanty towns with nothing better to do but attacking innocent Nigerians. Do whites live like this?. Are whites trying to steal land and properties of blacks or the other way round . Stop promoting evil against others .

1. You talking about apples and oranges. Xenophobia is product of Apartheid which is a product of Colonialism which is a product of Violence which is product of uncivilized people.

2. All blacks do not live in Shanty towns. A good number of them do so don't misquote me.

3. Go and read your history bro, You are speaking out of misplaced anger.

morpheus24:


1. You talking about apples and oranges. Xenophobia is product of Apartheid which is a product of Colonialism which is a product of Violence which is product of uncivilized people.

2. All blacks do not live in Shanty towns. A good number of them do so don't misquote me.

3. Go and read your history bro, You are speaking out of misplaced anger.

You are clearly an untravelled villager. Go to South Africa and you will hate those blacks over there . See them poor and jealous of us because the whites like us better because we are hardworking . You don't know what you are talking about. How come no one black is the airport or a place of business or nice place ?. Is that not because of stupidity and laziness?

Johncables402:


You are clearly an untravelled villager. Go to South Africa and you will hate those blacks over there . See them poor and jealous of us because the whites like us better because we are hardworking . You don't know what you are talking about. How come no one black is the airport or a place of business or nice place ?. Is that not because of stupidity and laziness?

Now you are just telling lies on the internet. Anyone who knows me on this platform knows how laughable the above statement you just made is.

Which airport did you land at, DF Malan, King Shaka or Or Tambo and which airport did you not see blackpeople. The entire immigration officers are black both at OR tambo and Cape town airport.

The Staff at OR tambo are 95% black, the uber drivers outside are black, the people at the hotels are black e.t.c.

Just stop and swallow your pride, before you make a fool of yourself with me.

Johncables402:


You are clearly an untravelled villager. Go to South Africa and you will hate those blacks over there . See them poor and jealous of us because the whites like us better because we are hardworking . You don't know what you are talking about. How come no one black is the airport or a place of business or nice place ?. Is that not because of stupidity and laziness?

ha ha ha!

morpheus24:


They are not S. African they are pseudo Dutch/European settlers masquerading as African people.

They are not Africans by blood granted but they are Africans by "soil" I guess. Your statement is like saying white Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans etc are masquerading as Americans since the "aboginal" Indians are the real Americans.

IronGalaxy:
They are not Africans by blood granted but they are Africans by "soil" I guess. Your statement is like saying white Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans etc are masquerading as Americans since the "aboginal" Indians are the real Americans.

The above is an incorrect analysis of my contention. Let me clarify.

Black Africans are indigenous to the continent

Asians indigenous to their continent

Australians indigenous to their continent

Europeans indigenous to Europe.

Native Americans indigenous to their continent

Anyone that moves from one area to another can join a "national Identity" or nation state_ in other words an identity that is based on a nation state bound by sovereignty, borders and often similar cultural practices.

This is the reason a White South African identifies strongly as a "SOUTH" African but not generally as an African because they adhere to the above premise

PS. You can become African or part African genetically by inheriting the DNA that is only indigenous to the continent but again this is not the case with Afrikaaners.

morpheus24:


The above is an incorrect analysis of my contention. Let me clarify.

Black Africans are indigenous to the continent

Asians indigenous to their continent

Australians indigenous to their continent

Europeans indigenous to Europe.

Native Americans indigenous to their continent

Anyone that moves from one area to another can join a "national Identity" or nation state_ in other words an identity that is based on a nation state bound by sovereignty, borders and often similar cultural practices.

This is the reason a White South African identifies strongly as a "SOUTH" African but not generally as an African because they adhere to the above premise

PS. You can become African or part African genetically by inheriting the DNA that is only indigenous to the continent but again this is not the case with Afrikaaners.

we all know who's indigenous to where, but you must remember many nations were created by either colonialism or slavery resulting people indeginous to other places settling elsewhere, for example, ancient Mexicans were made of Aztecs and other indeginous tribes but the Spanish came and colonised the Mexicans creating a distinct people and culture, likewise you cannot say for example that Afro-Brazilians are "masquerading" as South Americans by virtue of having African lineage, that would mean even white Brazilians can't be Brazilians since they also trace their origins to Portugal. So who's Brazilian then? Everyone who makes what Brazil what it is right now! The black people of Britain trace their roots mostly from Carribbean countries of whom in turn trace their origins form Africa and yet the Black British are as British as the Queen. That is why I made an example using the United States, America as a concept was born as a result of immigrants, anyone who identifies as American bar the "native" Americans can trace their lineage elsewhere, the whites to Europe, the Blacks from Africa and so forth, then I ask .these people can't call themselves " Americans" before their forefathers originated somewhere? Are these people "masquerading" as Americans then? If you can easily call all other races bar " native" Americans as "Americans" then you shouldn't struggle to call white people " South Africans" since both whites form SA and USA got into these lands though similar means . Colonialism

IronGalaxy:
we all know who's indigenous to where, but you must remember many nations were created by either colonialism or slavery resulting people indeginous to other places settling elsewhere,

I just pointed this out. Nation states can be a conglomerate of different racial identities thus the reason why Afrikaaners or White South Africans tend to label themselves as "South African"_a nationality versus refering to themselves as "African' which they reserve for native peoples even within their society.

IronGalaxy:

for example, ancient Mexicans were made of Aztecs and other indeginous tribes but the Spanish came and colonised the Mexicans creating a distinct people and culture,

Aztecs were not "ancient Mexicans" before the spanish arrived, they were ancient Aztecs i.e indigenous Americans. The spanish europeans aks White people arrived and mixed with the indigenous populations to create a large number or mestizo peoples who are now refered to nationally as Mexican. Today you can still identify people of European descent who are Mexican as well as people who are indigenous Americans who are Mexican as well. Do you get the point?

IronGalaxy:

likewise you cannot say for example that Afro-Brazilians are "masquerading" as South Americans by virtue of having African lineage, that would mean even white Brazilians can't be Brazilians since they also trace their origins to Portugal. So who's Brazilian then? Everyone who makes what Brazil what it is right now!

You are misconstruing nationality with ethnicity or race. Brazil is a nationality in the same way that South African is a nationality. An Afro Brazilian is and African of Brazilian nationality. A White Brazilian is a Brazilian of European descent. Anyone else that falls between a mix of all the peoples that populate Brazil ie. Black, Indigenous American and White can claim partial ancestry from any continent depending on what they choose to identify as or what they look like.

IronGalaxy:


The black people of Britain trace their roots mostly from Carribbean countries of whom in turn trace their origins form Africa and yet the Black British are as British as the Queen. That is why I made an example using the United States, America as a concept was born as a result of immigrants, anyone who identifies as American bar the "native" Americans can trace their lineage elsewhere, the whites to Europe, the Blacks from Africa and so forth, then I ask .these people can't call themselves " Americans" before their forefathers originated somewhere? Are these people "masquerading" as Americans then? If you can easily call all other races bar " native" Americans as "Americans" then you shouldn't struggle to call white people " South Africans" since both whites form SA and USA got into these lands though similar means . Colonialism

Again White South Africans do identify with their nationality- South African. They do not identify as African. Identifying with your nationality is fine however as I said earlier no European is going to mistake a Black british man as European because he knows this individual is not an indigene.

Johncables402:


What is your problem with white South African?. They are the most peaceful over there , you should have problems with the blacks who want what the white worked for all this time . Blacks are lazy and stupid.

I can't help but laugh at your stupidity. The only stupid here is you.

Johncables402:


You are clearly an untravelled villager. Go to South Africa and you will hate those blacks over there . See them poor and jealous of us because the whites like us better because we are hardworking . You don't know what you are talking about. How come no one black is the airport or a place of business or nice place ?. Is that not because of stupidity and laziness?

3/10 Nigerians in South Africa are hardworking the rest are the parasites who give the rest of Nigerians a bad name. We South Africans don't hate Nigerians we only hate those of you who are involved in crime and mind you there's plenty of those in SA. South African and Nigerians mostly live in harmony and this is never reported in the media.

If you think whites love you then you are truly naïve bordering on madness. The blacks in SA constitutes the largest middle class in SA and they do live in good areas, the only issue is that there's 20% of blacks live in informal settlements.

You talk a lot of bullshitt.

The ignorance displayed here love how everybody is talking on behalf of White(specifically Afrikaners) South Africans without actually ever speaking to one.

jln115:
The ignorance displayed here love how everybody is talking on behalf of White(specifically Afrikaners) South Africans without actually ever speaking to one.

I have spoken in fact have debated with many of them. I would point out that the ones I debate with tend to be more of british or other euorpean ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind. The former are little bit more open minded in general.

morpheus24:


I have spoken in fact have debated with many of them. I would point out that the ones I debate with tend to be more of british or other euorpean ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind. The former are little bit more open minded in general.

Many you say!!! From reading your comments it sure doesn't sound like it.

jln115:
Many you say!!! From reading your comments it sure doesn't sound like it.

Since you assert that it is not likely that I have done so, kindly enlighten us on what specifics that have brought you to that conclusion and we can address that.

morpheus24:


Since you assert that it is not likely that I have done so, kindly enlighten us on what specifics that have brought you to that conclusion and we can address that.

-"They are not S. African they are pseudo Dutch/European settlers masquerading as African people": Boer people have no ties with Europe anymore, no family, no immediate ancestors, don't share the same culture, are genetically different.... So how are they just masquerading as Africans

- "Yes and they move once they feel they have lost" Did they move after the second boer war?? Did they move after 94? If you actually look at the immigration stats the vast majority of those that moved are of English decent.

-"Why don't they stay and fight. They are 'African" right?" I don't get this question.... Are you implying that Boer people don't fight ?

-"PS I have rarely met a White S. African who proclaims that he is Africa" This is a ret@rded question....why must a white person PROCLIAM his African in your presence.... In fact I've played football with guys from all over Africa and not one as proclaimed his African when I ask him where his from. And another thing in SA, the word African is used as a designation to a race hence you also won't hear a white SAn PROCLIAM is African since his white.

- this whole post:

morpheus24:


The above is an incorrect analysis of my contention. Let me clarify.

Black Africans are indigenous to the continent

Asians indigenous to their continent

Australians indigenous to their continent

Europeans indigenous to Europe.

Native Americans indigenous to their continent

Anyone that moves from one area to another can join a "national Identity" or nation state_ in other words an identity that is based on a nation state bound by sovereignty, borders and often similar cultural practices.

This is the reason a White South African identifies strongly as a "SOUTH" African but not generally as an African because they adhere to the above premise

PS. You can become African or part African genetically by inheriting the DNA that is only indigenous to the continent but again this is not the case with Afrikaaners.

jln115:

Boer people have no ties with Europe anymore, no family, no immediate ancestors, don't share the same culture, are genetically different.... So how are they just masquerading as Africans

Yes they do have ties with Europe in many ways.

1.Historical- the history of South African Boers/Afrikaaners begins in Europe and demonstrates through settler life, community, language and culture that they have been under European influence including that of the british, leading up to the unification of South Africa in 1910. They have maintained this influence both in their economic, religious, social and political sphere.

2. Socially speaking they have maintained a relatively Euro-centric culture and have adopted minimal to zero African cultural practices. They continue to speak a derivative of a High Dutch used int 17th century and have minimal incorporations of African words in their language structure or sentence formations.


3. Genetics- Most if not all "Boer" are 100% European. Genetic studies have been conducted amongst these groups and results continue to point towards 95-100% European genetic makeup, an effect of a structured isolation that was encouraged and practiced pre-1948 before Aparthied laws even began to exist. Boers in general are a combination of many European groups of people which mostly include the Dutch, French Hugenots, Scottish deserter soldiers and many a Germany defectors and religious groups as well. This the bulk of their genetic makeup.

Land conquest is the only major tie they have to that part of the continent.

jln115:

Did they move after the second boer war?? Did they move after 94? If you actually look at the immigration stats the vast majority of those that moved are of English decent.

There was no incentive to move after the second boer war because their kindred or "their kind" still controlled South Africa, something they did not detest to the extent that they do now. The british had made several concessions to their communities after these wars that allowed them to continue to flourish as government representatives and as farmers in general.

Afrikaners are migrating to the UK and Australia even though those of English and other European ancestry tend to do so more easily because of closer ancestral ties. .

jln115:



I don't get this question.... Are you implying that Boer people don't fight ?

Not at all.

I am speaking of the present Boer/Afrikaaner communities that exist today not the Paul kruger era Boer.

jln115:

This is a ret@rded question....why must a white person PROCLIAM his African in your presence.... In fact I've played football with guys from all over Africa and not one as proclaimed his African when I ask him where his from. And another thing in SA, the word African is used as a designation to a race hence you also won't hear a white SAn PROCLIAM is African since his white.

1. He/She doesn't have to proclaim anything to me specifically but generally speaking this is not the norm in their community in comparison to other particularly "sub Saharan peoples". A Nigerian in normal conversation with other Africans is not hesitant in using this term more so than a WSA Same would go for a Ghanian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Congolese. This is fact. There a preponderance of you tube videos out there that stand as evidence. Just search for a conversation among Africans and listen.

2. I have been to many countries in Africa as well and I would contend that your statement is false. In conversation with groups of Africans in different countries concerning issues within the continent the general term is used interchangeably with their nationality. This has not been my experience with North Africans or White South Africans in "general"

3. "Black" is the major designation for people of African descent in South Africa. It's interchangeability with the word "African" strengthens the argument that White South Africans do not see themselves as "Africans" otherwise it would defeat the purpose for the use of the term.

The word therefore is a "racial" designation and is used as such even among black people to differentiate themselves from people of European or Arab descent that are not indigenous to the continent.

This practice is similarly in North Africa as well where "black" is interchangeable in lexicon with "African". This again strengthens my argument between identification as an "Arab" or so called "North African" and an "African"

morpheus24:


Yes they do have ties with Europe in many ways.

1.Historical- the history of South African Boers/Afrikaaners begins in Europe and demonstrates through settler life, community, language and culture that they have been under European influence including that of the british, leading up to the unification of South Africa in 1910. They have maintained this influence both in their economic, religious, social and political sphere.

2. Socially speaking they have maintained a relatively Euro-centric culture and have adopted minimal to zero African cultural practices. They continue to speak a derivative of a High Dutch used int 17th century and have minimal incorporations of African words in their language structure or sentence formations.


3. Genetics- Most if not all "Boer" are 100% European. Genetic studies have been conducted amongst these groups and results continue to point towards 95-100% European genetic makeup, an effect of a structured isolation that was encouraged and practiced pre-1948 before Aparthied laws even began to exist. Boers in general are a combination of many European groups of people which mostly include the Dutch, French Hugenots, Scottish deserter soldiers and many a Germany defectors and religious groups as well. This the bulk of their genetic makeup.

Land conquest is the only major tie they have to that part of the continent.



There was no incentive to move after the second boer war because their kindred or "their kind" still controlled South Africa, something they did not detest to the extent of abandoning South Africa, in fact they acknowledged the superiority of the British but would have preferred the Dutch or Germans come to their rescue as they had petitioned to form alliances with these two nations when they existed as the Transval and Free state republics, plus the british had made several concessions to their communities after these wars that allowed them to continue to flourish as government representatives and farmers.



I am speaking of the present Boer/Afrikaaner communities that exist today not Paul kruger South Africa. A good number of Afrikaaners since 1994 did "repatriate" out to other countries primarily the UK( this included SA of british descent and Afrikaaners as well) and a majority Afrikaaner group to Australia. Some relocated to distant countries as far as Georgia and Canada as well. A smaller number to the US.


This is a ret@rded question....why must a white person PROCLIAM his African in your presence.... In fact I've played football with guys from all over Africa and not one as proclaimed his African when I ask him where his from. And another thing in SA, the word African is used as a designation to a race hence you also won't hear a white SAn PROCLIAM is African since his white.


1. He/She doesn't have to proclaim anything to me specifically but generally speaking this is not the norm in comparison to other particularly "sub Saharan peoples". A Nigerian in normal conversation uses this term more so than he would use the term "West African: in casual conversation with another Africa. Same would go for a Ghanian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Congolese etc, much rarely so with North Africans or White South Africans in particular.

2. I have been to many countries in Africa as well and I would contend that your statement is false. In conversation with groups of Africans in different countries concerning issues within the continent the general term is used interchangeably with their nationality. This has not been my experience with North Africans or White South Africans in "general"

3. Black is the major designation for people of African descent or Bantu peoples in South Africa. It's interchangeable use with word "African" only strengthens the argument that White South Africans do not see themselves as "Africans" otherwise it would seem silly to note "race" with this terminology yet in the same breath proclaim you are "African".

This practice is similarly in the North Africa as well where "black" is interchangeable in lexicon with "African". This again denotes the difference between identification as an "Arab" and an "African" or black person and further strengthens the argument that the person who designates himself as "non-African" indeed understands that though he lives on the continent, is not indigenous to it.

1. Not just Boers have been under European influence in Africa but practically the entire continent, Politically, religion, economically all of Africa have maintained this influence, to conclude that Boers are not African due to this influence than neither are you as a Nigerian thanks to that same rhetoric.

2. Most of Africa have adopted a Eurocentric way of life, again thanks to European influence through colonization.....If you look at the Boer way of life before the 1900s it was more primitive more nomadic compared to that of their European counterparts in fact it was only Eurocentric in terms of religion and not much else. Secondly Afrikaans has developed into a language of it's own so much so that it has lost most of it's Mutual intelligibility with Dutch especially Verbally.

3."Traditional genealogical estimates suggested in the range of 5-7.5% non-European ancestry in Afrikaners, and one study of 185 individuals showed 18% non-European mtDNA." So yes obviously Afrikaners ancestry is still majorly European but one just has to look at the physical characteristics as well of Afrikaners to see how much they've changed vs their European counterparts, Afrikaners are physically larger, Darker and better adapted for warmer climates than your average European.

"There was no incentive to move after the second boer war because their kindred or "their kind" still controlled South Africa, something they did not detest to the extent of abandoning South Africa" Saying that British are kindred to a Boer would get you a major hiding if you had to say it him....Even today there is a great detest towards the British from almost all Boer people.......Also Might I add when the British Colonized other countries in Africa WHY did the so called Africans not move?? did they also not detest British rule to the point they wanted to move?

"I am speaking of the present Boer/Afrikaaner communities that exist today not Paul kruger South Africa. A good number of Afrikaaners since 1994 did "repatriate" out to other countries primarily the UK( this included SA of british descent and Afrikaaners as well) and a majority Afrikaaner group to Australia. Some relocated to distant countries as far as Georgia and Canada as well. A smaller number to the US."

Out of the 4.3 million South Africans that have immigrated to other countries outside of South Africa.....ONLY 50 000 of them where Afrikaners(the Number of Afrikaners immigrating is less than that of any ethnic group in SA). There are currently only about 5000 Afrikaners living in Australia out of a total population of 104 128 South Africans living in Australia....That's less than 5%!!!

1. So what is the norm?? Personally as an ethnically Boer person I see my self as African before I see my self as European and so do most Boer people....Hence why there are vast amount of Boer people immigrating to other African countries like Botswana, Namibia and Zambia rather than to Europe or Australasia.

2. Depends what White South Africans you were talking to, English speaking South African generally don't see themselves as Africans....On the other side of the spectrum Boer people proclaim they can not live anywhere else but Africa since they feel they do not fit in else where.

3. You make a fair point but as i said African is a designation for Race in SA You can't for an example fill in on Application form that you are African when you are a White person since that would constitute as fraud......You might not find a Boer proclaiming his African since his not black but you will even less likely find one proclaiming his European.

"person who designates himself as "non-African" indeed understands that though he lives on the continent, is not indigenous to it."
Answer this question......How many generations must a ethnic group have lived in a certain place to be indigenous to it? Think carefully about your answer

jln115:


1. Not just Boers have been under European influence in Africa but practically the entire continent, Politically, religion, economically all of Africa have maintained this influence, to conclude that Boers are not African due to this influence than neither are you as a Nigerian thanks to that same rhetoric.

Stop playing semantics. You are well aware that the Boer are an extension of European influence and not a by product of it.

jln115:


2. Most of Africa have adopted a Eurocentric way of life, again thanks to European influence through colonization.....If you look at the Boer way of life before the 1900s it was more primitive more nomadic compared to that of their European counterparts in fact it was only Eurocentric in terms of religion and not much else. Secondly Afrikaans has developed into a language of it's own so much so that it has lost most of it's Mutual intelligibility with Dutch especially Verbally.

Lets clarify something before we continue this argument. The Boer are an extension of Afrikaaner culture which is an extension of Dutch European culture. When you say their lives were primitive pre the 1900's that is not all true. Afrikaners were well established in the cape for almost 200 years and traded, kept close ties both economically, religiously, militarily and politically with their Dutch homeland.

In terms of language well High dutch was spoken in the cape for many centuries until the colloquial Kitchen Dutch version spoken by illiterates farmers, immigrant groups and cape coloreds became standard grammar to be taught. Its like saying Jamaican Patio became the formal language used in the country today or Nigerian Pidgin becoming standard grammar.

Dutch people understand Afrikaans to an extent but not so much vice versa because the new language has changed many high Dutch words. Afrikaaners have been solated from the new formations of the dutch language over the centuries so much so that it has become difficult to understand.

There were small pockets of farmers that explored the inner lands. In come the British and a greater number of Boer/Farmers migrate into the hinterlands. As they travel they loose ties to the very well established political, social and economic structures of the Cape. This is were you get your idea of primitiveness. Afrikaaners in the colonies remained quite versed in European culture. The Boers carried with them much of this culture and did not appropriate any religious or cultural practices of any peoples they met on the way. They were strongly aligned with the cape, the British and other allies such as the Portuguese, germans and the dutch. Again they are an extension of European culture and not a consequence of it.

jln115:

3."Traditional genealogical estimates suggested in the range of 5-7.5% non-European ancestry in Afrikaners, and one study of 185 individuals showed 18% non-European mtDNA." So yes obviously Afrikaners ancestry is still majorly European but one just has to look at the physical characteristics as well of Afrikaners to see how much they've changed vs their European counterparts, Afrikaners are physically larger, Darker and better adapted for warmer climates than your average European.

5-7.5% is negligeable and would be consistent with the isolationist point I made earlier. A people who have been in area for more than 500 years do not even have a 10% genetic connection to the people surrounding them.

18% MTDNA and not 18% Autsomal DNA. What this simple means is that out of 10 South African females only 1.8 percent of them can trace their maternal lineage to an African, most likely a Khoisan. This is within reasonable range but still a small percentage. Nothing is 100%.

As I said Most Afrikaners. Boers are 100% European

Afrikaners are physically bigger because they bred that way not as a result of an introduction of African genetics. The surrounding Africans i.e the Bantu and Khoisan are quite smaller is size compared to them in general so where di the size come from. Dutch people on the other hand on average are some the tallest Euorpeans around. I would postulate that they inherited it from that side of the family.

Some Afrikaaners/Boers darker of have increased melanin on their skin because of their greater exposure the sun. period!

jln115:


Out of the 4.3 million South Africans that have immigrated to other countries outside of South Africa.....ONLY 50 000 of them where Afrikaners(the Number of Afrikaners immigrating is less than that of any ethnic group in SA). There are currently only about 5000 Afrikaners living in Australia out of a total population of 104 128 South Africans living in Australia....That's less than 5%!!!

I will concede this point and say White South Africans in general have migrated out of South Africa. The Boer/Afrikaner included.

jln115:

1. So what is the norm?? Personally as an ethnically Boer person I see my self as African before I see my self as European and so do most Boer people....Hence why there are vast amount of Boer people immigrating to other African countries like Botswana, Namibia and Zambia rather than to Europe or Australasia.

You are comfortable in Africa, You do not have solidarity with the continent. There's a difference. If you did you would have not been isolationist during all the independence revolutions in Africa and please don't bring up the wars in Angola, we know what all that was about.

The challenge is for you to re-think the concept of what you mean when you say I am African and if it is in line with the majority of simple said for convenience sake.

jln115:


2. Depends what White South Africans you were talking to, English speaking South African generally don't see themselves as Africans....On the other side of the spectrum Boer people proclaim they can not live anywhere else but Africa since they feel they do not fit in else where.

Yet their entire history has been anti-African and solely based on the homeland, something inspired by their Calvanist dutch religion, which again emanates from Europe and European conquest.

jln115:

3. You make a fair point but as i said African is a designation for Race in SA You can't for an example fill in on Application form that you are African when you are a White person since that would constitute as fraud......You might not find a Boer proclaiming his African since his not black but you will even less likely find one proclaiming his European.{/quote]

A conundrum your people created for themselves. I am only pointing the fact out.

[quote author=jln115 post=78223778]
"person who designates himself as "non-African" indeed understands that though he lives on the continent, is not indigenous to it."
Answer this question......How many generations must a ethnic group have lived in a certain place to be indigenous to it? Think carefully about your answer

That's a subjective question but let me put it like this to you. Genetically speaking a "race" of people are tied to a specific continent which ultimately makes them indigenous to that continent and such can claim originality within that defined space as it is defined today.

Human being in general are linked genetically from continent to continent so much so that there is a link from the genetic material beginning in African and spreading across the globe so technically everybody is from everywhere.

I did not construct this racial or continental identity "thingy" that we use to categorize each other today but I do understand its undertones and use.

So back to your question, how many generations must an ethnic group live in an area to be indigenous, well it depends on the paradigm one uses to construct his response.

That's a subjective question but let me put it like this to you. Genetically speaking a "race" of people are tied to a specific continent which ultimately makes them indigenous to that continent and such can claim originality within that defined space as it is defined today.

Not true. Especially as it relates to Africa and Asia. Anyways the vibe I get sometimes is that no whites should be allowed to live in Africa, but open borders for Europe and N. America. Why does it even matter how Dutch got to S. Africa, walk, ride a donkey, or on a ship.

morpheus24:


Stop playing semantics. You are well aware that the Boer are an extension of European influence and not a by product of it.


Lets clarify something before we continue this argument. The Boer are an extension of Afrikaaner culture which is an extension of Dutch European culture. When you say their lives were primitive pre the 1900's that is not all true. Afrikaners were well established in the cape for almost 200 years and traded, kept close ties both economically, religiously, militarily and politically with their Dutch homeland.

In terms of language well High dutch was spoken in the cape for many centuries until the colloquial Kitchen Dutch version spoken by illiterates farmers, immigrant groups and cape coloreds became standard grammar to be taught. Its like saying Jamaican Patio became the formal language used in the country today or Nigerian Pidgin becoming standard grammar.

Dutch people understand Afrikaans to an extent but not so much vice versa because the new language has changed many high Dutch words. Afrikaaners have been solated from the new formations of the dutch language over the centuries so much so that it has become difficult to understand.

There were small pockets of farmers that explored the inner lands. In come the British and a greater number of Boer/Farmers migrate into the hinterlands. As they travel they loose ties to the very well established political, social and economic structures of the Cape. This is were you get your idea of primitiveness. Afrikaaners in the colonies remained quite versed in European culture. The Boers carried with them much of this culture and did not appropriate any religious or cultural practices of any peoples they met on the way. They were strongly aligned with the cape, the British and other allies such as the Portuguese, germans and the dutch. Again they are an extension of European culture and not a consequence of it.




5-7.5% is negligeable and would be consistent with the isolationist point I made earlier. A people who have been in area for more than 500 years do not even have a 10% genetic connection to the people surrounding them.

18% MTDNA and not 18% Autsomal DNA. What this simple means is that out of 10 South African females only 1.8 percent of them can trace their maternal lineage to an African, most likely a Khoisan. This is within reasonable range but still a small percentage. Nothing is 100%.

As I said Most Afrikaners. Boers are 100% European

Afrikaners are physically bigger because they bred that way not as a result of an introduction of African genetics. The surrounding Africans i.e the Bantu and Khoisan are quite smaller is size compared to them in general so where di the size come from. Dutch people on the other hand on average are some the tallest Euorpeans around. I would postulate that they inherited it from that side of the family.

Some Afrikaaners/Boers darker of have increased melanin on their skin because of their greater exposure the sun. period!




I will concede this point and say White South Africans in general have migrated out of South Africa. The Boer/Afrikaner included.





You are comfortable in Africa, You do not have solidarity with the continent. There's a difference. If you did you would have not been isolationist during all the independence revolutions in Africa and please don't bring up the wars in Angola, we know what all that was about.

The challenge is for you to re-think the concept of what you mean when you say I am African and if it is in line with the majority of simple said for convenience sake.


Yet their entire history has been anti-African and solely based on the homeland, something inspired by their Calvanist dutch religion, which again emanates from Europe and European conquest.

- You say it is just an extention yet you fail to mention that a vast majority of European settlers actually fled Europe due to religious prosecution.... Most notably the French huguenots which make up near 30% of the Boer/Afrikaaner ancestry.... Certainly seems more like a product to me.

- Fair point, yet you thus agree Boer culture and way of life had changed significantly from early Dutch settlers.

- What you're actually saying is Afrikaans is just a creole, in which case you are incorrect(although it started as such), thanks to the Napoleonic Wars Afrikaners were cut of from the Dutch speaking world and hence over a 100 years afrikaans developed into a unique language that was only officially recognised in 1925.

-Again I disagree on the bases that you claim that Boers are a mere extension of European influence, yet when in fact as you said they broke these ties with the minority Afrikaners that stayed behind in the Cape colony and the British and due to this isolation developed a culture although similar in ways to European culture is unique to them. That same Boer culture was reinforced with the new found Afrikaners nationalism which arose in the mid 1920s it was also this time thanks to advancement in infrastructure and communication that Afrikaners in the traditional sense were amalgamated with Boer culture to such an extent that Afrikaaner and Boer are used interchangeably when discribing the modern day culture of a Boer or Afrikaner.

- 5 - 7% is in fact not negligible since the average white person anywhere in the world be it in Asia, Americas, Australasia have an average genetic make up of over 99% European..... Also have no idea how you got to this sum:"out of 10 South African females only 1.8 percent of them can trace their maternal lineage to an African" please explain to which I can respond.

- yes I agree Afrikaners are certainly not bigger due to African genetics....that was never the point I was arguing, what I'm trying to say is that Afrikaners/Boers have developed in to an ethnicity that is unique to Africa and can not be found in Europe..... Hence the difference not just genetically but also the phisical adaptation to the African environment.

- Melanin is Natrual pigmentation..... Hence way black people are black...... Even those that have been living in Europe for several generations. The fact that Afrikaners are Naturally darker is another genetic adaptation that sets them apart from Europeans.... Another adaptation is that on average Afrikaners are less likely to get skin cancer than any other white ethnicity.

- White English South Africans have immigrated in general..... Afrikaners in general have seen a steady growth in their population and immigration has been negligible compared to the actual growth of the population.

- Why are we comfortable in Africa yet other White groups are leaving in their droves Afrikaners have all the means to leave and enjoy a much better and safer life outside of Africa yet choose to stay?? Why is that you think? Also tell me what the war was about in Angola?? Would like to know you're perspective.

- I don't know if you've ever watched the movie Blood Diamond but there is one scene in that movie that answers your question on how Afrikaners precieve themselves the qoute goes something like this: "This red earth, it's in our skin. The Shona say the colour comes from all the blood that's been spilled fighting over the land. This is home. You'll never leave Africa."

- the fact that an Afrikaner person might not like someone because his black doesnt make him Anti African..... Makes him racist yes!! but Black people of different ethnicities/tribes have hated and killed each other for thousands of years and still do.... Does that make them anti African to?

Hopefully this statement from an Afrikaner Boer(Me) would put things beyond all doubt :

Africa is my home, I will defend my home with my bible in the left hand and my rifle in the right from any intruder be it White, Black, Asian ect ect I can not see myself living anywhere but in Africa, and even though I have the financial means to live anywhere in the world I'd rather die fighting for my home than packing my bags and fleeing to Europe. I will live in Africa and I will die in Africa, this is were I was born this is were my father and his father and his father and his was born and this is were I belong.... What I've said above is the exact same feeling 99% of my fellow Afrikaners/Boere have.

No skewed rhetoric of any Nigerian or any other person for that matter can change that.

jln115:
Hopefully this statement from an Afrikaner Boer(Me) would put things beyond all doubt :

Africa is my home, I will defend my home with my bible in the left hand and my rifle in the right from any intruder be it White, Black, Asian ect ect I can not see myself living anywhere but in Africa, and even though I have the financial means to live anywhere in the world I'd rather die fighting for my home than packing my bags and fleeing to Europe. I will live in Africa and I will die in Africa, this is were I was born this is were my father and his father and his father and his was born and this is were I belong.... What I've said above is the exact same feeling 99% of my fellow Afrikaners/Boere have.

No skewed rhetoric of any Nigerian or any other person for that matter can change that.

Good for the 'Afrikaaner", no one was planning to chase you away, Its not in the nature of "the African"

Normally I would rebut but the initial point was to let you know that you are not the first Afrikaaner I have encountered or debated with and probably wont be the last. Your responses reveal you are on the younger side and have much reading to do.

My points stand firm as fact with my personal opinion for all to see on Nairaland, If you say you are African, then that's your perogative to make that assertion. I on the other hand have the right to express mine.

morpheus24:


Good for the 'Afrikaaner", no one was planning to chase you away, Its not in the nature of "the African"

Normally I would rebut but the initial point was to let you know that you are not the first Afrikaaner I have encountered or debated with and probably wont be the last. Your responses reveal you are on the younger side and have much reading to do.

My points stand firm as fact with my personal opinion for all to see on Nairaland, If you say you are African, then that's your perogative to make that assertion. I on the other hand have the right to express mine.

The nature of Africa is violent, Africans have been killing each other and taking land through conquest for thousands of years.... This peaceful nature of an African you are talking about in your post does not exist, the Boer people took some land through conquest(and some they bought) and had to defend it just like any other African tribe.
The reason nobody chased the Afrikaner wasn't due to this false nature you were talking about but due to the fact that there was no tribe physically capable to do so.

I don't know what Reading you're talking about since I'm 100% certain that I'm more verse in the history of the Afrikaner and better placed in speaking for the majority of Afrikaners since I'm actually one and not a Nigerian that thinks he has spoken to a couple of whites and know has this whole understanding of how they think.

Now you personal opinion if you view Afrikaners as African is just that, an opinion and you have that right to express it.

However your opinion on, that Afrikaners don't see themselves as African(thus you speak in behalf of us Afrikaners) but rather a European extension is Factually incorrect and I know this since I myself am an Afrikaner and know the political, religious, and personal view of the majority of Afrikaners.

jln115:

The nature of Africa is violent, Africans have been killing each other and taking land through conquest for thousands of years.... This peaceful nature of an African you are talking about in your post does not exist, the Boer people took some land through conquest(and some they bought) and had to defend it just like any other African tribe.
The reason nobody chased the Afrikaner wasn't due to this false nature you were talking about but due to the fact that there was no tribe physically capable to do so.

1. I never said anything about Africa being peaceful. Your assumption.

2. As far as conquest well that's the story they tell you when you go to your Dutch reformist Churches on Sundays. Which people on earth do you know that would willing admit their atrocities to their offspring?

3. The reason nobody chased the Afrikaner away was because they were an extension of a "European"/Western power that dominated the region not because they were "Afrikaner". The fight was not a fair one.

jln115:

I don't know what Reading you're talking about since I'm 100% certain that I'm more verse in the history of the Afrikaner and better placed in speaking for the majority of Afrikaners since I'm actually one and not a Nigerian that thinks he has spoken to a couple of whites and know has this whole understanding of how they think.

Now you personal opinion if you view Afrikaners as African is just that, an opinion and you have that right to express it.

1.Don't be mad now my friend, my knowledge of South and Southern African in general goes way past just debates or interviews.

2. In suggesting that you read more, the idea is to get you to a better grasp of African history in particular. When I mentioned Angola, you should have understood the reference immediately but you didn't.

jln115:

However your opinion on, that Afrikaners don't see themselves as African(thus you speak in behalf of us Afrikaners) but rather a European extension is Factually incorrect and I know this since I myself am an Afrikaner and know the political, religious, and personal view of the majority of Afrikaners.

I can see you are bruised at this assertion. The conclusion is based on fact and not feelings. Afrikaners/Boers and by extension all White South Africans are an extension of European identity and European conquest. They have and will always be that. They lack an African-consciousness or Pan African consciousness that is inherent in Africa. You can continue to assert your African-ness that's your prerogative. The evidence however is profound and contrary and I have enumerated some points for all to see.


PS I would suggest to all a very good book on South African history. It is an excellent read that contrasts most other South African historical narratives I have read. It is quite blunt and unapologetic. "The history of South Africa" by Eric Walker.

morpheus24:


1. I never said anything about Africa being peaceful. Your assumption.

2. As far as conquest well that's the story they tell you when you go to your Dutch reformist Churches on Sundays. Which people on earth do you know that would willing admit their atrocities to their offspring?

3. The reason nobody chased the Afrikaner away was because they were an extension of a "European"/Western power that dominated the region not because they were "Afrikaner". The fight was not a fair one.



1.Don't be mad now my friend, my knowledge of South and Southern African in general goes way past just debates or interviews.

2. In suggesting that you read more, the idea is to get you to a better grasp of African history in particular. When I mentioned Angola, you should have understood the reference immediately but you didn't.





I can see you are bruised at this assertion. The conclusion is based on fact and not feelings. Afrikaners/Boers and by extension all White South Africans are an extension of European conquest. They have and will always be that. You can continue to assert your African-ness that's your prerogative. The evidence however is profound and contrary and I have enumerated some points for all to see.


PS I would suggest to all a very good book on South African history. It is an excellent read that contrasts most other South African historical narratives I have read. It is quite blunt and unapologetic. "The history of South Africa" by Eric Walker.

1. You said it was not in the nature of Africans to chase "the Afrikaners" or any other people/tribe for that matter. ..... That's false since Africans have "chased" each other off land and so forth for thousands of years.

2. If it wasn't taken through conquest than what was it? Africans have taken land from each other through conquest for thousands of years.

3. What backing did the Boer people have from Europe?? What did Europe do when the British(they are European might I also add) invaded the Boer republics??

1. Get angry on nairaland my friend I come to nairaland for pleasure...... Secondly simply stating you know stuff on an anonymous forum means nothing to me, and judging by your responses it seems your knowledge is simply Google copy and past.

2. My friend I know exactly the reason why the SADF was in Angola not just from simple research but from personal experience since my father, uncles, grandfather's and some of my cousins were all deployed there at one stage during their military service. The reason I asked was to get your view....your reference on Afrikaner identity is so skewed that its impossible for me to assume that your reference on why South Africa was in Angola is correct as well. Hence I asked for your opinion before responding.

Irritated maybe.... Bruised certainly not, you are entitled to your opinion on whether you think Afrikaners are African or just European colonial extention BUT your assertion that Afrikaners claim not to be African but just Europeans living in Africa is incorrect, and it's very simple to prove since here I am as an Afrikaner telling you that, that is not how we view ourselves.

Its now called "the history of Southern Africa" not South Africa anymore.. ....anyway I know of the book but have not read it, and since it was written by a British historian from that era I'm a bit sceptical .... Anyway I'm open minded, what in Walkers book is in contrast with the history I might have been taught?

Edit... So I did a bit of research on Walker and he has been applauded for his book on the Great Trek by South African historians..... So I suggest not using that as refrence since it might not fit your narrative.

jl115:



3. What backing did the Boer people have from Europe?? What did Europe do when the British(they are European might I also add) invaded the Boer republics??

This is why you need to read.

jl115:

1. Get angry on nairaland my friend I come to nairaland for pleasure...... Secondly simply stating you know stuff on an anonymous forum means nothing to me, and judging by your responses it seems your knowledge is simply Google copy and past.

I will refer you to all my past posts if you need evidence as regards my knowledge base. They go way back.

jl115:


2. My friend I know exactly the reason why the SADF was in Angola not just from simple research but from personal experience since my father, uncles, grandfather's and some of my cousins were all deployed there at one stage during their military service. The reason I asked was to get your view....your reference on Afrikaner identity is so skewed that its impossible for me to assume that your reference on why South Africa was in Angola is correct as well. Hence I asked for your opinion before responding.

Good now we have established what you know we can debate this further.

The escapade in Angola was a front for regional influence by SA in the name of capitalism and in an effort to impede communism from infiltrating into the SA controlled "South West Africa"/ Namibia today, sold to the South African public as a fight against communism when in fact was a proxy war for Western powers aligned with the nationalist government which supposedly had a laisse affair approach with the rest of the continent.

jl115:


Irritated maybe.... Bruised certainly not, you are entitled to your opinion on whether you think Afrikaners are African or just European colonial extention BUT your assertion that Afrikaners claim not to be African but just Europeans living in Africa is incorrect, and it's very simple to prove since here I am as an Afrikaner telling you that, that is not how we view ourselves.

one persons assertion against a multitude of evidence.

jl115:

Its now called "the history of Southern Africa" not South Africa anymore.. ....anyway I know of the book but have not read it, and since it was written by a British historian from that era I'm a bit sceptical .... Anyway I'm open minded, what in Walkers book is in contrast with the history I might have been taught?

You are skeptical but open minded at the same time. Hmmm?

He is very blunt in his depictions, he doesn't sugar coat specifics regarding all sides that contributed to the history of South Africa including the so called Boers.

jl115:

Edit... So I did a bit of research on Walker and he has been applauded for his book on the Great Trek by South African historians..... So I suggest not using that as refrence since it might not fit your narrative.

Of course he would, wouldn't he. Its your history. I refer you to the above statement for a clearer understanding, read the book!

morpheus24:


This is why you need to read.



I will refer you to all my past posts if you need evidence as regards my knowledge base. They go way back.




Good now we have established what you know we can debate this further.

The escapade in Angola was a front for regional influence by SA in the name of capitalism and in an effort to impede communism from infiltrating into the SA controlled "South West Africa"/ Namibia today, sold to the South African public as a fight against communism when in fact was a proxy war for Western powers aligned with the nationalist government which supposedly had a laisse affair approach with the rest of the continent.




one persons assertion against a multitude of evidence.



You are skeptical but open minded at the same time. Hmmm?

He is very blunt in his depictions, he doesn't sugar coat specifics regarding all sides that contributed to the history of South Africa including the so called Boers.


Of course he would, wouldn't he. Its your history. I refer you to the above statement for a clearer understanding, read the book!

- the onus of proof lies with you since you are the one that made the assertion, simply stating that I should go read simply means you have no reply to my rebuttal. Secondly when answering the above keep in mind that I am aware of the hand full of foreign volunteers that fought with the boers.... But except for that, the Boers had no actual backing from European except for a tiny bit of empathy and a telex from the Kaiser. The Kaiser was also nice enough to Sell the Boer Republics some very modern weapons of that time.

Why would I waste my time to go through your posts?? Do you even know how a debate works? You're supposed to present me evidence not make me search for evidence it.

Well you are mostly correct with regards to the Border War, But don't really get the wording?? You say this "SA in the name of capitalism and in an effort to impede communism from infiltrating into the SA controlled "South West Africa" yet you totally contradict that statement with this: "sold to the South African public as a fight against communism when in fact was a proxy war for Western powers aligned with the nationalist government"........ Anyway in simple terms the Border war was just another Cold War proxy war.

Your opinion of what an African is, is just that... A opinion. I can just as easly argue that all people in this world are African by origin and that is in fact factually correct. Secondly your original assertion was that Afrikaners don't consider themselves African but rather as European..... You have yet to prove to me that the typical Afrikaners views himself like that......

Open-minded skepticism..... Its actually a thing

You claimed his version of history is in contrast to other South African historians.... Yet when I asked what in his book is in contrast to other historians you have yet to answer.

You've made the claims thus the onus is on you to provide the proof....... Its very simple, obviously(I hope) you've read the book, why not just quote the passeges that support your claims?

jl115:



Your opinion of what an African is, is just that... A opinion. I can just as easly argue that all people in this world are African by origin and that is in fact factually correct. Secondly your original assertion was that Afrikaners don't consider themselves African but rather as European..... You have yet to prove to me that the typical Afrikaners views himself like that...…

"Normally I would rebut but the initial point was to let you know that you are not the first Afrikaaner I have encountered or debated with and probably wont be the last."


"You are comfortable in Africa, You have no[b]solidarity[/b] with the continent. There's a difference. If you did you would have not been isolationist during all the independence revolutions in Africa. To be anti-black is to be Anti-African.

jl115:

Depends what White South Africans you were talking to, English speaking South African generally don't see themselves as Africans....On the other side of the spectrum Boer people proclaim they can not live anywhere else but Africa since they feel they do not fit in else where.

Yet their entire history has been anti-African and solely based on the homeland and the expansion of the "chosen" people, something inspired by their Calvanist dutch religion, which again emanates from Europe and European conquest.

jl115:

However your opinion on, that Afrikaners don't see themselves as African(thus you speak in behalf of us Afrikaners) but rather a European extension is Factually incorrect and I know this since I myself am an Afrikaner and know the political, religious, and personal view of the majority of Afrikaners.

I have spoken in fact have debated with many of them. I would point out that the ones I debate with tend to be more of British or of other European ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind. The former are little bit more open minded in general.

jl115:

You claimed his version of history is in contrast to other South African historians.... Yet when I asked what in his book is in contrast to other historians you have yet to answer.

"It is an excellent read that contrasts most other South African historical narratives I have read.[b] It is quite blunt and unapologetic.[/b]compared to other versions I have read.

morpheus24:



"Normally I would rebut but the initial point was to let you know that you are not the first Afrikaaner I have encountered or debated with and probably wont be the last."


"You are comfortable in Africa, You have no[b]solidarity[/b] with the continent. There's a difference. If you did you would have not been isolationist during all the independence revolutions in Africa. To be anti-black is to be Anti-African.



Yet their entire history has been anti-African and solely based on the homeland and the expansion of the "chosen" people, something inspired by their Calvanist dutch religion, which again emanates from Europe and European conquest.





I have spoken in fact have debated with many of them. I would point out that the ones I debate with tend to be more of British or of other European ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind. The former are little bit more open minded in general.



"It is an excellent read that contrasts most other South African historical narratives I have read.[b] It is quite blunt and unapologetic.[/b]compared to other versions I have read.

-Who are the other many Afrikaners you have debated with? .... Also this statement is in stark contrast to this: "the ones I debate with tend to be more of British or of other European ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind"

- Yes we are comfortable in Africa because this is our home..... But still we could be more comfortable elsewhere and if we so wished could've immigrated in droves like our English speaking counterparts...... Yet we don't and statistically even less likely to immigrate than our fellow Black South Africans.

- This premises of a homeland and expansion is not unique to the Afrikaner, it was practised by all tribes in Africa. A great example of this is the Zulu kingdom.....

-OK it's a great read I get it!!! but that was not your assertion YOU said it contrasts most other South African historical narratives..... And I'm asking you how does it contrast it?? You have yet to give me an answer.

jl115:

-Who are the other many Afrikaners you have debated with? .... Also this statement is in stark contrast to this: "the ones I debate with tend to be more of British or of other European ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind"

Reading and comprehension is necessary here. So "I have debated many Afrikaners" cannot be in contrast to the statement " the ones I debate with tend to be more of British or of other European ancestry versus your Afrikaaner kind". They compliment each other.

Case in point.

If hypothetically speaking I have debated 1000 Afrikaners and I have also debated 3000 SA of British ancestry, both assertions would qualify the two earlier statements previous made. further clarity was given on the greater number of debates had between the two groups because one tended to be more open minded than the other. Something you are obviously proving in here.

jl115:

- Yes we are comfortable in Africa because this is our home..... But still we could be more comfortable elsewhere and if we so wished could've immigrated in droves like our English speaking counterparts...... Yet we don't and statistically even less likely to immigrate than our fellow Black South Africans.

Of course you could be more comfortable in other "White" citadels around the world. That's the whole point isn't it. You are able to trans-morph yourself into other groups of people in established empire states around the world with ease. Meanwhile a british black person with several generations in Europe would never be taken seriously if he proclaimed jis "European-ness" now would he.

jl115:

- This premises of a homeland and expansion is not unique to the Afrikaner, it was practised by all tribes in Africa. A great example of this is the Zulu kingdom.....

That's the common narrative/excuse I get every time I speak of this. The Zulu invasions are not the same contextually. Zulu expansionism did not operate in the same way as that of the "Afrikaners". The success of the Zulu expansions was underpinned on the ability to ABSORB conquered clans, tribes and territory.

The Afrikaner or Boer to be more specific, on the other hand were expansionists in the classic European sense again guided by Calvanist religious ideals of a "special" peoples ordained by God to take territory and establish their [b]HEGEMONY[b] over the land and territory, reducing the "no believers" or "non baptized into serfs or slaves. This was not dissimilar to their Quaker counterparts established in the US.

jl115:

-OK it's a great read I get it!!! but that was not your assertion YOU said it contrasts most other South African historical narratives..... And I'm asking you how does it contrast it?? You have yet to give me an answer.

The answer to your question is right there in front of you but you are trying to bait me into specifics. I said it contrasts other historical narratives I have read in the way it was blunt and unapologetic which indicates that other accounts written by contemporary authors I have read tend to be more on the conservative or subtle side when describing say the Mfecane,the battle at blood river, The origins of the Broederbond, the nationalist party, Apartheid e.t.c. A book in contrast would be God's, spies and Lies by John Matison.