Author Topic: What Boers have in common with Jews.  (Read 4049 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Boeregeneraal

  • Guest
Re: What Boers have in common with Jews.
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2007, 01:03:41 AM »
S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..
I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 



Garbage.

Jews were at the top of the professions and they ALL stayed in SA until the apes took over. Seems it wasn't too bad under the Boers.

Right-wing Afrikaaner politics was exemplified up to recently by the colourful Eugene Terrblanche, with his taste for English-speaking girls, but, anyway, who was brought up on a farm where his father was a devout student of Hitler. Eugene accepted these views as correct, and found no opposition to them amongst his tens of thousands of supporters, to whom Mein Kampf was far from unknown, having in one instance (albeit controversially) been studied in a school. To have people write to your Forum and argue that the Boers are natural blood-brothers of the Jews is totally absurd. At the outbreak of the Second World Wat, the S. African parliament only approved entry on the side of the Allies by the slightest of majorities, due to massive opposition by Afrikaaner M.P.'s.  As the war progressed, they performed magnificently in Africa, but were declined permission to enter Europe. Similarly, having dealt in my time with a lot of troops from the former Rhodesian Army, I can assure you that many of them wished that Hitler had won. The fate of Jews was never a subject of discussion.

I can assure, you, therefore, that my comments were not total "garbage". I any case have no quarrel with what you say - I was referring to the attitude of rural Afrikaaners to the Jews, not to the reverse. My point is simply that southern Africa is not necessarily a simple situation. But please be clear, I have to say that David and Chaim's video(s) on this subjest are superb, and the most honest and direct statememt of events there that I have seen in most of a lifetime of work in the region.


Your argument is a red herring.

Eugene Terrblanche and his movement were a minority who never held power. To tar all white South Africans (or even rural ones) with that brush is like indicting Americans over the rantings of David Duke.

The proof is in the pudding. Jews were NEVER disadvantaged in SA. We've NEVER received an anti-semitic post from a South African. We get plenty from Americans and Europeans, though.



OK, let's end in some agreement, because basically I think we are not so far apart on this. You are 100% correct in saying that the Afrikaans (Broederbond) establishment was not anti-Jewish to a greater extent than they were e.g. anti-British. No problem. However, I was thinking more of the successors to those brave Boers shown in the photographs. In many years of working in rural Afrikaans communities, while most would have laughed at the AWB, not all did so, as shown by the World Trade Centre incursion, the Bophutatswana incursion, etc. The AWB was able to raise funding through farm visits without the slightest problem. Were I to post on this website a full-colour photo of an AWB stormtroopers doing just this, swasticas and everything, as I have seen in person, your readers would be shocked. My point is simple. It does not follow unchallenged, as was being done, that the identity of the rural Afrikaaner with the Jews is absolute. I simply wanted to challenge whether this should be accepted as an obvious truth.

Thanks for the discussion!

Caregg, you have to understand something very important here! Firstly, the reason why Boers are for the AWB, is because that's pretty much the any organisation that opposes the black savages! They have never joined the awb to be anti-jewish. In fact, the AWB has NEVER said anything anti-Jewish.Never! And i challenge you to prove otherwise.

As for Boers and the Germans and nazism. The Boers are very much German. They co ntain a lot of German blood, and a lot of Boer surnames contain German, French and Dutch. They are therefore very pro-german, and why not, as they ARE german! Tell me, do you think australians in the 1900's would have fought against the brits? No!

During the Boer war, the Germans were great allies to the Boers, supplying commandoes with weapons and ammunition etc. So here is another reason as to why Boers are pro-German.

As for Boers waving around swastikas. Now, the only reason why they do this, is they are waving the pro-caucasian side, NOT the antiJewish side. They see Nazism and StørmFrønt as the only pro-white organization out there, that supports what they feel is important- survival of the white man. They oppose anti-Jewish thinking very much.

The fact, that the self-hating Jewish in america are degrading and threatning the suvival of the white man. Those Boers that see this, see Jews as being anti-white. I mean, who can blame them, the Jews were supporting the ANC and various liberal, degenerating and anti-white movements. Despite this, MOST look past it, and continue to love and support the Jewish. And also, most don't know that there are right-wing Jews, and those ruling america are actually self-hating jews, whom are NOT jews. Despite not knowing this, and STILL continuing to be pro-Jewish-i think says a hell of a lot!!!!

Now, as for the Boers ot wanting to fight for the allies. Tell me, why should they? Why should they enter a war and kill their fellow german brothers? The same brothers whom have been allied to them and supported them all the way?!!!

As for the broederbond, can you blame them for not liking the English speaking 'south africans' after what they had done to them!!!!!!!!!!!!? >:(