'Don't you think your a bit too idealistic about Afrikaners?' alleman asked me the other day.
I had the pleasure to meet alleman for the first time. I have admired alleman's blog for some time now. And I find it hard to disagree with most he says.
This week a 'hewige' (heavy) debate raged on my blog. Somebody even called alleman a communist. A certain Marthinus, a young AWB sympathiser nogal, told us:
'Forgive me for getting worked up, but when i speak to older whites in south africa that still advocate this 'democracy' that we so suffer in, it just makes me see red. You wil have to go very far to find a liberal white youngster here in sa. Putting all political convictions aside, we will have to work together if we want a future here in africa. The only way 4ward for us is to create an exclusive afrikaner state. A simple fact is that we are white so the volkstaat will be white too otherwise its just another mini new sa, with all the same issues.'
I won't repeat all that was said in that debate wholesale. Go read it yourself.
But I thought about what alleman asked allot lately. Perhaps Afrikaners are irredeemable arseholes and I'm really wasting my time.
I mean Marthinus feels insulted that I said that the old ZAR Transvaal Republic was liberal. Which it patently was. The word liberal is a swearword to him. Incredible. Marthinus agrees with all those that say we were always arseholes. And apparently we should be proud of it!
My pro-Afrikaner arguments on this blog is probably over egging it on occasion. Marthinus has a point. Afrikaners are conservative. But I don't think Marthinus has been paying attention to the news lately.
The current government has been supporting the Burmese, a military dictatorship, the Sudanese, an ultra conservative Islamic state with a taste for genocide, and have been advocating beetroot as a cure for Aids instead of scientifically tested drugs. How do you out conservative that? Last time I checked a Kenyan tribe refused to give up power even though they lost an election. Time to learn a lesson from Afrikaners perhaps chaps?
What I find interesting is that somebody like Marthinus actually bothers to debate these issues with us. Recently (warning: name drop) I was speaking to Andries Bezuidenhout. Andries said its 'quite weird, when we were students, before the end of apartheid when we rode into a town with our long hair and boerepunk clothes we were made to feel distinctly unwelcome. Even in Pretoria you had men hanging out of windows shouting "Sny jou hare!" (Cut your hair!)
Now when traveling the small towns in the Free State your welcomed with open arms. Invited to braai's and fetted in the kroe (bars). But we still kinda look the same. '
It was true.
Afrikaans dorpies like Parys are pinning for more gays to move there, because nothing regenerates and ads cool to a town AND pushes up the property value like gay neighbors.
So what's changed? Power has changed. Power has a tendency to make you ugly. Lack of power makes people so much more accommodating.
But back to Marthinus. Apparently young Afrikaners are tired of us older ones telling them to give the new SA a chance.
We too felt fed up with our elders circa 1989. We listed to Johannes Kerkorrel singing "Ons is moeg vir apatie, ons soek anargie, ons soek 'n nuwe energie"
And boy did we get what we were asking for. Anarchy galore. I have often wondered where I would have stood politically then if I knew what I know now. I might make that a subject of a post sometime. But if you think this is a Damascus blogging moment, your out of luck. I would still have campaigned for the end of apartheid.
But I have to concede that many of the things the Afrikaners Nationalists had learn't from a 300 year history in Africa should probably not have been so easily been dismissed by us.
My message to the likes of Marthinus would be. Sure, we made some mistakes, but there's much you can learn from the ouer garde. We know what a white state of repression was like. We know that apartheid did not work practically and it was wrong.
And we helped lay the foundation - in a modest way - for Afrikanerdom to live and indeed perhaps to die in justice.
Coincidentally yesterday was the 60th commemoration of the founding of the state of Israel. Despite its power and military success the web is littered with articles of Israelies fearing for their countries future. Israel has secured its future and in the process of going about this securing they lost the moral high ground. Metaphysical rats are gnawing at the mighty Israel's soul.
And its having practical results. Increasingly educated and secular jews are choosing to emigrate. The country is becoming more fundamentally religious, more intransigent, less a hotbed of innovation and research and stretching the patience of even the USA. It's a vicious circle, if it spirals out of control it will threaten to reap a whirlwind that could destroy Israel from within.
Afrikaans poet N P van Wyk Louw wrote a long time ago that it's better for a nation to cease to exist than to live forth in injustice.
But of course nations don't just die. Not just like that.
In this era when it seems that half of white middle-class SA is contemplating emigrating I have been thinking of that concept that was in vogue shortly before 1994. An Afrikaner Volkstaat.
Personally I think the idea is premature. We have to see to what extent the new ANC can change it ways. There has been some encouraging signs. More importantly South African civil society has started to flex its muscles at last. If South Africa could work. It would be a remarkable country. It is an idea worth fighting and holding out for.
Most of my Afrikaner friends aver that they would not like to live in a Volkstaat. Some have an ideological objection to one. Personally I feel that if your contemplating emigration you can not really object to a Volkstaat per se. Many Afrikaners are not in a position to emigrate.
But the shape and conduct of such a state will matter very much to all Afrikaners whether you live in it or not. Just ask the jews.
PS: There's now an interesting blog form a BoereJodin. (An Afrikaner jew)
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Of generations, arseholes, Israel and volkstate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I don't know if I should feel complimented or insulted at being used as a case study in your article. One thing you certainly picked up on is the fact that I find liberalism repulsive. Allow me to elaborate as to why; the civilised world is caught in a frenzy of universal 'acceptance' and unquestioning tolerance. These 'values', in my experience, are at the core of a 'liberalist's ideals. They epitomise the 'roll over and die' attitude that has gripped our people (i.e. Afrikaners) in South Africa today. South African liberalism forces us to accept the status quo. We may not question anything from the extreme racial discrimination, to the crap service delivery we experience daily at the hand of the "affirmatives" (if we do, we are instantly branded 'racist'). Who was it that said of the Afrikaners, "We would rather walk barefoot over the Drakensberg than live under the British (read ANC) flag". Liberalism has no place for self-determination; but the tide is changing.
On your point of being in touch with the news, I live in South Africa and keep up to date with all our news; if you do in fact live overseas, how is it you are more in tune with current events that what I am?
Marthinus - I would take it as a compliment.
The reason I'm debating with you is that your clearly bright. But unfortunately like most South Africans black and white, who don't read enough, you suffer from a fimiliar syndrome. The "Jy het die klok hoor lui, maar jy weet nie waar die bel hang nie" - syndrome.
I'm not sure you actually know what liberalism means.
But some people do. If you went and asked Thabo Mbeki, Ronnie Kasrils, Essop Pahad and for that matter Osama Bin Laden, they would agree with you. They have *always* found liberalism repulsive.
Here is wikipedia's definition of liberalism, which is not a bad summary - "Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property."
Let me state it again. I personally don't regard myself as a pure liberal because I think that the state has an active role to play to better the lives of their citizens. Liberalism is often economically right wing. Therefore I am an progressive. I believe in social welfare something that died in wool liberals often don't. But I do share many values that liberals have.
To equate being liberal with being soft or a so-called roll over and die attitude is false and not supported by history.
For all the (often justified) criticism it gets, Israel is a liberal democracy by most definitions of the word. Israel certainly is *not* a weak state. It's pretty ruthless.
Where I do agree with you as that often people on the so-called left, condone the actions of regimes that proclaim to be left or are not of a western heritage, even when these regimes are in fact repressive or fascist.
Nick Cohen, one of the founders of the Euston Manifesto is a well known British left wing journalist, along with people like Christopher Hitchens (who called Muslim fundamentalists fascists with an Islamic face) that constantly criticise the left for this fact.
In fact he did so again this week arguing that democratic governments should ignore autocratic ones and violate Burmese airspace to deliver aid. Even war is considered an option. Note the role of our own government in this, blocking any resolution in the UN.
"A Western diplomat at the UN Security Council meeting said objections came from China, Kouchner's old enemies in Vietnam, Russia and South Africa, which might not be a one-party state but has in the ANC only one party which can hope to win power."
This basic argument of somebody like Cohen re Isreal could be described thus. Israel may be bad, but they are a democracy in a see of autocratic and religiously repressive governments.
Some of Cohen's supporters have talked of a military invasion of Zimbabwe to get rid of Mugabe.
In other words there is something like a liberal movement that is very intolerant to individual rights being violated and they are by no means into 'universal acceptance'.
Liberalism and its cousin, progressive politics should force all of us to reject the status qou in South Africa which is what Van Zyl Slabbert recommended, which is certainly what I do.
Racial discrimination and exclusion of whites, which is rife is the antithesis of liberalism (but par for the course for fascism). For fascists it just depends who has the most power.
Liberalism has **always** had a place for self determination.
As I said before. The parties for independence in Catalunia and Basque country are left, not right.
It was the Conservative party in power in Britain during the Boer war.
It was the global left and liberals in particular that supported the struggle of the Boer republics. (A republic is an intrinsically liberal concept!)
Wikipedia: "Public and political opposition to Government policies in South Africa regarding Boer civilians was first expressed in Parliament in February 1901 in the form of an attack on the policy, the government, and the Army by the radical Liberal M.P. David Lloyd-George.
In June 1901 Emily Hobhouse, a liberal, published a fifteen-page report on the concentration camps operated by British Command, and Lloyd George then openly accused the government of "a policy of extermination" directed against the Boer population. In June, 1901, Liberal opposition party leader Campbell-Bannerman took up the assault and answered the rhetorical "When is a war not a war?" with "When it is carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa," referring to those same camps and the policies that created them.
Marthinus your struggle will be fought through a battle of ideas more than anything else.
I hope you and your friends go and get battle ready, do some reading, and get rid of that stupid, self-defeating and obnoxious flag of yours.
Wessel, I do know what a liberal is. Not many people who classify themselves as liberals do though. That is exactly why I said "in my experience". I know that I tend to equate liberalism with left-wing politics, but so do many people. I am glad that you put Tarboy, Red Ronnie and the rest in the same camp as Osama, even if it is unintentionally, it is clearly where the terrorists belong. I have to agree with your point on a republic being a 'liberal' concept coming from the French perspective, it is however not a 'modern' liberal concept (the type of liberalism I have an issue with); seen as the 'Democrat party' in the States is liberal as opposed to the 'Republican' party being conservative - a simple example I know. I have to point out that liberalism walks hand in hand with Socialism whose cousin is communism. In one of your posts you mentioned that communism has merits. The premis of communism is that all individuals are equal; this then ties in with the liberal hate for racial discrimination, but to quote George Orwell, "All [animals] are equal, but some are more equal than others".
To leave racial discrimination out of the question, the reason as to why I support the AWB is the same reason so many Basques support the ETA. The Baques see themselves as one nation and as such, one ethnicity. This is precisely the way Afrikaners feel.
I won't argue the liberal point any longer, suffice to say that the DA (liberal South African opposition as you no doubt know) is extremely opposed to the volkstaat concept as well as self-determination for any nation including the Zulus.
mmm... Wessel, I read your reply to (langbroek?) Martinus and was quite disappointed. Why? Because you beat me to dealing with the rubbish conceptions regarding 'liberalism' so often heard from the 'right'. You did a great job though.
...and Martinus, I agree with Wessel, your flag is so last century :-).
I did consider joining in a kind of debate with you. But professing, in your Blogger profile, to being 'Neo-Nazi', referring to 'any other kaffir orientated jungle beats', etc. puts us on different planets.
I'll copy your style in pitching an idea after having claimed not to be interested in engaging the point furhter...
You put the Basques and Afrikaners on equal footing in seeing themselves 'as one nation and as such, one ethnicity'. On one level that may be valid. But it is a willfully simplistic statement. What about white Afrikaners who believe in socialism, or god forbid its 'cousin' communism. What about Afrikaners who think your great leader Terreblanche is an (somewhat entertaining) idiot? What about Afrikaners who are quite happy to be part of an inclusive South African nation not based on race, religion or creed. What about Afrikaners who believe that tolerance (of diversity, not corruption, etc.) is actually a noble cause? Where do they fit into your 'one nation... one ethnicity'? What on earth will happen to a volkstaat* if you allow these type of Afrikaners in? (*almost left out the 'l', my spelling is terrible). Are these Afrikaners also 'your people' and are you also 'passionate' about them?
You call yourself a 'freedom fighter' in your Blogger profile. That I find really intriguing. Who are you fighting? Other ethnicities, liberalism, communism, tolerance...? Will you bomb me if I (hypothetically) voted ANC? WAIT, WAIT, don't shoot or bomb me pleeeease - I'm white and I speak and dream in Afrikaans! What's the difference between you as a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist'? I suppose you call yourself a 'freedom fighter' because it sounds cool - you don't really do any fighting do you?
I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself... You see I'm a delusional liberal. No, not that kind of liberal - really. I actually think socialism should be part of the mix as well. As for the cousin, I'm not too keen on him.
Your fellow Afrikaner - Mike.
Plainly put Mike, if you feel satisfied being part of this wonderful 'inclusive' new South Africa cesspool, then you really are delusional. I am dumbstruck that people like you still exist (I challenge you to find another like yourself, who is not black, who is satisfied with the current South African situation). You may have your liberal point of view, but supporting a 3rd world turd-hole is verging on mentally incompetant. In the Volkstaat, obviously, all Afrikaners will be allowed and welcome (barring Roelf Meyer, FW and possibly Max Du Preez). Thing is, when you have the communistic ideal working for only one nation in their own state, then no one loses out (provided it is not Stalinism). If we did have a volkstaat with the liberal, Afrikaner socialists running the state, I would be perfectly satisfied. As most of us are already professional people, it would work just as well as European socialism does, provided we have an ironclad constitution that prohibits the influx of the third-world. Those Afrikaners who are left inclined are just as much my people as those on the right, and yes about them I am also passionate, unless of course they purposely work towards the destruction of our culture, language and history (of which many leftist afrikaners tend to do nowadays), then they become the enemy too. If you want to believe in tolerance and such it is your own perogative, as long as you do not put other people above your own. As for fighting, no, I have not killed anyone yet, nor have I gone Kaffir-bashing (recently) (been clean for two years LOL). I am very involved in politics, Afrikaner welfare organisations and such, so at the moment, in a passive sort of way, I am fighting; if South Africa continues on its train wreck course, I will have to adopt alternative methods of fighting, possibly more directly (with bombs).
If you did vote for the ANC/AZAPO/SACP, I would probably bomb you; if only because of my compassionate nature to put you out of your misery; because you doing that would clearly indicate extreme retardation or some other form of debilitating mental illness.
You have tried so hard to be witty and sarcastic, so I won't be nasty. Just remember this, despite all Eugene Terre'blanche may be, at least he is not afraid. At least he is doing something for his own nation, no matter how much you may disagree with the way he does it. Now if I may pose a question. What have you done for your own people? I am sure that you are aware that over 500 000 of them live like squatters. You are surely aware as well that another million on top of that live under the bread-line. This is as a direct result of this inclusive, rainbow, shit hole that causes you to gyrate in spasms of 'tolerant' glee. Before you lambast an ideal or organisation, think of the good they/it is/are doing. To conclude, as I've said before, all I want is to live in a country with a government that cares about me, with a national anthem that I know in a language I speak that portrays my culture and heritage. I want my children one day to be taught about their ancestors in history books that are not complete and total fairy tales. I want to be able to hold my hand over my heart as I see a flag that flies that symbolises my history and culture. I want my passport to mean something if I decide to travel. I do not want to be harassed/threatened with arrest/deportation because of my citizenship. If you do not want the same then maybe you should consider seeing a therapist for possible shock therapy. As long as the AWB supports Afrikaner freedom, our language, culture and history, then I am more than willing to give them my support.
Martinus
I'm in a bit of a twist regarding our little too and throw. You see while I regard tolerance as a noble characteristic, unlimited tolerance would be foolish. I do believe that with the exception of some on the extreme fringes of debate in South Africa very few people will argue with that. Assuming that liberal or progressive schools argue for this type of tolerance is simply untruthful or ignorant. For example tolerating corruption, crime, incompetence, etc. is obviously senseless. I'll get back to how this relates to you and me.
I will concede that in the decade after 1994 many liberals / progressives were slow in condemning short comings or mismanagement in government. I include myself in this. But I believe the 'honeymoon' period is clearly over and the proverbial 'truth is being spoken to power' more and more. This links with what Wessel refers to when mentioning the increase in the role played by South Africa's 'civil society'.
But to get back to you and I... The internet is incredibly powerful in allowing the exchange of ideas over chasms that would otherwise be unbridgeable. On this particular page it allows us, in our little chat, to be sarcastic in the extreme -in English nogal- without grabbing each other by the throat. Quite remarkable. However, here's the 'twist', I'm confused as to exactly how helpful this is...
On one hand one can almost be euphoric about it. Here we have a guy on the right fringe (that's where I see you) partaking in debate in a 'progressive' space - Wessel's blog. It's almost like a fundamental Christian cell group being elated at the visit to their bible study of an unconverted soul :-). There's some promise there. Maybe we can turn this guy's head? After all, why else is he here?
Obviously that's not going to happen. I feel like talking to a friendly young chap about tolerance, individual rights, inclusiveness, etc. and courteously listening to his rants amounting to the exact opposite. You put your arguments across in an intelligent manner, but the only real link between us is that we're both Afrikaners (even though our definitions for Afrikaner differ). We both also live in South Africa.
Then I notice that the friendly young chap is wearing an AWB pin (avatar) and proudly states that he is a Neo-Nazi. I follow the blog links from your Blogger profile and see a lot of stuff that basically comes down to the 'groot swart gevaar'. It's like preparing for a modern day Blood River. Terms like 'kaffers' abound, even calling blacks 'bloeddorstige diere'. All of that is way way way beyond what I believe to be constructive dialogue. It not only smacks of, but is clearly racist hate speech. Finish and klaar.
But then what about freedom of speech and association? What about tolerance, open society and debate? As stated higher up I don't believe any thinking person would argue that there's no boundaries to at least some of these values - although ideally there shouldn't be. Fact is we would still be in Apartheid South Africa (you probably wouldn't mind) if the Nats and ANC did not decide to talk to each other, despite their huge differences at the time.
But would I sit and chat with you in a bar knowing that you'd rather beat up my black friends than converse with them?
And so I can go on. I know it's not phrased very elegantly. But as for the present I think this discussion is not worth the effort. When it comes to unbridled racism (in this particular case white on black), Neo-Nazism, etc. I'm rather intolerant. I throw it right in there with corruption and crime.
So basically you will go on campaigning for a white Afrikaner volkstaat, graciously accommodating Afrikaners that you regard as having completely left the rails.
I'll campaign for individual rights for everyone irrespective of colour, language or creed. In this endeavour 'truth needs to be spoken to power' on infringements of the above - also regarding Afrikaners.
In many ways you do seem like a nice guy Martinus. If only you could leave all that ugly stuff behind you - but I know the feeling is mutual. Once again our definitions, or rather paradigms, differ.
Cheers, groete van huis tot huis, hamba kahle!
Mike, while I certainly do appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to me and my comments, I cannot agree with you as to us having a different perception of what an Afrikaner is. An Afrikaner is and afrikaner who is and afrikaner. Just as a german is a german ... Do you get my point? Now this will be my last response, so I'll cover the remaining issues. Firstly, I am a neo-nazi. Think of the definition, neo-new; na-nationalist; zi-socialist, I don't think that there is a better way to describe my political viewpoints than that. Allow me to state that I am definitely not a hateful person. Nor am I in denial by stating this. I have a passionate love for my country and I cannot bear to see it being destroyed. At 18 I left home to tour the world. I did this all on my own, with money that I had earned doing jobs I am sure even you would consider "black's work". My parents were in no financial position to help me (thanks to my dad having been 'retrenched' to make place for an affirmative, one he had to train before he was fired) in this, so I did it on my own. I travelled europe extensively as well as the States and parts of Africa. When I left South Africa, it was to find opportunities "in die buiteland" that were not available to me here in South Africa (due to the colour of my skin). I was by no means bitter about this, as I didn't know any different and as such accepted the status quo as how life was meant to be for us whites. When I left, I considered myself a liberal (like my parents), something of a 'free-spirit' as ridiculous as it may sound. I won't relate all of my experiences overseas to you. In Spain, I went to a personel agency to find a job. They gave me a brochure to look through and I noticed that so many of the jobs that would suit me perfectly were "equal opportunities". I was about to leave, feeling rather dejected, when the lady called me back and asked why I didn't apply for the EO jobs? I told her, quite embarressed that I did not fit the criteria as I was not 'dark' skinned, she looked very puzzeled and I had to explain. In the end she started to laugh and explained that equal opp' actually means just that. This is just one silly example. In certain 'dark' parts of Africa, in contrast to the Europe I had left, I encountered nothing but sickness, starvation and death. Then I got to thinking about home. We are villified by a black nation for Apartheid, yet no-where else in dark africa do blacks have the quality of life that they enjoy here in South Africa (it was even better for them, by many's own admonition under apartheid). They blame us for them not succeeding, yet their 'brothers' in Africa have got nothing not even the wheel. I must admit that then was when I started to get bitter. We were used as a scape goat, yet where would any of these SA blacks be without apartheid? Absolutely nowhere. I experienced this all first hand, and when I returned to South Africa, I saw things in a new light. I saw how every semblance of who we are as a people being destroyed, from our language to our cultural monuments (things that are FIERCLY protected in places like europe), to our lives being taken by savages. I promised myself not to stand for it any longer and since then I haven't. I do hope one day that you too will see the light; it usually takes something like losing a loved one to a murderous savage for absolutely no reason though I hope you never have to go through such a dramatic awakening. These are just a few things that I came across, not to mention how our [Boere] history and such is completely misrepresented. I won't go one, even though I could probably write a book about it all. I just hope that despite everything, you still may see the merit of a volkstaat as a future for your own children (if you have any) in a place that we truly love, that is as much a part of us as it is a part of the black multitude that continues to chant "Kill the Boer" or "Africa is for Africans".
Martinus. I've read your comment and found it very interesting. We see the same problems but through different lenses. Which means that we believe in different solutions. Mike
Post a Comment