The CHEETAH-LION analogy is so fucking idiotic... LISTEN PEOPLE! If a cheetah have SEX with a lion they would have a "cheetion" but that cheetion will be barren because the parent processors were not compatiable which in turn forbiddens them (by NATURE) not to reproduce... HOWEVER! if a Afrikaner man have sex with a Zulu woman they will produce a child that would be able to reproduce kin who could reproduce and multiply because their parent processors were compatiable with each other.
The CHEETAH-LION analogy is so fucking idiotic... LISTEN PEOPLE! If a cheetah have SEX with a lion they would have a "cheetion" but that cheetion will be barren because the parent processors were not compatiable which in turn forbiddens them (by NATURE) not to reproduce... HOWEVER! if a Afrikaner man have sex with a Zulu woman they will produce a child that would be able to reproduce kin who could reproduce and multiply because their parent processors were compatiable with each other.
They are a bunch of idiots... THE WHOLE ARE MADE UP OF MIXED PEOPLE, maybe if he take a biology class he would know that but thats what you get when you take hatred and mix it with the religion, you become low with intelligent and high with radical ideology...
LISTEN ASSHOLES!!! EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH ARE MIXED WITH SOMETHING ELSE NOT OF THEIR NORM... if you dont believe that then you belong in one of these categories: nigger, honkie, barbarian, or savage...
can anybody name one successful black nation, that has done anything for this world but destroy what this worlds tax-dollars have gone to fix their country up, medicine, food, technology, infrastructure...they automatically revert back to living like primitive fools. seriously just compare arica to europe, compare advancements in culture, technology, theology, archetecture, music, culture. was africa in the race to get to the moon? where their ancestors in america? NO, haita? too primitve
@Gossipstation what the hell are you talking about? why would i help or even sympathize with these nutjobs? they're insane! and their dream of creating a whites only nation in africa will never be realized, south africans won't let that happen and africans as a whole won't let that happen.
Some white peoples are just a joke.. they want to go other peoples country and steal the goods..... who invite you to Africa ? I hope South African government will send you back to where you came from.... amen
@KCSHIT some are just tourist, what if you go to some other peoples country and they kick you out also. why don't u people think like you have a Brain in your Fucking head!
@KCSHIT man read your coments, they are full of hate and then you talk about the lord helping you. Is that what your lord wants you to do? to hate ppl? i thought it was about being good with each other and instead you talk about liking that ppl die. BTW white ppl brought the christian religion to africa, have you ever thought about that?
@nemesis06101986 that is not true. white people did not bring christianity to africa. U forget where africa is. And where is it from the east, where the holy land is. And also some of the dead sea scrolls were found in caves in ethiopia. The servant that was given to Abraham by his wife Sarah- Hagar was an Egyptian. Moses married and ethiopian, King David's Bathsheba was black. i never heard or read anything in the bible that came from europe. sorry. just some facts for you.
He was slaughtered in his bed while recovering from a heart operation. I hope you fucking evil bastards are happy. Your rainbow nation is a joke. Things are more worse now than ever. Do you really think ANC give a flying fuck about blacks or whites?
Yes. The "fucking evil bastards are happy". If you were in Europe and learned that someone who hoisted Nazi flags had been killed would you DARE to publicly shed a tear for them? You'd be skewered in the press and even your community would make an open show of disowning you. But, when it happens in Africa, then you sprout the balls to talk all manner of nonsense.
@hemlig866 I am so happy that he died... and if you are like him i wish i will killed you with my hand lord help me please to clean up the white trash
The struggle for Boer self determination is much larger than the late Eugene Terre'Blanche & the late Robert van Tonder or anyone else for hat matter because as is the case with any people struggling for self determination the topic is much bigger than the personalities who often overshadow the topic.
This debate goes around in circles because of your denial of the African status of the Boers & their inherent right to self determination. Both facts enshrined in international law & the historical record. No matter what ones' views are on a given people no one has the right nor power to deny a given people their own historically based cultural designation & right to self determination.
LOL!! Nobody denies anyone a right to self-determination. I am sure that you wouldn't DARE state that Europe denies the right to self-determination to all those minorities who live and exist in the context of larger countries now, would you?
@Titoscudd But Europe in fact DOES deny the right to self determination to various minorities. The Basques & Corsicans are two most prominent examples. Furthermore you are in total denial to claim that no one denies anyone the right to self determination. Furthermore the Boer people are not the product of being a "minority" as they were formed LONG before becoming a "minority" within the macro State of South Africa. The Boer people are a nation.
My question to you was, does international law require the creation of separate states for each minority group as a prerequisite to self-determination?
@Titoscudd Your methodology to your questions is a distraction because the Boer people are not a "minority" group & neither are they asking for "separate states" as they are petitioning & working for self determination which MIGHT at some future date culminate in the restoration of their Boer Republics. The Boers developed as a people LONG before they were co-opted [ illegitimately ] as a "minority" part of another peoples' population group.
There are people of African descent who have lived in Europe, Brazil, Cuba, etc or generations. None of which are planning on recognizing these Africans as a separate or "new" ethnic group even though they have in fact, intermarried with the various races and cultures they encountered, Talk less of granting them an autonomous state even though they USUALLY live in separate communities.
Do you DARE to qualify this as a denial of self-determination?
Does international law require the creation of separate states for each and every minority group as a prerequisite for self-determination?
I have told you and I'll restate it. If in fact, you are an African, then you shouldn't have a problem integrating into the larger African society even as I am an African and I haven't a problem with that. And my people, like so many others prior to the arrival of Europeans, had established our own empire separate from all other ethnicities.
@Titoscudd The Boer people are integrated into Africa but the natural socio political growth of any people is to acquire higher forms of self determination. Not to regress & be folded into a mini empire mascarading as a macro State. A macro State which was never consented to by any of the local peoples of the region.
Is America or Canada where you live also "mascarading" as a macro state? What about Spain, Britain, Germany, etc are they also "mascarading" as macro states? Were ANY of those countries consented to by ANY of the "local peoples of the region"?
@Titoscudd Canada & America are also great examples of macro States. Remember South Africa was a most egregious example of a macro State & its various peoples were especially subjugated.
Oh, really? And what about northern Ireland? What about the natives of both America and Canada? Were the consulted before they were subsumed in that macro state? What about the Aborigines of Australia and Maoris or N. Zealand? But, in you STANDARD European warped and downright stupid estimation, South Africa is "a most egregious example of a macro state".
@Titoscudd A most egregious example because it was the most blatant example of a macro State until the creation of Yugoslavia & the USSR. Those two oppressive macro States fell & so too will the South African one in time as the various people will more overtly withdraw their consent over time as they naturally move towards national self determination.
LOL!! More egregious than the creation of the Britain, huh? Was the consent of the Welsh or the Irish tribes sought prior to the creation of Britain? And what about Spain?
Few folks bother to research the facts about the Boers & folks like you like to propagate the most over the top & discredited allegations made against them because you are afraid that the Boers might scupper your one dimensional imperial agenda if they restore their old republics or acquire self determination.
Why should I give a damn about the Boers? Do the Boers do research about my people other than the nonsense they conjure to buttress the disjointed dribble the present as history? You're not even a part of Africa so why should Africans "research" about the Boers?
@Titoscudd Once again you make sweeping presumptions because the Boers DO & HAVE in fact researched your people. None other than the controversial & late Eugene Terre'Blanche knew a lot about the Tswana peoples he lived near & was an avid connoisseur of Tswana history & he also had some Tswana friends & supporters. The Boers were also renown for learning various Bantu languages in the past.
@Titoscudd Modern day & prominent Boer farmer Eddie von Maltitz is fluent in the Sesotho language & regularly attends social gathering with the Sotho
peoples he lives near in the town of Ficksburg. You can watch the video right here on Youtube showing this. The Boer Professor Tobias Louw attends Zulu ceremonies. Therefore your one dimensional portrayal of the Boer people is negated by the facts.
LOL!! The Boer is fluent in many African languages, has learned our cultures and attends our meetings because we are accepting of foreigners. Can you name a SINGLE European nation that affords Africans similar access to their innermost circles even though we have lived in the West for centuries now?
Ian Smith, of Rhodesia fame, was the son of European missionaries who ostensibly came to "civilize the savages", "save the African from himself" and to stamp out Africa's "faults". He was nannied by Shonas and accepted by them as one of their sons and understood their culture intimately. Is it not telling that this individual, Ian Smith, was the tool and strongest proponent of their eventual subjugation and violent suppression?
"Gradual transition to majority rule"? Always a convenient proposal for the oppressors. Europeans had had centuries to make this transition, but, they NEVER did because, that was not their intention. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Our people had suffered all manner of debasement, denial of rights, suppression and deliberate lack of access to opportunities, etc for generations. Yet, you'd have us wait for a "gradual transitions to majority rule".
And what were Europeans going to give up in the interim? What sacrifices were you going to make in the interim? And who would determine how "gradual" the transition would be? Would it be over a year, 2 years, 10, 50, a generation? And Africans were supposed to sit on their haunches while Europeans dictated the pace of this "gradual transition" after we'd spent centuries in shackles? Can you see how heinous a creature you really are?
@Titoscudd Once again you are conflating now even myself with the Colonial oppressors. All I did was point out a public policy yet all I see are Africans STILL waiting for democratic dispensations while you Statists ride the gravy train & get rich in the process while your people are becoming further dispossessed.
This same narrative of treachery is repeated in Australia, North and South America, New Zealand, etc where Europeans who were accepted by indigenous groups and had an intimate knowledge of indigenous cultures were the most brutal suppressors of those cultures and in some cases the most potent instruments of their decimation. Is it not telling that EVEN WHITES recognize Eugene Terre'blanche as a racial segregationist? And even this clip under which we comment attests to this.
@Titoscudd The main aim of Terre'Blanche was to acquire some form of Boer self determination but he did not represent the Boer people as a whole as his organization only attracted small numbers.
@Titoscudd The Boers do not live in a vacuum cut off from the rest of Africa. If the Boers "are not part of Africa" then why do people have to go to Africa to visit them? Why did the Boers freedom struggles happen exclusively in Africa? The Boers are an integral part of Africa as noted by various authors [ Oliver Ransford / Sidney Robbins / Howard Hillegas etc. ] & the historical record.
LOL!! "Imperial agenda"? Can you see how you just belch nonsense? How can I have an imperial agenda in my own country, among my own people and on my own land? What a confused European. Do you think that everyone is like your resource bereft homeland which must leech off other continents in order to survive?
@Titoscudd The only one "belching nonsense" is you as you have a clear racist imperial agenda because you claim all of Africa for yourself without even bothering to consult with the various peoples you claim & aim to rule over. Last time I checked the Boer Republics [ homeland ] were rich in resources which is why they were taken from the Boers when the British conquered them & why the land in question is still firmly under British control administered by their various puppet regimes.
LOL!! Discussing with you requires one to resort to the most pedestrian and mundane expressions possible. I am an African, and Africa is MY continent. As an African, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM NOR DO I FEEL THREATENED by a European claiming the WHOLE OF EUROPE as his continent nor will I have a problem with an Asian doing the same with his continent. Would it have crossed your mind that either individual is intent on establishing an empire?
@Titoscudd No European can nor has the right to claim all of Europe as his continent. That is imperialism because he has no right to claim areas he has no connection with. Just as you have no right to claim all of Africa because it is supposed to belong to its peoples not a would be dictator. Furthermore. Continents are arbitrary notions because Europe / Africa & Asia is in fact one large land mass & its various peoples have historically moved around on & claimed areas far from their origins.
I asked you to go any where in Canada and ask a random person to show you an African, without telling them about your delusions, and see if they'll point to you. LOL!! Then ask them to show you a European and see if they'll point to you. LOL!!!
@Titoscudd Once again you make predictable erroneous presumptions because the Canadian people are more sophisticated than your assumption & are quite aware that the Boer people are Africans as they are not as hindered by a narrow minded phenotype based paradigm. Furthermore you presume [ erroneously ] that Canadians view White people as European because White Canadians only view themselves as Canadian.
Listen, my boy. What Canadians, Americans, Australians, N. Zealanders or any other European thinks about the status of the Boer is immaterial to me. Just as I suspect that what Africans think about the status of the original indigenous people i.e. native Americans, Aborigines, Maoris, etc in those countries is of no consequence to them. So, you can keep hopping from one European to the other reaffirming your skewed perceptions and "group think" but, that doesn't change anything.
@Titoscudd LOL! What a joke! You were the one who invoked the "ask a Canadian who he thinks an African is"! Then balked at the response I gave when I pointed out that Canadians are not as one dimensional as you. Consequently what you think about the Boers is of no consequence to them either & vice versa I suspect.
I asked you to ask random Canadians to identify an African not whether or not a Boer is an African. In fact, go ANYWHERE in the world and without narrating your delusions, ask any random person to show you an African in a crowd ans see if your pick you out.
@Titoscudd Pointing to other peoples presumptive beliefs certainly does not negate the reality that Boers are Africans & would only exhibit their own ignorance on the matter if they were to respond in the ignorant & oe dimensional manner that you presume they would.
You know, there's an African proverb that says, "A call is made for all horned animals to assemble and the snail insists on leading the procession". I guess that the snail also claims that he is a horned animal. LOL!!
@Titoscudd Furthermore: asking the opinion of random people is not a rigorous form of scientific inquiry & certainly not a legitimate or reliable source for determining the continental home of a people. Massive fail.
LOL!!! That's quite an interesting statement don't you think? Have you heard of polls? Are polls considered "scientific" measures of the spread of societal opinion? Are polls "not a legitimate or reliable source" of information and gauging perception? But, when the subject of the poll concerns people's perception of your confused self, it becomes "not a legitimate or reliable source", huh? LOL!!!
@Titoscudd Therefore any person attempting to claim an entire continent is intent on establishing an empire because what other purpose is there to wanting to claim an entire continent.
Why would I want to claim the whole world? Isn't that stupid? Isn't that the masturbatory obsession of the Western world? Point to a single instance in world history when my people EVER thought to claim the whole world as theirs? In fact, prior to meeting you, the very concept would be utterly absurd.
@Titoscudd Why would you want to claim Africa? Why not take it to the logical conclusion of the world. Shaka was on his way to doing so. so you assertion that the concept was foreign to you is not true. Furthermore: it was the obsession of the elite not of the average person.
You're a stupid person!! Shaka was on his way to taking over the whole of Africa, huh? Did he even get as far as the Congo? And how was he going to take over the whole of West Africa with foot soldiers armed with Assegais? How was he going to face the mounted cavalries of the Sokoto Caliphate, the Oyo Empire, The Asante Empire, Fon, The Nupes, The Benin, Queen Amina of Zazzau, Sundiata, Mai Idris Aluma Katarkamabi of the Kanem Borno Empire, the Tuaregs, etc?
@Titoscudd He certainly had a good start & the Zulus were the strongest tribe in Africa at the time so the concept was certainly feasible. The point is was that he was agitating in that direction.
Are you stupid or something? The Zulus were the strongest tribe in Africa at that time? Are you stupid? Even by African standards, the Zulu were primitive!! Go and read about Oyo Mesi, Sokoto Caliphate, Benin Empire, Ife, etc.
Do you know that when the Portuguese first saw the Benin City, they compared its structure and level of organization to Lisbon's?
Can you here the Dutch farmer? So, Queen Amina of Zazzau, Kanem Borno Empire, Sokoto Caliphate, Oyo Mesi, Asante Empire, Fon, Nupe Empire, etc are North African empires, huh? LOL!! I told you that your aren't an African. LOL!!!
@Titoscudd OK. North West Africans. [ I was referring to you post about the Hausa ] but you miss the point as i was talking about a specific time frame. Which is a total joke because you ignorantly refer to the Boer people as Dutch farmers when they gave very few actual Dutch roots & most are not farmers.
The Hausa are West Africans. At what nonsense time frame were you talking about? Go and find out whether you could compare the level of development of Shaka and the Zulus with that of Ife, Oyo, Fon, Asante, Kanem Borno, Zazzau, Mali, etc. Where were the Zulus when Alexander the Great was taking lessons at Timbuktu university? What crass ignorant nonsense!! What nonsense time frame were you prattling about? I told you that you are NOT an African yet, you argue with me.
Don't go home to Holland and demand you farmer's republic there. In fact, I'm sure that they'd be begging you to come and take free land there. LOL!!!
But, when an African dares to say this, he automatically has an "imperial agenda". LOL!! Even if that were the case, as long as his "imperial agenda" is based in Africa, I don't see how that concerns you, a European.
@Titoscudd That is the crux of the problem & perfectly illustrates your myopic & stunted reasoning because the Boers as Africans [ & everyone else in Africa ] would certainly be concerned with your & anyone's else imperial agenda. Your claims to the whole continent [ as mad your claim is ] would naturally cause concern / friction & strife among the various people who value their inherent right to self determination.
You're a stupid person!! And utter intellectually constipated idiot!! When was the last time you heard that any African aspired to take over the whole of Africa? But being the European fool that you are, an African's claim of Africa as his continent and telling you that Europe is your continent so you should go and live there, automatically translates into an "imperial agenda". What an idiot!!
@Titoscudd Because you refuse to recognize that Europe is not the Boers' continent because the Boers were developed on African soil just as Asia is not the Mohawks' continent because they developed on North American soil.
Funny isn't it? European kids asking why the world isn't naturally made up of mixed race people? Yet, it hasn't occurred to them that if they are in fact, intent on racial segregation and separation, then, they shouldn't be on the African continent which is predominantly Black. Let them go back to Europe and be on a continent that is ORIGINALLY and predominantly White. You came to Africa, Africa didn't come to you. So, if you want to be separate from the people you met here, then, LEAVE!!
@Titoscudd But the southern portion of Africa was historically never "predominantly Black" until after the Bantu conquest & the Boer people were formed LONG before the Bantus even tried to assert such dominance. The White presence in Africa is LONGER than the Bantu migrations because the White presence goes back to the Old European peoples who settled parts of North Africa thousands of years ago. Their ancestors did not "come to Africa" they were BROUGHT to Africa.
You keep talking nonsense about "Old Europeans". What were these "old Europeans" called? What cities, settlements did they found? LOL!! C'mon gerroff!! Like the European fables about Mongo Park who "discovered" the tributary of the Niger and Benue Rivers. Whereas, Africans had fished those waters LONG before he was born. Moreover, it was Africans who rowed the canoe and guided him to the tributary.
@Titoscudd The Old Europeans were the inhabitants of Europe before the Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus Mountain Range invaded. The only remnants of the Old Europeans left are the Basque people of France & Spain. The rest of the Old Europeans were absorbed into the Proto-Indo-Europeans / the North Africans & into Arabs.
Mind you, north Africa was previously predominantly Black. In fact, it you went to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc today, you'd find that the villagers and people in the hinterland are Black. The Arabs and other lighter skinned people were later arrivals who then dominated the indigenous people. Even in Egypt, the original Egyptians who built the empire weren't Arabs.
National Geographic recently published evidence that in it's latter years, the Egyptian Empire was restored by Nubian/ Black Pharaohs. I bought a copy of it and here's the link for you:
h t t p : / / ngm . nationalgeographic . c o m / 2008 / 02 / black-pharaohs/ robert-draper-text
Another European JOKE is about Edmond Hillary who was the first to reach the summit of Everest. Whereas, not only did Sherpas guide him there, but, they'd been making forays up and down Everest LONG before Hillary was born.
@Titoscudd Furthermore the Boers did not meet the other African groups until LONG after they were formed as a people therefore you are accusing French people of having to "go back to ---" simply because they met up with some Germans LONG after the French formed as a people. The Boer people did not ask to be formed in Africa & they certainly did not ask to run into other African peoples because all they wanted was to be left alone. The Boer people are long since a part of the African continent.
@Titoscudd Well Africa DID come to the ancestors of the Boers because it was none other than the VOC which was OPERATING in a portion of Africa at the Cape which went to Europe & Asia & pulled out the ancestors of the Boers & dumped them at the Cape. Therefore once again you are totally wrong in your presumptions. Numerous Boers ARE trying to "leave" the oppressive dispensation by pursuing the restoration of the Boer Republics or some other form of self determination.
Can you see the extremes intellectual contortions which you engage in to conjure and fabricate your versions of "fact"? The VOC pulled you out of Europe and Asia and dumped you in the Cape i.e. dumped you in Africa, yet, it was Africa that came to you and not you, irrespective of the circumstances, that came to Africa? LOL!! That's a good one!! That's a great joke to crack at your next meeting with your "Boer folk", huh? LOL!!
@Titoscudd The ancestors of the Boers did not choose to come to Africa or make some sanitized decision to "immigrate" because as you will recall their ancestors were taken out to the Cape by the VOC which in fact WAS operating in that portion of Africa ergo the VOC as an arm of Dutch administered Africa DID come to the ancestors of the Boers & not the other way round. You limit your perspective because you deliberately reduce things into stark one dimensional racial terms.
Look! You keep saying "as you recall". I don't recall anything about non-Africans and what bestial perversions they visited on each other as it isn't any of my business and frankly don't give a fart!
So, what happened to you and the VOC is your business and not mine. Africa is MY continent and YOU and the VOC came to Africa. We didn't come to you.
@Titoscudd aha! You hilariously assert that Africa is "your" continent. What gives you the right to lay claim to all of Africa? Furthermore: the very people who DO own Africa are NEVER criticized by you! I never hear of your saying that the Oppenheimers should leave yet they are the true owners [ usurpers ] of Africa.
LOL!! I have the right to claim Africa as MY continent just as Europeans, Asians, etc have the right to claim their continents as theirs and I don't feel threatened or offended by their claim to it.
Don't worry about the Oppenheimers. By the special grace of Almighty God, we will wrest ourselves from their grip just as we did the colonialists and their racist left over spawn such as yourself.
@Titoscudd No you do not have the right to claim an entire continent. The fact that you do illustrates your imperial ambitions. Have you consulted with the actual Africans to you proposed plan to claim their land? Anyone claiming an entire continent would certainly threaten the average folks.
LOL!! I don't have the right to claim the whole continent, huh? So says the spawn of the European immigrant colonialist. LOL!! Do Europeans have the right to claim the whole of Europe as theirs? Do Asians have the right to do that with their continent? What about Australians?
@Titoscudd Now you claim that the VOC interaction with having brought the ancestors of the Boers to Africa is "my business" when you have been railing against such all along as some despoiling of Africa. This is right though as the Boers' struggle for self determination of course is their business & none of yours. Therefore this debate is in many ways a moot exercise.
Funny isn't it, how you've suddenly lost your command of history and DELIBERATELY ignored my repeated question to you. How the Ndebele of South Africa became a separate subgroup from the Nguni, following their encounter with Boers? KINDLY elaborate on that history.
@Titoscudd The Ndebele came about when some Zulu Generals left & established themselves over some North Sothos. You assertion of Boer intervention falls flat. But you like to blame the Boers for everything.
You are a convenient lier!! That is the history of the Zimbabwean Ndebele. Tell us the history of the Sourth African Ndebele as it relates to Piet Joubert,
@Titoscudd I am not "deliberately ignoring" your question as you have an annoying habit of jumping back here so fast while I am still trying to answer your previous questions. Furthermore what difference do my responses make as you clearly have a one dimensional racially imperialist agenda which is obvious when you horde the term African for only one phenotype omitting the reality that Africa is a location not a designation for a phenotype or gene pool.
@Titoscudd The Ndebele became a distinct subgroup from the Nguni the SAME way the Xhosas & Zulus did. Asserting that the Boers "created" them is a rather hilarious claim as you are openly inferring that the Boers created an entire ethnic group. Furthermore whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant to the topic at hand as the point was that the Boers are OLDER than the Ndebles. But now you claim the Boers somehow created them too.
LOL!! Nice try my boy, nice try. But, it's very telling to note that while you seem to possess a well stocked repertoire of Boer "pseudo-historians" and cherry picked narratives you weave all manner of fable about your "sexy" and "benign" presence among my people and on my continent, you suddenly become conveniently amnesic and short on facts and summarize it all in a few words "whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant". LOL!! Nice try.
@Titoscudd Telling that you would assert the erroneous notion of "Boer psuedo hstorians" when in fact the authors who have noted the African status of the Boers were not from the Boer people but from the West. The African status of the Boers is not just recognized by the Boers but by any researcher abroad who studies the region.
LOL!! Westerners confirming that other Westerners are Africans? Now, isn't that interesting? LOL!! Would it make sense in Europe for an African to advance arguments to prove that Africans who settled in Europe and America are "indigenous" to either place? Wouldn't they wonder why those Africans hadn't consulted with Europeans to determine the ethnicity of those "African Europeans".
The fact that your indigenship is ONLY confirmed by Europeans and not Africans is quite telling. LOL!!
@Titoscudd Wrong. The Swazi people note that the Boers are African & the Rolong people who were allied with the Boers also acknowledge the Boers as an African people so your argument is moot.
@Titoscudd You would be surprized how true that is. And now you sound more like a British Imperialist with you telling "farmer's republic" epithet because the Boer people are not a bunch of farmers but are in fact a people / nation.
Oh! So, calling a group of marooned frontier farmers living together and agitating for their own republic, a "farmers republic" is "imperialist", huh? LOL!!
@Titoscudd So demonizing an entire ethnic group & denying them their inherent right to self determination is somehow not imperialist. You are in total denial.
@Titoscudd LOL! Wha another hilarious joke & demonstrating just how out of touch with reality that you are because EVERYONE on Earth is part of an ethnic group. Your desperate attempts at denial are revealing your madness.
And of what pertinence is the fact that everyone on Earth is part of an ethnic group to the creation of the macro states called Britain, America or Canada without the consent of those ethnic groups?
@Titoscudd "Cherry-picked narratives"? Is this the new talking point that you Statists are instructed to use? This coming from someone who promotes an ethnically exclusive narrative when it comes to who he thinks is African or not. First of all no one is suggesting that the Boer people were faultless but your are deliberately cherry picking a discredited narrative which demonizes them as a people when in reality they were nowhere near as destructive as you assert.
@Titoscudd First of all no one is suggesting that the Boer people were faultless but your are deliberately cherry picking a discredited narrative which demonizes them as a people when in reality they were no where near as destructive as you assert because they never had any imperial ambitions as the British & your own people had. Africa it not "your" continent because Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it. The point about Joubert was that whatever he could be accused of PALES in comparison.
What putrid anal cake!! "Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it"? Does America belong to "everyone who lives in it"? Aren't the children of undocumented immigrants who have lived their entire lives in America, the UK, France, Germany, etc not still considered illegal and deported? I guess it's only in Africa where "Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it", huh? Weren't Gypsies recently ejected from France? LOL!! Keep wallowing in your delusions!
@Titoscudd The point about Joubert was that whatever he could be accused of PALES in comparison to the actions of YOUR own people against the VERY people you accuse the Boers of subjugating. Joubert was actually the leader of the progressive faction who called for a Boer-Zulu alliance so your accusations against him concerning the Ndebeles rings hollow.
C'mon gerroff!! You are now trying to change the subject about Piet Joubert! You raised the issue of the Ndebeles and were intent on using them as an example of an African ethnicity that arrived AFTER the Boers. Which was why I challenged you to tell us how the Ndebele became a separate group from the Nguni and that would require you to recount their slaughter and subjugation at the hands of Piet Joubert.
Being the duplicitous European slug that you are, you have tried to skirt the issue first, by misdirecting me to the Ndebeles of Zimbabwe and now by minimizing the gravity of their actions with stupid arguments and comparisons. All in a tortured bid to wriggle out from having to detail the truth.
So, the point about Piet Joubert WAS NOT about whether or not his actions paled in comparison to the actions of others, but, how it relates to the Ndebele became a subgroup of the Nguni.
@Titoscudd You name call yet YOU are the stupid one because the Ndebeles of Zimbabwe ARE FROM THE VERY SAME Ndebels of the Transvaal. You attempt to assert that the Transvaal Ndebeles are a SEPARATE creation because of the alleged actions of Joubert. Which is utter nonsense. The Ndebeles came about BEFORE the Boers met up with them but AFTER the Boers developed. Therefore the Boers could not have "created" them as your assert.
Once again, you are a pathological and compulsive lier!! There is a distinction between the Northern Ndebele of Zimbabwe and Botswana who were originally Zulu and the Southern Ndebele of South Africa who are originially Nguni.
Would you DARE claim that your presence on the continent predates the Ndebele's of Zimbabwe and Botswana? Yet, you attempt to conflate the existence of both groups into one. And that is just another example of the kind of "history" you peddle.
@Titoscudd Therefore it was irrelevant to the fact that the Boers predate the Ndebeles & referencing their Nguni origins as a desperate attempt at lengthening their existence is laughable because the Xhosas / Zulus & Swazi all come from Nguni roots. Telling also that you omit to note that the Nguni never existed in the region because by the time the Nguni arrived they already developed into distinct Xhosa / Zulu & Swazi factions.
And the reason why you have dismissed this is because, furnishing the details of all your exploits would effectively undermine your argument that the land you arrived on was "depopulated" as it will highlight the fact that the Boers were in fact, violent invaders who decimated, subjugated and did in fact "depopulate" areas they arrived in.
Britain, being the TYPICAL European bigger bully, kicked you out of Pretoria and dispossessed you of the land you had taken.
@Titoscudd The Boers did arrive on depopulated land. The Ndebeles lived within the northern region of the areas the Boers would later hold claim to after the Sand River Convention. The Boers arrived on depopulated lands but that does not mean that there were no people living nearby because you must remember that after the Boers were later attacked by the Ndebele that even the regions they lived in fell under Boer sovereignty by right of conquest.
@Titoscudd Just as the Zulus expanded THEIR land by conquering smaller tribes. The Boers did not arrive as violent invaders [ like the Zulus did ] because they initially settled the vacant land LONG before coming under attack by which they then later acquired further land. No. Britain NEVER removed the Boers from Pretoria as they simply set up their own British regime & a macro State which ruled over all of the various peoples & put them under a common administration for the first time ever.
This is the second time you have undermined your own arguments with your own words. Do you remember when, just a little while back, you claimed to be descended from the Khoisan? And the purpose of that narrative was to provide you with paternal cover to ownership of the land. And you went further to state that my people had in fact ethnically cleansed the Khoisan from the land which you claim as yours.
@Titoscudd No. I never claimed that the partial Khoisan roots of the Boers was a "narrative" [ is this a new buzzword you Statists are using now? ] You were attempting to paint the Boers in a one dimensional Euro centric manner. Therefore I simply pointed out that they too have non European ancestors from the region.
@Pinard7 The problem with that is you also claimed that the land which my people had ostensibly taken by way of ethnic cleansing, and which your Khoisan ancestors owned was actually "depopulated" at the time of your arrival. LOL!!!
And now, instead of providing details of how the Ndebele became a separate group from the Nguni, you initially prevaricated with the narrative of the Zimbabwean Ndebele. It wasn't until after I'd held your feet to the fire kicking and screaming, that you finally summarize this entire chapter of "Boer history" in a single phrase, "whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant to the topic at hand". LOL!!!
@Titoscudd The Zimbabwean Ndebele are the Matabele. An ethnic group created by Cecil Rhodes not Piet Joubert. To use your logic. No. I did not "sumarize" anything! I was pointing out that whatever the Boers can be accused of would pale in comparison to the actions of YOUR people & that it was immaterial to the topic at hand. Since all ethnic groups in the region could be accused of the same conduct.
But, then, you trip over your own narrative by stating that "the point was that the Boer are OLDER than the Ndebeles". LOL!! Your point isn't worth its salt because, the Boers aren't OLDER than the Ndebeles as the Ndebeles didn't migrate into the area or fall from the sky. You, the settlers, MET them there, decimated them and made them your indentured slaves which was how they became a separate group from the Nguni, whose presence predates yours.
@Titoscudd Wrong. the Ndebeles did migrate there & the Boers only met them there AFTER the Boers had already settled the vacant land to the south west. The Ndebeles were attempting to assert control over land which did not even belong to them as it was originally the home of a Sotho group before Shaka & the Zulus decimated them & kicked them out during the Difaqane ofthe 1820s & prior. But you tellingly focus on alleged Boer misconduct while omitting the actual genocide of Shaka.
And now, instead of acknowledging that less savoury FACT of your presence, you try to scoff at the fact that it was the presence and actions of the Boers that destroyed that branch of the Nguni family tree. As your practice is to cherry pick our narratives, like the typical European, you stick with the story that "the Boers are Older than the Ndebeles" and try to ridicule the fact that they are casualties of your depredations.
@Titoscudd What about the fact that the Sothos are casualties & victims of YOUR depredations? yet you want to RECREATE an African empire in the name of claiming Africa.
And your behaviour comes as no surprise, as you are congenitally and culturally programmed to be the way you are. And I don't blame you because, you assumed that I was unaware of the history of the Ndebele, seeing as you have arrogated to yourselves the role of "sole world history dictators".
So, let me restate this so that all you African wannabes will hear it clearly. Gone are the days when you would dictate our history to us or when you defined us, who we are, our traditions and culture to the rest of the world. You are such horrible people that you spent that last 400 + years casting us in the most negative of lights, and now, you the progeny of such hateful narrators are confusing yourself by that false narrative which you present as your reality.
@Titoscudd What you are doing here is purposely conflating the Boer people with the British Colonial rulers because it was they who ever had the power to "dictate history to the world" as the Boers certainly have NEVER had any power to do such as they were an impoverished people who were soon subjugated & overshadowed by the British & Cape Dutch who ALSO dictated to the world who the Boers supposedly were & often in a negative light.
@Titoscudd The Boers are still cast in the most negative light which you propagate here because they have never had the power to write the history books & those who did ALSO cast the Boers in a negative light. & those authors & historians who told the truth or at least presented the Boers in a fair light your hilariously & tellingly accuse of being "Boer pseudo historians" promoting a "narrative" despite the fact that they have INVESTIGATED the matter for themselves on the ground.
@Titoscudd Once again you are oddly throwing around the term narrative so often as to cause one to wonder why you are clinging to such a convenient buzz word. I am not promoting a "narrative" [ ? ] as all I am doing is presenting the FACTS of the topic at hand. You on the other hand are clearly promoting an anti-Boer narrative & not even an original one at that.
@Titoscudd This is the main problem with you: is that you myopically view Africa as the preserve of a narrowly defined people based on a superficial phenotype classification & all others outside of that narrow definition who have legitimate claims to their own portion of Africa are denied as they do not match your narrowly defined definition. If Zulus [ or other Bantus or even Khoisan ] had settled into vacant parts of Europe centuries ago that section would be an indigenous people there now.
@Titoscudd Just as the Pro-Indo-Europeaen invaders became. The Boer people settled onto their own vacant portions of Africa & should not be derided for doing so based on their phenotype. Just because the Bantoid phenotype predominates [ numerically ] much of sub Saharan Africa: this does not give them the right to every square inch of land.
@Titoscudd Just as the Old Europeans could not claim all of Europe despite living there for centuries prior to the arrival of the Proto Indo Europeans & would ultimately loose all of it [ except for the Basque country within the Spanish & French States ] to the invaders. The Boer people are as much part of Africa as the Germans are part of Europe despite the Germans having arrived in Europe LONG after the arrival of the original European peoples.
If you are so serious about self-determination, then, go back to Holland or where ever you came from, and go and establish your "Boer republics" over there. LOL!! I'm sure the Dutch would just lift one butt cheek and fart at the notion of a "farmer's republic". LOL!!!
@Titoscudd The Boers are not "farmers". The Boers are a people descended from the Trekboers of the 17th cent LONG before encountering the peoples whom you asininely assert they all of a sudden now must "integrate" with & who established various Boer Republics during the 19th cent before being conquered & decimated by the British. You do not own Africa & you certainly have no right to deny any people their inherent right to self determination.
@Titoscudd The Boers might have come from pastoralists & farmers but they developed into a distinct culture which branched out from farming. After all not all of the Serbs [ Sirs ] are men as applied designations are limited.
Go to India and find out about the Sidi or African-Indians. They are descended from Africans who either came to India as slaves of the Maharajahs or migrated there. Although they are distinct from MOST Indians in terms of features, culture, etc, they are FULLY integrated into the Indian society, probably as a lower caste, but, they are integrated. Their integration doesn't mean that they have a separate state nor has it caused a "genocide" as they're still existing and occasionally intermarry.
@Titoscudd Once again your are confusing an ABSORBED people [ even if many still remain ethnically distinct from the greater society ] with an AMALGAMATED people as the former fully adopts the languages & customs of the larger society they are brought into while the latter forms entirely new languages & customs as a result of forming within a linguistic & cultural vacuum. The Boer people were the result of amalgamation LONG before they met up with the established local African groups.
@Titoscudd The ancestors of the Boers were not brought into a Khoisan society which was in control. [ unlike your examples of folks who were ] The Boers' ancestors were dumped in a linguistic & cultural vacuum therefore a new language & culture was formed & as a result various new ethnic groups were formed.
The biggest problem you have is that you can not get past their skin tone & distant European ancestral roots which are irrelevant when assessing the homegrown acquired indigenous nature of given groups. No one would dare suggest [ though some did in the past ] that the Mohawks should "integrate into North American society" despite having distant Asian ancestors ergo no one should make similar culturally insensitive assertions towards a people who emerged on the African continent.
No AFRICAN can get past our awareness about your pale skin, because, YOU spent the last 400 + years making sure of that. And as this clip under which you are commenting further illustrates that where that white kid was giving analogies about "lions and cheetahs". Was that not CLEARLY illustrating racial difference? But, even though that is STARK CLARE IN THIS CLIP, you pretend as if it is I who "can not get past their skin tone and distant European ancestral roots".
@Titoscudd The Boers were not the ones in control of the political dispensation therefore you are misplacing blame. Furthermore: you have never even considered that the Boers would not even want to necessarily secede from South Africa if it were not for the fact that they are facing a genocide [ as noted by the President of Genocide Watch Gregory Stanton. ] & are under a regime which reminds them how they are just a bunch of White folks.
Have you noticed how your mere mention of the Xhosa, Nguni, etc ALWAYS highlights the fact that the Voortrekkers ALWAYS came into conflict with people whom they encountered in the "uninhabited", "depopulated" land? The worst casualty of which were the Ndebele whom you made your indentured servants? Yet, you'd have us believe that the land was "depopulated" when you arrived.
This has been flagged as spam show
The CHEETAH-LION analogy is so fucking idiotic... LISTEN PEOPLE! If a cheetah have SEX with a lion they would have a "cheetion" but that cheetion will be barren because the parent processors were not compatiable which in turn forbiddens them (by NATURE) not to reproduce... HOWEVER! if a Afrikaner man have sex with a Zulu woman they will produce a child that would be able to reproduce kin who could reproduce and multiply because their parent processors were compatiable with each other.
MrYetzchaq 5 months ago
The CHEETAH-LION analogy is so fucking idiotic... LISTEN PEOPLE! If a cheetah have SEX with a lion they would have a "cheetion" but that cheetion will be barren because the parent processors were not compatiable which in turn forbiddens them (by NATURE) not to reproduce... HOWEVER! if a Afrikaner man have sex with a Zulu woman they will produce a child that would be able to reproduce kin who could reproduce and multiply because their parent processors were compatiable with each other.
MrYetzchaq 5 months ago
They are a bunch of idiots... THE WHOLE ARE MADE UP OF MIXED PEOPLE, maybe if he take a biology class he would know that but thats what you get when you take hatred and mix it with the religion, you become low with intelligent and high with radical ideology...
LISTEN ASSHOLES!!! EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH ARE MIXED WITH SOMETHING ELSE NOT OF THEIR NORM... if you dont believe that then you belong in one of these categories: nigger, honkie, barbarian, or savage...
MrYetzchaq 5 months ago
can anybody name one successful black nation, that has done anything for this world but destroy what this worlds tax-dollars have gone to fix their country up, medicine, food, technology, infrastructure...they automatically revert back to living like primitive fools. seriously just compare arica to europe, compare advancements in culture, technology, theology, archetecture, music, culture. was africa in the race to get to the moon? where their ancestors in america? NO, haita? too primitve
KhaosOdensland 6 months ago
@KhaosOdensland Good point, well said.
ChyloeReece 4 months ago
lol, these people are nuts and they will never win.
Trumblebee 11 months ago
@Trumblebee Dude! People can make a change! If you don't then fuck you help your African brother! That's what God wants you to do!
Gossipstation 7 months ago
@Gossipstation what the hell are you talking about? why would i help or even sympathize with these nutjobs? they're insane! and their dream of creating a whites only nation in africa will never be realized, south africans won't let that happen and africans as a whole won't let that happen.
Trumblebee 7 months ago
Some white peoples are just a joke.. they want to go other peoples country and steal the goods..... who invite you to Africa ? I hope South African government will send you back to where you came from.... amen
KCSHIT 1 year ago
@KCSHIT some are just tourist, what if you go to some other peoples country and they kick you out also. why don't u people think like you have a Brain in your Fucking head!
davidsegun 1 year ago
@KCSHIT man read your coments, they are full of hate and then you talk about the lord helping you. Is that what your lord wants you to do? to hate ppl? i thought it was about being good with each other and instead you talk about liking that ppl die. BTW white ppl brought the christian religion to africa, have you ever thought about that?
nemesis06101986 8 months ago 4
@nemesis06101986 that is not true. white people did not bring christianity to africa. U forget where africa is. And where is it from the east, where the holy land is. And also some of the dead sea scrolls were found in caves in ethiopia. The servant that was given to Abraham by his wife Sarah- Hagar was an Egyptian. Moses married and ethiopian, King David's Bathsheba was black. i never heard or read anything in the bible that came from europe. sorry. just some facts for you.
dollazndiamondz 1 month ago
@KCSHIT what about all the black people living in western countries? Should we send them back to Africa? Your comment is racist and disgusting!
muse001 7 months ago 2
He was slaughtered in his bed while recovering from a heart operation. I hope you fucking evil bastards are happy. Your rainbow nation is a joke. Things are more worse now than ever. Do you really think ANC give a flying fuck about blacks or whites?
hemlig866 1 year ago 8
@hemlig866
Yes. The "fucking evil bastards are happy". If you were in Europe and learned that someone who hoisted Nazi flags had been killed would you DARE to publicly shed a tear for them? You'd be skewered in the press and even your community would make an open show of disowning you. But, when it happens in Africa, then you sprout the balls to talk all manner of nonsense.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@hemlig866 I am so happy that he died... and if you are like him i wish i will killed you with my hand lord help me please to clean up the white trash
KCSHIT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BREAKING NEWS:
JAMIE DIMON, CNBC, FOXBUSINESS AND CNN ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY ACCESSING AND MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 1-3 MONTHS TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
111WLee 1 year ago
This discussion page should stick to the topic.
Pinard7 1 year ago
The struggle for Boer self determination is much larger than the late Eugene Terre'Blanche & the late Robert van Tonder or anyone else for hat matter because as is the case with any people struggling for self determination the topic is much bigger than the personalities who often overshadow the topic.
Pinard7 1 year ago
This debate goes around in circles because of your denial of the African status of the Boers & their inherent right to self determination. Both facts enshrined in international law & the historical record. No matter what ones' views are on a given people no one has the right nor power to deny a given people their own historically based cultural designation & right to self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! Nobody denies anyone a right to self-determination. I am sure that you wouldn't DARE state that Europe denies the right to self-determination to all those minorities who live and exist in the context of larger countries now, would you?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd But Europe in fact DOES deny the right to self determination to various minorities. The Basques & Corsicans are two most prominent examples. Furthermore you are in total denial to claim that no one denies anyone the right to self determination. Furthermore the Boer people are not the product of being a "minority" as they were formed LONG before becoming a "minority" within the macro State of South Africa. The Boer people are a nation.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
My question to you was, does international law require the creation of separate states for each minority group as a prerequisite to self-determination?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Your methodology to your questions is a distraction because the Boer people are not a "minority" group & neither are they asking for "separate states" as they are petitioning & working for self determination which MIGHT at some future date culminate in the restoration of their Boer Republics. The Boers developed as a people LONG before they were co-opted [ illegitimately ] as a "minority" part of another peoples' population group.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
There are people of African descent who have lived in Europe, Brazil, Cuba, etc or generations. None of which are planning on recognizing these Africans as a separate or "new" ethnic group even though they have in fact, intermarried with the various races and cultures they encountered, Talk less of granting them an autonomous state even though they USUALLY live in separate communities.
Do you DARE to qualify this as a denial of self-determination?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Of course it would qualify as a denial of self determination especially if any of those groups are trying to acquire self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Does international law require the creation of separate states for each and every minority group as a prerequisite for self-determination?
I have told you and I'll restate it. If in fact, you are an African, then you shouldn't have a problem integrating into the larger African society even as I am an African and I haven't a problem with that. And my people, like so many others prior to the arrival of Europeans, had established our own empire separate from all other ethnicities.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boer people are integrated into Africa but the natural socio political growth of any people is to acquire higher forms of self determination. Not to regress & be folded into a mini empire mascarading as a macro State. A macro State which was never consented to by any of the local peoples of the region.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Is America or Canada where you live also "mascarading" as a macro state? What about Spain, Britain, Germany, etc are they also "mascarading" as macro states? Were ANY of those countries consented to by ANY of the "local peoples of the region"?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Canada & America are also great examples of macro States. Remember South Africa was a most egregious example of a macro State & its various peoples were especially subjugated.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Oh, really? And what about northern Ireland? What about the natives of both America and Canada? Were the consulted before they were subsumed in that macro state? What about the Aborigines of Australia and Maoris or N. Zealand? But, in you STANDARD European warped and downright stupid estimation, South Africa is "a most egregious example of a macro state".
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Those other examples are valid BUT South Africa was established after particular brutality & without even the pretense of consent.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd A most egregious example because it was the most blatant example of a macro State until the creation of Yugoslavia & the USSR. Those two oppressive macro States fell & so too will the South African one in time as the various people will more overtly withdraw their consent over time as they naturally move towards national self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! More egregious than the creation of the Britain, huh? Was the consent of the Welsh or the Irish tribes sought prior to the creation of Britain? And what about Spain?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
Few folks bother to research the facts about the Boers & folks like you like to propagate the most over the top & discredited allegations made against them because you are afraid that the Boers might scupper your one dimensional imperial agenda if they restore their old republics or acquire self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Why should I give a damn about the Boers? Do the Boers do research about my people other than the nonsense they conjure to buttress the disjointed dribble the present as history? You're not even a part of Africa so why should Africans "research" about the Boers?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Once again you make sweeping presumptions because the Boers DO & HAVE in fact researched your people. None other than the controversial & late Eugene Terre'Blanche knew a lot about the Tswana peoples he lived near & was an avid connoisseur of Tswana history & he also had some Tswana friends & supporters. The Boers were also renown for learning various Bantu languages in the past.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Modern day & prominent Boer farmer Eddie von Maltitz is fluent in the Sesotho language & regularly attends social gathering with the Sotho
peoples he lives near in the town of Ficksburg. You can watch the video right here on Youtube showing this. The Boer Professor Tobias Louw attends Zulu ceremonies. Therefore your one dimensional portrayal of the Boer people is negated by the facts.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! The Boer is fluent in many African languages, has learned our cultures and attends our meetings because we are accepting of foreigners. Can you name a SINGLE European nation that affords Africans similar access to their innermost circles even though we have lived in the West for centuries now?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd There are not many that do not.
Pinard7 1 year ago
Comment removed
Titoscudd 1 year ago
Comment removed
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Ian Smith, of Rhodesia fame, was the son of European missionaries who ostensibly came to "civilize the savages", "save the African from himself" and to stamp out Africa's "faults". He was nannied by Shonas and accepted by them as one of their sons and understood their culture intimately. Is it not telling that this individual, Ian Smith, was the tool and strongest proponent of their eventual subjugation and violent suppression?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Wrong. Smith wanted a gradual transition to majority rule & his government was not as racially exclusive as presumed.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
"Gradual transition to majority rule"? Always a convenient proposal for the oppressors. Europeans had had centuries to make this transition, but, they NEVER did because, that was not their intention. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Our people had suffered all manner of debasement, denial of rights, suppression and deliberate lack of access to opportunities, etc for generations. Yet, you'd have us wait for a "gradual transitions to majority rule".
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Fair enough. So when is this proposed majority rule going to happen? We are all still waiting.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And what were Europeans going to give up in the interim? What sacrifices were you going to make in the interim? And who would determine how "gradual" the transition would be? Would it be over a year, 2 years, 10, 50, a generation? And Africans were supposed to sit on their haunches while Europeans dictated the pace of this "gradual transition" after we'd spent centuries in shackles? Can you see how heinous a creature you really are?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Once again you are conflating now even myself with the Colonial oppressors. All I did was point out a public policy yet all I see are Africans STILL waiting for democratic dispensations while you Statists ride the gravy train & get rich in the process while your people are becoming further dispossessed.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
This same narrative of treachery is repeated in Australia, North and South America, New Zealand, etc where Europeans who were accepted by indigenous groups and had an intimate knowledge of indigenous cultures were the most brutal suppressors of those cultures and in some cases the most potent instruments of their decimation. Is it not telling that EVEN WHITES recognize Eugene Terre'blanche as a racial segregationist? And even this clip under which we comment attests to this.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The main aim of Terre'Blanche was to acquire some form of Boer self determination but he did not represent the Boer people as a whole as his organization only attracted small numbers.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers do not live in a vacuum cut off from the rest of Africa. If the Boers "are not part of Africa" then why do people have to go to Africa to visit them? Why did the Boers freedom struggles happen exclusively in Africa? The Boers are an integral part of Africa as noted by various authors [ Oliver Ransford / Sidney Robbins / Howard Hillegas etc. ] & the historical record.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! "Imperial agenda"? Can you see how you just belch nonsense? How can I have an imperial agenda in my own country, among my own people and on my own land? What a confused European. Do you think that everyone is like your resource bereft homeland which must leech off other continents in order to survive?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The only one "belching nonsense" is you as you have a clear racist imperial agenda because you claim all of Africa for yourself without even bothering to consult with the various peoples you claim & aim to rule over. Last time I checked the Boer Republics [ homeland ] were rich in resources which is why they were taken from the Boers when the British conquered them & why the land in question is still firmly under British control administered by their various puppet regimes.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! Discussing with you requires one to resort to the most pedestrian and mundane expressions possible. I am an African, and Africa is MY continent. As an African, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM NOR DO I FEEL THREATENED by a European claiming the WHOLE OF EUROPE as his continent nor will I have a problem with an Asian doing the same with his continent. Would it have crossed your mind that either individual is intent on establishing an empire?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd No European can nor has the right to claim all of Europe as his continent. That is imperialism because he has no right to claim areas he has no connection with. Just as you have no right to claim all of Africa because it is supposed to belong to its peoples not a would be dictator. Furthermore. Continents are arbitrary notions because Europe / Africa & Asia is in fact one large land mass & its various peoples have historically moved around on & claimed areas far from their origins.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
I asked you to go any where in Canada and ask a random person to show you an African, without telling them about your delusions, and see if they'll point to you. LOL!! Then ask them to show you a European and see if they'll point to you. LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Once again you make predictable erroneous presumptions because the Canadian people are more sophisticated than your assumption & are quite aware that the Boer people are Africans as they are not as hindered by a narrow minded phenotype based paradigm. Furthermore you presume [ erroneously ] that Canadians view White people as European because White Canadians only view themselves as Canadian.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Listen, my boy. What Canadians, Americans, Australians, N. Zealanders or any other European thinks about the status of the Boer is immaterial to me. Just as I suspect that what Africans think about the status of the original indigenous people i.e. native Americans, Aborigines, Maoris, etc in those countries is of no consequence to them. So, you can keep hopping from one European to the other reaffirming your skewed perceptions and "group think" but, that doesn't change anything.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd LOL! What a joke! You were the one who invoked the "ask a Canadian who he thinks an African is"! Then balked at the response I gave when I pointed out that Canadians are not as one dimensional as you. Consequently what you think about the Boers is of no consequence to them either & vice versa I suspect.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
I asked you to ask random Canadians to identify an African not whether or not a Boer is an African. In fact, go ANYWHERE in the world and without narrating your delusions, ask any random person to show you an African in a crowd ans see if your pick you out.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Pointing to other peoples presumptive beliefs certainly does not negate the reality that Boers are Africans & would only exhibit their own ignorance on the matter if they were to respond in the ignorant & oe dimensional manner that you presume they would.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You know, there's an African proverb that says, "A call is made for all horned animals to assemble and the snail insists on leading the procession". I guess that the snail also claims that he is a horned animal. LOL!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Furthermore: asking the opinion of random people is not a rigorous form of scientific inquiry & certainly not a legitimate or reliable source for determining the continental home of a people. Massive fail.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!!! That's quite an interesting statement don't you think? Have you heard of polls? Are polls considered "scientific" measures of the spread of societal opinion? Are polls "not a legitimate or reliable source" of information and gauging perception? But, when the subject of the poll concerns people's perception of your confused self, it becomes "not a legitimate or reliable source", huh? LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Whoever said that polls were reliable yet alone legitimate? Polls are just organized surveys which attempt to sell an idea to the public.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Therefore any person attempting to claim an entire continent is intent on establishing an empire because what other purpose is there to wanting to claim an entire continent.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Furthermore why stop there? Why not claim the whole world.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Why would I want to claim the whole world? Isn't that stupid? Isn't that the masturbatory obsession of the Western world? Point to a single instance in world history when my people EVER thought to claim the whole world as theirs? In fact, prior to meeting you, the very concept would be utterly absurd.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Why would you want to claim Africa? Why not take it to the logical conclusion of the world. Shaka was on his way to doing so. so you assertion that the concept was foreign to you is not true. Furthermore: it was the obsession of the elite not of the average person.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You're a stupid person!! Shaka was on his way to taking over the whole of Africa, huh? Did he even get as far as the Congo? And how was he going to take over the whole of West Africa with foot soldiers armed with Assegais? How was he going to face the mounted cavalries of the Sokoto Caliphate, the Oyo Empire, The Asante Empire, Fon, The Nupes, The Benin, Queen Amina of Zazzau, Sundiata, Mai Idris Aluma Katarkamabi of the Kanem Borno Empire, the Tuaregs, etc?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd He certainly had a good start & the Zulus were the strongest tribe in Africa at the time so the concept was certainly feasible. The point is was that he was agitating in that direction.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Are you stupid or something? The Zulus were the strongest tribe in Africa at that time? Are you stupid? Even by African standards, the Zulu were primitive!! Go and read about Oyo Mesi, Sokoto Caliphate, Benin Empire, Ife, etc.
Do you know that when the Portuguese first saw the Benin City, they compared its structure and level of organization to Lisbon's?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Go and read about the walled cities of the Hausa states that were built by Queen Amina of Zazzau.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd I notice you are referencing North Africans here.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Can you here the Dutch farmer? So, Queen Amina of Zazzau, Kanem Borno Empire, Sokoto Caliphate, Oyo Mesi, Asante Empire, Fon, Nupe Empire, etc are North African empires, huh? LOL!! I told you that your aren't an African. LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd OK. North West Africans. [ I was referring to you post about the Hausa ] but you miss the point as i was talking about a specific time frame. Which is a total joke because you ignorantly refer to the Boer people as Dutch farmers when they gave very few actual Dutch roots & most are not farmers.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
The Hausa are West Africans. At what nonsense time frame were you talking about? Go and find out whether you could compare the level of development of Shaka and the Zulus with that of Ife, Oyo, Fon, Asante, Kanem Borno, Zazzau, Mali, etc. Where were the Zulus when Alexander the Great was taking lessons at Timbuktu university? What crass ignorant nonsense!! What nonsense time frame were you prattling about? I told you that you are NOT an African yet, you argue with me.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Don't go home to Holland and demand you farmer's republic there. In fact, I'm sure that they'd be begging you to come and take free land there. LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
But, when an African dares to say this, he automatically has an "imperial agenda". LOL!! Even if that were the case, as long as his "imperial agenda" is based in Africa, I don't see how that concerns you, a European.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd That is the crux of the problem & perfectly illustrates your myopic & stunted reasoning because the Boers as Africans [ & everyone else in Africa ] would certainly be concerned with your & anyone's else imperial agenda. Your claims to the whole continent [ as mad your claim is ] would naturally cause concern / friction & strife among the various people who value their inherent right to self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You're a stupid person!! And utter intellectually constipated idiot!! When was the last time you heard that any African aspired to take over the whole of Africa? But being the European fool that you are, an African's claim of Africa as his continent and telling you that Europe is your continent so you should go and live there, automatically translates into an "imperial agenda". What an idiot!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Because you refuse to recognize that Europe is not the Boers' continent because the Boers were developed on African soil just as Asia is not the Mohawks' continent because they developed on North American soil.
Pinard7 1 year ago
Funny isn't it? European kids asking why the world isn't naturally made up of mixed race people? Yet, it hasn't occurred to them that if they are in fact, intent on racial segregation and separation, then, they shouldn't be on the African continent which is predominantly Black. Let them go back to Europe and be on a continent that is ORIGINALLY and predominantly White. You came to Africa, Africa didn't come to you. So, if you want to be separate from the people you met here, then, LEAVE!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd But the southern portion of Africa was historically never "predominantly Black" until after the Bantu conquest & the Boer people were formed LONG before the Bantus even tried to assert such dominance. The White presence in Africa is LONGER than the Bantu migrations because the White presence goes back to the Old European peoples who settled parts of North Africa thousands of years ago. Their ancestors did not "come to Africa" they were BROUGHT to Africa.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You keep talking nonsense about "Old Europeans". What were these "old Europeans" called? What cities, settlements did they found? LOL!! C'mon gerroff!! Like the European fables about Mongo Park who "discovered" the tributary of the Niger and Benue Rivers. Whereas, Africans had fished those waters LONG before he was born. Moreover, it was Africans who rowed the canoe and guided him to the tributary.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Old Europeans were the inhabitants of Europe before the Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus Mountain Range invaded. The only remnants of the Old Europeans left are the Basque people of France & Spain. The rest of the Old Europeans were absorbed into the Proto-Indo-Europeans / the North Africans & into Arabs.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Mind you, north Africa was previously predominantly Black. In fact, it you went to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc today, you'd find that the villagers and people in the hinterland are Black. The Arabs and other lighter skinned people were later arrivals who then dominated the indigenous people. Even in Egypt, the original Egyptians who built the empire weren't Arabs.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
National Geographic recently published evidence that in it's latter years, the Egyptian Empire was restored by Nubian/ Black Pharaohs. I bought a copy of it and here's the link for you:
h t t p : / / ngm . nationalgeographic . c o m / 2008 / 02 / black-pharaohs/ robert-draper-text
Close all blanks.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Another European JOKE is about Edmond Hillary who was the first to reach the summit of Everest. Whereas, not only did Sherpas guide him there, but, they'd been making forays up and down Everest LONG before Hillary was born.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Furthermore the Boers did not meet the other African groups until LONG after they were formed as a people therefore you are accusing French people of having to "go back to ---" simply because they met up with some Germans LONG after the French formed as a people. The Boer people did not ask to be formed in Africa & they certainly did not ask to run into other African peoples because all they wanted was to be left alone. The Boer people are long since a part of the African continent.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Well Africa DID come to the ancestors of the Boers because it was none other than the VOC which was OPERATING in a portion of Africa at the Cape which went to Europe & Asia & pulled out the ancestors of the Boers & dumped them at the Cape. Therefore once again you are totally wrong in your presumptions. Numerous Boers ARE trying to "leave" the oppressive dispensation by pursuing the restoration of the Boer Republics or some other form of self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Can you see the extremes intellectual contortions which you engage in to conjure and fabricate your versions of "fact"? The VOC pulled you out of Europe and Asia and dumped you in the Cape i.e. dumped you in Africa, yet, it was Africa that came to you and not you, irrespective of the circumstances, that came to Africa? LOL!! That's a good one!! That's a great joke to crack at your next meeting with your "Boer folk", huh? LOL!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The ancestors of the Boers did not choose to come to Africa or make some sanitized decision to "immigrate" because as you will recall their ancestors were taken out to the Cape by the VOC which in fact WAS operating in that portion of Africa ergo the VOC as an arm of Dutch administered Africa DID come to the ancestors of the Boers & not the other way round. You limit your perspective because you deliberately reduce things into stark one dimensional racial terms.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Look! You keep saying "as you recall". I don't recall anything about non-Africans and what bestial perversions they visited on each other as it isn't any of my business and frankly don't give a fart!
So, what happened to you and the VOC is your business and not mine. Africa is MY continent and YOU and the VOC came to Africa. We didn't come to you.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd aha! You hilariously assert that Africa is "your" continent. What gives you the right to lay claim to all of Africa? Furthermore: the very people who DO own Africa are NEVER criticized by you! I never hear of your saying that the Oppenheimers should leave yet they are the true owners [ usurpers ] of Africa.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! I have the right to claim Africa as MY continent just as Europeans, Asians, etc have the right to claim their continents as theirs and I don't feel threatened or offended by their claim to it.
Don't worry about the Oppenheimers. By the special grace of Almighty God, we will wrest ourselves from their grip just as we did the colonialists and their racist left over spawn such as yourself.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd No you do not have the right to claim an entire continent. The fact that you do illustrates your imperial ambitions. Have you consulted with the actual Africans to you proposed plan to claim their land? Anyone claiming an entire continent would certainly threaten the average folks.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! I don't have the right to claim the whole continent, huh? So says the spawn of the European immigrant colonialist. LOL!! Do Europeans have the right to claim the whole of Europe as theirs? Do Asians have the right to do that with their continent? What about Australians?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Now you claim that the VOC interaction with having brought the ancestors of the Boers to Africa is "my business" when you have been railing against such all along as some despoiling of Africa. This is right though as the Boers' struggle for self determination of course is their business & none of yours. Therefore this debate is in many ways a moot exercise.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Funny isn't it, how you've suddenly lost your command of history and DELIBERATELY ignored my repeated question to you. How the Ndebele of South Africa became a separate subgroup from the Nguni, following their encounter with Boers? KINDLY elaborate on that history.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Ndebele came about when some Zulu Generals left & established themselves over some North Sothos. You assertion of Boer intervention falls flat. But you like to blame the Boers for everything.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You are a convenient lier!! That is the history of the Zimbabwean Ndebele. Tell us the history of the Sourth African Ndebele as it relates to Piet Joubert,
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd I am not "deliberately ignoring" your question as you have an annoying habit of jumping back here so fast while I am still trying to answer your previous questions. Furthermore what difference do my responses make as you clearly have a one dimensional racially imperialist agenda which is obvious when you horde the term African for only one phenotype omitting the reality that Africa is a location not a designation for a phenotype or gene pool.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Ndebele became a distinct subgroup from the Nguni the SAME way the Xhosas & Zulus did. Asserting that the Boers "created" them is a rather hilarious claim as you are openly inferring that the Boers created an entire ethnic group. Furthermore whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant to the topic at hand as the point was that the Boers are OLDER than the Ndebles. But now you claim the Boers somehow created them too.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! Nice try my boy, nice try. But, it's very telling to note that while you seem to possess a well stocked repertoire of Boer "pseudo-historians" and cherry picked narratives you weave all manner of fable about your "sexy" and "benign" presence among my people and on my continent, you suddenly become conveniently amnesic and short on facts and summarize it all in a few words "whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant". LOL!! Nice try.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Telling that you would assert the erroneous notion of "Boer psuedo hstorians" when in fact the authors who have noted the African status of the Boers were not from the Boer people but from the West. The African status of the Boers is not just recognized by the Boers but by any researcher abroad who studies the region.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! Westerners confirming that other Westerners are Africans? Now, isn't that interesting? LOL!! Would it make sense in Europe for an African to advance arguments to prove that Africans who settled in Europe and America are "indigenous" to either place? Wouldn't they wonder why those Africans hadn't consulted with Europeans to determine the ethnicity of those "African Europeans".
The fact that your indigenship is ONLY confirmed by Europeans and not Africans is quite telling. LOL!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Wrong. The Swazi people note that the Boers are African & the Rolong people who were allied with the Boers also acknowledge the Boers as an African people so your argument is moot.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Then, go and live with your Swazi and Rolong brethren. And if they like, they can give you their land to for your "farmer's republic".
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd You would be surprized how true that is. And now you sound more like a British Imperialist with you telling "farmer's republic" epithet because the Boer people are not a bunch of farmers but are in fact a people / nation.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Oh! So, calling a group of marooned frontier farmers living together and agitating for their own republic, a "farmers republic" is "imperialist", huh? LOL!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd So demonizing an entire ethnic group & denying them their inherent right to self determination is somehow not imperialist. You are in total denial.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
You're NOT an ethnic group, my boy. So, PLEASE stop abusing that term.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd LOL! Wha another hilarious joke & demonstrating just how out of touch with reality that you are because EVERYONE on Earth is part of an ethnic group. Your desperate attempts at denial are revealing your madness.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And of what pertinence is the fact that everyone on Earth is part of an ethnic group to the creation of the macro states called Britain, America or Canada without the consent of those ethnic groups?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd I think you just answered your own question.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd "Cherry-picked narratives"? Is this the new talking point that you Statists are instructed to use? This coming from someone who promotes an ethnically exclusive narrative when it comes to who he thinks is African or not. First of all no one is suggesting that the Boer people were faultless but your are deliberately cherry picking a discredited narrative which demonizes them as a people when in reality they were nowhere near as destructive as you assert.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd First of all no one is suggesting that the Boer people were faultless but your are deliberately cherry picking a discredited narrative which demonizes them as a people when in reality they were no where near as destructive as you assert because they never had any imperial ambitions as the British & your own people had. Africa it not "your" continent because Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it. The point about Joubert was that whatever he could be accused of PALES in comparison.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
What putrid anal cake!! "Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it"? Does America belong to "everyone who lives in it"? Aren't the children of undocumented immigrants who have lived their entire lives in America, the UK, France, Germany, etc not still considered illegal and deported? I guess it's only in Africa where "Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it", huh? Weren't Gypsies recently ejected from France? LOL!! Keep wallowing in your delusions!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The pointing to other countries' extremist & xenophobic policies does not then rationalize your own extremist & xenophobic assertions.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The point about Joubert was that whatever he could be accused of PALES in comparison to the actions of YOUR own people against the VERY people you accuse the Boers of subjugating. Joubert was actually the leader of the progressive faction who called for a Boer-Zulu alliance so your accusations against him concerning the Ndebeles rings hollow.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
C'mon gerroff!! You are now trying to change the subject about Piet Joubert! You raised the issue of the Ndebeles and were intent on using them as an example of an African ethnicity that arrived AFTER the Boers. Which was why I challenged you to tell us how the Ndebele became a separate group from the Nguni and that would require you to recount their slaughter and subjugation at the hands of Piet Joubert.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Being the duplicitous European slug that you are, you have tried to skirt the issue first, by misdirecting me to the Ndebeles of Zimbabwe and now by minimizing the gravity of their actions with stupid arguments and comparisons. All in a tortured bid to wriggle out from having to detail the truth.
So, the point about Piet Joubert WAS NOT about whether or not his actions paled in comparison to the actions of others, but, how it relates to the Ndebele became a subgroup of the Nguni.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd You name call yet YOU are the stupid one because the Ndebeles of Zimbabwe ARE FROM THE VERY SAME Ndebels of the Transvaal. You attempt to assert that the Transvaal Ndebeles are a SEPARATE creation because of the alleged actions of Joubert. Which is utter nonsense. The Ndebeles came about BEFORE the Boers met up with them but AFTER the Boers developed. Therefore the Boers could not have "created" them as your assert.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Once again, you are a pathological and compulsive lier!! There is a distinction between the Northern Ndebele of Zimbabwe and Botswana who were originally Zulu and the Southern Ndebele of South Africa who are originially Nguni.
Would you DARE claim that your presence on the continent predates the Ndebele's of Zimbabwe and Botswana? Yet, you attempt to conflate the existence of both groups into one. And that is just another example of the kind of "history" you peddle.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Therefore it was irrelevant to the fact that the Boers predate the Ndebeles & referencing their Nguni origins as a desperate attempt at lengthening their existence is laughable because the Xhosas / Zulus & Swazi all come from Nguni roots. Telling also that you omit to note that the Nguni never existed in the region because by the time the Nguni arrived they already developed into distinct Xhosa / Zulu & Swazi factions.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And the reason why you have dismissed this is because, furnishing the details of all your exploits would effectively undermine your argument that the land you arrived on was "depopulated" as it will highlight the fact that the Boers were in fact, violent invaders who decimated, subjugated and did in fact "depopulate" areas they arrived in.
Britain, being the TYPICAL European bigger bully, kicked you out of Pretoria and dispossessed you of the land you had taken.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers did arrive on depopulated land. The Ndebeles lived within the northern region of the areas the Boers would later hold claim to after the Sand River Convention. The Boers arrived on depopulated lands but that does not mean that there were no people living nearby because you must remember that after the Boers were later attacked by the Ndebele that even the regions they lived in fell under Boer sovereignty by right of conquest.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Just as the Zulus expanded THEIR land by conquering smaller tribes. The Boers did not arrive as violent invaders [ like the Zulus did ] because they initially settled the vacant land LONG before coming under attack by which they then later acquired further land. No. Britain NEVER removed the Boers from Pretoria as they simply set up their own British regime & a macro State which ruled over all of the various peoples & put them under a common administration for the first time ever.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
This is the second time you have undermined your own arguments with your own words. Do you remember when, just a little while back, you claimed to be descended from the Khoisan? And the purpose of that narrative was to provide you with paternal cover to ownership of the land. And you went further to state that my people had in fact ethnically cleansed the Khoisan from the land which you claim as yours.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd No. I never claimed that the partial Khoisan roots of the Boers was a "narrative" [ is this a new buzzword you Statists are using now? ] You were attempting to paint the Boers in a one dimensional Euro centric manner. Therefore I simply pointed out that they too have non European ancestors from the region.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7 The problem with that is you also claimed that the land which my people had ostensibly taken by way of ethnic cleansing, and which your Khoisan ancestors owned was actually "depopulated" at the time of your arrival. LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The land north of the Orange River was depopulated by the Difaqane of Shaka. That fact is on the historical record.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And now, instead of providing details of how the Ndebele became a separate group from the Nguni, you initially prevaricated with the narrative of the Zimbabwean Ndebele. It wasn't until after I'd held your feet to the fire kicking and screaming, that you finally summarize this entire chapter of "Boer history" in a single phrase, "whatever exploitative actions Joubert & the Boers might have engaged in is irrelevant to the topic at hand". LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Zimbabwean Ndebele are the Matabele. An ethnic group created by Cecil Rhodes not Piet Joubert. To use your logic. No. I did not "sumarize" anything! I was pointing out that whatever the Boers can be accused of would pale in comparison to the actions of YOUR people & that it was immaterial to the topic at hand. Since all ethnic groups in the region could be accused of the same conduct.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
But, then, you trip over your own narrative by stating that "the point was that the Boer are OLDER than the Ndebeles". LOL!! Your point isn't worth its salt because, the Boers aren't OLDER than the Ndebeles as the Ndebeles didn't migrate into the area or fall from the sky. You, the settlers, MET them there, decimated them and made them your indentured slaves which was how they became a separate group from the Nguni, whose presence predates yours.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Wrong. the Ndebeles did migrate there & the Boers only met them there AFTER the Boers had already settled the vacant land to the south west. The Ndebeles were attempting to assert control over land which did not even belong to them as it was originally the home of a Sotho group before Shaka & the Zulus decimated them & kicked them out during the Difaqane ofthe 1820s & prior. But you tellingly focus on alleged Boer misconduct while omitting the actual genocide of Shaka.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And now, instead of acknowledging that less savoury FACT of your presence, you try to scoff at the fact that it was the presence and actions of the Boers that destroyed that branch of the Nguni family tree. As your practice is to cherry pick our narratives, like the typical European, you stick with the story that "the Boers are Older than the Ndebeles" and try to ridicule the fact that they are casualties of your depredations.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd What about the fact that the Sothos are casualties & victims of YOUR depredations? yet you want to RECREATE an African empire in the name of claiming Africa.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
And your behaviour comes as no surprise, as you are congenitally and culturally programmed to be the way you are. And I don't blame you because, you assumed that I was unaware of the history of the Ndebele, seeing as you have arrogated to yourselves the role of "sole world history dictators".
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Pinard7
So, let me restate this so that all you African wannabes will hear it clearly. Gone are the days when you would dictate our history to us or when you defined us, who we are, our traditions and culture to the rest of the world. You are such horrible people that you spent that last 400 + years casting us in the most negative of lights, and now, you the progeny of such hateful narrators are confusing yourself by that false narrative which you present as your reality.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd What you are doing here is purposely conflating the Boer people with the British Colonial rulers because it was they who ever had the power to "dictate history to the world" as the Boers certainly have NEVER had any power to do such as they were an impoverished people who were soon subjugated & overshadowed by the British & Cape Dutch who ALSO dictated to the world who the Boers supposedly were & often in a negative light.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers are still cast in the most negative light which you propagate here because they have never had the power to write the history books & those who did ALSO cast the Boers in a negative light. & those authors & historians who told the truth or at least presented the Boers in a fair light your hilariously & tellingly accuse of being "Boer pseudo historians" promoting a "narrative" despite the fact that they have INVESTIGATED the matter for themselves on the ground.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Once again you are oddly throwing around the term narrative so often as to cause one to wonder why you are clinging to such a convenient buzz word. I am not promoting a "narrative" [ ? ] as all I am doing is presenting the FACTS of the topic at hand. You on the other hand are clearly promoting an anti-Boer narrative & not even an original one at that.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd This is the main problem with you: is that you myopically view Africa as the preserve of a narrowly defined people based on a superficial phenotype classification & all others outside of that narrow definition who have legitimate claims to their own portion of Africa are denied as they do not match your narrowly defined definition. If Zulus [ or other Bantus or even Khoisan ] had settled into vacant parts of Europe centuries ago that section would be an indigenous people there now.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Just as the Pro-Indo-Europeaen invaders became. The Boer people settled onto their own vacant portions of Africa & should not be derided for doing so based on their phenotype. Just because the Bantoid phenotype predominates [ numerically ] much of sub Saharan Africa: this does not give them the right to every square inch of land.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Just as the Old Europeans could not claim all of Europe despite living there for centuries prior to the arrival of the Proto Indo Europeans & would ultimately loose all of it [ except for the Basque country within the Spanish & French States ] to the invaders. The Boer people are as much part of Africa as the Germans are part of Europe despite the Germans having arrived in Europe LONG after the arrival of the original European peoples.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
If you are so serious about self-determination, then, go back to Holland or where ever you came from, and go and establish your "Boer republics" over there. LOL!! I'm sure the Dutch would just lift one butt cheek and fart at the notion of a "farmer's republic". LOL!!!
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers are not "farmers". The Boers are a people descended from the Trekboers of the 17th cent LONG before encountering the peoples whom you asininely assert they all of a sudden now must "integrate" with & who established various Boer Republics during the 19th cent before being conquered & decimated by the British. You do not own Africa & you certainly have no right to deny any people their inherent right to self determination.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
LOL!! What is the etymology of the word "Boer"?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers might have come from pastoralists & farmers but they developed into a distinct culture which branched out from farming. After all not all of the Serbs [ Sirs ] are men as applied designations are limited.
Pinard7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pinard7
I asked you a question, what is the etymology of the word "Boer"?
Titoscudd 1 year ago
Go to India and find out about the Sidi or African-Indians. They are descended from Africans who either came to India as slaves of the Maharajahs or migrated there. Although they are distinct from MOST Indians in terms of features, culture, etc, they are FULLY integrated into the Indian society, probably as a lower caste, but, they are integrated. Their integration doesn't mean that they have a separate state nor has it caused a "genocide" as they're still existing and occasionally intermarry.
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd Once again your are confusing an ABSORBED people [ even if many still remain ethnically distinct from the greater society ] with an AMALGAMATED people as the former fully adopts the languages & customs of the larger society they are brought into while the latter forms entirely new languages & customs as a result of forming within a linguistic & cultural vacuum. The Boer people were the result of amalgamation LONG before they met up with the established local African groups.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The ancestors of the Boers were not brought into a Khoisan society which was in control. [ unlike your examples of folks who were ] The Boers' ancestors were dumped in a linguistic & cultural vacuum therefore a new language & culture was formed & as a result various new ethnic groups were formed.
Pinard7 1 year ago
Comment removed
Titoscudd 1 year ago
The biggest problem you have is that you can not get past their skin tone & distant European ancestral roots which are irrelevant when assessing the homegrown acquired indigenous nature of given groups. No one would dare suggest [ though some did in the past ] that the Mohawks should "integrate into North American society" despite having distant Asian ancestors ergo no one should make similar culturally insensitive assertions towards a people who emerged on the African continent.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
No AFRICAN can get past our awareness about your pale skin, because, YOU spent the last 400 + years making sure of that. And as this clip under which you are commenting further illustrates that where that white kid was giving analogies about "lions and cheetahs". Was that not CLEARLY illustrating racial difference? But, even though that is STARK CLARE IN THIS CLIP, you pretend as if it is I who "can not get past their skin tone and distant European ancestral roots".
Titoscudd 1 year ago
@Titoscudd The Boers were not the ones in control of the political dispensation therefore you are misplacing blame. Furthermore: you have never even considered that the Boers would not even want to necessarily secede from South Africa if it were not for the fact that they are facing a genocide [ as noted by the President of Genocide Watch Gregory Stanton. ] & are under a regime which reminds them how they are just a bunch of White folks.
Pinard7 1 year ago
@Pinard7
Have you noticed how your mere mention of the Xhosa, Nguni, etc ALWAYS highlights the fact that the Voortrekkers ALWAYS came into conflict with people whom they encountered in the "uninhabited", "depopulated" land? The worst casualty of which were the Ndebele whom you made your indentured servants? Yet, you'd have us believe that the land was "depopulated" when you arrived.
Titoscudd 1 year ago