I think the BNP, UKIP, EDL and Britain First should meet to discuss consolidating into a unified Nationalist movement.Judging by the comments following the article the grass roots support for such a consolidation is there.Stop splitting the opposition vote over minute differences in policy. This is the way to grow Conservative Nationalism and boot the lunatic left wing liberals into touch before they do any more damage.
For over 40 years, I have observed "Brits in Authority" on their own home turf, in Africa and in Australasia.As managers, bureaucrats or expats-on-the-make it makes no difference. For sheer supercilious, arrogant condescension there is no one [not even the most boorish Ugly American] to beat them.They are always Right. And critics and non-believers are always Wrong.The current generation of Brit politicians exemplify this unsavory trait and the Telegraph piece is incandescent proof of what countless other nationalities have experienced when "the new Brit manager" struts the quarterdeck. Irony indeed that The Old Country is now fettered to the consequences of this collective's "mistake".
I don't think we should be surprised by this...during their dictatorship liebour's 4th Reich dumbed down our education and altered our history to justify mass immigration(to state if it wasn't for the immigrant there be no UK..HAHAHA).Take in to account all the underhand ways there have used to brainwash the nation etc to distance the Marxist scum from any blame for destroying our great nation.For St George.
@ Flashman.Two outstanding examples were;(1) The greed of Rhodes in cahoots with the Rothchilds to create De Beers. Once upon a time Kimberley was between the confluence of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. It was part of the Boer Republic of the Orange Free State. Notice how the current boundary severed this area off to become part of the Cape Colony.Later Rhodes, supported by Milner, went to war against the ZAR (Transvaal) to take control of the goldfields. To this day the British have not apologised to the Boere for the death of 4,000 of their women and 23,000 of their children who perished in the Anglo-Boer War concentration camps.However I understand that recent British Govts have apologised to the Australian Aboriginies and the First Nation Indian tribes of Canada. Another example of pc liberal thinking appeasing and favouring blacks over whites.(2) How the Boere/Afrikaners have been blamed for creating Separate Development / Apartheid.The excellent website: O'Malley - The Heart of Hopehttp://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.phpclearly records the legislative trail of these policies.It began post 1806 in the British Crown Colony of Cape, followed by the British Crown Colony of Natal post 1843. The Boer Republics only came into being in 1854 and 1856. With the creation of the Union of South Africa in 1910 Britain remained in control until the creation of the Republic of South Africa in 1961.Racial segregationist laws were promulgated for a full 155 years under British patronage in South Africa. Remember that the British class system was the order of the day during most of this time.The Afrikaner National Party only came to power in 1948 and then formalised the existing plethora of segregationist laws by giving them the name Separate Development / Apartheid.As you say "irony indeed" in the UK that the grass roots Brits do not want. The challenge is now to watch how this process can be reversed (if it can) and the language that will be used to sugar coat the actions which in the South African context are seen as "racist" - or as the United Nations declared; "A Crime Against Humanity"
The best comments on this article come from John Piggott. He is cool and informed and The Telegraph should appoint him 'Correspondent for Immigration Affairs'.
Laager:I couldn't agree with you more. The episodes that stand out in my mind in this regard are:1. 40,000 Boer women, children and babies murdered [there is no other word] in concentration camps through starvation [yes - involuntary hunger strikes] and disease. No apology was ever uttered by Whitehall.2. Gallipoli: the first terrible downpayment of Australian and New Zealand youth on the alter of The Old Country's incompetent ego - and the revelation of just what a weak claim it has to be a fount of moral authority. [And a salute to the likes of New Zealand's Colonel Malone who refused orders issued by a useless Old Country pommy-moron-in-chief to charge over open ground into Turkish machine guns thus: "Court martial me then. The Wellingtons will *not* attack."That said, there is no more compliant individual than the average Englishman - when given an order or instruction he follows it unquestioningly. That has always been the case, which is why their country is in the state it is today. A story to illustrate the difference: in Italy in WW2 a Kiwi unit was operating with one from you-know-where. The tommies were ordered out on a rest day in the pouring rain and freezing cold for parade ground drill. They obeyed. But when their Sargeant-Major stormed over to the Kiwis and ordered them out too - he was sent packing with a threat to knock his block off and calls to "P*ss off! ****!".
With respect, I would be grateful if you would restrict your Brit bashing other sites.As an English woman I have gone to some length to expose the current plight of the Afrikaner people. So I would appreciate it if you would treat my countrymen with respect when you come to my site.ThanksSarah
Sarah is right.I say that as an Australian who was brought up on Gallipoli.Alan Moorehead's book, Gallipoli, may be hard to obtain but it gives a most vivid account of the Dardanelles campaign, indicating that the toughest objective on April 25th 1915 was awarded to the British 29th Division, that of landing at Cape Helles. (Okay, Dublin and Munster Fusiliers were in the first waves, along with the Hampshire Regiment but it was still officially a British Regular Division.)Royal Navy aviator, Air Commodore Samson, piloting an observation aircraft over the scene at Helles on the morning of April 25th reported that the sea was "absolutely red with blood" for fifty yards out, Moorehead, p 131.The ANZACs did make great sacrifices at Gallipoli (and elsewhere) but they weren't alone in that respect.However, revisionism, which is what the posted article is about, is not new and it always aims at belittling Britain's part in anything, except where criticism is possible. Then the opposite tendency is observed.The reason is not hard to find when you consider the power and influence, worldwide, of this country's most obdurate and bitterest foe since Henry VIII's break with Rome in the 16th century.As Ashley Mote says, rightly, in Vigilance, A Defence of British Liberty p 130, "For [Rome], the UK is unfinished business stretching back 500 years."It is therefore not without significance that a fair proportion of the hordes of unwanted and unneeded 'foreign legions' pouring into this country do so across a Romish-dominated Europe, against which we cannot protect our borders owing to betrayal to the EU.When it comes to re-writing history, btw, or concealing inconvenient parts of it, Rome is a past-master*. For example, how many English school pupils learn about the disgraceful and vicious reign of Catholic Queen Mary Tudor, aka Bloody Mary, 1553-1558?*See The Godfathers from Chick Publications.Fewer and fewer, I suspect.
Is there any doubt that the Anglo Boer war was instigated by the elite in furthering their own agenda , the very same elite that seeks the destruction of the Boers and Brits today, we face a common enemy , the sooner we realize that the better. Sarah and we Boers do notice your effort to help and it is appreciated more than you know .
Please accept my sincere apology to all for the offense my words have given.In today's world, as a New Zealander, I have no right to cast aspersions on the people of the United Kingdom and shall be content to let them deal with their circumstances as they see fit.
Dear SarahWith respect this is not Brit bashing.This is simply revealing historical truthful facts which have been kept from the British people through very skillful spin doctoring.I was raised in South Africa on a diet of "British is Best". Only with time and asking some probing questions and then doing the research personally have I been able to uncover some truths.Allow me to provide another example.British forces suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Zulu at the Battle of Isandhlwana in 1879. Most accounts concur that it could have been avoided were it not for the arrogance of the British commanders who totally underestimated the capability of their enemy - the Zulus in their own territory.Three days later at the Battle of of Rorkes Drift a small British contingent made a heroic stand against vastly superior numbers of Zulus and won the day. This victory was an absolute godsend for the War Office propaganda department who trumpeted it to the British public for all it was worth. Indeed, 11 VCs were awarded to celebrate the event and hopefully whitewash the failure of Isandhlwana from the public mind back in the UK.Do a simple personal survey. Ask anyone today about the Zulu Wars and I will wager that 9 out of 10 people will recount Rorkes Drift and hardly anyone knows about Isandhlwana. Objective achieved.Even as recently as the 1960s/70s when two seperate British movies were made to tell the stories of these events of Empire, the Rorkes Drift tale was made and released first.Now stop for a moment and think how heroic these battles actually were: - cavalry, carbine rifles and small cannon against infantry, assegais and clubs. Not a whole lot different to the 6th form bully taking the lunch box of a junior on the school playground. Imagine what the outcome would have been if the Zulus were equally trained and armed?In fact the playing field was levelled when the battle became Brit vs Boer 20 years later. This struggle lasted for 3 years and took about 450,000 British and Commonwealth forces to subdue about 83,000 Boere. The war only ended when the Boere were no longer prepared to tolerate the suffering of their women and children - unarmed civilians - in the concentration camps. It could have gone on indefinitely on the battle field.Possibly this is where the British expression:"All is fair in love and war" may come from.--------------------------------------------Which brings us to the present topic.It will be very interesting to see what is going to be "fair" in the struggle that lies ahead for white caucasian celtic Britons to reclaim their country from the immigrant invasion over the last 20 or so years.
Laager and FlashmanMy comment was not meant to come across as an attack, please don't take it that way.I wasn't offended by you and hope you were not offended by me.Sarah
Don't forget that "Lord" Kitchener despite his Oxbridge accent was in fact Irish. He was responsible for the scorched earth policy and the camps during the Boer war. Leander Starr Jameson (i.e.) of Jameson raid 'fame' was Scottish. Rhodes of course was English. Barnato, Beit and the Rothchilds were based in England but none of this lot were English. British - yes.Don't be naive or deceived when speaking to a 'native' white Brit in assuming s/he's English. In London today the majority of whites are not.English - real English people in the UK are not nearly as common as you'd expect. Most of the whites I know have recent Irish, Welsh, Scottish or other links.Anyone having a distinct English heritage is ridiculed by the malcontents and misfits in the media as being 'inbred' such is their pain and jealousy. IMHO I'd go as far to say that collectively there's probably more English people in the Antipodes, Southern Africa and elsewhere than in the UK today despite its 60 million population.Of those in the current British establishment very few are 'true blue' English ... They're something else who pose as 'English' when it suits them.
Emily Hobhouse (English) was revered by the Boers. She risked her life for them.
I've only read two books on the struggles in South Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.These are The Zulu War by David Clammer and Good Bye Dolly Gray by Rayne Kruger, who dedicated his work to his teachers and fellow students of Jeppe High School who were killed in WW2.I'd recommend them both, although they may be hard to get and you can of course access a lot of information on the topics covered via the web.Re: Isandhlwana, I don't disagree with anything Laager says.However, it could be added that one British leader, Ulsterman Commandant George Hamilton-Browne, aka 'Maori' Browne for his service in the Maori wars, possessed considerable insight.These won't be exact quotes but before the disaster at Isandhlwana, Browne warned Lord Chelmsford, commanding the British forces, not to underestimate their enemy."These Zulus will charge home!" he insisted.I seem to recall that on locating the position of the Zulu impis i.e. regiments converging on the South Wales Borderers at Isandhlwana, Browne sent a desperate message to Chelmsford beseeching him to "Come back with all your men!"Chelmsford ignored Browne on both counts and should bear the blame for the ensuing disaster.It should also be noted that while the British were better equipped, their Martini Henry rifles became choked with black powder residue with repeated firing and then failed to function. That left the soldiers at a great disadvantage against their foes, who, it should be remembered, outnumbered them 20:1, somewhat offsetting the Brits' (temporary) technological advantage.It would appear that the Borderer company at Rorke's Drift was able to avoid this problem by means of being able to beat off successive Zulu attacks thanks to their prepared positions, thus affording time to strip and clean their weapons. At Rorke's Drift, it appears that the Brits were outnumbered by about 45:1.At Isandhlwana, the greatest testimony to the British resolve came from a Zulu veteran of the battle, interviewed many years later. He said "Ah, those red soldiers* of Isandhlwana! How they fought! Every man in his place and they fell like stones!"*The British Army had not yet changed to khaki dress.The British do appear to have learned from the disaster at Isandhlwana and used their technological edge, including artillery and Gatling guns, to greatest advantage in order to shatter the Zulu impis once and for all at the battle of Ulundi on July 4th 1879.End of Part 1
Part 2Re: The South African War, I wouldn't disgree strongly with Laager's statements.I would only add that, according to Kruger, the decisive military factor in ending the war was the British strategy of carving up the country via barbed wire fences and mutually supporting blockhouses. This greatly restricted the mobility and resupply of the Boer Kommandoes.Even then, as Laager says, victory was not easy. As Kipling has one British squaddie of the time say:"From Plewman’s to Marabastad, From Ookiep to De Aar,Me an’ my trusty friend ’ave ’ad, As you might say, a war;But seein’ what both parties done Before ’e owned defeat,I ain’t more proud of ’avin’ won, Than I am pleased with Piet. Ah there, Piet!—picked up be’ind the drive! The wonder wasn’t ’ow ’e fought, but ’ow ’e kep’ alive, With nothin’ in ’is belly, on ’is back, or to ’is feet— I’ve known a lot o’ men behave a dam’ sight worse than Piet." The point here is very simple.Putting aside the moral aspect ("War is cruelty and you cannot refine it" - General William Tecumseh Sherman), you have to have effective strategy, tactics and weapons to defeat an enemy.Brits have an effective WMD - weapon of mass deliverance - against the revisionists and all the rest of her enemies.It's called the 1611 Holy Bible.Regrettably, Brits no longer believe it, for the most part and fundamental Christians above all habitually scorn it.To paraphrase 'Maori' Browne, therefore:"The enemy will charge home."Our home.One other point is worth mentioning, from Kruger, pp 414-415:"[The Boer's] acts of kindness to [his] enemy were legion, and the cause of lasting friendships between fighting men on both sides which make political and propaganda vapourings to the contrary look silly. He had a code of honour that appealed to the same strong vein of feudal chivalry which, as the success of Walter Scott's books had shown, appealed so strongly to the British."That kind of honour is something that Brits and Old Dominion folk as a whole need to rediscover.
Not sure what point Alanorei is trying to make, unless it is because Queen Mary was English and it is just another example of pommy bashing.
The points relating to the original article are summarised towards the end of part 2.I had no thought of Queen Mary.Inspection of parts 1, 2 reveals that they can hardly in fairness be construed as 'Pommy bashing.'
Beit, Bernato (Isaac) and Rothchild and don't forget the ever loving Oppenheimers are Jews , why not say it ? The Anglo American company is neither Anglo nor American.The media houses that formed the English minds regarding the Boers in the 1900 were Jewish owned.Emily Hobbhouse is probably the most revered woman in Boer History with monuments and a town in her honour. She is to this day used as an example of womanhood and bravery, and revered by all Afrikaners Oppenheimer is probably still the biggest donor to the ANC and the ANC youth league , and the claim that they put the ANC in power. I recall that they sponsored the last ANC youth league annual conference where all the Boer was sung with gusto . Not much have changed in a 108 years . .
Big mining business in SA plays an interesting game.They are a major beneficiary of unskilled manual labour that comes in from the rural areas to work contracts in the mines.No doubt this is what the Anglo-Boer War was all about:-gain control of the gold mines after having done so with the diamond mines.-secure a constant flow of black manual labour from the rural areas (homelands) - that is why the British created the multi-culti unitary state of the Union of South Africa in 1910, which included the 9 black tribes of South Africa.Interestingly the British could have chosen to include Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and the Rhodesias in this union as they also controlled all these territories, but they did not.Not that it mattered for contract labour still came from these territories to work on the mines and still does so today.I recall in the late 50s / early 60s there was huge publicity when (I think it was) Anglo American announced that they would pay their labour R1/day - in addition to free board and lodging, health care, rail fares to and from home and other benefits whilst living on the mines.While they were benefitting handsomely from the apartheid migrant labour system they were also funding the opposition - the Progressive Party in its various incarnations - in the political spectrum.Later they were in the front line to initiate negotiations with the ANC and later bring them to the table with the National PartyWhile all this was going on I believe they were moving their assets off-shore and then bank-rolled a number of BEE deals which made some blacks with zero business experience extremely rich in a ploy to buy favour with the incoming new government.Is it any wonder that many white South Africans feel they have been politically shafted by white English business by what the Afrikaners refer to as "die geldmag" - the power of money?
Let us get this in some context.Laager said that "Anglo American announced that they would pay their labour R1/day - in addition to free board and lodging, health care, rail fares to and from home and other benefits whilst living on the mines".They should be so lucky. In 1959 as a qualified aircraft technician in the Royal Air Force, I was earning R6 for a 7 day week and 24hour day. I also had free board and lodging, health care, rail fares to and from home. However the food could be withdrawn and substituted with bread and water and the board for a 7 X 6 foot cell, for a minor breach of discipline such as silent insubordination. And boy, was I glad of it, as it exceeded the R3 for a 6 day week (food and board not included)I had been getting in Ireland.
May I put the record straight.Laager said;"Is it any wonder that many white South Africans feel they have been politically shafted by white English business by what the Afrikaners refer to as "die geldmag" - the power of money?"The followin is a list of top South African businessmen which I've downloaded from Wikipedia. If there are other Englishmen I may have missed off the list please let me know.Barney Barnato, mining magnate. Born London of Jewish non English descent. Sammy Marks, businessman. Born Lithuania of Russian Jewish parents.Harry Oppenheimer, businessman . Born Kimberley of German Jewish descent.Alfred Beit, mining magnate. Born Hamburg of German Jewish parents.Raymond Ackerman, businessman. Born Cape Town of Jewish descent.Sol Kerzner, hotel magnate. Born Johannesburg of Russian Jewish parents. Anton Rupert, businessman and conservationist. Born Eastern Cape, Afrikaner. Johann Rupert, businessman, son of Anton Rupert. Benjamin Ginsberg, businessman. Born Russia.Bill Venter, businessman. Born Johannesburg, Afrikaner.Albert Wessels, industrialist. Born SA, Afrikaner.Thomas Cullinan, mining magnate. Born Cape Colony. ancestry unknown.Bobby Godsell, businessman. Born Johannesburg. ancestry unknown.Julian Ogilvie Thompson, businessman. Born Cape Town. ancestry unknown.Gavin Relly, businessman. Born Cape Town. ancestry unknown.David Brink, businessman. Born Johannesburg,ancestry unknown. John Fairbairn, founder of Mutual Life. Born Scotland. Charles Purdon, agricultural pioneer. Born Cape Colony of British descent. Cecil Rhodes, businessman. Born England.
@ Celtic Warrior Am I missing something here?The start of your list are the mining magnates who came from Britain/Europe and benefitted directly from Britains control of the Cape, Transvaal and later the Union of SA. They were firmly in the English speaking camp.After the A-B War many of the destitute Boere went to the cities and became the blue collar workers on the mines. Being farmers they had no other skills to sell. Remember the miners strike/rebellion of the 1920s?That was all about the English/Jewish mining magnates replacing Afrikaner labour a with black labour on about 1/10 of their wages.From a friend in the investment world I'm told that BEE is not a new phenomena. English business did the same thing back in the 20s/30s to assist Afrikaners to move from agriculture and enter the world of finance and commerce. The SA English could see the writing on the wall already. They were outnumbered by Afrikaners who would ultimately gain political control. This came to pass in 1948. The SA English were hedging their bets and positioning themselves to enjoy good relations within the forthcoming regime change.
Laager asked;“Am I missing something here?”Yes you are. I asked for the names of any English businessman I may have left off my list. You have failed to provide even one. Do you wish to try again?However your response:- “They were firmly in the English speaking camp”, is very enlightening and explains all.Like many South Africans you seem unable to differentiate between people who are English speakers and people who are English. The fact that one speaks English does not automatically make one an Englishman. I’ve spent the past 40 years, with very little success, trying to get South Africans to understand that I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and I AM NOT AN ENGLISHMAN.I may help you to know that most Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders are also speak English but object to being called English, as South Africans tend to do. The same applies to the Jocks, Taffs and Paddies, I even have friends from Yorkshire who insist that they are Yorkshiremen and not English.In addition to using the combined term “English speaking”, you also use combined terms such as “British/Europe”, “English/Jewish” and “SA English”, surely this is being a little disingenuous.On a slightly different tack, is it not true that between 1910 and 1994 every South African prime minister/president had been an Afrikaner, many of whom were unable to converse intelligently in English?
Anonymous said;"Don't forget that "Lord" Kitchener despite his Oxbridge accent was in fact Irish."Although born in Ireland Kitchener was not Irish. In a similar manner as George Orwell, Joanna Lumley and Rudyard Kipling were all born in Indian but were not considered Indias.Anonymous also said;"Barnato, Beit and the Rothchilds were based in England but none of this lot were English. British - yes".Barnet Isaacs (Barnato)born London of Jeweish parents. I'll let our British friends decide if he is British.Rothschilds were a family of German Jews. Not British.Alfred Beit was a German Jew. Not british,
Perhaps it is a failing of the the SA education system that South Africans see the UK and Great Britain as essentially English and are not up to speed on the UK homelands of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the independent nation of Ireland.Probably it is because they all show up in SA under the Union Jack that they are all lumped into one conglomerate by both English and Afrikaans South Africans.Your comment on Yorkshiremen is interesting.On a recent visit to SA I met a man who had been living in Wellington for 25 years. He proudly proclaimed that he was a Yorkshireman and from his conversation it was clear that he had no intention of assimilating or taking out SA citizenship. Having visited Yorkshire I could not see what all this patriotic fuss was about."many of whom were unable to converse intelligently in English?" Aha! Why should they? Afrikaans is the majority language spoken by white people in South Africa. English is a foreign language to them. French, German and Italian politicians do not speak in English - so why should they? It is up to the news media to provide the interpreters and sub-titles as they do in Europe At the other end of the scale you get public figures like Francois Pienaar - an Afrikaner who is totally fluent in English and makes compelling listening on the RWC 2011 broadcasts. Have not the (British) Jewish businessmen that you refer to been resident in the UK for a number of generations? So although their original ethnicity, religion and language my be Jewish/Hebrew, their citizenship/nationality is certainly British/English - given that most are based in the South East UK.This then leads to what is South African, Australian, American, Canadian etc?As we all know Britain constructed an African Yugoslavia when the created the Union of South Africa in 1910.Does this mean we follow the American precedent of Afro-Americans / Irish-Americans / Polish-Americans etc and call ourselves Pedi-South African (Malema), Sotho-South African (Tutu), Xhosa-South African (Mandela), Jewish/English- South African (Susman) and Afrikaner-South African (Pienaar)For the record people like Michael Portillo (Spanish), Laurence Dallaglio (Irish/Italian) and Linford Christie (Afro-Caribbean) see themselves as Englishmen. What we are now getting into is ethnic identity which is what apartheid was all about (race classification committees) and the United nations declared:"A Crime Against Humanity"According to the liberals it is only in South Africa that all races are South Africans whilst for example in Great Britain / the UK the divisions of being Welsh, Scottish, English or Northern Irish (Catholic and Protestant) are enshrined, protected and encouraged through "freedom of association"
In response to Laager;My statement that ”between 1910 and 1994 every South African prime minister/president had been an Afrikaner, many of whom were unable to converse intelligently in English?” was to point out that it was Afrikaners and not Englishmen who were in control of South Africa. The fact that they were unable to converse intelligently in English serves to prove how little influence English had in South Africa. Unless of course you are claiming that Afrikaner patriots such as Botha, Smuts, Hertzog, Malan, Strijdom, Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha were all in the pockets of the “English businessmen” who are proving so very elusive to track down. Again you have not put forward the names of any “English businessman” I may have left off my list. Why not try again?As I said, I’ll leave it to our English friends to determine if those of Jewish and/or European descent are English.Let me see if I can clarify the situation a little. I’m an Irishman but I am not British, which is a political construct. I am however, through my genetic heritage a Briton, a people who have lived in the Isles for almost 15 000 years. This is a heritage I proudly share with the Scots, Welsh and English. Whilst it may be politically acceptable for those born in the Isles to non Britons to claim they are British, I do not accept them as Britons.
Laager said;"For the record people like Michael Portillo (Spanish), Laurence Dallaglio (Irish/Italian) and Linford Christie (Afro-Caribbean) see themselves as Englishmen." Portillo's mother is from Scottish stock and Dallaglio's from Irish stock making them Britons. Christie may be a British citizen (a political construct) but he is definitely not a Briton.
Laager said;"Does this mean we follow the American precedent of Afro-Americans / Irish-Americans / Polish-Americans etc and call ourselves Pedi-South African (Malema), Sotho-South African (Tutu), Xhosa-South African (Mandela), Jewish/English- South African (Susman) and Afrikaner-South African (Pienaar)".How the peoples of South Africa designate themselves is a matter for them and not for me.
@ CWPoints taken.Let me clarify a definition.When we say (SA) English in South Africa we mean English speakers, as opposed to Afrikaans speakers, who generally are descendants of British [English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish] immigrants who started coming to South Africa when the British (English?) took control of the Cape in 1806.This process was further accelerated when the Union of South Africa was created in 1910 and South Africa was a full Commonwealth member like New Zealand, Australia and Canada up to 1961 when the country became a Republic. Even after 1961 Brits continued to emigrate to SA to plug the skills shortage hole in a developing country.True, all the politicians you list are Afrikaners but as we all know the dilemma of South African politics has always been the split between political power and economic power. It was probably only in the 70s that Afrikaners obtained parity with the SA English in the commercial world. As farmers they had been dominant for many years. Therefore I am sure that big (SA English) did call the shots for many years until the Afrikaners felt confident enough to ignore them.Today the same process is repeated. By numerical superiority blacks have the political power whilst whites - both SA English and Afrikaners - have the economic power. Hence Julius Malema and all his shennanagans.The elusive English businessmen you refer to are the SA branches of British (English?) companies that opened in SA staffed with South Africans but with the key positions firmly in British (English?) control.A few examples - British Leyland, Coates - i.e spinning, weaving industry and rag trade.Once SA became a republic this dependence on Britain for technology transfers started to diminish as SA business started developing alliances with the rest of the world. In the motor industry French, German, Italian, Swedish and Japanese plants were established. The American influence also waned as South Africans preferred European type motor vehicles.An interesting exercise would be to follow the share holdings of the mines in South Africa. My guess is that would discover that the mines are actually owned by investors in the west particularly the UK (English?) This probably accounts for Pres Zuma's recent visit to the UK. Investors are starting to get nervous and wanted to sound him out on the ANC's nationalisation plans for the mines.A final query for clarification please;Is Ireland part of the British Isles, or do the Irish see themselves as a stand alone entity?The presence of British Ulster on this island complicates the issue somewhat.Would Ulster then be part of the British Isles (a political construct as you put it) or not?
Laager said,"What we are now getting into is ethnic identity which is what apartheid was all about (race classification committees) and the United nations declared:"A Crime Against Humanity"The peoples of the Isles are ethnic Britons and have been for almost 15 000 years. That would be almost 14 940 years before the United Nations was formed or apartheid was invented.Having a common and ancient heritage, they have at divers times throughout history, arranged themselves both voluntarily and involuntarily, into various groupings, until sometime during the 1st millennia when they rearranged themselves roughly into the present countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. None of this was achieved without bloodshed. Then despite countless battles and rebellions the following political events occurred. Wales was incorporated with England by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, creating the legal entity known today as England and Wales. The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until 1 May 1707 when it joined in a political union with the Kingdom of England to create a united Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1800, the British and Irish Parliaments passed the Act of Union which, in 1801, merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, (now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since the 26 counties left the union). For further information on the genetic roots of the people of the Isles go to;http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
Laager asked for clarification on;"Is Ireland part of the British Isles, or do the Irish see themselves as a stand alone entity?"Long answer I'm afraid.The earliest reference to the inhabitants of the archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe is from a 4th century BC Greek explorer. He referred collectively to the islands as the Brittanic Isles and to the peoples of the Isles as the Pretani, meaning painted people. Although all the peoples of the Isles share a common ancestry and the DNA of the original inhabitants, political infighting between various competing English monarchs, specifically James ll (actually a Scotsman) and William lll (actually a Dutchman) resulted in Ireland dividing along religious lines, ultimately resulting in the separation of 26 counties from the Union in 1922, to became the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Because the term Britain is still retained in the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), the people of the ROI wishing to separate themselves politically from the UK, do not consider themselves to be part of the British Isles. Although strictly speaking from a racial and geographic point of view they are. The people of Northern Ireland (NI) especially of the Protestant faith consider themselves to be British and recognise the border between the two states, whilst those of the Catholic tradition see themselves as being Irish and do not recognise the border. In fact the border is not recognised by the ROI, therefore allowing many South Africans who had a grandparent born in NI, to claim Irish citizenship. This also creates the anomalous situation whereby the current President of the ROI is a British citizen.Lately I have also noticed that some people are rejecting the term “British” in favour of the term “Briton”. It seems that these days anybody who fulfills certain political criteria may call themselves British, whereas Briton specifically refers to those who claim descent from the Anglo Celtic peoples, or as I like to say the “People of the Isles”.Sorry for the lengthy reply.
Laager said;"When we say (SA) English in South Africa we mean English speakers, as opposed to Afrikaans speakers, who generally are descendants of British [English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish] immigrants"Again, you are incorrect.Many of the English speakers I have met in my 40 years in South Africa are not of Anglo Celtic descent. Many of my English speaking friends carry such names as De Villiers, Labuschagne, van Ryneveld and Van Der Linde as well as many whose families came from Germany, France, Portugal Italy, Poland, Holland and many other countries.Laager, you either know little of South African history or otherwise you are purposefully understating or exaggerating the facts, as you are a product of the National Party's schooling system whose history curriculum we known to have been mainly anti English propaganda.I’ve given you many facts, which are easily checked, and which contradict many of your bizarre statements. Unless you can come up with some checkable facts to contradict mine I do not wish to continue further discussion with you.
@ CWI also spent 40 years in SA and I stand by my commentsThe French, German & Dutch surnames you mention are no doubt the descendants of the immigrants you quote. With the cross overs through marriages and depending on which province these folks were located in they would have mastered English. In contrast I can introduce you to South Africans with British surnames who can barely speak a word of English. Most of the "other country" immigrants you mention I also encountered as SA English speakers - probably because we were in Natal and Cape Town. In the Free State and Transvaal it would have been different. Generally most Afrikaners could speak more English than vice versa as English is the business language in the cities and many technical text books are not available in Afrikaans. Plus they understand the value of knowing the language if they intend travelling outside the country. In the platteland the reverse applied - except in Natal. Most Afrikaners had the courtesy to speak English to the generally uni-lingual (excluding the black languages) SA English as they knew their Afrikaans was so poor.As for my education; this was in English by English speakers in the last outpost of the British Empire and I can assure you it was certainly not Nationalist Party anti-British propaganda. In fact I would describe it as jingoistic pro-British. It was only once I got out of the place and broadened my horizons that I realised what a load of distorted one sided information we had been fed. I suppose you could call that propaganda.If you wish to continue the dialogue I can provide examples but it seems like you have taken the usual Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Briton moral high ground and dont want to hear an alternative view.So I bid you farewell and leave you to live your life wrapped in your Union Jack/Irish Tri-Colour cacoon.
For the record people like Michael Portillo (Spanish), Laurence Dallaglio (Irish/Italian) and Linford Christie (Afro-Caribbean) see themselves as Englishmen. If that's true these people are as ignorant as the clowns within the BBC referring to Lewis Hamilton (F1 driver) as an "Englishman" Hamilton's father is a black West Indian with roots in Africa obviously and his mother I understand is a pale skinned Jewess? - not certain though.
Laager said;“dont want to hear an alternative view.”As usual you choose to ignore the invitation to bring facts to the table. I’m quite happy to hear views which can be supported by facts.Which part of “Unless you can come up with some checkable facts to contradict mine” did you not understand?
@ Anon 19:04From WikipediaComing from a mixed-race background, with a black father and white mother.Hamilton is often labelled "the first black driver in Formula One", although Willy T. Ribbs tested an F1 car in 1986. He is also the first driver of black heritage to win a major race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in any discipline.Hamilton was born on 7 January 1985 in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England,and was named after American sprinter Carl Lewis. Hamilton's mother, Carmen Larbalestier (now married as Carmen Lockhart), is white British, while his father, Anthony Hamilton, is black British, making him mixed-raced,(Anthony Hamilton's parents emigrated from Grenada to the United Kingdom in the 1950s). Lewis Hamilton's parents separated when he was two, as a result of this he lived with his mother and half-sisters Nicola and Samantha until he was twelve, when he started living with his father, stepmother Linda and half-brother Nicolas (who has cerebral palsy). Hamilton was raised as a Roman Catholic by his father.--------------------------------------------So the old dilemma of Nationality and Race reappears - which the BNP try to explain to the nation, for which they are castigated as racist.Hamilton's nationality and citizenship is British.His race is 50/50 Afro-Caribbean/White British.As he was born, raised and lived in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England, speaks English with a Hertfordshire accent, before re-locating to Switzerland, you could argue that he is an Englishman - just like Zola Budd the white South African born athlete of British descent who took up residence in England and represented Great Britain at the Olympics in 1985
@ CW Please identify what you consider bizarre in my posts.Is the island of Ireland part of the British Isles or not?
Laager asked;"Please identify what you consider bizarre in my posts."I’ll give you just a few examples.1 For example you stated; “I can introduce you to South Africans with British surnames who can barely speak a word of English.” What has that got to do with your claim “that white South Africans feel they have been politically shafted by white English business”.2 In attempting to denigrate Britain you stated; "Anglo American announced that they would pay their labour R1/day". This was at a time when qualified aircraft technicians were earning less than R1 per day in Britain and R0.50 per day in Ireland.3 Of a list of 19 prominent South African businessmen that I posted, only one was actually English and one other who was born in London was of Russian Jewish descent. Five were of European Jewish descent. Five were Afrikaners and despite asking on numerous occasions for you to let me know if I had missed any other Englishmen off the list you have ignored my request.4 You continue to use such meaningless terms as “English/Jewish”, “ SA English”, “Britain/Europe”, “English speaking camp”, “(British) Jewish businessmen” and you then go on to state; “English speakers, as opposed to Afrikaans speakers, who generally are descendants of British [English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish] immigrants”, which is not true, is all rather bizarre, disingenuous and misleading. Laager also asked;"Is the island of Ireland part of the British Isles or not?"I replied extensively in a previous post of which the following extract explains the situation as best I can."Because the term Britain is still retained in the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), the people of the ROI wishing to separate themselves politically from the UK, do not consider themselves to be part of the British Isles. Although strictly speaking from a racial and geographic point of view they are." To steer clear of the political construct some, such as the well known English genetics expert Bryan Sykes, titles his book “Blood of the Isles”.
Laager said;"before re-locating to Switzerland, you could argue that he is an Englishman".Maybe it would be more correct to refer to him as Swiss. After all he cannot be too patriotic towards England as he not only lives in Switzerland he also pays Swiss taxes.Probably no different from his father, who although born in the West Indies, became English by virtue of his living there.
Laager said...I think the BNP, UKIP, EDL and Britain First should meet to discuss consolidating into a unified Nationalist movement.Why has no one commented on that comment , I would be very interested to hear responses thereto.
@ CW 7:11Yep - and all the F1 drivers that live in Monte Carlo are Mone'qasque.It is amazing how a benign tax-regime can instantly alter race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship and national loyalty.
Laager and Celtic WarriorI think the exchange of views between you two has now rather run its course. Could you please bring it to a close by the end of today (October 9th) and if you want to carry on after that please do so off line.I will happily act as intermediary if yo want to exchange e-mail addresses.
To Celtic WarriorCould you please contact me at email@example.comThanksSarah
I just can not imagine with strong your blog greatly that helped me. God bless you “You can’t win unless you learn how to lose.” - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Post a Comment