>>569195 It is pretty easy. They where Africanised dutch colonisers. They where put under british control. Two factions of Boers declared independence. There was a third one but they where barely independent. They lived for a while. Then the Boer War came They died. IMO if the dutch maintained control over their cape colony it would have been much better.
>>569241 Most don't identify as boers. It's not really a racial thing since the boers were just as hostile to the Dutch colonial government as they were to the British. It's more of a cultural identity.
Netherlands built some outposts on the Cape to facilitate the journey to the East Indies, soon some Dutch, Frisian, German, Scandinavians and French Huguenots moved there and settled down and began to farm in the Mediterranean like climate.
There weren't really any natives around and so the first century or two were fairly peaceful. The people spoke Dutch, which soon became bastardized into "Afrikaans" which is Dutch for "African". These people called themselves Boer(s) which means "farmer(s)" in Dutch
Then during the Napoleonic Wars when the Netherlands were overrun by the French the British seized the colony and kept it ever since. Then more Europeans came, predominately British, who didn't necessarily get along with the Boers.
So, there were two identities "Afrikaners" which referred to your average white Joe in South Africa, and Boers, who lived more rurally and had a stronger cultural identity who didn't want much to do with European laws.
The British encouraged the Boers to move further inland, which meant more taxes and resources for the British, more farm land for the Boers, and pacified territories, as by this point the Boers had come into conflict with African tribes. The British liked that the Boers and Africans were busy with each other rather than fighting them, which eventually happened when the Boers declared their independence and formed their own republics, who fought against the British in the Boer Wars.
They were actually winning until the British started using terrorism against Boer civilians, forcing the guerilla soldiers to surrender.
>>569195 Basically the Dutch took over the South African cape as it was an extremely important area given that you had to go around it to get to Asia. Then some time later the Napoleonic Wars happened and when the Dutch mainland fell the British occupied it and didn't leave once the war was over.
So much of the Boer people went on a great exodus north and west and established the 3 Boer republics in the approximate borders of those three bits of your map that aren't blue. Then the 2nd Boer War happened and the Boers got shoa'd by England and would later be placed in charge of the Union of South Africa.
one of the reasons the great trek took place because the brits outlawed slavery, and the boers kept slaves. weirdly, this gets omitted from the more nationalistic histories written by afrikaners, but oh well.
there was still a large resident boer population in the cape, and they spoke high dutch and learned it at school. afrikaans only started to be taught in the OVS and the ZAR, and spread to the cape after the unification of SA. before then it was known as a "kombuistaal", a "kitchen language" which one spoke at home with the family, the servants and slaves, with high dutch being the language of the legal system, the church and officialdom.
anyone who has experienced both dutch and afrikaner culture realises that they are very similar, if not virtually identical 9like the brits and strayans). the dutch and afrikaners prefer not to acknowledge this, it's too convenient for both parties to overlook this fact.
>>569218 >IMO if the dutch maintained control over their cape colony it would have been much better. That kinda revolves around France not invading during their revolutionary period, and Britain not being perfidious colony snatchers.
I'm certain that had the treaty of Amiens stuck, the Netherlands (Batavian Republic) would've been given back the Cape Colony, but as it broke down and led to the war of the Third Coalition there was no way such a prosperous piece of land would've ever been returned to a pro-French nation; even after the accension of Willem I to the throne.
I can see the Revolution not having to happen, but there's no way in hell that Britain could give up it's perfidy.
>be Europeans >settle in Africa >plenty of space why not >turn dirt into paradise >become a booming center of world agricultural trade >local fauna get jealous >want to be part of your society >say okay, but only as second class citizens since you didn't help build any of this >they get empowered and genocide the settlers >South Africa and Rhodesia go back to shit >Mandela and Mugabe regarded as heroes in the neo-liberal West >Boer genocide ignored >the West was quick to accept refugees from Muslim nations, never took any and still refuses to take any from South Africa and former Rhodesia
I'd call it a clusterfuck and a terrible misplacement of trust.
>>572163 >aren't saying that Mugabe was a good thing. Problem is; there's a majority of people that think that non-white rule of any kind = good, without any sort of insight into wether or not the replacement regime is any decent or not.
>>572254 Only Voortrekkers really hunted for a living. Boers are just that; farmers. They only went further inland because valuable and arable land was being taken by the Brits.
Also; isn't it rather funny that the moment diamonds were found in the regions they trekked to that the Brits started having a problem with them (looking at you Cecil, you cryptokike)?
>>572261 >Not the entire thread Then why shit up the thread?
Who gives a shit where one retard is from. If you can't dissuade him from shitposting by giving him valid counterarguments, then at least don't respond in such a babby-tier "le stormfront boogeyman" way and just ignore him, because all this does is stepping away from the discussion towards something completely unrelated.
>>572247 It's not that /pol/ is among us its that the facts are pretty damn /pol/ a lot of the time. What happened in South Africa and Zimbabwe are pretty much prime examples of Africans not being able to govern themselves. It's the sad truth.
Tbh, they always had a problem with the Boers, they just weren't important enough to go to war over for most of their independent history.
there were always those that wanted to take the Boer states back and finish their red line from Egypt to the cape, but no one was going to start a war for them. Then, the Boers found gold and diamond in their territory, and became a lot more industrious and independent minded. Most British industrials (who owned pretty much all of them) wanted those mines under British control, and a lot of British politicians were worried about them becoming more powerful and slipping out of the British sphere of influence (for instance, at the time they were working on rail connections to the sea that did NOT run through the British cape colony). Especially as the exact degree of independence the Boers had from the English crown was still in question.
Thread replies: 35 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 441422
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.