praag.co.za

Tag: Britte

  • Leon Lemmer: Wie het ons vaderland opgedonder?

    Leon Lemmer: Wie het ons vaderland opgedonder?

    In die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis is daar ‘n Brit (eintlik ‘n Ier wat die groot Ierse hongersnood van 1847 beleef het) wie se nagedagtenis nie in afdoende mate in Afrikanergeledere gehuldig word nie. Op die vooraand van die Anglo-Boereoorlog (ABO) het William Francis Butler (1838-1910), die plaaslike bevelvoerder van die Britse magte, gewag gemaak van “‘n kolossale sindikaat vir die sistematiese verspreiding van valse berigte” (Klaus Dieter Vaqué, Verraad teen Suid-Afrika, Pretoria: Varama Uitgewers, 1989, p 45). Butler was gekant teen die Britse imperialistiese planne om bv die mineraalrykdom (veral diamante en goud) van die Boere-republieke in te palm. “Dit wat hy waargeneem het, was vir hom so walglik, dat hy uit sy pos bedank het” (45). “Die hoofinstrument vir ‘sistematiese verspreiding van valse berigte’ is ook vandag weer die pers [bv Naspers/Media24] (met ondersteuning van radio en televisie [bv die SABC]” (45).

    Butler was by die Zoeloe-oorlog (1879) betrokke en het as die Britse hoëkommissaris van die Kaapkolonie waargeneem (Desember 1898 tot Februarie 1899) toe Alfred Milner op besoek aan Engeland was. Milner en die Britse regering wou ‘n insident skep wat aanleiding tot oorlog teen die twee onafhanklike Boere-republieke (die Oranje-Vrystaat en Transvaal) sou gee. Hiermee kon Butler as nasionalistiese Ier wat ten gunste van selfregering vir Ierland was, hom glad nie vereenselwig nie. Voor die uitbreking van die ABO het Butler na Engeland teruggekeer.

    In 1877 het Butler met Elizabeth Thompson (1848-1933) getrou. Hulle het ses kinders gehad. Elizabeth en hulle drie jongste kinders het net die laaste vyf maande van William se plaaslike verblyf in 1899 saam met hom in hulle huis in Rosebank naby Kaapstad gewoon. Sy het twee boeke gepubliseer waarin daar interessante inligting oor plaaslike toestande is: Die een is From sketch-book and diary (Library of Alexandria, 1909/2009, 93p; Amazon Kindle $4,59). Die teks kan ook gratis in Kindle-formaat van Amazon verkry word. Hierdie feit word egter in so ‘n mate verdoesel dat ek toe reeds vir my weergawe betaal het. Elizabeth se ander boek is An autobiography (London: Constable, 1922, 238p; Amazon Kindle $0).

    Elizabeth het veral bekendheid verwerf vir die oorlogstonele wat sy geskilder het, bv “The defence of Rorke’s Drift” (1880), ‘n gebeurtenis wat tydens die Zoeloe-oorlog plaasgevind het. Sy was nooit in Natal nie en het die toneel so realisties moontlik in Portsmouth probeer rekonstrueer. Hierdie skildery is deel van die Britse koninklike kunsversameling in die kasteel Windsor. Elizabeth het ‘n dagboek gehou en bv tydens haar reise olie- en waterverfskilderye gemaak. Die vyf maande wat sy plaaslik vertoef het, herinner aan die bykans vyf jaar (Mei 1797-Januarie 1802) wat Anne Barnard (1750-1825) ‘n eeu vroeër aan die Kaap deurgebring het. Andrew Barnard (1762-1807), die latere Britse koloniale sekretaris aan die Kaap, het in 1793 met Anne getrou. Soos Elizabeth het Anne in die hoogste geledere van die Britse bewind aan die Kaap beweeg, dagboek gehou, briewe geskryf en omgewingstonele geskilder. Van albei het daar skilderye bewaar gebly.

    RM Ballantyne

    Iemand anders wat ek hier wil aansny, is nog ‘n skrywer en skilder, Robert Michael Ballantyne (1825-1894). Sy een boek is: Six months at the Cape (1879, 94p; Amazon Kindle $0). Hy was in die tydperk tussen Anne Barnard en Elizabeth Butler aan die Kaap en veral begaan oor die lot van die Britse setlaars van 1820 en hulle nageslag. Hy skryf: “Thus, in 1820, was the land overrun and taken possession of by the ‘British Settlers.’ It had once been the land of the Hottentots, but had never at any time rightfully belonged to the Kafirs, who, after wrongfully entering it and rendering themselves by their thievish disposition and deceit an unbearable nuisance, were finally driven out of it in 1819. The idea of Government in sending the settlers out to occupy these vacated lands was that a convenient buffer might thus be placed on the frontier of the colony to keep the savages in check” (Kindle 300). Deesdae beset die swartes Suid-Afrika asof die hele land histories aan hulle behoort en maak hulle selfs aanspraak op (alles) wat die blankes danksy harde werk besit. “You are aware that Kafirs are terrible thieves? … and the Totties [Hottentots] are just as bad, if not worse” (556). Wat sommige swartes reeds destyds begeer het, was “‘drive the white men into the sea,’ – a favourite fate, in the Kafir mind, reserved for the entire colonial family” (1043). Kontrasteer daarmee die uitgangspunt van die blankes: “[The] only principle is wanted to make them [blacks] a respectable and useful portion of the human family” (1270). Met verwysing na ‘n groep “stout hardy descendants of the English, Scotch, or Dutch settlers” (126) skryf Ballantyne: “These reckless and jovial South Africans – European by extraction … were without a drop of black blood in their veins” (139). Dit is heeltemal anders as wat ons deesdae wysgemaak word, naamlik dat die plaaslike blankes na bewering heelwat nieblanke bloed in hulle are het.

    Ballantyne het ook ‘n ander boek, The settler and the savage (1877, 223p; Amazon Kindle $0), geskryf. Daarin word ‘n Boer soos volg aangehaal: “From 1806 the [Cape] colony has been mismanaged by your [British] countrymen” (Kindle 166). Ook: “No savages ought to be trusted, as civilised men are trusted, till they cease to be savages” (183). “The main desire of the frontier settler is peace, while the chief delight as well as business of the Kafir is war” (214). “Have we not learned, when too late … that the black wretches have been at loggerheads with the white men ever since this was a colony, and is it not clear that gentle treatment and harsh have alike failed to improve them?” (999). Let op die volgende misplaaste optimisme – iets wat hom tans in ander gedaantes voordoen: “The land from which the white man comes will never suffer him to be driven out of Africa. England is rich in everything, and will send men to fill the places of those who fall. Besides, I think God is on the white man’s side, because the white man in the main intends and tries to do good” (2399). “A generous and well-meant effort on the part of Christians and philanthropists to give full freedom and rights to the Hottentots resulted to a large extent in vagabondism, with its concomitant robbery” (2958). “The Kafir hordes, variously estimated at from eight to fifteen thousand men, burst across the whole frontier, wrapped the eastern colony in the smoke and flames of burning homesteads, scattered the unprepared settlers, demolished the works of fourteen years’ labour, penetrated to within twenty miles of Algoa Bay, and drove thousands of sheep and cattle back in triumph to Kafirland” (2975).

    Toe Nelson Mandela wou hê dat veral die swart meerderheid vir die heillose ANC moet stem, het hy beweer dat Suid-Afrika se bevolking sy grootste bate is. Na aanleiding van Ballantyne se uitbeelding kan ‘n mens jou afvra of bv die ondoeltreffendheid, vandalisme, moorddadigheid en anargie wat so kenmerkend van die nuwe Suid-Afrika is, nie dalk eerder op die teenoorgestelde van Mandela se standpunt dui nie; dat die land nooit weer ‘n voorspoedige, beskaafde land sal wees nie weens onder meer die oorteenwoordigheid van werklose, plakkende, misdadige en parasiterende wettige en onwettige inwoners.

    From sketch-book and diary (1909)

    Elizabeth Butler se From sketch-book and diary bestaan uit vier afdelings. Elke afdeling bevat illustrasies van haar waarnemings. Sy begin in Ierland. Sy beskryf haar aangetrokkenheid tot bv die landskap. “I have never seen Ireland at all worthily painted. I think we ought to leave her to her poets and to the composers of her matchless music” (Kindle 240). Die tweede afdeling handel oor Egipte. Sy noem bv dat dit baie makliker is om ‘n kameel as ‘n perd te teken (355). Die vierde afdeling word aan Italië gewy, waar sy lang tye deurgebring het. Vervolgens beperk ek my aandag by die derde afdeling, met as onderwerp “The Cape”.

    Sy het ‘n kok saamgebring Kaap toe omdat: “You must know that white servants are impossible to find at the Cape” (839). “If an artist wanted to accomplish that apparently impossible feat of painting Fairyland direct from Nature, without one touch supplied out of his own fancy, he would only have to come here. There are effects of light and colour on these landscapes that I never saw elsewhere” (909). Dit is gou duidelik dat Elizabeth haar man se afkeer van Britse imperialisme deel, asook sy teenkanting teen Britse oorlogsplanne jeens die twee Boere-republieke. “Would that all the evil brought to South Africa by the finding of the gold could be gathered together and burnt on that altar as a peace offering!” (925).

    Die Butlers het in Rosebank gewoon. “On this Rosebank side there is nothing that jars with the majestic feeling of Table Mountain, but to see what we English have done at its base on the other side, at Cape Town, is to see what man can do in his little way to outrage Nature’s dignity. The Dutch never jarred; their old farm-houses with white walls, thatched roofs, green shutters, and rounded Flemish gables look most harmonious in this landscape. Wherever we have colonized there you will see the corrugated iron dwelling, the barbed-wire fence, the loathsome advertisement. We talk so much of the love of the beautiful, and yet no people do so much to spoil beauty as we do wherever we settle down, all the world over. I respect the Dutch saying: ‘The eye must have something’ – beauty is a necessity to moral health. A clear sky and a far horizon have more value to the national mind than we care to recognize, and though the smoking factory that falsifies England’s skies and blurs her horizons may fill our pockets with gold, it makes us poorer by dulling our natures. I am sure that a clear physical horizon induces a clear mental one” (925).

    “I am told the Old Cape Town, when Johannesburg was as yet dormant, was a simple and comely place – its white houses, so well adapted to this intensely sunny climate, were deep set in wooded gardens, a few of which have so far escaped the claws of the jerry builder … But now the glaring streets … are lined with American ‘stores’ with cast-iron porticoes, above which rise buildings of most pretentious yet nondescript architecture, and the ragged outskirts present stretches of corrugated iron shanties which positively rattle back the clatter of a passing train or tram-car. And all around lie the dust bins of the population, the battered tin can, the derelict boot. No authorities seem yet to have been established to prevent the populace, white, brown, and black, from throwing out all their old refuse where they like. Some day things may be taken in hand, but at present this half-baked civilization produces very dreadful results … There is such a rush for gold, you see! No one cares for poor Cape Town as a town” (936). Rommelstrooiing is steeds ‘n lewenswyse by baie plaaslike inwoners.

    “Altogether our Eden here is sadly damaged, and I am sorry it should be my compatriots who are chiefly answerable for the ugly patches on so surpassingly beautiful a scene. Our sophisticated life, too, is out of place in this unfinished country and we ought to live more simply, as the Dutch do, and not feel it necessary to carry on the same ménage as in London” (952). “One of the chief reasons, I find, as I settle down in my new surroundings, for the feeling of incompleteness which I experience, is the fact of this country’s having no history. We get forlorn glimpses of the Past, when the old Dutch settlers used to hear the roar of the lions outside Cape Town Fort of nights; and, further back, we get such peeps as the quaint narratives of the early explorers allow us, but beyond those there is the great dark void” (957). Die groter nag wat binne ‘n eeu vir die land voorgelê het, die heillose ANC-regime, kon sy onmoontlik voorsien het.

    “This most paintable and decorative vegetation is not friendly to the intruder. These exquisitely toned shrubs with wild strong forms are full of repellent spikes which, like bayonets, they seem to level at you if, lured by the gentle perfume of their blossoms, you approach eye and nose too near. Depend upon it, this country was intended for thick-skinned blacks” (979). Al wat effens troos, is die feit dat die Butler-egpaar se simpatie ongetwyfeld aan die kant van die Nederlanders/Afrikaners/Boere was. “I can well understand the passionate love an Africander-born must feel for this country. I know none that has such strong, saturating local sentiment” (999). “I had sketching expeditions projected which never came off, with a clever Dutch lady, who did charming water-colours of beautiful Constantia and the striking country above Simon’s Bay, and the true ‘Cape of Good Hope’ beyond” (1010). “The wise Dutch who planted them [forests] had a law whereby any one felling one of these pines was bound to plant two saplings in its stead. We are doing a great deal of the felling without the planting” (989). Veral ANC-ondersteuners volg hierdie Britse voorbeeld slaafs na wanneer hulle brandhout versamel.

    Elizabeth het die parlementsopening op 14 Julie 1899 bygewoon. “The proceedings were all on the lines followed at Westminster … The opening words of ‘the Speech from the Throne’ sounded hollow. They proclaimed amongst other things urbi et orbi, that we were at peace with the South African Republics. And now … Goodbye, South Africa, for ever! I am glad that in you I have had experience of one of the most enchanting portions of this earth! As you know that experience only lasted five months after all. We left on the 23rd August ’99 on a day of blinding rain, which, as the ship moved off, drew like a curtain across that country which I felt we were leaving to a fast-approaching trouble. The war cloud was descending. It burst in blood and fire a few weeks later and deepened the sense of melancholy with which I shall ever think of that far-away land” (1021).

    An autobiography (1922)

    Ná afloop van die Anglo-Boereoorlog (1899-1902), die dood van haar man (1910), asook die einde van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog (1914-1918), skryf Elizabeth Butler in hoofstuk 22 van haar outobiografie oor haar verblyf aan die Kaap. Haar man, William, het op 12 November 1898 uit Engeland na Kaapstad vertrek om die opperbevelhebber van die plaaslike Britse troepe te word. Sy vrou en drie kinders het hom op 18 Februarie 1899 gevolg. “We little knew what a dark period in his life awaited him out there, brought about by the malice of those in power there and at home. It is too sacred and too painful a subject for me to record it here further than I have done” (Kindle 3213).

    “Though I was filled with admiration for the beauty of our surroundings, I never felt the happiness which Italy, Egypt or Palestine had given me. Very absurd, no doubt, and sentimental, but my love of the old haunts made me feel resentful of the topsy-turvy state of things I found down there … There was, besides, a local melancholy in that strange beauty I cannot describe. All this may be put down to sentimentality, but a very real melancholy attaches to South Africa in my mind in connection with my husband, who suffered there for his honesty and devotion to the honour of the Empire he served. The authorities accepted his resignation of the Cape command which he tendered for fear of embarrassing the Government, and he accepted the command of the Western District in its place, which meant Devonport [Plymouth]. So on August 22nd [1899] we all embarked for Home” (3223). Die Anglo-Boereoorlog het op 11 Oktober 1899 uitgebreek.

    “There [in Britain] we found the campaign of calumny, originated in South Africa against Sir William, in its acutest phase. The Press was letting loose all the poison with which it was being supplied, and I consequenty went through, at first, the bitter pain of daily trying to intercept the vilest anonymous letters, many of them beer-stained missives couched in ill-spelt language from the slums. Not all the reparation offered to my husband later on … ever healed the wound. His offence had been a frank admission of sympathy for a people tenacious of their independence and, knowing the Boers as he did, he knew what their resistance would mean in case of attack. He was appalled at the prospect of a war, not against an army but against a people, involving the farm-burnings and all the horrors which our armies would have to resort to. He would fain have seen violence avoided and diplomacy used instead, knowing, as he did, that the old intransigent Dopper element would die out in time, and the new generation of Boers, many of whom were educated at our universities, intermarrying with the English, as they were already doing, would have brought about that very union of the two races within the Empire which has been reached to-day through all that suffering. In case, however, war should be decided on he employed the utmost vigour allowed to official language to warn those in power of the necessity for enormous forces in order to ensure success. Some of his despatches were suppressed. The idea at Headquarters was an easy march to Pretoria. What I have alluded to as the malice which prompted the campaign of calumny had caused the report to be spread that our initial defeats were owing to his wilful neglect in not warning the directing powers of the gravity of their undertaking” (3228).

    Slot

    Die vraag kan gestel word: Wie het die land wat eens ons Afrikaner-vaderland was, opgedonder? Dit lyk asof daar agtereenvolgend drie groepe was wat die Afrikanerdom skade aangedoen het. Eerstens was daar die Britte wat in 1795 en 1806 met troepe hier aangekom het en later met ‘n leër teen die Boererepublieke opgeruk het om eie gierigheid te bevredig. Tweedens was daar FW de Klerk en sy onderhandelaars (veral Roelf Meyer, Leon Wessels en Dawie de Villiers), gesteun deur enkele ministers, wat ‘n volslae mislukkig van die grondwetlike onderhandelinge gemaak het. Pleks van politieke magsdeling te bewerkstellig, soos aan die blanke kiesers belowe is, is mandaatloos aan swart mag oorgegee. Derdens is daar die heillose ANC-regime wat in ondoeltreffendheid en korrupsie uitmunt. Pleks van self welvaart skep, word die een na die ander maatreël getref om blankes op ‘n suiwer rassistiese grondslag te benadeel en hulle van hulle besittings en selfs lewens te beroof.

    Al drie hierdie groepe is in uitnemende mate moreel verwerplik, sodat dit moeilik is om te besluit wie die grootste sondebok is. Die Britte kan as verweer aanvoer dat hulle gedrag ingevolge die kolonialisme en imperialisme van destyds verduidelik (eerder as geregverdig) kan word. ANC-kamerade kan hulle terrorisme en ander gruweldade, asook die voortgesette geweldpleging tot op hede, probeer vergoeilik as gevestigde kultuuruitinge wat eerder instinktief as rasioneel gedrewe is. Die NP-groepie wat aan swart mag oorgegee het, kan kwalik ‘n verweer vir hulle skandalige gedrag uitdink, behalwe miskien dat hulle die “wêreldmening” ter wille was. Wat hulle gedoen het, is en bly vir my die verwerplikste gebeurtenis in die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis. Hulle het in werklikheid niks positiefs bereik nie. Nie vrede nie. Nie ‘n voorspoedige land nie. Hulle het doelbewus en met oorgawe verraad teen die plaaslike blankes, veral die Afrikanerdom, gepleeg.

  • Leon Lemmer: John Barrow as sosio-politieke kommentator

    Leon Lemmer: John Barrow as sosio-politieke kommentator

    John Barrow (1764-1848) was van 1792 tot 1794 verbonde aan die Britse ambassade in Peking/Beijing, China, toe George Macartney (1737-1806) die ambassadeur was. Van 1797 tot 1798 was Macartney die goewerneur aan die Kaap tydens die eerste Britse besetting. Barrow was van 1797 tot 1804 aan die Kaap en was aanvanklik Macartney se private sekretaris. Barrow was veronderstel om beter betrekkinge tussen veral die Boere en die swart inwoners te bevorder, ‘n taak waarvoor hy uitnemend ongeskik was. Hy het plaaslik verskeie reise onderneem en die volgende boek daaroor gepubliseer: An account of travels into the interior of Southern Africa in the years 1797 and 1798 (1802/2015, 432p; Amazon Kindle $1,14). In 1799 het Barrow met Anna Maria Truter (1777-1857), wat plante geskilder het, getrou. Hulle het sewe kinders gehad. Barrow het in 1800 ‘n huis in Kaapstad gekoop omdat hy hom hier wou vestig. In 1802 het Brittanje en Frankryk egter die Vrede van Amiens gesluit waarvolgens die Kaap weer Hollandse besit sou word; vandaar die Bataafse bewind aan die Kaap (1803-1806). Dit het Barrow se planne gefruik. Hy het gevolglik na Engeland teruggekeer.

    Barrow se eerstehandse kennis van China het veroorsaak dat hy telkens bv rysverbouing aan die Kaap aanbeveel het. Die oorblyfsels van die Hollandse bewind aan die Kaap het hy afgekraak en die Britse manier van regeer – eintlik alles wat die Britte gedoen het – geloof. Byvoorbeeld: “The Dutch of late years had entirely neglected this excellent piece of ground; but the spirit of improvement that has always actuated the minds of the English in all their possessions abroad, will no doubt show itself at this place, and convert the public garden [in Cape Town] into a place not only ornamental to the town but useful to the country” (Kindle 246). Dit is Barrow se mentor, Macartney, wat die Britse Ryk gekarakteriseer het as “a vast Empire, on which the sun never sets.” Hierdie vooroordeel het Barrow op die Boere geprojekteer en hulle sover moontlik afgekraak. Terselfdertyd het hy die nie-blanke inwoners verheerlik. ‘n Mens kan wonder waarom hy dan met ‘n Hollandssprekende blanke vrou getrou het.

    Hierdie gaping by Barrow tussen wat geskryf en hoe geleef word, is soortgelyk aan hedendaagse, Afrikaanssprekende, blanke Stellenbossers soos Willie Esterhuyse en Anton van Niekerk. Volgens Esterhuyse het “Afrikaans as wetenskaplike publikasietaal … ‘n baie beperkte en krimpende toekoms” (Netwerk24, 8.12.2018), iets wat deur hom eerder verwelkom as teengewerk word. Om jou vir Afrikaans as akademiese taal te beywer, is volgens Esterhuyse “strategies én takties outyds” (Netwerk24, 19.12.2018). Van Niekerk het hom nie net daadwerklik vir die verengelsing van die Universiteit Stellenbosch beywer nie; hy het ook, soos Wim de Villiers, geen goeie woord vir Afrikaners nie.

    Volgens Van Niekerk, soos by Barrow, is die Boere in vergelyking met die swartes baie sleg: “Vergete is alles wat ons weet van die pyn wat ‘Afrikanerskap’ in die verlede in hierdie land aangerig het” (“Om met vuur te speel,” Netwerk24, 20.12.2018). Wat Van Niekerk onderskeidelik aanprys en vergeet, is swart Afrika-nasionalisme en -terrorisme. “Die fase in die geskiedenis van ‘Suid-Afrika’ waaroor ons eintlik nie in staat is om ooit weer ons koppe op te tel, en ten opsigte waarvan ons die Allerhoogste moet dank dat daar nie uit onverbloemde wraaklus teen ons opgetree is nie, is egter presies die periode waarin ‘Afrikaners’ aan die bewind was.” In werklikheid was dit die goue era van Afrikaans en Europese beskawing, toe Suid-Afrika die voorspoedigste en ontwikkeldste land in Afrika wás. Toe was daar geen sprake van staatskaping, rommelstatus, ongebreidelde korrupsie, ondoeltreffendheid en ‘n mislukte staat nie.

    Van Niekerk verwys na “die verstikkende en onverdraagsame eenvormingheid van Afrikanernasionalisme … ‘n voorskriftelike en uitmergelende Afrikaner-nasionalistiese ideologie,” asof Afrikaners sedert 1994 welwillende, vredeliewende, moord- en misdaadlose vryheid en selfbeskikking ervaar. “Vingerswaaiende leiers” is deur vuisswaaiende leiers vervang, maar die naïeweVan Niekerk verwelkom dit. As na uitnemende voorbeelde van volkome verloopte Afrikaners gesoek word, hoef daar nie verder as Esterhuyse, Van Niekerk en De Villiers gesoek te word nie – volgens elkeen se openbare beeld, wat van hul private leefwyse kan verskil. Daar is dikwels ‘n element van skynheiligheid by die uiters linkses. Fanatieke pogings word aangewend om heiliger as heilig te probeer wees. Koos Malan het verdoemende kritiek op Van Niekerk se betoog gelewer (Netwerk24, 9.01.2019).

    In die eerste hoofstuk noem Barrow dat twee Britse offisiere, Andrew Shillinge en Humphrey Fitzherbert, in 1620 Saldanabaai en omgewing – “the whole continent near adjoining” – tot Britse gebied verklaar het, “for the better prosecution of … trade to the East Indies” (87). Hy gee die posisie aan as 34 breedtegraad, dus Tafelbaai, wat eens Saldanabaai genoem is. Die huidige Saldanabaai se breedtegraad is 33. Die Britse regering het egter nie hierdie anneksasie bekragtig nie. Volgens Barrow het Jan van Riebeeck die VOC-verversingspos in 1650 aan die Kaap gevestig (107, 114). Dit is voorafgegaan deur ‘n Portugese nedersetting by die mond van die Groot Visrivier, wat egter later ontruim is ten gunste van ‘n handelspos by Delagoabaai/Lourenço Marques/Maputo (114, 2221). Die 1620-poging tot anneksasie is nie in my skoolgeskiedenisboeke genoem nie; moontlik sodat nie gedink moet word dat die Britte hier hoort nie.

    Daar is egter beweerde vroeëre gebeure aan die Kaap wat ek nog nêrens elders teëgekom het as in die volgende deeglik nagevorste boek nie: Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, White cargo: The forgotten history of Britain’s white slaves in America (Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 2007, 322p; Amazon Kindle $3,44). Is dit te wyte aan onkunde by (plaaslike) historici, of word dit as fopgeskiedenis beskou, al verskaf die outeurs deurgaans bronverwysings? Een van die verwysings is na Frank Welsh se boek, A history South of Africa (1998), bedoelende A history of South Africa.

    Aan die begin van die 17de eeu wou die Britte van hulle prisoniers – “the lewd and idle” – ontslae raak. “Sir Thomas Smythe [1558-1625, the first governor of the East India Company] led the search for a site and initially considered South Africa rather than America. A letter written to Smythe in 1609 by one of his agents, Thomas Aldworth, put the case for a site at the Cape of Good Hope. Aldworth had anchored in Table Bay while he was en route for India and liked what he saw. An earlier European visitor had carved a huge cross on the steep mountain overlooking the bay … the natives seemed friendly. Aldworth reported enthusiastically to Smythe that the Cape had ‘courteous and tractable folk’ and was just the place to send convicts. The area could take ‘one hundred English convicts a year’, he estimated” (Kindle 934).

    “Always cautious, Smythe decided to send just ten convicts to see how they fared … James Crosse … [was] the men’s leader in the Cape. Crosse and the other nine were duly landed at Table Bay and presented with what Smythe’s men deemed sufficient for their survival: ‘half a peck of turnip seeds’, a few other seeds, ‘and a spade to dig the ground’. Unsurprisingly, the experiment was a failure. Crosse and the other convicts had been left with no arms with which to protect themselves and they were terrified when they saw tribesmen from the local Khoi people in the distance. Maybe they had heard how Portuguese traders had once been massacred here after falling out with the Khoi; [eg. Francisco de Almeida (1450-1510) and 64 of his men in March 1510]. The convicts hid and managed to evade the natives. Somehow, they reached a rocky island just off Table Bay [Robben Island] … Here, the ten Englishmen eked out a miserable existence, probably living on shellfish or the seals that baked on the shore. Eventually, a visiting ship took pity on them and took them off. Three of the convicts got back to England” (942).

    “Smythe tried once more. He ordered another group of convicts to be sent to the Cape aboard one of his India-bound ships. When it reached Table Bay and anchored, the convicts begged the captain to hang them rather than leave them in Africa. He couldn’t oblige. Following orders, they too were dumped on the shore … Another passing ship took them off within a couple of days. Nearly two centuries would pass before England would again send convicts to the Cape” (951).

    In sahistory.org.za staan: “1605: First attempt by sailors of the English East India Company to annex the Cape on behalf of Britain.” “1615: Sir Thomas Roe attempts to land some deported Britsh criminals at the Cape, but those who are not drowned or killed by Khoikoi are soon removed from the Cape and the scheme is abandoned.” In 1631 het die Britte glo vir die Khoi-Khoi Autshumao/Harry na Batavia geneem sodat hy kon leer om as tolk aan die Kaap op te tree. As ‘n mens, soos Christo van Rensburg, begeer dat die geskiedenis van Afrikaans (en Kaaps/Engelsbesoedelde Afrikaans) voor 1652 ontstaan het, is 1631 ‘n sinvoller datum as 1595, wat deur Van Rensburg gepropageer word (Praag 15.12.2018). In 1644 het 250 skipbreuklinge van ‘n Hollandse skip vier maande aan die Kaap vertoef en in 1647 nog ‘n aantal vir ‘n jaar lank.

    Barrow verwys na die Khoi-Khoin as Hottentotte. Die Hollanders “soon discovered the predominant passion of this weak and peaceable people for spirituous liquors, and that a bottle of brandy was a passport through every horde. With this and tobacco, iron, and a few paltry trinkets, they purchased a part of the country and of their stock of cattle, and then took the rest by force” (120). Op hierdie manier het die Khoi-Khoin, volgens Barrow, hulle grond, vee en vryheid verloor. “[The Hottentots] were soon reduced to the necessity of becoming their [the Dutch’s] servants” (134). “To encourage the native Hottentots in useful labour, by giving them an interest in the produce of that labour, to make them experience the comforts of civilized life, and to feel they have a place and a value in society, which the miserable policy of the Dutch government denied to them, would be the sure means of diminishing, and, in time, of entirely removing the necessity of slavery” (581). Marthinus van Bart het egter aangetoon dat dit juis die Khoi-Khoin se tradisie van nie-werk of leeglê was wat aanleiding tot die invoering van slawe gegee het (Praag 15.12.2018). Barrow beweer: “Few negroes, in fact, have been imported since the capture [1795], and those few by accident, or by special permission” (581). Oor die eerste Britse besetting van die Kaap skryf Van Bart egter: “In die sewe-en-‘n-half jaar van dié bewind aan die Kaap is meer slawe hierheen ingevoer as in enige ander tydperk van dieselfde lengte.”

    In teenstelling met die huidige verheerliking van die plaaslike bruin mense, insluitende die Moslems of Kaapse Maleiers, skryf Barrow: “The most active and docile, but the most dangerous [eg “revengeful”] are the Malays. They are faithful, honest, and industrious; but so impatient of injury, and so capricious, that the slightest provocation will sometimes drive them into fits of frenzy during the continuance of which it would be unsafe to come within their reach” (588).

    Dalk het die Hollandse bewind nie so sleg aan die Kaap gevaar nie: “There are no beggars in the whole colony; and but a few who are the objects of public charity” (615). Vergelyk dit met die nuwe Suid-Afrika waar ‘n mens om elke hoek en draai deur bedelaars lastig geval word in ‘n land waarin daar baie meer ontvangers van staatstoelaes as betalers van inkomstebelasting is.

    Daar was ‘n (onoorbrugbare) kloof tussen die Hollands- en Engelssprekendes, soortgelyk aan die huidige kloof tussen blankes/Afrikaners en swart mense. “Few of the [Dutch] male inhabitants associate with the English, except such as hold employment under the government. This backwardness [!] may be owing in part to the different habits [cultures] of the two nations, and partly, perhaps, to the reluctance that a vanquised [!] people must always feel in mixing with their conquerors. No real cause, however, of complaint or disaffection, could possibly [!] be alleged against the English government at the Cape” (643). In werklikheid was daar geen sprake van dat die Hollandse boere deur die Britte oorwin is nie – hulle het eerder sover moontlik weg van die regering getrek – net so min as wat die swartes ooit die blankes in Suid-Afrika oorwin het. Die swartes het in 1994 politieke beheer oor die land verkry weens die verraad van ‘n klein groepie Afrikaanssprekende blankes.

    In Suid-Afrika is agteruitgang sedert 1994 aan die orde van die dag, maar daar word voorgegee, bv deur Anton van Niekerk hier bo, dat daar baie dinge is waarvoor ons dankbaar moet wees. Barrow het ‘n soortgelyke laai uitgehaal: “Four years of increasing prosperity [since 1795], of uninterrupted peace and domestic tanquillity, have been the happy lot of the inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope … subversion of all order, had industriously been propagated by the ill-disposed, among the ignorant [!] part of the colonists, both in the town and country districts” (656).

    Van die tweede hoofstuk af skryf Barrow oor sy reise die binneland in. Ek skryf agtereenvolgend oor die Khoi-Khoin, Khoi-Khoin se taal, San, swart mense en die Hollandse boere. In die aanhalings, onder elkeen van daardie hoofde, word daar ook na ander bevolkingsgroepe verwys. Let daarop dat ek die gekuurde/ontsmette, polities korrekte terme vir die drie nie-blanke bevolkingsgroepe gebruik. Die tradisionele terme kom net in die aanhalings voor. Akademies-wetenskaplik kan ek dit nie verhelp nie. Dit is immers ‘n onbegonne taak om in die aanhalings al die terme wat deur sommige as aanstootlik geag word, met gekuurdes te vervang of om hulle telkens met afkortings (H-woord, B-woord, K-woord) minder aanstootlik te maak. Die boodskap wat Barrow oordra, is in elk geval pro-nieblank en sterk anti-blank/Boer. In die meeste gevalle weerhou ek my van kommentaar. Ingeligte, kritiese lesers sal bv die oordrywings, eensydighede en valshede van Barrow (redelik) maklik herken.

    Khoi-Khoin

    Volgens Barrow is die Khoi-Khoin se eie oorspronklike naam vir hulleself nie die Hollandse benaming “Hottentotte” nie, maar “Quazquae” (1816). “The original inhabitants of the country being a sort of Troglodytes, as indeed the savage Hottentots of the interior in some degree still are” (718). “There is not in the whole extensive district of Graaff Reynet a single horde of independent Hottentots, and perhaps not a score of individuals who are not actually in the service of the Dutch. These weak people, the most helpless, and in their resent condition, perhaps the most wretched, of the human race, duped out of their possessions, their country, and finally out of their liberty, have entailed upon their miserable offspring a state of existence to which that of slavery might bear the comparison of happiness … Their numbers of late years have rapidly declined. It has generally been observed, that wherever Europeans have colonized, the less civilized natives have always dwindled away, and at length totally disappeared” (1727).

    Barrow skryf oor ” their extreme poverty, scantiness of food, and continual dejection of mind, arising from the cruel treatment they receive from an inhuman and unfeeling peasantry, who, having discovered themselves to be removed to too great a distance from the seat of their former government to be awed by its authority, have exercised, in the most wanton and barberous manner, an absolute power over these poor wretches, reduced to the necessity of depending upon them for a morsel of bread. There is scarcely an instance of cruelty said to have been committed against the slaves in the West-India islands, that could not find a parallel from the Dutch farmers of the remote parts of the colony towards the Hottentots in their service. Beating and cutting them with thongs of the hide of the sea-cow or rhinosceros, is a gentle punishment, though these sort of whips which they call shambos [sambokke] are most horrid instruments, tough, pliant, and heavy almost as lead. Firing small shot into the legs and thighs of a Hottentot, is a punishment not unknown to some of the monsters who inhabit the neighbourhood of Gamtoos river” (1734).

    “Instant death is not unfrequently the consequence of punishing these poor wretches in a moment of rage. This is of little consequence to the farmer; for though they are to all intents and purposes his slaves, yet they are not transferable property. It is this circumstance which, in his mind, makes their lives less valuable and their treatment more inhuman … the coolness and tranquillity displayed at the punishment of his slave or Hottentot, is highly ridiculous, and at the same time indicative of a savage disposition to unfeeling cruelty lurking in his heart. He flogs them, not by any given number of lashes, but by time; and as they have no clocks nor substitutes for them capable of marking the smaller divisions of time, he has invented an excuse for the indulgence of one of his most favourite sensualities, by flogging them till he has smoked as many pipes of tobacco as he may judge the magnitude of the crime to deserve” (1747).

    “By a resolution of the old [Dutch] government, as unjust as it was inhuman, a peasant was allowed to claim as his property, till the age of five-and-twenty, all the children of the Hottentots in his service to whom he had given in their infancy a morsel of meat. At the expiration of this period the odds are ten to one that the slave is not emancipated. A Hottentot knows nothing of his age; he takes no note of time” (1753). “The Hottentot girls in the service of the colonists are in situations too dependent to dare to reject the proffered embraces of the young peasantry” (1775).

    “Low as they are sunk in the scale of humanity, their character seems to have been very much traduced and misrepresented. It is true there is nothing prepossessing in the appearance of a Hottentot, but infinitely less so in the many ridiculous and false relations by which the public have been abused. They are mild, quiet, and timid people; perfectly harmless, honest, faithful; and, though extremely phlegmatic, they are kind and affectionate to each other, and not incapable of strong attachments. A Hottentot would share his last morsel with his companions. They have little of that kind of art or cunning that savages generally possess. If accused of crimes of which they have been quilty, they generally divulge the truth. They seldom quarrel among themselves or make use of provoking language. Though naturally of a fearful and cowardly disposition, they will run into the face of danger if led in by their superiors; and they suffer pain with great patience. They are by no means deficient in talent, but they possess little exertion to call it into action: the want of this was the principal cause of their ruin. The indolence of a Hottentot is a real disease, whose only remedy seems to be that of terror. Hunger is insufficient to effect the cure … they will willingly fast the whole day, provided they may be allowed to sleep … With them the word is, to eat or to sleep. When they cannot indulge in the gratification of the one, they generally find immediate relief in flying to the other” (1816).

    “The person of a Hottentot while young is by no means void of symmetry. They are clean-limbed, well-proportioned, and erect” (1884). Some of the women, when young, and previous to child-bearing, might serve as models of perfection in the human figure … in their gait they are not altogether devoid of grace” (1890). “[The Hottentots’] eyelids …are rounded into each other exactly like those of the Chinese, to whom, indeed, in many other points, they bear a physical resemblance, that is sufficiently striking” (1884; ook 3298, 3333). Die Khoi-Khoin en San is nie altyd duidelik onderskeibaar nie. Barrow verwys na “the real Hottentots, or Bosjesmans” (3339) en na die “Maroon Hottentots, called Bosjesmans” (4438), asook na “the Bosjesmans … and other Hottentots” (4569). “The Bosjesmans, though in every respect a Hottentot, yet in his turn of mind differs very widely from those who live in the colony” (3346). Barrow vermoed “a common origin” by die Khoi-Khoin en die San (3291). Daar is ‘n teorie dat hulle voorkoms (deels) aan Chinese skipbreuklinge toegeskryf kan word.

    “Notwithstanding the inhuman treatment that the Hottentots experience from the Dutch farmers, the latter could very ill want the assistance of the former; and, were they sensible of their own interest, and the interest of their posterity, instead of oppressing, they would offer them every encouragement” (1951). “Should the present system of oppression continue, the time is not far distant when their own children must take upon them the charge now committed to Hottentots … Broken up and dispersed as the tribes of this nation now are, few of their ancient usages are retained among them” (1958).

    Oor sy besoek aan Namakwaland skryf Barrow: “A dozen years more, and probably a shorter period, will see the remains of the Namaaqua nation in a state of entire servitude. Such are the effects of an encroaching peasantry, sanctioned by the low policy of a [Dutch] government that could descend to employ agents to effect the purchase of whole herds of cattle for a cask of brandy … The government having fixed no limits to their colony, nor their subjects to their avarice, the latter found it still more convenient to settle themselves in the midst of the harmless Namaaquas, who considered them as the most acceptable neighbours in the world. For a bottle of brandy, which cost sixpence, they willingly exchanged an ox; and such is still the infatuation of this people for the noxious liquor, that they will even now exchange a sheep for the same quantity of it” (4555).

    Khoi-Khoin se taal

    Die Khoi-Khoin “are very far from being a stupid people. They learn the Dutch language with great facility” (1918). “The great point in which their invention appears to have been exercised, is in the construction of their language. Of all the methods that have been adopted in language, by different nations, for the purpose of expressing objects, and conveying ideas, in a clear and unequivocal manner, that which has been hit upon by the Hottentots, is certainly the most extraordinary. Almost all their monosyllables, and the leading syllable of compound words, are thrown out of the mouth with a sudden retraction of the tongue from the teeth or the palate” (1925).

    “All languages in their infancy consisted probably of simple or monosyllabic sounds, but as these could convey only a very limited number of ideas, recourse was had to inflexion of voice and composition of the simple sounds to make the vocabulary more copious. The division of such simple sounds into their elements, and by the various combinations of these elements to form an almost unlimited number of new sounds, was one of the most wonderful inventions in the history of man, and much beyond the genius of a Hottentot. He has done, however, all that he found to be necessary by a very few compound words, and by the clacking with the tongue” (1931).

    “The vocables were adopted in imitation of the sounds proceeding from the different objects they were meant to express” (1938). “The genius of a language is generally discoverable in the application of new words to new ideas. The Hottentots who had never seen nor heard the report of a gun before their unfortunate connection with Europeans, had a new word to invent in order to express it. They called it kaboo” (1945).

    “The Dutch peasantry in the distant districts speak it [Khoi] and many of them are so very much accustomed to the use of it, that they introduce into their own language a motion of the organ of speech sufficiently distinct to show from whence they procured it” (1951). Dus, sommige Hollandse boere het Khoi gepraat en sommige van die Khoi-Khoin het Hollands gepraat. Dit volg dat hulle mekaar se moedertaal kon beïnvloed. Wat duidelik uit Barrow se reisbeskrywings blyk, is dat die Hollandse boere in die binneland uiters geïsoleerd gelewe het, maar dat hulle met mede-Hollanders op die roetes en tydens besoeke aan Kaapstad en dorpe soos Swellendam en Graaff-Reinet kontak gehad het. Selfs meer geïsoleerd as die Hollandse boere het die Khoi-Khoin in aparte stamme gelewe. “From living together in particular clans, and, in later times, from mixing with different people, the Hottentots of one district differ very considerably from those of another” (1816).

    Die punt is dat daar in Barrow se teks niks is wat daarop dui dat die Khoi-Khoin ‘n buitengewone vaardigheid in taalskepping gehad het nie. Die Hollands wat aan die Kaap en in die binneland mettertyd Afrikaans geword het, is deurslaggewend deur die blankes, as die elite (ten minste in vergelyking met die nie-blankes – al word die Hollandse blankes erg ingat deur Barrow voorgestel), ontwikkel. Christo van Rensburg se Khoi-Afrikaans “was geen groot volksbeweging wat Hollands gou aan die Kaap laat verkrummel het nie” (Praag 15.12.2018). Oor die Khoi-Khoin, tydens sy besoek aan Namakwaland, skryf Barrow: “I could have no conversation with these people through the means of my Hottentots, the language spoken by one being perfectly unintelligible to the other; nor could they speak or understand a word of Dutch” (4493). “Though the Namaaqua Hottentots vary but very little in their persons from the other tribes of this nation, their language is widely different” (4569). “The different families of Hottentots all speak a different language, which, however, is very obviously perceived to have been derived from one common origin” (4677). Volgens Van Rensburg is die bakermat van Afrikaans in die binneland en nie in bv die Bo-Kaap in Kaapstad nie. In die ontstaan en lewensvatbaarheid van Afrikaans het die blanke boere ongetwyfeld die deurslaggewende rol gespeel. ‘n Mens wonder in hoeverre Van Rensburg en diesulkes kennis geneem het van geskiedkundige verslae, bv reisbeskrywings soos dié van Barrow, voordat hulle met hulle polities byderwetse vertolkings voor ‘n dag gekom het.

    San

    “The Bosjesmans … seem to be the true aborigines of the country, unmixed with any other tribes of people” (1897). “By their habits and manner of life, [they] are justly entitled to the name of savage – a name, however, of which, it is greatly to be feared, they have been rendered more worthy by the conduct of the European settlers. They are known in the colony by the name of Bosjesmans, or men of the bushes, from the concealed manner in which they make their approaches to kill and to plunder. They neither cultivate the ground nor breed cattle, but subsist, in part, on the natural produce of their country, and make up the rest by depredations on the colonists on one side, and the neighbouring tribes of people that are more civilized than themselves, on the other” (2789).

    Van ‘n boer word gesê: “Should he depart to the distance of five hundred yards from his house, he is under the necessity of carrying a musket” (2965). Boere is deesdae weer terug in daardie situasie. “To bear a life of such constant dread and axiety, a man must be accustomed to it from his infancy, and unacquainted with one that is better” (2965). Joachim van Plettenberg (1739-1793, goewerneur aan die Kaap 1771-1785) het op die verste punt van sy reis in die omgewing van die Sneeuberg ‘n baken geplant. Die San “had thrown down and broken in pieces the monument” (3040). Die skending, vernietiging en verwydering van monumente is steeds met ons.

    “The principle object of our present journey [was] that we might be eye-witnesses of the manner in which the farmers conducted their expeditions against these miserable set of beings. I thought it, however, a necessary step to make a previous stipulation with the commandant, that the extent of hostilities against these savages should be that of surrounding one of their kraals; that after this had been done, we should act only on the defensive, and he was enjoined to deliver to his people a most serious charge, not to fire a single shot unless it should be found absolutely necessary for their own personal security; for that the sole object of our journey was to bring about, if possible, a conversation with some of the chiefs of this people” (3196). “On their promises I could place no sort of dependence, knowing that, like true sportsmen when game was sprung, they could not withhold their fire” (3230). “A Dutch peasant, though sufficiently expert at this sort of service [eg surrounding a kraal], always depends more upon his Hottentots than himself” (3210).

    Die Boere met hulle gewere “was so directly hostile, as perfectly to justify their shooting a volley of arrows among us” (3250). Barrow vertel dat eers die San-kinders en daarna die vroue beskuitjies by hulle kom haal het en heelwat later die mans, wat met tabak gelok is. “The conclusion of the business, however, must have appeared to them very different from what, on former occasions, they had always experienced, when those who escaped from immediate death were incessantly pursued and fired upon, and their wives and children seized and carried away into slavery” (3250). “Numbers of Bosjesmans women are now in the colony, who were taken from their mothers when infants, and brought up by the farmers, who, from the day of their captivity, have never had any intercourse whatsoever with their countrymen, nor know, except from report, to what tribe or nation they belong” (3304).

    Hierdie San “insisted on their innocence, by asserting that their horde, so long as they composed a part of it, had never committed depredations on the colonists, but had always remained about the spot we found them, where they subsisted by the chase [of game], and upon the roots of the earth. Appearances certainly were much in their favour” (3256). “They were desired to tell all their countrymen they should happen to see, that whenever they should desist from stealing the cattle of the colonists, and should come to any of the farm-houses without bow and arrows, or other weapons, and say they were in want, as many more sheep should be given to them than they could possibly obtain by plunder” (3263).

    “When all … means of subsistence fail them, and they are certainly very precarious, they are driven to the necessity of hazarding a toilsome and dangerous expedition of plunder into the colony. Such a mode of life naturally leads to habits of cruelty. The disposition of the Hottentot [San] race is mild and manageable in the highest degree, and by gentle usage may be moulded into any shape; but the treatment of the farmers towards them has been very flagitious, that their cruelty even admits of palliation. Though in the eye of political justice it may be considered as a crime for a starving family, driven by imperious want to the necessarity of taking [stealing] the property of another who has perhaps more than he can possibly use, yet in the law of nature the offence is venial: but the Bosjesmans for their conduct have not only the plea of nature and humanity, but also that of retribution. They were driven out of their own country, their children seized and carried into slavery, by people on whom they now commit their depredations [crimes], and on whom they naturally take every occasion of exercising their revenge” (3367) – ‘n standpunt soortgelyk aan dié van Anton van Niekerk hier bo. “The condition to which this people has been reduced, has entirely subdued that timid and pusillanimous mind which characterizes the Hottentots [San]” (3381).

    “The nature of their language is the same as that of the Hottentots, though they are not able to understand each other. In the latter, the action of the tongue against the roof of the mouth, or the teeth, is seldom used on more than one syllable of a word. In the language of the Bosjesman, there is scarcely a syllable enunciated without it; and this action is performed by them much more forcibly than by the Hottentots. Notwithstanding the difficulty for an European to acquire such a language, several of the Sne[e]wbergers speak it as fluently as the natives, from their having been committed, in their infancy, to the care of Bosjesmans nurses” (3430).

    “It were greatly to be wished, that the peasantry would see the policy of putting an end to their expeditions against this miserable people, and adopt in their place a lenient mode of treatment. They might not, perhaps, succeed in reclaiming them at once from their rooted habits of life; but their hatred towards the colonists, which aims at their lives, might certainly be abated. The first step towards it would be to abolish the inhuman practice of carrying into captivity their women and children … The condition of those who are made prisoners by the farmers, is, in fact, much worse than that of slavery; for, not being transferable property, they have no claims upon their interest” (3430).

    “Forty years ago, it appears from living testimony, the Bosjesmans frequented the colony boldly and openly begged and stole and were troublesome, just as the Kaffers now are; but they never attempted the life of anyone. They proceeded not to this extremity until the [Dutch] government had unwisely and unjustly suffered the peasantry to exercise an unlimited power over the lives of those who were taken prisoners. It failed, at the same time, to fix any bounds to the extent of the expeditions made against them, which certainly ought not to go beyond the limits of the colony … This, however, would not answer the object of the farmer, which is that of procuring children” (3444).

    Swart mense

    In die meeste geskiedenisboeke word beweer dat die blankes en swartes op min of meer dieselfde tyd, 1652, hulle opwagting in wat nou Suid-Afrika genoem word, gemaak het; die blankes in die suidweste en die swartes in die noordooste. Die HAT (2015) is blykbaar besig met die herskrywing van hierdie geskiedenis, maar let daarop dat hierdie inskrywing by “San” versag word deur na “Suider-Afrika” te verwys: “groep jagterversamelaars van Suider-Afrika wat minstens sedert die einde van die laaste ystydperk (10 000 VHJ [vC]) dié gebied bewoon het, maar wat met die koms van swart beesboere en landbouers uit Midde-Afrika van die vyfde eeu HJ [nC] en Europese setlaars van die 17de eeu af mettertyd na die onherbergsamer uithoeke van die gebied verdryf is” (p 1102). Wat moontlik geïmpliseer word, is dat die swartes sowat tien eeue voor die blankes in Suid-Afrika aangekom het. Wat belangrik is, is nie wie eerste hier aangekom en roofbou (bv die uitroeiing van wild, oorbeweiding en brandhoutstroping) toegepas het nie, maar watter etniese groep die land ontwikkel het deur bv infrastruktuur te skep.

    Toe Barrow in Graaff-Reinet aangekom het, het die Boere optrede teen die swartes geëis wat die Oosgrens, die Groot Visrivier, oorgesteek en hulle in die kolonie gevestig het. Barrow noem hierdie Boere “anarchists” (1335). “The first business, therefore, of the landrost, after his arrival at the Drosdy, was to stop the preparations of the farmers for making war against the Kaffers, by letting them know that it was his intention to pay a visit to the chiefs of that nation, and to prevail on them, if possible, to return quietly and peaceably into their own country beyond the settled limits of the Great Fish river. This, no doubt, was an unwelcome piece of intelligence … to those of the intended expedition, who were to share … the plunder of the Kaffers’ cattle, which, in fact, and not any laudable motive for the peace and welfare of the district, was the mainspring that operated on the minds of those who had consented to take up arms against them. To the avaricious and covetous disposition of the colonists, and their licentious conduct, was owing a serious rupture with this nation in the year 1793, which terminated with the almost total expulsion of the former from some of the divisions of the district … the Kaffers retired within their proper limits, yet few of the colonists returned to their former possessions, particularly those in the Zuure Veldt; a circumstance, no doubt, that induced the former once more to transgress the fixed boundary” (1335).

    Daar kan geen twyfel wees oor die kant waarby Barrow hom geskaar het nie. “Till the scandalous rupture between the peasantry and the Kaffers, occasioned entirely [!] by the injustice and tyranny of the former, Zuure Veldt was one of the best-peopled divisions in the district, but has been since that time entirely abandoned” (1986). “The Kaffers were not to be considered in the same light as the Bosjesmans … but, on the contrary, as a mild, rational, and in some degree civilized people, who had always afforded protection to such travellers in their country as had made proper applications to their sovereign for it. The story [!] of some Dutch farmer [singular] being murdered in Kaffer-land, where he had gone for the sake of exchanging trinkets for cattle, had got hold of their minds” (1993).

    Barrow skryf soos volg oor die swart mense wat hy duskant die Groot Visrivier teëgekom het: “A party of women were the first who advanced to salute us, laughing and dancing round the waggons, and putting on all the coaxing [begging] manners they could invent; in order to procure from us tobacco and brass buttons. Good temper, animation, and a cheerful turn of mind, beamed in all their countenances. We found them to be modest without reserve; extremely curious without being troublesome; lively but not impudent; and sportive without the least shadow of being lascivious. Their personal charms were not of a very captivating nature, though, getting over the prejudice of colour, which was that of a dark glossy brown, verging on black, some of them might have been accounted handsome” (2013). “A Kaffer woman is chaste and extremely modest … Instances of infidelity are very rare; and, when they do occur, are accidental rather than premeditated” (2472). Anders as aan die begin van hierdie paragraaf, skryf Barrow later, dalk met verwysing na die mans: “They seldom attempt to sing or to dance, and their performances of both are miserably bad” (2574).

    “The men, on the contrary, were the finest figures I ever beheld: they were tall, robust, and muscular; their habits of life had induced a firmness of carriage, and an open, manly manner, which, added to the good nature that overspread their features, showed them at once to be equally unconscious of fear, suspicion and treachery” (2028). ‘n Swart hoofman het verduidelik dat sy stam die Groot Visriviergrens oorgesteek het omdat die Boere dit eerste in die teenoorgestelde rigting gedoen het. “What this chief stated in his reply was perfectly correct. The Dutch peasantry have not only gone into the Kaffer country since the year 1793, to hunt for the larger sort of game, particularly the hippopotamus, that abounds in all the great rivers of that country, but all those who dwell near the extremity of the colony, upon the Great Fish river, have always used, and still continue to consider, the Kaffer side of the river as their own, have sown, and planted, and driven over their cattle to graze. Some of their habitants of Bruyntjes Hoogte … had taken possession of the choicest part of their country” (2069).

    “They had the audacity to petition Sir James Craig to grant them as an indemnification for their losses by the Bosjesmans and the Kaffers, a small piece of ground … This piece of ground is only about five-and-forty miles beyond the present boundary. The dating and impudent falsehood on which the letter was founded were easily seen through by Sir James Craig, and their petition was very properly rejected” (2077). “Such are the views of those people, who have neither sense of honour, regard for truth, or feelings of justice or humanity to direct their proceedings” (2083).

    “The chiefs were told that if some few of the colonists had been so imprudent as to transgress the treaty [border], they had done it contrary to the express orders and without the knowledge of government: that the colony was now in the possession of a great and powerful sovereign, the king of England: that one of his first chiefs had deputed us to say that the established boundary should be observed on the part of the colonists; but that he expected also that all those chiefs, who had spread themselves over the country of the colonists, with their families, and dependants, and cattle, would, without any further delay, quietly and peaceably return into their own country; and as a proof of the good intentions and friendship of the English government towards the Kaffer nation, we were now on our journey to their great chief, or King Gaika, carrying for him a present from the English governor at the Cape” (2083).

    Barrow formuleer en onderskryf Gaika se standpunt soos volg: “It is a common idea, industriously kept up in the colony, that the Kaffers are a savage, teacherous, and cruel people; a character as false as it is unmerited. Their moderation towards the colonists, and all white people, has shown itself on many occasions; and if the inhabitants of the bordering parts of the colony had any sense of honour or feelings of gratitude, instead of assisting to propagate, they would endeavour to suppress, such an idea. They know very well that in the height of a war into which this people was iniquitoust driven, the lives of all their women and children that fell into the hands of the Kaffers were spared by them, whilst their own fell promiscuously by the hands of the colonists” (2340).

    Om aan te toon hoe die gedrag van die Boere en swartes verskil, word beweer dat ‘n Genuese skip in 1796 tussen die mondings van die Boesmans- en Sondagsrivier gestrand het en deur die Boere geplunder is pleks van die skipbreuklinge te help (2347). In 1797 het ‘n Amerikaanse skip tussen die mondings van die Keiskamma- en Beekarivier gestrand. Die swartes het die skipbreuklinge gehelp en slegs die knope van hulle klere af gesteel. “They were deprived of no other parts of their property; and they were conducted in safety to the residence of some of the colonists, from whom a demand was made of five rixdollars for the captain and an equal sum for the whole of the crew, as full compensation for their trouble” (2361). Een van die beginsels waarop swart mense se kultuur berus is: “For theft there is no other punishment than that of restitution” (2479). Waarom dan deesdae onteiening sonder vergoeding? Dit is sowel immoreel as strydig met die belange van die land.

    “It is to him [Gaika] I am principally indebted for the little information I am enabled to give concerning the Kaffer nation” (2376). “The Kaffers having always been represented as agriculturists, we were a little disappointed in not meeting with gardens and cultivated grounds about their habitations, not a vestige of which had anywhere appeared” (2396). Gaika verduidelik toe dat hulle die afgelope twee of drie jaar in oorloë gewikkel was. “They had consequently been under the necessity of suspending their pursuits of agriculture; that in times of peace they always planted millet [sorghum – 2595, 2657], and several kinds of vegetables” (2396). “They seem however to be much more inclined to the pastoral than the agricultural life” (2499). “There are perhaps few nations, besides the Kaffers, that have not contrived to draw some advantages from the possession of a sea-coast. They have no kind of fishery whatsoever either with nets or boats” (2520). Die San, daarenteen, het wel die vermoë om vis in bv die riviere te vang (3545).

    Oor die swarte as mens skryf Barrow: “From the nature of his food, which is chiefly milk, his manners are mild and gentle … In time of peace, he leads the true pastoral life: his cattle is his only care: he rarely kills one for his own consumption, except on some particular occasion” (2423). “There is perhaps no nation on earth, taken collectively, that can produce so fine a race of men as the Kaffers: they are tall, stout, muscular, well made, elegant figures … their rest is not disturbed by violent love, nor their minds ruffled by jealousy … The countenance of a Kaffer is always cheerful; and the whole of his demeanour bespeaks content and peace of mind” (2451).

    “Had not Nature bestowed upon him the dark-colouring principle that anatomists have discovered to be owing to a certain gelatinous fluid lying between the epidermis and the cuticle, he might have ranked among the first Europeans” (2458). “A Kaffer … could not be pronounced deficient in talent. The experiment of giving him a suitable education has not yet been made; but there are perhaps no unlettered people on the face of the earth, whose manners and opinions have more the appearance of civilization than those of the Kaffers” (2486).

    “The Kaffers most certainly are not the Aborigines of the southern angle of Africa … it would be absurd to consider them as indigenous to the small spot they now possess. To speculate upon their origin, it might not perhaps be far from the mark to suppose them to have sprung from some of the tribes of those wandering Arabs known by the name of Beduins” (2533).

    “Not the smallest vestige of a written character is to be traced among them; but their language appears to be the remains of something far beyond that of any savage nation. In the enunciation it is soft, fluent, and harmonious; has neither the monotonous mouthing of the savage, nor the nasal nor guttural sounds that prevail in almost all the European tongues. It is as different from that of the Hottentots as the latter is from the English. In a very few words, and these are generally proper names, they have adopted the palatial clacking of the tongue used by the Hottentots. The mountains and rivers in the country, for instance, still retain their Hottentot names; a presumptive proof that the Kaffers were intruders upon this nation. It is singular enough that the Kaffers, as well as the Hottentots, should have obtained a name that never belonged to them … A [Kaffer], among the Indians [Arabs], is an infidel, a pagan … The Kaffers call themselves Kousszc [Xhosas]” (2603).

    Hollandse boere

    Op sy reise is Barrow, danksy hulle welwillendheid, meesal deur Hollandse boere vergesel omdat hulle perde, osse en waens en die roetes geken het, geweet het waar water is en Barrow se bas teen die inboorlinge beskerm het. “We had to depend entirely on the information of the farmers as to the road and most convenient halting places” (4202). “Some of the farmers it was absolutely necessary to take along with us, as none of our own party were acquainted with a single step of the country” (2006). “They were also a considerable addition to our strength, in case of an attack from a savage tribe … of Bosjesmans” (1034).

    Maar wat het Barrow van die Boere gedink en geskryf? “A farmer thinks he cannot proclaim a more meritorious action than the murder of one of these [Bosjesman] people. A boor from Graaff Reynet being asked … if the savages were numerous or troublesome on the road, replied, he had only shot four, with as much composure and indifference as if he had been speaking of four partridges. I myself have heard one of the humane [!] colonists boast of having destroyed with his own hands near three hundred of these unfortunate wretches” (1041).

    Die Hollandse boere word as lui slapgatte uitgebeeld. “It is indolence alone that has hitherto prevented the colonists from leading their vines along standards, in which case they would not only improve the quality of the grape, but would also receive a double quantity from the same ground” (814). “Hitherto there have been few speculators among the Dutch planters: the spirit of improvement and experiment never entered into their minds; and it may be a matter of doubt, had not the French Protestants … introduced and cultivated the vine, whether at this time the whole colony would have produced a single leaguer of wine” (820). In werklikheid het Jan van Riebeeck die eerste wingerdstok in 1655 geplant en die eerste plaaslike wyn is in 1659 geproduseer. In 1685, tydens Simon van der Stel se bewind, het die wynlandgoed Groot Constantia tot stand gekom; dus vóór die koms van die eerste Hugenote in 1688. “The poorest peasant [from the interior], on his annual visit to the Cape, never fails to lay in, among other articles of purchase, a cask of sopie [brandy], amd this as little rest day or night till it be exhausted” (4403).

    “A true Dutch peasant, or boor as he styles himself, has not the smallest idea of what an English farmer means by the word comfort. Placed in a country where not only the necessities, but almost every luxury of life might by industry be procured, he has the enjoyment of none of them” (937). “The boor … is absolute master of a domain of several miles in extent; and he lords it over a few miserable slaves or Hottentots without control … Unwilling to work, and unable to think; with a mind disengaged from every sort of care and reflection, indulging to excess in the gratification of every sensual appetite, the African peasant grows to an unwieldy size” (950). “Scarcely any two neigbours are found to be on good terms with each other, but are embroiled perpetually in quarrels and disputes about the extent of their farms, or the privilege of a spring or a water-course” (957). “The farmers seem to have no idea of digging wells, or of opening a spring to let it run” (4258).

    “The women of the African peasantry pass a life of the most listless inactivity. The mistress of the family, with her coffee-pot constantly boiling before her on a small table, seems fixed to her chair like a piece of furniture. This good [!] lady, born in the wilds of Africa, and educated among slaves and Hottentots, has little idea of what, in a state of society, constitutes female delicacy … The young girls with their hands before them as listless as their mothers. Most of them, in the distant districts, can neither read nor write, so that they have no mental resources whatsoever” (979). “To the cold phlegmatic temper and inactive way of life may perhaps be owing the prolific tendency of all the African peasantry. Six or seven children in a family are considered as very few; from a dozen to twenty are not uncommon; and most of them marry very young, so that the population of the colony is rapidly increasing” (986).

    Barrow erken darem ‘n fundamentele of DNS-verskil tussen die liggaamsbou van Khoi-Khoin vroue en Hollandse blanke vroue omdat “different predispositions exist inherent in the person of each” (4590). Bewustheid van die verskil word skynbaar versterk deur die volgende stelling: “It seems to be a fact well established, that the lion prefers the flesh of a Hottentot to that of any other creature. He has frequently been singled out from a party of Dutch” (4635). Dalk tog nie: “The latter [Dutch] being disguised in clothing, and the former [Hottentot] going generally naked, may perhaps account for it” (4635). “The men are in general much above the middle size, very tall and stout, but ill made, loosely put together, awkward and inactive. Very few have those open ingenuous countenances that among the peasantry of many parts of Europe speak their simplicity and innocence” (992).

    “They affect to be very religious, and carry at least the devotion of religion fully as far as the most zealous bigots” (1006). “Rude and uncultivated as are their minds, there is one virtue in which they eminently excel – hospitality to strangers” (1013). “If the economy of the African farmers’ house be ill managed, that of his land is equally bad. The graziers indeed, in many places, are not at the trouble of sowing any grain, but exchange with others their cattle for as much as may be necessary for the family consumption. But even those who have cornfarms near the Cape, seem to have no kind of management. They turn over a piece of ground with a huge mis-shapen plough, that requires eight or ten horses, or a dozen oxen, to drag it along” (1020). “The Dutch peasant … bestows no kind of labour on the ground [eg manure and water] but that of throwing in the seed: the rest is left to chance and the effects of an excellent climate” (1027). “Living nearly in a state of nature, with the advantage of having at all times within their reach a supply of food, procured without bodily exertion or the fatigue of labour, they sometimes attain the greatest possible size to which the species seems capable of arriving” (1211).

    “Could the farmers near the Cape be once prevailed upon to sow turnips, which may be produced here equally-good as in Europe, to plant potatoes, and cultivate the artificial grasses, the quality of the beef and mutton might be very materially improved … but the adoption of such a system would require more labour and activity, and more attention, than the body and mind of a Dutch farmer seem capable of supplying: his avarice, though great, is yet overcome by the habits of indolence in which he has been educated” (1081).

    “The zebra has obtained the character of being so vicious and ungovernable, as never to be completely tamed; perhaps only from some very imperfect and injudicious trials. The success of an attempt to domesticate animals that are naturally fierce or timid, would require more perseverance and patience, more labour, and more address, than seem to fall to the share of a Dutch peasant” (1136). Ten spyte van Barrow se beterweterigheid, “zebras have never been truly domesticated” (Wikipedia). “If the Dutch have been too indolent to domesticate the qua-cha [kwagga] and the zebra, it is less a matter of astonishment that no attempts have been made on the fierce and powerful buffalo. Any other nation, possessing the Cape for one hundred and fifty years, would certainly have effected it” (1570). Barrow sit die pot weer mis. “The African buffalo has never been domesticated, unlike its Asian counterpart, the water buffalo” (Wikipedia).

    Springbokke is deur die Boere geskiet vir hulle vleis en velle: “clothing for their slaves, and, at the time of the capture by the English [1795], for themselves also and children. The poverty and miserable condition of the colony were then so great, that all their numerous flocks and herds were insufficient to procure them decent clothing” (1273).

    Oor Graaff-Reinet skryf Barrow: “Its appearance is more miserable than that of the poorest village in England. The necessities of life are with difficulty procured in it; for, though there be plenty of land, few are found industrious enough to cultivate it” (1376). “A hog is a species of animal scarcely known in the district. No reason but that of indolence can be assigned for the want of it. To feed hogs there would be a necessity of a planting, and to this they seem to have a mortal antipathy. It is great exertion to throw a little corn into the ground for their own bread” (1411). “The same reasons that prevent them from breeding hogs, operate against their keeping poultry: these would require grain, and this labour” (1418).

    “The information of the peasantry on any subject, and in all countries, should be received with a degree of caution. Those of Africa, I have generally observed, are much disposed to the marvellous” (1542). Wat Barrow skryf, behoort deurgaans krities oorweeg te word. Hy skryf meer betroubaar oor die natuur as oor mense. Oor etniese groepe het hy bepaalde vooroordele gehad en hulle dus met verskillende maatstawwe beoordeel.

    Oor Zwartkopsbaai by Port Elizabeth skryf Barrow: “The farmers give themselves at this place no trouble to manure the land … How little they esteem manure is very evident from the heaps of dung piled up about the houses in those places where the cattle, in order to preserve them from beasts of prey, are pent up at nights … The beds of some of these kraals were twelve feet [!] deep of dung, unmixed with any other material; and this is not the only nor the least offensive nuisance with which the hovel of a Dutch peasant is usually surrounded” (1632).

    “There never perhaps were a set of men so void of resources in overcoming difficulties as the Dutch farmers of the Cape. The inanity of mind, and the indolent habit of body, are not even surmounted by self-interest. Their ignorance cannot be a matter of wonder, but we often find in Europe unlettered men possessed of great talents and ingenuity” (4424).

     

  • Britte vereer anti-Afrikaanse US rektor

    Britte vereer anti-Afrikaanse US rektor

    Die rektor van die Universiteit Stellenbosch, Wim de Villiers, is vereer vir sy anti-Afrikaanse houding.

    Hy het ‘n eredoktersgraad in Wetenskap van die Universiteit van Coventry in Brittanje ontvang.

    Die graad is aan hom toegeken uit erkenning vir sy akademiese “leierskap” en navorsing in die mediese wetenskap.

    Die Universiteit van Coventry sê in ‘n verklaring De Villiers se visie vir Stellenbosch is soortgelyk as dié van Coventry wat sterk bande tussen die twee instellings tot gevolg gehad het.

  • Gustav Venter: ‘Modder en bloed’: ‘n Lang, stywe middelvinger vir die Britse Ryk

    Gustav Venter: ‘Modder en bloed’: ‘n Lang, stywe middelvinger vir die Britse Ryk

    Vatso Engelsman!

    Vatso Soutie!

    Vatso Rooinek, vatso gulsige verdelger van volkere, vatso lafhartige kryger wat in blokhuise skuil en op oormag staatmaak, vatso afbrander van plase en aanhitser van barbare, vatso verkragter van vroue en moordenaar van kinders en vatso arrogante, smalende, leuenagtige, selfverheerlikende, onregverdige en selfmisleide Kakieparasiet.

    Engelsman, vatso! Sean Else het ʼn fliek gemaak, Modder en bloed, en daarmee vir jou ʼn vet Boerenool uitgepak. Nog nooit in ʼn Afrikaanse fliek, eintlik Boerefliek, is die Engelsman so driftig, deurlopend en driftig sleggesê nie. Dit kon nie met ʼn beter nasie gebeur het nie.

    Heldhaftigheid word in die Westerse mitologie hoofsaaklik in drie militêre gevallestudies belig en gevier: Leonidas en sy “300” Spartane by Thermopylae, die Jode wat die Romeine vergeefs by Masada weerstaan het en Jim Bowie, Davey Crockett en die ander Texane in die Alamo se verset teen die Meksikaanse leër van Santa Ana. Dit sê veel van Westerse propaganda dat die Boere se oorlog teen Brittanje nie met oorgawe en verwondering van mond tot oor, televisiestel tot oog, in skole en universiteite gehuldig word nie. Die Slag van Thermopylae was binne sewe dae gewonne, die Amerikaners het vir 13 dae in die Alamo uitgehou en selfs die Joodse weerstand het na ʼn jaar verkrummel.

    Maar in Suid-Afrika, van 1899-1902 het twee ylbevolkte republieke met skaars ʼn beroepsoldaat tussen hulle, die magtigste moondheid van die tyd tot vuisvoosheid op die slagveld gekarnuffel. Selde het ʼn land met soveel voordele die krygsarena betree as Brittanje in 1899. Skatryk met ʼn weermag wat vir honderde jare gebrei is, weliglik toegerus met die beste en vernietigendste krygstuig, beskikkende oor ʼn haas onuitputbare bron soldate, perde en voorrade. Teen hulle was opgetrek ʼn tiende – en uiteindelik ʼn twintigste – van hulle mannekrag met ernstige tekorte aan wapens, ammunisie en voorrade en geen moontlikhede om nog in te voer nie. Die Britte se arrogante voorspelling was, soos almal van ons weet, dat hulle sou “tuiswees teen Krismis”. Hulle het net nagelaat om aan te dui watter Kersfees. Want vir twee en ʼn halwe jaar het hierdie Boere elke hou gevat wat die Britse leër kon plant, die stryd dikwels sonder kos, perde of ammunisie voortgesit, en die Engelse leër genadeloos uitoorlê en gekasty.

    Die Spartane het by Thermopylae verloor, die Jode het by Masada (moontlik) selfmoord gepleeg en die Texane is by die Alamo uitgewis. Maar die Boere het uiteindelik tog geseëvier.

    Daar is eenvoudig nie in die wêreldgeskiedenis ʼn meer kordate, heldhaftige, eerbare, lydsame stryd wat so lank deur so min met so weinig teen soveel met so baie gevoer is nie. (Die enigste moontlike uitsondering is die Duitse Derde Ryk wat tot die spreekwoordelike laaste druppel kinder- en oumensbloed uitgehou het teen dosyne lande met ʼn oorweldigende industriële krygsvermoë.)

    Dis eintlik net die Engelse en die geestelike afstammelinge van Hensoppers en Joiners wat glo dat Brittanje die oorlog gewen het. Die Boere het hulle land vir ʼn kort rukkie verloor. Brittanje het sy Empaaier vir ewig verloor.

    Die Boere se stryd teen die Engelse was die seëviering van nasionalisme teenoor meedoënlose imperialisme.

    Nasionalisme? Nou ja, sien, dit is juis die element wat maak dat skrywers en filmmakers gedweë die hele onderwerp van Boereheldhaftigheid in die oorlog met groot omsigtigheid omsluip. Die hagiografiese juigkore moet aanhou histeries sing om die kollektiewe Suid-Afrikaanse ongemak met Boerenasionalisme te verdoesel. Want ongeag die gepronk van ons teenstanders, of die verguising en beskuldigings wat ons in die media moet verduur, of die magsvertoon deur die onbeholpe regering, hier is wat almal in hulle kern onthou en weet: Daar is geen manhaftiger, meer onstuitbare maatskaplike mag in Suid-Afrika as ʼn Boer met ʼn ontwaakte nasionalistiese instink nie.

    Daarom dat skrywers, selfs Afrikaanse skrywers (PG du Plessis, Christoffel Coetzee) en Afrikaanse filmmakers (Piet de Jager, Deon Opperman) hulle aanbiedings van die Vryheidsoorloë katvoet balanseer met verslae en gerugte van Boerelafhartigheid, -verraad, -wreedheid en –nyd. Boereheldhaftigheid word in werke gekwarantyn as hipernasionalistiese fabels terwyl dit hulle vertrekpunt was dat die Hensopper of Joiner die mees getroue aftekening van die Boerekarakter is. Balans is hulle heiligste stelling, maar dit word ʼn selfgerigte parodie en is naderhand balans nie meer nie, maar eerder gedienstige propaganda teen die volk, ter wille van die aggressor.

    By Sean Else, egter, is daar nie so ʼn kniehalterende soeke na balans nie, maar eerder na waarheid. En in die waarheid oor Vryheidsoorlog Twee is daar geen balans beskikbaar of nodig nie. Die Boere was reg, die Engelse verkeerd. Die Boer se stryd was edel; die Brit se stryd was oneervol. Wanneer Else dan die Engelse ʼn nool wys, is dit nie net aangaande die slag wat hulle in die oorlog toegedien is nie, maar ook daarvoor dat hy dié eenvoudige waarheid mag vertoon en dit sal doen, onbeskaamd en uitbundig, duidelik en by herhaling, met trots en oortuiging.

    Hierdie is onapologeties ʼn fliek oor witmense. Daar is geen stoere swarte wat ʼn gewigtige toespraak gegun word om te verduidelik dat hulle net so erg soos die Boere gely het nie; geen kostelike kleurling vol pittige wyshede nie; geen hulpvaardige Indiër nie. En dít in ʼn fliek wat gedeeltelik deur die departement van handel en nywerheid, Kyknet en die Dagbreek Trust befonds is! Ons jong meneer Else, wil dit blyk, weet hoe om dinge gedoen te kry…

    Die blote vervaardiging en bestaan van Modder en bloed is metafories van die Vryheidsoorlog self. Die Engelse propagandamediummasjien is so oorweldigend, so allesomvattend, so aansprakerig dat ʼn klein Afrikaanse fliek nie ʼn kans gegun sal word om dit teen te staan nie. Maar daar is dit dan nou. Modder en bloed is klein ja, ooglopend met ʼn begroting gemaak waarvoor ʼn internasionale fliek se assistenthaarkapper nie uit die bed sou opstaan nie.

    As resensent word dit van my verwag dat ek na die tegniese aspekte en gehalte van die rolprent sal kyk. Ontspan. Dit is ʼn goeie fliek, goed vervaardig en opgevoer, met uitstekende rolvertolkings en die beste Afrikaanse draaiboek sedert Chris Barnard se Die storie van Klara Viljee, in elk geval wat die allerbelangrikste element van strukturering betref. Ja, ek kan kibbel oor kleiner voetfoute: Die klein begroting steur soms. Daar is nooit meer as ʼn halfdosyn Britse soldate bymekaar nie, selfs in die gevegstonele. Die storielyn is stroopsoet uit stapelwerk van Hollywood gelig met Sylvester Stallone se Escape to victory (gevangenes speel sokker teen Duitse wagte,) Burt Reynolds se The mean machine (gevangenes speel voetbal teen die bewaarders) en Aamir Kahn se Lagaan (Indiese plattelanders verslaan die Engelse leër se krieketspan). Daar is ʼn paar spatsels geyktheid en ʼn welige aanwending van standaardkarakters wat wissel van die astrante Ier tot die konvensionele onderwyser wat met sy onwrikbaarheid verbaas. En, as daar ʼn beswaar teen die draaiboek is, gaan dit oor die uitgerekte eerste bedryf wat te laat oorskakel na die uitbreidende tweede bedryf.

    Goed. Daar is dit dan nou. Modder en bloed is tegnies nie volmaak nie. Maar man, is dit ʼn lekker fliek! Sean Else die skrywer en Sean Else die regisseur is saliglik onbelemmerd deur enige polities korrekte ongemak. Sy uitbeelding van Britse wreedheid knip nie oog nie. Dis onversag en onverskonend.

    In hierdie rolprent het ons te doen met Willem Morkel, ʼn Kaapse rebel wie se lewe deur die Engelse vergruis word toe hy eers sy vrou aan die dood in ʼn konsentrasiekamp afstaan, toe sy babaseuntjie verloor en uiteindelik self gevange geneem en na St Helena verban word. Daar word hy en sy makkers blootgestel aan die afgryslike venyn van die eiland se militêre bevelvoerder, kolonel Swannel. Morkel en sy medegevangenes word deur omstandighede – en sy skerp impulsiwiteit – gedwing om hulleself voor te berei vir ʼn rugbywedstryd teen die bewaarders se spogspan. Die lewe van ʼn dapper jong seun berus op die uitslag.

    Die verloop van die voorbereiding en die wedstryd is heel voorspelbaar, maar soms is voorspelbaarheid ook goed, want so kry die kyker dubbele waarde: Eers vir sy afwagting en dan in die realisering daarvan. Ek glo ek gee niks weg as ek sê dat die Engelse ordentlik verniel en vertrap word nie.

    Dit is ʼn plesier om vir Sean Else aan die werk te sien. Hy is ʼn Vryheidsoorlogentoesias en hy plant ewe plesierig visuele opmerkings en ander verwysings daaroor in die rolprent. Dank Vader, vir eens is selfs die wapentuig periodereg, al bestaan dit net uit ʼn paar Mauser K98-roere, ʼn Lee Enfield of twee en ʼn paar Webley-rewolwers. Morkel is natuurlik ʼn legendariese Afrikanerrugbynaam en daar is selfs ʼn Gideon Scheepers, en hoewel die regte een nie sy einde in St. Helena tegemoet gegaan het nie, is sy verskyning ʼn herinnering aan die verraad van die Engelse en die opofferings van die Boerevegters.

    Else is ʼn geskiedenistradisionalis, maar hy beskik oor die visuele taal van die moderne filmmaker. Die enkele gevegstonele is knap gehanteer en laat die kyker vasgenael en selfs verbyster oor die hoofkarakter se roekeloosheid. Die koeël wat vlees tref se klapgeluid is ewe Saving Private Ryan, so ʼn fluitsuisdoef!-klank, en al is Morkel se onverwagte berede stormloop duidelik geleen uit David Lean se Lawrence of Arabia, is dit suksesvol in die onverwagsheid en intimiderende energie daarvan. In pas met moderne televisieverhaalvertelling, gee hy ongekende gewig aan ondergeskikte rolle en huiwer hy nie om gunstelingkarakters vroeg reeds te laat sneuwel nie.

    Die kinematografie is meesleurend; gemaklik in halfduister of skellig. Die musiek is vol somber atmosfere wat met instrumentale triomfgesange afgewissel word.

    Sean Else was wys genoeg, en moet gewild genoeg wees, om hom met uitmuntende toneelspeltalent te omring. Die hoofrol van Willem Morkel is toevertrou aan Stian Bam, ʼn akteur met ʼn werklike teenwoordigheid. Hy vertoon lank en imponerend, maar daar is ʼn opregtheid en ʼn meelewendheid in hom wat sy selfvernietigingslus suksesvol temper.

    Grant Swanby se kolonel Swannel, Morkel se nemesis, is sekuur, oortuigend en kragtig. Else vind geen element ter versagting in hom nie, en daar is ook niks in Swanby se vertolking te sien nie. Swannel is die nootvaste verteenwoordiger van die Britse Ryk: Arrogant, oneerlik, wreed, genadeloos, lafhartig, agterbaks en haatdraend. In swart-en-wit terme is hy pikswart. Selfs die optrede van Jason Isaacs se kil wreedaard in Mel Gibson se The Patriot is verduidelik en selfs effens verskoon deur sy herkoms en ongelukkige oorvalling. Daar is geen sulke ligstrepies in Swannel nie.

    Die res van die akteurs sit nie ʼn voet verkeerd neer nie.

    Uiteindelik word die rugbywedstryd in die rolprent ʼn metafoor van die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog. Aanvanklik speel die Boere die spel soos hulle dit by die Engelse geleer het, maar omdat hulle nie so goed voorberei het of toegerus is nie, kan hulle net verloor. Dis eers wanneer hulle rugby op hulle eie manier begin speel, wat hulle die Engelse radeloos laat. Net soos die Boere in die Oorlog, wat van oorlog ʼn volksvernuf gemaak en toe die Engelse verrinneweer het.

    Sean Else het gewys dat ons mense ʼn fliek kan maak en in die fliek wat hy gemaak het, het hy gewys dat ons mense oorlog kon maak en, indien nodig, dit sekerlik weer sal maak.

    Na die vertoning van Modder en bloed in die teater waar ek dit gesien het, was daar ʼn waarderende handegeklap. Dit is seldsaam in ʼn flieksaal. Dit was nie vir my nodig om te besluit of ek daaraan sou deelneem of nie.

    Ek was die eerste om hande te klap.

    Modder en Bloed is geskryf deur Sean Else en hy is ook die regisseur.  Die fliek is vervaardig deur Llewelynn Greeff, Henk Pretorius en Sean Else.

    Die film is op 1 April 2016 plaaslik vrygestel en word deur Ster-Kinekor Entertainment versprei.

    Webtuiste: www.modderenbloedmovie.com of Facebook: www.facebook.com

    Hier is die amptelike lokfilm:

  • Zoeloes gedenk St Helena-krygsgevangenes

    Zoeloes gedenk St Helena-krygsgevangenes

    'n Deel van St Helena soos dit tans daar uitsien
    ‘n Deel van St Helena soos dit tans daar uitsien

    Mchunu het ‘n beroep op die mense van KZN gedoen om môre te verenig en die krygsgevangenes op St Helena te gedenk. ‘n Multikulturele byeenkoms sal by die Woodburn-stadion in Pietermaritzburg gehou word.

    “Soos wat ons ons nadink oor die pad wat ons oor die jare gekom het tot hier waar ons vandag is, word ons daaraan herinner dat Natal, soos dit toe bekendgestaan het, op ‘n stadium die terrein vir vele veldslae, konflikte en konfrontasies in Suid-Afrika was. Dit het tot die ballingskap van vele van ons helde op St Helena-eiland gelei.”

    “Die Franse keiser, Napoloen Bonaparte I het ses jaar in ballingskap op St Helena van 1815-1821 onder streng toesig ná sy neerlaag by Waterloo deurgebring.

    Belangrik is dat die Zoeloekoning Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo, die kleinneef van Koning Tsjaka tot 10 jaar gevangenisstraf op St Helena gevonnis is. Die koning het gedurf om die Britte teen te gaan wat hom nie aas die regmatige erfgenaam van die troon van die Zoeloevolk erken het nie.”

    “Drie jaar nadat Koning Dinuzulu St Helena verlaat het, is meer as 5000 Boerekrygsgevagenes ook op St Helena in ballingskap aangehou omdat hulle aan ‘n oorlog teen die Britte deelgeneem het.”

    “Tien jaar nadat koning Dinuzulu na ‘n Zoeloeland teruggekeer het wat intussen by Natal ingelyf is, het hy die rebellie teen die hoofbelasting gelei wat deur die Britte ingestel is om vir hul behoeftes om die ontwikkelende gebied te betaal. Die koning is van hoogverraad aangekla en na Middelburg verskuif. Omtrent 25 Zoeloerebelle is in ballingskap na St Helena weggevoer weens hul deelname aan optrede teen die hoofbelasting.”

    “Hierdie is die helde wat gehunker het na onafhanklikheid, politieke selfbeskikking en die beskerming van hul kultuur en tale. Noudat ons almal demokrasie en vryheid behaal het, moet ons almal verenig en dié helde onthou.”

    Die media en lede van die publiek word uitgenooi om die byeenkoms soos volg by te woon:

    Multikulturele parada wat sal vertrek vanaf

    Die stadsaal om 9:00

    Tyd: 10:00

    Plek: Woodburn-stadion, Pietermaritzburg

    Datum: 3 April 2014

  • Twee rampe: Die Nasionale Party-regering en die ANC-bewind

    Twee rampe: Die Nasionale Party-regering en die ANC-bewind

    winnie-mandela-slovo_flag

    deur Leon Lemmer

    Arthur Keppel-Jones (1909-1996) het die verloop van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis in sy boek voorspel: When Smuts Goes: A history of South Africa from 1952 to 2010, first published in 2015 (Cape Town: African Bookman, 1947, 203p). Uit die datums blyk die aktualiteit van die teks. Die outeur was ‘n dosent in geskiedenis aan die Universiteit van die Witwatersrand, maar het hom in 1959 in Kanada gevestig. In 1972 het hy Suid-Afrika besoek en erken dat sommige van sy voorspellings foutief is. Sy pa was ‘n Brit en sy ma was ‘n afstammeling van die Britse setlaars.

    Uit sy boek blyk Keppel-Jones se bewondering vir die Britte en selfs kolonialisme. Hy was ‘n Anglofiel wat bv van die veronderstelling uitgegaan het dat Rhodesië ‘n vesting van Britse voortreflikheid sou bly. Sy siening van die Afrikaner-bewind en Britse kolonialisme blyk uit die volgende: “The Republic had achieved its aim of keeping the Kaffir ‘in his place’. He had not been allowed to advance in civilization. That he would have made an advance, under the determined and patient guidance of civilised leaders, is proved by what has happened to the branches of his race in other African countries” (p 174).

    Natal was Keppel-Jones se gunsteling provinsie omdat dit meer Britsgesind as die Kaap en veral as die Transvaal en Oranje-Vrystaat was. Hy het begrip gehad waarom sommige wou hê dat Natal van die Unie moet wegbreek. Hieruit kan reeds sy Afrikaner-haat afgelei word. Keppel-Jones was deurdrenk van liberalisme en was oortuig dat federalisme ‘n oplossing vir Suid-Afrika se grondwetlike probleme bied. Maar hy het gedink niks hiervan sou in Suid-Afrika tereg kom nie. Sy boek skets nie ‘n utopie nie, maar ‘n distopie.

    Voordat ek Keppel-Jones se teks ontleed, is ‘n lemmeristiese historiese oorsig nodig:

    • Na Unie-wording was die eerste drie eerste ministers: Louis Botha (1910-1919), Jan Smuts (1919-1924, 1939-1948) en Barry Hertzog (1924-1939). Al was Hertzog ‘n Afrikaner, was sy bewind in samewerking met Engelse elemente. Die periode van 1910 tot 1948 kan as ‘n oorheersend Engelse/Britse periode in Suid-Afrika se politieke geskiedenis gekarakteriseer word. Van 1948 tot 1994 was die Nasionale Party (NP) aan die bewind, met as eerste ministers (en van 1984 af as staatspresidente): DF Malan (1948-1954), Hans Strijdom (1954-1958), Hendrik Verwoerd (1958-1966), John Vorster (1966-1978), PW Botha (1978-1989) en FW de Klerk (1989-1994). Dit kan die Afrikaner-periode genoem word.
    • Van 1990 tot 1994 was egter ‘n oorgangs- of afgrondsfase toe De Klerk evolusionêre politieke ontwikkeling vir revolusionêre oorgawe verruil het. Skielik was die tradisionele veiligheidsmagte (weermag en polisie) nie meer alleen in beheer van wet en orde nie. Wanneer daar ‘n samedromming van swartes was, is die beheer aan selfaangestelde ANC-“marshals” toevertrou. Dit was die aanvang van die tirannie van die meerderheid in die vorm van swart mag.
    • Sedert Unie-wording was daar dus ‘n Engelse (1910-1948), ‘n Afrikaner- (1948-1989) en daarna ‘n swart (in meer as een sin) periode. In breër verband kan gesê word dat die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis uit drie eras bestaan: die voor-beskawingsperiode, die beskawingsperiode (1652-1989) en die na-beskawingsperiode. Hier verwys “beskawing” na Europese beskawing.

    Keppel-Jones se teks handel oor die Afrikaner-era, wat hy gedink het in 1952 (en nie 1948 nie) sou begin, en daarna die swart-era tot 2010, wat hy voorspel het reeds in 1988 sou begin. Hy het gedink die bewind van sowel die NP as die ANC sou katastrofies wees. Die hele periode wat hy dek (1952-2010), word as twee opeenvolgende rampe gekarakteriseer. Sy rede vir 1952 as die begin van die NP-bewind is dat dit drie eeue na die landing van Jan van Riebeeck was. Weens gebrek aan ruimte sal ek nie elke keer kan verduidelik dat Keppel-Jones dít voorspel het, maar dat dát gebeur het nie.

    Wat Keppel-Jones begeer het, is ‘n heeltemal ander soort revolusie as FW de Klerk se onderhandelde algehele magsoorgawe: “One purpose of the book is … that the salvation of the country can only lie in a reversal of historic tendencies, a reversal so thorough as to constitute a revolution” (p vi). Die “historic tendencies” waarna hy verwys en wat beëindig moet word, is veral die tradisie van rasse-segregasie; in werklikheid ‘n eg Britse tradisie, maar hy erken dit nie. As dogmatiese liberalis reken Keppel-Jones dat segregasie afgeskaf en algemene stemreg ingestel moet word en dat alles dan vorentoe vir al die inwoners wonderlik sal wees.

    Jukskei (eintlik DF Malan) het in 1952 eerste minister geword. Hy was die leier van die linkervleuel van die NP. Bult (eintlik Hans Strijdom) was die leier van die regtervleuel en sou Jukskei in 1962 opvolg, maar as leier van ‘n NP-wegbreekgroep, die Christelik Nasionale Republikeinse Party (CNRP). Tereg word voorspel dat die kommuniste en vakbonde dadelik kortgevat is. Ook dat die blanke verteenwoordigers van swart belange in die parlement en die stemreg van bruines in die Kaapprovinsie afgeskaf is. Ook dat woon- en sakegebiede etnies geskei is en dat die Indiese regering daaroor besware in die Verenigde Nasies (VN) geopper het. Tereg is voorspel dat ‘n tevergeefse poging aangewend sou word om die aanliggende Britse protektorate (Basoetoland/Lesotho, Betsjoeanaland/Botswana en Swaziland) by Suid-Afrika in te lyf.

    Die sterkste teenstand van die NP-regering het van die Engelse universiteite gekom. Fort Hare, die enigste universiteit vir swartes, is in 1963 gesluit. In werklikheid is Fort Hare in 1960 deur die NP-regering oorgeneem en nog vier nuwe universiteite vir nie-blankes is gestig (Durban-Westville, Noorde/Turfloop, Wes-Kaapland en Zoeloeland). Heel korrek voorspel Keppel-Jones dat sommige swartes, Indiërs en Jode in ondergrondse politiek saamgespan het. Baie Britsgesindes het geëmigreer. Radio-uitsendings is onder regeringsbeheer geplaas. Die NP het in 1958 die amp van goewerneur-generaal as seremoniële staatshoof, die eedaflegging aan die Britse kroon en die Britse vlag afgeskaf met die oog daarop om ‘n republiek buite die Britse Statebond uit te roep. Politieke gevangenes is gemartel en die paswette is in verskerpte mate toegepas. Die outeur noem uiteraard nie dat die eerste paswette tydens die eerste Britse bewind aan die Kaap (1797-1803) ingestel is nie.

    whensmutsgoesDie NP-regering word (moontlik verkeerdelik) as sterk anti-semities voorgestel. As immigrante was Jode onwelkom en dié wat hulle na Uniewording hier gevestig het, is van hulle stemreg en burgerskap ontneem. “The English language was deprived of official status in 1964” (p 199). Afrikaans is in 1966 tot die enigste amptelike taal verklaar. Afrikaans word die onderrigmedium ook aan die tradisioneel Engelse skole en universiteite. “I find my children’s minds are being poisoned at school” (p 81). Plek- en ander name is verafrikaans. Net blankes (Jode uitgesluit) het burgerskap. Die Vierkleur is die landsvlag van die Republiek Ossewa, geproklameer in 1966. Die CNRP word die enigste politieke party en die staatspresident kry absolute mag. Pretoria word die wetgewende, uitvoerende en regterlike hoofstad. Die provinsies word afgeskaf. Nasionalisering word ingestel. Die regering word ‘n fascistiese regime genoem.

    Die uittog van emigrante van 1955 af word die Tweede Groot Trek genoem. Die Indiërs kan na Indië en die swartes na buurlande gaan. Die vloei van swartes uit Suid-Afrika was soveel groter as die invloei dat die regering dit gestop het om te verseker dat genoeg goedkoop arbeid beskikbaar is. Oor so ‘n swart vlugteling skryf Keppel-Jones: “Should he, being summoned by any European to stop, refuse to do so, he could be shot” (p 85). Die lande waarheen blankes gegaan het, word korrek geïdentifiseer, behalwe Rhodesië en Kenia, wat Keppel-Jones steeds beskou het as lande wat aan blankes leefbare omstandighede bied. Oor Rhodesië is hy optimisties: “It is doubtful if any country has ever shown such rapid and startling development” (p 84).

    Volgens Keppel-Jones was daar in 1972 opstande onder nie-wittes, veral swartes, teen die Afrikaner-regime. Dit het met moord, verminking, brandstigting en plundery gepaard gegaan. Die Transkei is selfs onafhanklik verklaar. In Zoeloeland was daar ‘n soortgelyke strewe. “The United Nations placed Zululand under British trusteeship, the building of the naval base at Kosi Bay was begun” (p 110). Die Afrikaner-regime het ingegryp. Dit word “the Tenth Kaffir War” genoem (p 90). In Johannesburg was daar “babies bleeding to death beside the corpses of their mothers … The people of Orlando and Pimville were … annihilated … About 50 000 were killed in the Western Native Township” (p 91-92). “Searches would be conducted and wherever any firearms were found in a non-European area, the nearest inhabited place would be razed to the ground and its inhabitants shot … A large proportion of those who had taken up arms against the régime had been killed in the fighting or after surrender” (p 105). Daar was vuurpelotons en konsentrasiekampe. Die outeur verskaf nooit weersinwekkende besonderhede oor wat swartes aan blankes gedoen het nie.

    “Higher education for the non-Europeans had been abolished. In June, 1972, the Volksraad unanimously agreed to prohibit the teaching of reading and writing to any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person … No non-European might own any business or employ any person, nor might he practice any profession independently” (p 106). Tydens die bewind van die wit regime het die paaie slaggate gehad en dienslewering het gefaal, blykbaar omdat die swartes nie wou saamwerk nie. Die VN het ekonomiese maatreëls teen Suid-Afrika ingestel, bv “an increase in customs tariffs … to offset the advantage it gained from cheap labour” (p 121).

    Die blanke regime se dilemma word soos volg beskryf: “If they fought their destruction was certain. But the alternative … giving rights and power to all the races … was an unmentionable horror … The evil genius of their history had driven them on to their present predicament, and would drive them on again to their inevitable end” (p 129). Dat apartheid ‘n voortsetting en aanpassing van die Britse beleid van rasse-segregasie was, word nie deur Keppel-Jones genoem nie. Hier is sy standpunt: “Some of the old social distinctions might have been retained if the Republic had followed a generous and liberal policy towards the black race from the beginning. But there is no chance of it now” (p 168).

    In 1972 “the United Nations were called upon to consider whether they thought it wise to set the precedent of intervention in the internal affairs of another country. Every nation, surely, had political, economic and cultural traditions and usages which were suited to its own character” (p 134). In 1977 is Suid-Afrika uit die VN geskop en is oorlog verklaar. Die Britte en Amerikaners het die oorlog namens die VN teen die Suid-Afrikaanse regime gevoer. Dit word die “Derde Vryheidsoorlog” genoem (p 156). Van Simonstad en Kosibaai af het die Britte ‘n skeepsblokkade uitgevoer. Die Simonstadse vlootbasis is jare voor dit deur die Afrikaner-regime aan die Britte afgestaan. Die waarheid is die teenoorgestelde: Die NP-regering het hierdie vlootbasis ten duurste van die Britse regering gekoop. Vergelyk dit met die enklawe Walvisbaai wat deur die ANC-regering gratis aan Namibië oorhandig is.

    Die Amerikaners het glo ‘n militêre basis in Mosambiek gehad en die Portugese regering was ook teen die blanke bewind gekant. Die oorlog is ook uit Rhodesië oor die Limpopo-rivier gevoer. Die swartes het in opstand gekom, “all whole-heartedly on the side of the invaders” (p 146). “Murders on lonely farms, in suburban homes and in dark city streets were a nightly occurrence” (p 139). Die Suid-Afrikaanse vloot was in Saldanhabaai. Daar was ook “a fleet of ox-wagons to eke out the resources of the railways” (p 140). Pretoria was “the last ditch of the régime” (p 157). “The people of the capital saw themselves as trekkers who had retired into laager to ward off the savage onslaught” (p 158). Vir die outeur was sy verwysings na ossewaens, juskei, trekkers, laer, ens, blykbaar baie snaaks.

    “No candid mind could see for the Republic any prospect but complete and final collapse. The defeat would be absolute, unlike the defeat of almost any other state. When France fell in 1940, when Germany fell in 1945, there remained a French and a German people in occupation of their historic territories. These peoples could not be destroyed. They might recover their strength and greatness at some future time. The South African Republic was in a different sort of danger. The ‘nation’ there was not the people of the country, but merely a small section whose existence and identity depended on the subjection of the rest. Liberate the Africans and the ‘South African nation’ would vanish from the scene, never to return” (149-150). Dit is myns insiens Afrikaners se dure plig om Keppel-Jones in hierdie opsig vorentoe verkeerd te bewys.

    “The world looked on at the nemesis which the White South African nation had brought upon itself” (p 152). “No one could deny that the Republicans had brought this on themselves … their possession rested in the last resort on bayonets, and we have knocked the bayonet out of their hands … we should have interfered in South Africa before it came to this” (p 154-155). Oor die Voortrekkermonument in 1977: “A neat bombing job on the evening of the 23rd blew the structure to atoms, wiped out the bitter-enders in it, and extinguished for ever the sacred flame of Republicanism that had hitherto symbolised the unquenchable motion of the Volk” (p 163). Let op die outeur se woordkeuse: neat, wiped out, sacred, unquenchable. Maar Keppel-Jones voel dat hy nog nie genoeg gif teen Afrikaners versprei het nie: “Not all the leading personalities of the Republic had the happiness to die while the Vierkleur still waved” (p 164).

    “The whole story of the South African Republic might be interpreted in military terms as that of a people who failed to understand that they must cope with more dangerous weapons than assegaais. So obsessed were the Republicans with the romantic migrations of their ancestors that they could never get away from the picture of themselves as sturdy trekkers defending their race against the puny weapons of black savages. Had they fully understood … their task … it might have occurred to them that the only defence would lie in a policy that would satisfy the world’s conscience. But this had not occurred to them. So Pretoria was a laager, and its citizens would hardly have been surprised to see a posse of young heroes ride in through a gap in the wagons with a thousand sleek, bellowing cattle seized from the enemy” (p 158). Veediewe is dus helde in Keppel-Jones se oë.

    Na die oorlog het die VN ‘n militêre goewerneur in Suid-Afrika aangestel. “The supremacy of the whites was to be destroyed – world opinion demanded it, the war had been fought for that purpose, and much trouble and suffering would be avoided if the white citizens made up their minds to accept the new situation with a good grace” (p 168). Wat voorsien word is “a great future for South Africa if only all races would co-operate in a spirit of true South Africanism” (p 169). “In the reconstruction of the political, administrative and social system of the country no distinctions were to be made on the ground of race or colour” (p 166). “In 2011 the census officials abandoned the practice of distinguishing between races in their returns” (p 178). Is daar enige moontlikheid dat dit in die nuwe Suid-Afrika sal gebeur, of is sodanige rassistiese grondslag veel eerder die alfa en omega van die ANC se beleid teenoor blankes?

    As rassediskriminasie die grootste euwel in die ou Suid-Afrika was, waarom het die grondleggers van die nuwe Suid-Afrika nie die elementêre insig gehad om rassediskriminasie te verbied nie? Pleks daarvan word rassediskriminasie tot in die oneindige toekoms toegelaat, mits dit teen wittes, en net wittes, gepleeg word. Van almal, dus dié wat in die nuwe bedeling bevoordeel en dié wat benadeel word, word daar egter verwag om die nuwe Suid-Afrika te laat werk. Let op in hoeverre geregtigheid na Keppel-Jones se VN-oorlog seëvier: “It would be necessary to eject the great numbers of non-Europeans who had taken forcible possession of white men’s property. But for this the government had no stomach” (p 173).

    Deel van “a great mass of sullen bitter-enders for whom adaptation was out of the question” (p 169) het in 1978 na Argentinië geëmigreer. Ander het na Duitsland gegaan. Al die lande wat met die blanke regime simpatie gehad het, kan as fascisties beskou word: Argentinië, Duitsland, Japan en Spanje. “The total drain of European population from South Africa between 1977 and 1983 fell slightly short of the million mark” (p 178).

    Wat is hierdie studeerkamerliberalis se siening van swartes? Die swart boer “had been accustomed to a primitive standard of living. He would improve it a little – more mealie meal to fill the aching maw would be welcome. More cattle and wives would improve his social status. But beyond that what he chiefly wanted was leisure, inactivity in the sun, escape from the intolerable tyranny, too long endured, of we[r]k … The life of glorious ease and few, simple wants appealed to them. The result was a decline in agricultural production … The same problem had to be faced in industry and mining. Native workers in these occupations were willing to apply themselves to the old tasks sufficiently to make a living of sorts for themselves and their families. But very few could be found who preferred hard, sustained work and the comforts of a civilised life to spasmodic efforts punctuating a life of sunbasking leisure” (p 174).

    Vergelyk dit met hierdie na-oorlogse werklikheid: “The dependence of the country’s economy on the shrinking but still significant European population. It provided the skill in industry and agriculture and almost all the leadership and organising capacity in trade and finance … The backward races must be educated, but how?” (p 175). Teen 1986 “the civil service had begun in the lower [!] grades to employ these [non-white] products of the schools” (p 179). In die nuwe Suid-Afrika word daar egter geëis dat die demografie (dadelik) op alle vlakke weerspieël word.

    Die VN het gedink “the period of tutelage ought to last at least thirty years” (p 180). Maar die swartes se sug na mag kon nie beheer word nie. Ook weens die druk van die sogenaamde wêreldmening is spoedig besluit om demokratiese verkiesings met algemene stemreg te hou. In 1987 “town, village and distict councils were elected … Illiterate voters – the very great majority – were assisted by ballot papers in which the candidates were represented by pictorial symbols” (p 180).

    “The first party to be organised was the African National Party [ANP – ANC?], which hoped to win votes by demanding loudly that the troops must go and the country be granted independence. It drew support mainly from the more backward Africans and worked closely with the witch-doctors … But the party was not exclusively African, and succeeded in rallying many Coloured and Asiatic supporters and not a few white collaborationists” (p 180). Keppel-Jones kan verskoon word as hy nie kon voorsien dat oud-Broederbonders onder die meelopers sou tel nie.

    Ooreenkomstig die outeur se liberalistiese ideaal het die South African Progressive Party egter in 1988 die eerste demokratiese parlementsverkiesing gewen. ‘n Verdere vervulling van Keppel-Jones se liberalistiese droom is dat ‘n wit man in 1989 as die seremoniële president verkies is. Is daar enige kans dat ‘n wit mens (om van ‘n wit man nie te praat nie) so ‘n hoë pos in die sogenaamde nie-rassistiese en nie-seksistiese nuwe Suid-Afrika sal beklee?

    Die eerste agt hoofstukke handel oor die dom en bose Afrikaner-regime. Daarna volg ‘n hoofstuk oor die VN-oorlog en een oor die VN-bewind, waartydens gepoog is om Suid-Afrika reg te trek. Na hierdie lang aanloop tot ‘n demokratiese, regverdige Suid-Afrika, word ‘n enkele hoofstuk aan die swart bewind gewei. Die opskrif is: “The return to barbarism” (p 184). Die tema is: “the extraordinary decadence of a once vigorous and apparently prosperous country;” dit “reduced the civilisation of South Africa to a level that was barbaric by the standards of the previous generation” (p 184). Twee destydse voorbokke vir “bevryding”, Alex Boraine en Sampie Terreblanche, het pas elk ‘n boek gepubliseer om uitdrukking aan hulle ontgogeling te gee. Wat albei van meet af aan moes besef het, is dat nóg verpligte rasse-skeiding nóg gedwonge rasse-integrasie vryheid is.

    Daar word verwys na “the dishonesty and corruption of the great mass of officials … the failure … to set a high standard of morality and idealism … the sudden elevation of ignorant and starving people to positions of financial responsibility … it has been abundantly proved that a large part of the revenue stuck to the various palms through which it passed … Judges and magistrates abandoned the blindness of justice; the police, whose eyes could rightly have remained open, were willing to close them. Partiality and corruption so permeated the atmosphere that … wealth was universally acknowledged to be the only basis of security. This conviction intensified the struggle [!] to get rich by any and every means. In a country like South Africa the accumulation of wealth inevitably implied, as its corollary, the abject poverty of the vast majority of people” (p 185). “Corruption became … the main road to riches, and one got on to this road by way of official jobbery” (p 186).

    Weens “poor workmanship … exports rapidly declined” (p 186). Daar was “unwillingness to make a greater effort than was absolutely necessary … The pursuit and idolatry of wealth by the liberated black man was a part of his inheritance from his white mentors and predecessors” (p 186). Aan wittes word dus deel van die skuld gegee. “If the reader is tempted to regard these things as the reflection of some weak strain in the African race, he must remember, first, that they are found in the people of European and of Asiatic descent also. And he must observe how different is the case of Africans whose history has been different from that of their fellows in the Republic” (p 196).

    “Political orthodoxy was required of all officials. This meant in practice a control of the personnel by the government in power … It was inevitable that under these circumstances the physical condition of the country should deteriorate. Much of the damage inflicted in the war was never repaired” (p 186). “The energy which is absent from all these activities is given with reckless abandon to the pursuits of the leisure hours” (p 195). “Criticism is resented … Hard work and even the deference characteristic of good manners are regarded as the badges of servility” (p 196). “The poverty of the government prevented it from spending money on dams and other constructive works … the Natives continued to overstock the rapidly eroding pastures … Considerable areas formerly fertile land … turned in … to desert … Native names of towns everywhere supplanted the Dutch and English” (p 187). “Importunate beggars pester the traveller in every street” (p 196).

    In 1996 was daar ‘n staatsgreep. Sowel die eerste minister as die president is vermoor. Daar was vier amptelike tale: Zoeloe, Sotho, Xhosa en Afrikaans. “The use of English had died out” (p 190). Die nuwe staatshoof is in 2002 in ‘n bomontploffing dood. Met iedere bewindsverandering word die regering meer radikaal. “The people in Britain and the United States were grievously disappointed by the results of their great efforts of 1977. In Britain many condemned the government’s hasty withdrawal from South Africa after a short occupation. They pointed to the contrast between the state of the Republic and the civilised conditions of the neighbouring British territories” (p 192). “Beyond the border you are in a different world” (p 196), bv in Swaziland “everything here suggests efficiency, prosperity, civilisation” (p 197).

    Wat Keppel-Jones herhaaldelik probeer tuisbring, is dat Britse swart onderdane wonderlik vaar maar dat Suid-Afrikaanse swartes weens die Afrikaners se bose beleid heeltemal faal. “Work was … a burden imposed by his masters, something to be avoided if possible … The ruling race failed to impose the high standards of Europe on the Natives, because that would have raised them out of their humble position. The result was that the primitive standards of the backward people were ultimately accepted by the more advanced” (p 197-198).

    ‘n Lid van die vorige blanke bewind het sy standpunt soos volg gestel: “The Kaffir is really a cheerful, happy person who is content with little and respects a firm master. Our policy was one of firmness and of allowing him to develop along his own lines … Now the Kaffirs have got the country … and they are destroying it. We knew this would happen, but, of course, the English government only listens to Kafferboeties” (p 193). Onlangs is gesê dat ‘n land wat atoombomme kon vervaardig in Nelson Mandela se skoot geval het, maar dat hy ‘n land geken aan vuvuzelas nagelaat het.

    “South Africa has reverted to its original state of savagery” (p 202). Die Afrikaners se standpunt is: “If only we had been left alone, we could have been a happy country, but we have always had interference from overseas” (203). Keppel-Jones se standpunt is: “Their national ox-wagon took the wrong road though another road was available” (p 202), naamlik die een wat die goeie Britte bewandel.

    Soos verwag kon word, is sommige van Keppel-Jones se voorspellings korrek en ander verkeerd. Wat duidelik blyk, is dat hy enersyds ‘n naïewe liberalistiese Anglofiel was en andersyds dat hy hoogs negatief bevooroordeeld teen Afrikaners was. Met nabaat is dit ook opvallend hoe min hy werklik van die swartes gedink het. Maar hy kon onmoontlik FW de Klerk se onderhandelde algehele magsoorgawe voorsien het. Dit is so vergesog dat ek, wat die oorgang na die nuwe Suid-Afrika meegemaak het, na twee dekades steeds nie die bitttere werklikheid van sodanige absolute dwaasheid kan glo nie. Die blankes se nederlaag in Keppel-Jones se VN-oorlog sou ‘n mindere verleentheid gewees het. Maar De Klerk roem daarop dat hy, danksy sy versiende staatsmanskap, oorlog voorkom het.

    praag: geen ander Afrikaanse publikasie publiseer naastenby soveel interessante en prikkelende artikels nie! Sonder u lidmaatskap kan dit egter nie voortgaan nie. Sluit hier aan!

  • Afrikaans krepeer

    Afrikaans krepeer

    english-onlydeur Leon Lemmer

    Die Afrikaanse Taalmuseum en -monument (ATM) in die Paarl verkondig deesdae dat Afrikaans sedert 1994 ‘n bloeitydperk beleef. Soos seker met alle plaaslike dinge, gaan dit glo sedert 1994 ook met Afrikaans beter as ooit tevore. Ek gaan aantoon dat dit onwaar is; dat die ATM se siening ‘n uitdrukking van politieke korrektheid en van ‘n polities gemotiveerde valse entoesiasme vir die nuwe Suid-Afrika is.

    Dié beweerde taalherlewing word gepropageer op panele in die ATM se nuwe besoekersentrum. Die panele is afkomstig van die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland (UWK) se Roots-simposium wat in 2009 gehou is. In die Jakes Gerwel-tradisie is toe op ‘n Engelse naam vir ‘n byeenkoms oor Afrikaans besluit. Dit gaan om die “viering van Afrikaans se ryke verskeidenheid” (Bolander, 4 deser, p 4); dus inklusiwiteit, diversiteit, multikulturaliteit. Volgens die ATM-webwerf “spoor dié uitstalling breedweg die geskiedenis van Afrikaans na, beginnende by sy Nederlandse/Europese wortels [die UWK se “roots”] en die Khoekhoe- [dus Khoi of bruin] en slawe-invloede daarop – ‘n geskiedenis wat daartoe gelei het dat verskeie taalkundiges Afrikaans as ‘n semi-kreooltaal bestempel.”

    In ‘n vroeëre ATM-pamflet is beweer dat Afrikaans ‘n kreoolse taal is. [Kreools: “Mengeltaal ontstaan tussen ‘n Europese taal en ‘n taal in ‘n ander wêrelddeel” -HAT]. Nou word dit darem (maar steeds onwaar) afgeskaal na “semi-kreool”. Die spel waarmee die ATM deurgaans besig is, is om die nie-wit aspekte van Afrikaans oor te beklemtoon en die oorheersende blanke of Afrikanerrol, indien nie te verswyg nie, sover moontlik onder te beklemtoon, soos hier onder duidelik blyk. Vandaar die ATM se versugting: “Ons wil mense help om anders na die Taalmonument te kyk” (LitNet 27 Nov). Afrikaans en sy monument is twee voorbeelde van wat veral Afrikaners vermag het. Afrikaners het ook in baie ander opsigte presteer. Lê dit op die weg van diegene wat tans in die Paarl beheer oor ons Afrikaanserfenis uitoefen om hierdie prestasies te verdoesel omdat die ANC die Afrikaner en Afrikaans deurgaans misken en vertrap?

    Die teks van die uitstalling is geskep deur die ATM in oorleg met die Iziko-museums, die Genadendal-sendingmuseum en die Stigting vir Bemagtiging deur Afrikaans. Laasgenoemde twee is bruin instansies, terwyl Iziko die Xhosa-naam vir ‘n aantal Wes-Kaapse museums is wat histories (feitlik) niks met swartes te make gehad het nie. Soos Marthinus van Bart in sy boek, Kaap van slawe (2012), aantoon, is dit Iziko wat valslik voorgee dat dit (net) die Hollanders is wat slawerny aan die Kaap bedryf het en dat dit die goeie Engelse/Britte is wat slawerny afgeskaf het (p 17, 23). Die ATM, soos die Afrikaanse Taalraad (ATR), probeer om die rol van Afrikaners en Standaardafrikaans sover moontlik te verdoesel; iets wat toegeskryf kan word aan bv die feit dat mense soos Wannie Carstens en Michael le Cordeur in albei rade dien. Daar word in die uitstalling bv spesiaal van “Afrikaans as sendingtaal” gewag gemaak. Wat van die rol van die Afrikaanse kerke, veral die NG Kerk, in die geskiedenis van Afrikaans? Dit is enorm groot in vergelyking met dié van sendinginstansies.

    Die soort ding waarmee die ATM hom by voorkeur besig hou, blyk uit die twee jongste voorbeelde. Op 5 deser is ‘n “erfenissimposium ter viering van ons slawe-erfenis” gehou. En op 7 deser was dit die agste jaar dat die ATKV se rieldanskompetisie by die momument plaasgevind het. Elias P Nel en Lynette Francis was die seremoniemeesters. Japie Gouws, die uitvoerende hoof van die ATKV, het die byeenkoms aan Nelson Mandela opgedra (Die Burger, 9 deser, p 6). As sodanig is sulke byeenkomste nie noodwendig ongewens of skadelik nie. Wat hinder, is die volslae etniese eensydigheid van die ATM se bedrywighede. Waarom herhaaldelik rieldanse vir veral plattelandse bruines aanbied en nie volkspele en -sang vir Afrikaners nie? Sowel die ATM as die ATKV het hulle bestaan aan Afrikaners te danke, maar albei skram deesdae weg van die aanbieding van bedrywighede wat die indruk kan wek, of die verwyt kan ontlok, dat hulle hulle vir Afrikanerbelange beywer. Albei buig egter agteroor om bruin en swart kultuur te omarm.

    Allerhande (en myns insiens dikwels ongure) ligte musiek is by die monument welkom, terwyl (tradisionele) boeremusiek selde geduld word. ‘n Mens sou verwag dat die ATM hom daarvoor sou beywer om die hoofsentrum vir bv boeremusiek en jukskei te wees. Ook om gereeld aan klassieke musiek ‘n platform te bied. Ook om eerder Afrikaanse taal- en letterkundiges, wat werklik iets nagelaat het, te huldig pleks van iets positiefs te probeer vind in wat die “slawe-erfenis” genoem word.

    Enkele jare gelede is ‘n “slawefees” op Stellenbosch gehou. Die inisiatief het, soos verwag kon word, van Russel Botman, die rektor van die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US), uitgegaan. Die burgemeester het hierdie fees op die koste van die plaaslike belastingbetalers aangebied. Hans Heese, destyds die US-argivaris en die historikus wie se lot dit was om iets van hierdie “slawefees” te probeer maak, het toe beweer die slawe-erfenis kan aan iedere gebou op Stellenbosch gesien word. Ek het ‘n huisie in Stellenbosch en sal bly wees as hy kom uitwys waar hy slawe-nalatenskap bespeur.

    ‘n Ander belangrike instansie vir Afrikaans is die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (WAT) in Stellenbosch. Onlangs is genoem dat die WAT jaarliks meer as R3 miljoen moet insamel omdat sy staatsubsidie afgeneem het (Die Burger, 3 deser, p 6). Ten einde finansieel te oorleef, wend die WAT hom onder meer tot foefies waarvolgens mense bv Afrikaanse woorde kan borg . Soos in die geval van die ATM, was ek as Afrikaner tradisioneel geneig om simpatiek teenoor die WAT te staan, maar politieke korrektheid beduiwel ook in hierdie geval my betrekkinge. Toe die ANC aan die bewind gekom het, is die WAT se staatsubsidie baie gou drasties ingekort. Die bestaan van die WAT is as bevoorregting geëtiketteer omdat die swart tale nie iets het wat daarmee vergelyk kan word nie. Die ANC-regering het die vermetelheid gehad om nie net baie minder geld na die WAT te kanaliseer nie, maar ook om terselfdertyd te verwag dat die WAT sy kundigheid met Afrika-tale, die plaaslikes en dié in die res van Afrika, moet deel; dus hulle met “uitdagings” moet help.

    Wat my dwars in die krop steek, is dat die WAT die nuwe opset verwelkom het. Optimisties is beweer dat die WAT goed sou oorleef pleks daarvan om die ANC se anti-Afrikaans- en anti-Afrikaner-gesindheid te veroordeel. Deesdae moet heelwat tyd en energie, wat voorheen aan deskundige woordeboektake bestee is, noodgedwonge na fondsinsameling gekanaliseer word. Die WAT het polities korrek selfs verder agteroor gebuig. Daar is onderneem om woorde wat nie die toets van politieke korrektheid kon deurstaan nie, dus wat nie-wittes aanstoot kon gee, nie in die WAT te publiseer nie. Voortaan sou die WAT dus nie meer ‘n omvattende skat van Afrikaanse woorde en uitdrukkings wees nie, maar ‘n selfgesensureerde inligtingsbron. Daar is veral twee areas waarin taalskeppers met hulle vindingrykheid uitmunt, naamlik ras/kleur/etnisiteit en seks. Die WAT het met sy besluit politieke (spesifiek ANC-) gedienstigheid bo suiwer taalkundige oorwegings verhef.

    ‘n Ander aanduiding in die Wes-Kaap van hoe dit met Afrikaans gesteld is, kom van die Kaapstadse metropoolraad. In die nuwe Suid-Afrika gee hierdie instansie voor om drietalig te wees. Wanneer Engelse eentaligheid nie soos gewoonlik seëvier nie, is die voorkeurhiërargie: Engels, Xhosa en Afrikaans. Dít terwyl die stadsraad die meeste van sy inkomste van Afrikaanssprekendes ontvang en swartes die fondse die meeste dreineer. Daar is tans ‘n uitstalling ter ere van Nelson Mandela in die burgersentrum in Kaapstad. Die brosjure van 40 bladsye is net in Engels. Toe die aandag van die DA/OD/PAC-burgemeester, Patricia de Lille, hierop gevestig is, het sy opdrag gegee dat die teks in Afrikaans vertaal moet word (Die Burger, 27 Nov, p 6). Of dit gedoen sal word en of ‘n Afrikaanse brosjure werklik gepubliseer gaan word, sal ons dalk nooit weet nie, want dit is te betwyfel of Die Burger so sterk oor die saak voel dat hy dit sal opvolg.

    Op 2 deser het Jason Lloyd in sy rubriek op LitNet oor die agteruitgang van Afrikaans aan die Universiteit Kwa-Zulu-Natal (UKZN) geskryf. Afrikaans word voortaan daar slegs as ‘n eerstejaarsvak geduld. Dit is dus nog ‘n plek waar Afrikaans nie meer floreer nie. Die bruin Lloyd redeneer net soos die mense van die ATM en ATR (waarna hierbo verwys is), dus dat ons benadering tot taalsake ooreenkomstig die politiek gemodelleer moet word. Die lot van die land word deesdae deur die meerderheid kiesers/inwoners bepaal. Oor Afrikaans is Lloyd se gevolgtrekking dat “bruines dus die toekoms van dié taal is”, want die meerderheid Afrikaanssprekendes is bruin. Soos in die politiek word kwalitatiewe oorwegings geen ruimte gegun nie.

    Gerhard van Huyssteen (43) is die nuwe voorsitter van die Taalkommissie (TK) van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. Deesdae is dit in die mode om hoog op te gee oor “eerstes”. Van Huyssteen is glo die jongste TK-voorsitter en Frank Hendricks (61) van die UWK is die ondervoorsitter en die eerste bruine wat in die TK-bestuur dien. Aangesien Van Huyssteen, soos Carstens, die voorsitter van die SA Akademie, aan die Universiteit Noordwes verbonde is, lyk dit asof die Taalkommissie voortaan die inklusiewe, diverse, multikulturele stempel van Carstens gaan dra. Die SA Akademie gaan op 17 Januarie ‘n seminaar in Pretoria hou met as tema “Afrikaans: Almal se taal!”

    Die lyk asof Standaardafrikaans op die vooraand van (verdere) verwatering staan. Distansiëring van die tradisionele Afrikaner blyk uit Van Huyssteen se opmerking dat “laers … uitgedien” is en dat die Kaaps-woord “skanghagha” (in orde) en die Kaapse Maleierwoord “magoe” (die tweede vrou van ‘n Moslemman) as Afrikaans erken moet word. Van Huyssteen was te jonk toe Afrikaans op sy hoogtepunt was. Daarom is hy “nie bekommerd oor Afrikaans … nie” (Die Burger, 26 Nov, p 3). Op grond van eerstehandse ervaring kan Van Huyssteen nie die trotse verlede van Afrikaans vergelyk met die toestand waarin Afrikaans sedert 1994 verval het nie. Hy beweer dat die TK apolities maar polities sensitief en verantwoordelik is. Hy dink “dat Afrikaans armer sal wees sonder Kaaps” (LitNet 27 Nov). Oor die wesenlike bedreiging wat die mengeltaal Kaaps, met sy oorvloedige besoedeling met Engels, vir die toekoms van respektabele Afrikaans inhou, uiter hy polities korrek geen woord nie.

    Naas die sluiting van die Departement Afrikaans aan die UKZN en die sigbare agteruitgang van Afrikaans as onderrigtal aan die universiteite te Stellenbosch, Bloemfontein en Pretoria (by al die ander universiteite is Afrikaans as onderrigtaal sedert 1994 ‘n verlore saak) was die Potchefstroomse kampus van die Universiteit Noordwes (UNW) ‘n ligbaken. Afrikaanse klasse word daar in Engels vertaal pleks van hulle te vervang met klasse wat in Engels aangebied word. Die rede vir hierdie relatiewe voorspoed van Afrikaans op Potchefstroom, of mindere agteruitgang, kan toegeskryf word aan die deurlopende teenwoordigheid van ‘n blanke rektor. Daardie era sal op 31 Mei eindig wanneer Theuns Eloff uittree. Net die Universiteit Kaapstad, wat al meer as een swart rektor gehad het, sal dan ‘n wit rektor hê. Die akademie is een van vele terreine waar swartes wêreldwyd nie by wittes kan kersvashou nie. Tog word dit deesdae wys geag dat die akademiese leiding aan ons universiteite (feitlik) deur die bank van swart rektore uitgaan. Die UNW kry volgende jaar nie ‘n bruin rektor soos die ander drie pasgenoemde historiese Afrikaanse universiteite nie, maar ‘n swart rektor, Dan Kgwadi (46). ‘n Tswana en Sewendedag-Adventis, sal dan die septer swaai in wat tot dusver as die Dopperhemel bekend gestaan het.

    Die UNW het drie kampusse: Mafikeng, Vaaldriehoek (Vanderbijlpark) en Potchefstroom, met laasgenoemde as die akademiese kern. By die ander tradisioneel Afrikaanse universiteite is die vervanging van die wit rektor deur ‘n nie-witte bewerkstellig deur die universiteitsraad te intimideer en te transformeer, bv met aanstellings deur die kommunistiese minister van hoër onderwys, Blade Nzimande. In die geval van UNW is die blankes in die senaat steeds in die meerderheid. Van hulle, soos die transformasiegesinde teoloë Theuns Eloff en Johannes Froneman, het dit egter wys geag om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat dit nou tyd vir ‘n swart rektor is. Eloff verlaat eersdaags hier sinkende Afrikaans-/Afrikaner-skip en hoef dus nie met die destruktiewe gevolge van die nuwe opset saam te leef nie. Daarby bestendig die aanstelling van ‘n swart opvolger Eloff se beeld as ‘n oorverligte mens. Die meerderheid senaatslede het glo ten gunste van Kgwadi gestem. In daardie sin verdien die UNW die rektor wat hy op 1 Junie gaan kry. Maar die akademie en Afrikaans verdien dit nie en gaan ‘n dure prys betaal.

    Toe Jonathan Jansen as rektor van die Universiteit Vrystaat aangestel is, was Herman van Schalkwyk (47), ‘n landbou-ekonoom en dekaan, akademies sekerlik die sterkste kandidaat, maar die raadsvoorsitter, Faan Hancke, het hom vooraf uitdruklik tot ‘n transformasie- (dus nie-akademiese) aanstelling verbind deur die versekering te gee dat die volgende rektor ‘n nie-witte sal wees. In 2010 het Van Schalkwyk die rektor van die Potchefstroom-kampus geword. Pas het hy weer om nie-akademiese redes die onderspit om die rektorskap gedelf; hierdie keer teen Kgwadi, wat myns insiens akademies ‘n liggewig is. Selfs taalkundig is Van Schalkwyk Kgwadi se meerdere, want afgesien van deeglike tweetaligheid (Afrikaans en Engels) is hy Sotho goed magtig. Kgwadi is Tswana en Engels magtig. Hy beweer hy gaan nou Afrikaans leer, maar dit spreek boekdele vir sy gesindheid jeens Afrikaans dat hy, wat op die platteland in die noord-weste grootgeword het, nou gaan begin om “die taal” te leer. Net dit toon reeds die revolusionêre verandering wat die Potchefstroom-kampus in die gesig staar. Kgwadi sê: “Change will have to come” (City Press 8 deser). Daardie verandering sal minstens tweeledig wees: die Potchefstroom-kampus sal verswart en verengels.

    Van Schalkwyk het uitstekende akademiese kwalifikasies: ‘n baccalaureus- (1990), honneurs- (1991), magister- (1992) en doktorsgraad (1995), almal verwerf aan die Universiteit Pretoria (UP) en almal in landbou-ekonomie. Hy was dosent aan UP (1993-1996), mede-professor (1996-1997), professor (1998-2003) en dekaan (2003-2010) aan die Universiteit Vrystaat en van 2010 af rektor van die Potchefstroomse kampus. Hy het ‘n indrukwekkende navorsings- en publikasierekord. Kyk gerus sy cv op die internet.

    Kgwadi het die volgende grade: BSc (Fisika en Chemie, 1990, Universiteit Bophuthatswana, Mafikeng), MSc (fisika, 1992, Ball State University, Munchie, Indiana, VSA), PhD (“physics education”, 2002, Universiteit Potchefstroom) en MPhil (“environmental law and management”, 2003, Universiteit van die Noorde/Limpopo, by Pietersburg/Polokwane). Myns insiens loop daar ‘n duidelike akademiese foutlyn deur sy formele kwalifikasies. Hy het sy baccalaureus en een van sy magistergrade aan plaaslike swart universiteite, wat nie die akademiese aansien van die tradisioneel blanke universiteite het nie, verwerf. Terwyl Van Schalkwyk vir sy magistergraad ‘n volwaardige verhandeling voltooi het, het Kgwadi sy twee magistergrade waarskynlik (veral) op grond van klaswerk (dus nie navorsing en die dokumentering van daardie navorsingsresultate nie) verwerf. In die VSA het staatsuniversiteite (meesal) nie die akademiese aansien van private universiteite nie. Daarby word Ball State University nie as een van die beste staatsuniversiteite gereken nie. Wat ook hinder, is dat Kgwadi nie deurgaans in fisika studeer het nie. Sy een magistergraad is in ‘n ander vakrigting en sy doktorsgraad is eerder oor as in fisika; dus (blykbaar) oor fisika-onderrig (‘n randeier en sagte opsie) pleks van in bv kernfisika. Vergelyk ook die tydsverloop in die jaartalle waarin Van Schalkwyk en Kgwadi hulle grade voltooi het. Van Schalkwyk is klaarblyklik ‘n akademikus in murg en been, terwyl Kgwadi periodiek ook akademies probeer vorder het.

    Kgwadi se akademiese ondervinding vergelyk swak met dié van Van Schalkwyk. Kgwadi was van 1999 tot 2002 ‘n dosent aan die Vaal Technikon. In 2005 het hy rektor van die Mafikeng-kampus van die Universiteit Noordwes geword. Die hinderlikste aspek is dat Kgwadi blykbaar geen (noemenswaardige) navorsings- en publikasierekord het nie. Nog ‘n ding waarvoor ek hom verkwalik, is dat hy in Centurion (voorheen Verwoerdburg, wat eens daarop geroem het dat geen swartes in sy munisipale gebied bly nie) woon en in Mafikeng en nou Potchefstroom werk. Sodanige trekarbeid is nie bevorderlik vir optimale beroepsfunksionering nie. Ek stel dit as my oortuiging dat geen egte akademikus om akademiese redes Kgwadi bo Van Schalkwyk as rektor sou verkies het nie. “In universiteitsgeledere word ook gesê Kgwadi is akademies nie naasteby in dieselfde klas as Van Schalkwyk nie” (Rapport 1 deser). Soos in so baie gevalle in die nuwe Suid-Afrika, het ras/kleur/etnisiteit ongetwyfeld ‘n deurslaggewende rol by Kgwadi se onlangse aanstelling gespeel. Soos Jonathan Jansen, verkies Kgwadi om hierdie feit te ontken. In albei gevalle was Van Schalkwyk op hoogs onbillike wyse die verloorder. Dit is die soort gruwelike onreg waaroor geen bevrydingsteoloog ooit sy bek rek nie.

    Kgwadi is vir ses jaar as UNW-rektor aangestel. Daar word beweer dat hy goeie werk as kampus-rektor in Mafikeng gedoen het. Sy nuwe situasie is egter anders, want hy gaan nou die uitvoerende hoof van die hele universiteit wees en dus nie meer tweede viool speel nie. Hy sal ook voortdurend transformasiedruk uit swart geledere ervaar. Moenie verwag dat hy hom danig daarteen gaan verset nie: “Ek meen, ek het eers my menswaardigheid as student in Amerika ontdek, dáár bevry geraak” (Rapport 1 deser). Dan beklemtoon hy ons eendersheid (“ons is almal Suid-Afrikaners”), ons “diversiteit” en “dat die universiteit toegankliker moet word vir álle Suid-Afrikaners.” Hy verwys in hierdie verband na die grondwet wat die status van 10 van die 11 amptelike tale (en veral Engels) verbeter het. Net Afrikaans het oneindig baie aan status ingeboet. Kgwadi: “‘n Taal se regte kan egter nie ten koste van mense se reg tot toegang wees nie … ‘n Instansie soos die Noordwes-universiteit met al sy hulpbronne kán nie uitsluitend of eksklusief wees nie” (Die Burger, 29 Nov, p 8). Dit is die bekende refrein wat ook by die ander tradisioneel Afrikaanse universiteite voor hulle afskaling van Afrikaans as onderrigmedium gehoor is.

    As ‘n mens oor die voorafgaande in sy geheel besin, is dit waar dat Afrikaans sedert 1994 ‘n opbloei beleef, soos die ATM beweer? Is daar niks om oor bekommerd te wees nie, soos Van Huyssteen beweer? Of is Afrikaans besig om sienderoë agteruit te boer weens die hartlike samewerking van sommige Afrikaanssprekendes asook instansies wat veronderstel is om Afrikaans te bevorder?

    Lees ook Skoppensboer se rubriek, ‘n Seder val in Potchefstroom.

  • Afrikanerskap is uit lyding gebore

    Afrikanerskap is uit lyding gebore

    Attie Juyn skryf in ‘n insiggewende brief oor Afrikanereenheid. Om die Afrikaner te verstaan, moet jy so ‘n paar geslagte terugkyk na die einde van die tweede vryheidsoorlog. Ongekende smart en hartseer is deur ons grootouers se ouers en dié se ouers deurgemaak.

    Ná die Boere oorwin is, het die Britte ‘n strategie van verskroeide aarde gevolg om die bittereinders tot oorgawe te dwing. Dit het beteken dat al die vroue en kinders in konsentrasiekampe geplaas is, en die meeste mans in gevangeneskap weggevoer is.

    Die meeste ander groepe in die land het ook teen die Afrikaner geveg. Die Britte het ook die jong dogters verkrag wanneer hulle die kans gekry het. Die Indiërs, Kleurlinge en Kapenaars het almal teen die Boere wapens opgeneem. Ook die uitlanders wat op die myne gewerk het, en selfs sommige Afrikaners het saam met die Britte geveg.

    Alhoewel sommige swartes die Boere gehelp het, het daar heelwat van hulle die wapen teen die Boere opgeneem. Hulle is veral in die blokhuise gebruik om die Boere se bewegings dop te hou. Ook het hulle inligting oor die Boere se bewegings verskaf. So hier het jy al die groepe in die land wat teen die Boere veg. Net sowat 6 000 blanke Afrikaners van die kolonies het hulle by die Boere geskaar, asook ‘n paar honderd uitlanders.

    In die konsentrasiekampe was daar 110 000 Boere en het daar 24 000 of 50% van die Boere se kinders van siekte en honger omgekom. Eers nadat Emily Hobhouse die kampe in 1901 besoek het en die nuus van die volksmoord teruggeneem het na Engeland, het die Britte die toestande heelwat verbeter. Om helfte van jou kinders te sien sterf van honger en siekte terwyl jy gevange gehou word in jou eie land sal jou die donder in maak tot in die vierde geslag, veral vir ander groepe in die land, en ook die Afrikaners wat soos hanskakies of hensoppers lyk.

    Om die punt te illustreer, wys ek met groot respek ‘n foto van die Boereheldin Lizzie van Zyl. Die foto van haar jong lewe wat so tragies tot ‘n einde gekom het, het die Britse publiek teen die oorlog laat draai en die Britse parlement (nogals die liberales wat die konserwatiewes daartoe gedwing het) kon nie anders as om die toestande in die kampe te verbeter nie. As dit nie vir haar lyding en foto was nie, sou baie duisende meer Boere en veral Boerekinders omgekom het.

    Dink daaraan as dit jou kind was, en jy kon niks doen om haar te help nie. Dít, Attie, is waar die Afrikaner vandaan kom.

    Ek stem saam dat die Afrikaner sal moet leer om saam te staan en saam te stem sodat vordering gemaak kan word. Veral die manier van die Afrikaner om die ouens wat nie met hulle saamstem nie as vyande aan te sien, is heeltemal onnodig. Elkeen is op sy eie standpunt geregtig.

    social networking advertisingлобановский александр отзывы

  • Transformasie bevorder rassisme

    Johann WingardVanweë ons lang geskiedenis van konflik kan dit nie ontken word dat diep gewortelde spannings tussen Suid-Afrika se volksgroepe steeds heers en vir baie dekades nog sal heers nie. Daardie spannings heers reeds vir tweehonderd jaar en dateer terug na die eerse Xhosa-oorlog in 1811, waarna nog agt volwaardige oorloë in die Ooskaap gevolg het, die laaste in 1879. Die ANC-regering probeer nou om die inherente psige van sy landsburgers deur hardhandige maatreëls te onderdruk deur rassisme te kriminaliseer en as die grootste sosiale sonde te verhef – selfs groter as gewapende roof en verkragting.

    Tydens en ná die Groot Trek is die Oosgrensoorloë opgevolg deur oorloë tussen Boere en Zoeloes en tussen die Boere en Basotho’s, die Matabeles asook onderlinge gevegte tussen die verskillende swart stamme. Net toe dit lyk of mense in vrede begin saamleef, kom die Britte met hul oorloë teen die Zoeloes en die Boererepublieke, wat die hele spul weer beduiwel het. Al hierdie oorloë was gewelddadig, en die vrouens en kinders is nooit gespaar nie. Dit het gepaardgegaan met haat, wrewel en wantroue tussen volksgroepe wat as rassisme en xenofobie manifisteer en wat in die bloed van die land se burgers ingekruip het.

    Diepgaande haat en vooroordele het deel van mense se psige geword. Dit is van geslag tot geslag oorgedra. Swartes het die Boere gehaat en andersom. Niemand het die Engelse vertrou nie. Zoeloes het neergesien op die Sjangaans en die Xhosas is as die opperste skelms uitgekryt. Die arme Boesmans is tot die sandduine verban. Sedert 1994 het Zimbabwiërs, Nigeriërs, Mosambiekers en Somaliërs die teiken van vreemdelingehaat in die groot stede geword, wat selfs tot gewelddadige opstande gelei het.

    Die grensoorlog in Angola en SWA is deur baie swartmense as hul vryheidstryd beskou, terwyl die blankes dit as ‘n stryd teen die kommunisme gesien het. Dit het die antagonisme tussen volksgroepe verder verhoog.

    Hierdie bloedige konflikte is deur sosioloë as ‘n beskawingskonflik beskryf wat nooit tot ‘n einde sal kom nie. Dit was nog altyd in inheemse stamme se aard om mekaar se weiding en vee te roof. Paraatheid was die enigste werkbare strategie om die plundertogte aan bande te lê – baie soos Israel en die Palestyne wat dieselfde grondgebied moet deel.

    Maar ná 1994 is Afrikaners se paraatheidsvermoëns drasties ingekort. Die beskermingsdienste is getransformeer, die kommandostelsel is afgeskaf en wapenwetgewing toegepas om burgers te ontwapen. Sedertdien het terreur weer losgebars en duur onverpoosd voort, wat weer ‘n nuwe antagonisme tussen wit en swart laat opvlam het. Afrikaners voer daagliks ‘n oorlewingstryd teen bendes wat roof, moor en verkrag, presies soos in die Ooskaap van vroeër. Armoede, werkloosheid en misdaad word bygesleep om die swart-op-wit en swart-op-swart geweld te verduidelik, maar daar word geswyg oor ander Afrikalande waar groter werkloosheid en armoede bestaan.

    Eenrigtingrassisme het ‘n gerieflike politieke begrip geword. Volgens die meeste swartmense kan rassisme per definisie slegs wit-op-swart wees, omdat swartes “nooit meerderwaardig teenoor wittes sal voel nie”. Die rassesolidariteit tussen swartmense is veral treffend wanneer ‘n swart bestuurder weens onbekwaamheid afgedank word. Hiervoor word die swart bestuursforum (BMF) ingespan met die wete dat iets soos ‘n wit bestuursforum polities onbestaanbaar is. Gelukkig word Solidariteit en Afriforum se bestaan nie bevraagteken nie en kan hulle daardie rol vervul en doen hulle dit ook wel deeglik.

    Nou hoe gemaak in ‘n demokratiese land met sy veelgeroemde liberale grondwet?

    Teen die agtergrond van die land se geskiedenis is dit gou duidelik dat ‘n totale gebrek aan insig tydens die opstel van die grondwet geopenbaar is. Daar is eenvoudig nooit rekening gehou met die werklikheid van die kultuurklowe tussen landsburgers nie.

    Sport en die ekonomie is twee middelpuntsoekende kragte wat die samelewing bestaande uit alle rassegroepe probeer saambind, en dikwels daarin slaag om ‘n mate van samehorigheid te bewerkstellig. Maar dan word die goeie uitwerking daarvan vernietig deur politieke inmenging soos kwotas, rasseteikens en ander ideologiese kwessies soos transformasie.

    Vir veral Afrikaners is integriteit die hoeksteen van hul sportondersteuning – integriteit by die kies van spanne, afrigters en administrateurs. Afrikaners sal dikwels ‘n swart krieketspeler soos Loots Bosman verkies bo byvoorbeeld ‘n sukkelende Albie Morkel sodat plek gemaak kan word vir nog ‘n bouler soos Abdullah Ebrahim. Dit gaan dus nie oor ras nie, maar oor gehalte-integriteit om die teenstaanders te kan oorrompel.

    Rassisme kom tot uiting waar historiese vooroordele en gedragspatrone tussen rassegroepe opduik as een groep sy wil op die ander wil afdwing. Die antagonisme tussen groepe, wat inherent in die emosionele samestelling van die meeste swartmense en Afrikaners bestaan, lê baie naby aan die oppervlak van hul psiges. Tydens politieke gesprekke tussen groepe kom hierdie antagonisme tot uiting – lees gerus die woernaalgesprekke op die internet, waar die suiwerste vorm van rassisme tussen wit en swart daagliks plaasvind.

    Die enigste oplossing om sulke uitings van rassisme te verhoed, is dat een rassegroep nie sy wil op die ander sal afdwing nie. Solank transformasie, SEB, regstellende aksie en kwotas landsbeleid is, sal rassisme dus die onvermydelike uitvloeisel daarvan wees. Die hele beleidsraamwerk, waarvoor geen juridiese fundering bestaan nie, plaas die fokus op rasseverskille en voorkom enige vorm van versoening.

    Die kriminalisering van rassisme is dus ‘n vorm van magsmisbruik omdat dit ‘n onregmatige vorm van onderdrukking van normale menslike emosies verteenwoordig.

    потолочный светильникДанильченко Юрий Брониславович