The European settlement in South Africa is well-documented and traces back to the 17th century. This is why Afrikaners/Boers can trace their heritage back basically to the beginning.
There is no land issue regarding the European settlers in South Africa, nor the 1820 British settlers who established towns in the Eastern Cape.
Yes, I have relatives from both Dutch and English settlement. I am still finding documents to this day about their presence there. For example, there was a missionary relative who stood guard with a blunderbuss on the wall of a village, to defend against the Zulu, who were intent on killing the Christian Khoisan inside. The attackers were big mad that these little people managed to organize their village along European lines, with defensive ramparts, and they had a designated baker, butcher, candlestick-maker, so to speak ... and they had become Christian, how dared they etc.
The Dutch side has KhoiSan, so that our grandmother was labelled colored - Ironically, she was blonde, green eyed, and very pretty (she even modeled, and acted), and really shouldn't have been labelled as such (just a deep tan in summer, really). But the apartheid laws at the time insisted she was.
The English side, he was brought up by Zulu (father died, mother busy teaching to support them), and so he spoke that language before he spoke English. He was labelled a communist because he stood up for the blacks, and would speak with them (!). Normally, university was a reason NOT to go in the army. Even though he was a Dux, the authorities decided to 'go after' him for his subversive speach, and send him into the army, anyway. There was a war with Angola at the time, and he did not want to go and kill people. And also, because he was English, the army was very dangerous - occasionally chaps got killed during training by the militant boers, who would 'haze' the English noobs. The crucial moment was when his brother was dangled by his feet, from a second story, in a 'student prank'. The hazing of the English was in-grained, and possibly justified, given the Boer war, decades before. He is in his dotage now, but regales stories of visiting Spionkop when he was a kid, and finding bandages stained with blood, and bullet casings.
So they had two weeks to get out of SA. And, he married a boer girl, go figure. The histories are entangled over here.
This is the case here in New Zealand, which is rapidly descending into Apartheid. Even though the land was bought fair and square - and was un-developed at the time, the Maori activists claim that not enough money was paid, because look! It's worth millions now (after generations of farmers have worked on it), so they claim that the 'Crown' (the government, actually we, the tax-payers) must pay up the difference.
You have to understand the Karpman Victim Triangle because that's what those with an agenda (commies) use for all kinds of manipulations; not just land. It's a misnomer though. There are actually 4 parties in this game. It starts with someone with an agenda, I'll call him the "wolf." The wolf convinces his target that "she" is a victim, causing her to feel aggrieved, self-righteous, and entitled. He identifies her oppressor for her (the patriarchy, the white land owners, western civilization, etc.). The oppressor then becomes the target of her ire and demands. The wolf then puts on the cloak of the third party of the triangle, that of the rescuer (the Democrats have worn that cloak in the US).
So, in Africa, Purkiss, who is the wolf? Cui bono? The Chinese perhaps?
Below is a great description of what happens. Just replace the woman here with any victim group; it plays out the same:
"How did we get to this point anyway, where it seems the most natural thing in the world is for a woman to throw a fit? It started in the ’60s when women were informed they were victims, a status that meant they could do no wrong. Slogans like “believe all women,” “the future is female,” and “hear me roar” became rallying cries. It is a powerful thing to be told not only that you are a victim who deserves special status but that what you think is unimpeachable. Women moved forward confidently in a politically manufactured sense of self-righteousness." https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/13/shrieking-leftist-women-cant-boss-trumps-nominees-or-anyone-else-around-anymore/
SA blacks can't read.
💯👌 Thats actually true....There's something like 80% of grade 5 students CANNOT comprehend what they read...
The European settlement in South Africa is well-documented and traces back to the 17th century. This is why Afrikaners/Boers can trace their heritage back basically to the beginning.
There is no land issue regarding the European settlers in South Africa, nor the 1820 British settlers who established towns in the Eastern Cape.
https://x.com/AliceVLAuthor/status/1889813365633306657
Yes, I have relatives from both Dutch and English settlement. I am still finding documents to this day about their presence there. For example, there was a missionary relative who stood guard with a blunderbuss on the wall of a village, to defend against the Zulu, who were intent on killing the Christian Khoisan inside. The attackers were big mad that these little people managed to organize their village along European lines, with defensive ramparts, and they had a designated baker, butcher, candlestick-maker, so to speak ... and they had become Christian, how dared they etc.
The Dutch side has KhoiSan, so that our grandmother was labelled colored - Ironically, she was blonde, green eyed, and very pretty (she even modeled, and acted), and really shouldn't have been labelled as such (just a deep tan in summer, really). But the apartheid laws at the time insisted she was.
The English side, he was brought up by Zulu (father died, mother busy teaching to support them), and so he spoke that language before he spoke English. He was labelled a communist because he stood up for the blacks, and would speak with them (!). Normally, university was a reason NOT to go in the army. Even though he was a Dux, the authorities decided to 'go after' him for his subversive speach, and send him into the army, anyway. There was a war with Angola at the time, and he did not want to go and kill people. And also, because he was English, the army was very dangerous - occasionally chaps got killed during training by the militant boers, who would 'haze' the English noobs. The crucial moment was when his brother was dangled by his feet, from a second story, in a 'student prank'. The hazing of the English was in-grained, and possibly justified, given the Boer war, decades before. He is in his dotage now, but regales stories of visiting Spionkop when he was a kid, and finding bandages stained with blood, and bullet casings.
So they had two weeks to get out of SA. And, he married a boer girl, go figure. The histories are entangled over here.
But the ANC continue to push the narrative that All white owned land is stolen !!
This is the case here in New Zealand, which is rapidly descending into Apartheid. Even though the land was bought fair and square - and was un-developed at the time, the Maori activists claim that not enough money was paid, because look! It's worth millions now (after generations of farmers have worked on it), so they claim that the 'Crown' (the government, actually we, the tax-payers) must pay up the difference.
The 'stolen' land meme is well-used.
🤦🏻♂️🙏🏻🙏🏻
And so it goes. Among cannibal tribes, betrayal is the highest compliment. (Go and read Robinson on his missionary diaries re: Papua New Guineans.
The emotions behind such a mindset seem to still linger.
It's very useful to them, so why wouldn't they?
You have to understand the Karpman Victim Triangle because that's what those with an agenda (commies) use for all kinds of manipulations; not just land. It's a misnomer though. There are actually 4 parties in this game. It starts with someone with an agenda, I'll call him the "wolf." The wolf convinces his target that "she" is a victim, causing her to feel aggrieved, self-righteous, and entitled. He identifies her oppressor for her (the patriarchy, the white land owners, western civilization, etc.). The oppressor then becomes the target of her ire and demands. The wolf then puts on the cloak of the third party of the triangle, that of the rescuer (the Democrats have worn that cloak in the US).
So, in Africa, Purkiss, who is the wolf? Cui bono? The Chinese perhaps?
Below is a great description of what happens. Just replace the woman here with any victim group; it plays out the same: "How did we get to this point anyway, where it seems the most natural thing in the world is for a woman to throw a fit? It started in the ’60s when women were informed they were victims, a status that meant they could do no wrong. Slogans like “believe all women,” “the future is female,” and “hear me roar” became rallying cries. It is a powerful thing to be told not only that you are a victim who deserves special status but that what you think is unimpeachable. Women moved forward confidently in a politically manufactured sense of self-righteousness." https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/13/shrieking-leftist-women-cant-boss-trumps-nominees-or-anyone-else-around-anymore/
I'm not well read on SA history, but aren't most of the blacks in SA Bantu and not even originally from SA?
The guilty point the finger at others.