Bantu imperialism

roodt_dan_wiki

by Dan Roodt

[followbutton username=’danroodt’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

I was still pondering the implications of “black colonialism” as set out in a previous column when it struck me that some of South Africa’s ethnic categories are completely wrong.

Afrikaners were the first group in the country to refer to themselves as “Africans”, as long ago as 1707 when Hendrik Biebouw said: “Ik ben een Afrikaander.” However, today Afrikaners have been defined as an out-group by South African legislation that simply classes them as “whites”.

Most of our affirmative-action legislation has been imported from the USA and BEE is just an adapted form of what is called “minority procurement” over there. So there is nothing “African” about the current race-classification system!

In German, “Afrikaner” means simply “African”, yet the current laws define Afrikaners as Europeans. The ultimate irony is that ANC and especially SACP ideology has been constructed by recent immigrants from Lithuania (like Joe Slovo) and, of course, Britain.

Imposing racial quotas on everything from the medical schools at Afrikaans universities to the Blue Bulls rugby team is bad enough. But stripping us of our age-old Africanness by legislative fiat represents the ultimate insult, making us interlopers in our own country.

Searching for answers, I reread Thabo Mbeki’s “I am an African” speech, but it is simply a fanciful restatement of American multiculturalism, with echoes of (Swedish) Gunnar Myrdal’s “melting pot” idea. So nothing “African” there, either.

We urgently need to bring back the term “Bantu” and I have begun to recommend its use on social media and everywhere else. There seems to be a certain squeamishness about using this word, meaning “people”, which is unfathomable. Even the famous Xhosa definition of “ubuntu” contains it: “Ubuntu ungamntu ngabanye abantu.”

Anthropologists, linguists and other people in need of proper definitions have never stopped referring to the “Bantu peoples”, “Bantu languages”, etc. Even Bantu education has been rehabilitated by such leading authorities as Dr. Mamphela Ramphele and a lecturer at Wits Business School, Mr. Rabelani Dagada, both of whom consider it better than the current schooling system.

The first ANC-supporting newspaper in the 1920s was called Abanthu-Batho and today there is a clothing brand which is thus advertised: “Abantu is a ladies wear brand which creates timeless pieces which speak to the South African audience.”

The Bantu peoples inhabit East and Southern Africa. For them or their Lithuanian theorists to arrogate unto themselves the sole right to being called “Africans” is not only intellectually unsound, but also unfair. After all, there are 200 million North Africans, including Egyptians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts and so on, who are Africans, by definition. West Africa too, is given the cold shoulder by Bantu imperialism.

In the nineteen-twenties some leading German and French anthropologists claimed, upon the basis of very ancient mining activity in these parts, that whites may have inhabited both South Africa and Zimbabwe as long ago as 3500 B.C. They must have been the first Afrikaners and we should venerate them as our true founding fathers, together with the Khoi and San.

Either we must qualify for affirmative action like other “Africans” – and even the Chinese! – or the Bantu must clearly announce their pretensions to being a kind of continental nobility with special privileges.

[followbutton username=’danroodt’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

This column also appeared as a letter in Business Day.

Europeans and Americans, Afrikaners and English

roodt_dan_wikiby Dan Roodt

[followbutton username=’danroodt’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

I have just read an interesting article by Matthew Contessini, claiming that Europeans are “more pro-white than Americans”. The piece is full of speculative insights that may not ultimately survive scrutiny, but does identify some elements undermining Western/European culture and others supporting it.

I think Anglo-Saxon culture is to some extent a victim of its own success. Many people learn English and Third Worlders especially are attracted to it as a source of power and economic prowess. British colonialism anglicised India and most of Africa. In order to maintain itself, the Empire must ultimately assume the complexion, literally and figuratively, of its inhabitants. The whole chicken tikka masala debate started by Robin Cook in 2001 is relevant here. According to Cook, the ethnic homogeneity that Britain enjoyed in the Victorian era is an illusion and “(t)he diversity of modern Britain expressed through devolution and multiculturalism is more consistent with the historical experience of our islands”.

South Africa, even more than Britain, is a country in search of its own identity. Will there be any whites left in this country in fifty years’ time? Whites are legislated against by government and attacked by black criminals. Yet English-speaking whites mostly see a solution in “better law enforcement”, “better education” and “making multiculturalism work”. Taking their cue from “chicken tikka masala Britain”, they wish to be part of a global Anglo-Saxon empire where “diversity” is celebrated. The same goes for those Afrikaners who live in mostly English-speaking areas of South Africa, some of whom send their children to English private schools (although this phenomenon is also declining).

On the other hand, Afrikaners who remain true to their language and traditions see separatism, the pursuit of a so-called “volkstaat” or ethnic state as the sole solution to the problems of white survival. Over the past two years or so, most Afrikaner organisations, sometimes meeting secretly, have endorsed the pursuit of self-determination as the only viable survival strategy.

It seems that, ultimately, having a universal culture beamed to the whole world via Hollywood and global corporations, becomes a handicap as it creates the impression that you are a master of your own destiny whereas in fact you are not. To some extent, English in South Africa has become a black language because all English institutions such as universities, state schools, media, etc., have been taken over by blacks. Despite twenty years of affirmative action, forced integration, and so on, there are still many Afrikaans state schools that are 95% white, to the frustration of the authorities. Ironically, liberal whites such as Helen Zille or Barbara Creecy, the provincial education minister of Gauteng, are more hostile to these schools than blacks and are trying their utmost to have them declared illegal.

The point that Matthew Contessini makes about Europeans’ sense of kinship is important too. A year ago, a columnist for the London Financial Times, Simon Kuper, wrote scathingly about his visits to South Africa, saying:

One Christmas about 30 years ago we left Johannesburg on a bus trip to a safari park. All the other people in the bus were Afrikaners: big healthy white families in shorts. With their handful of surnames, and heavy Dutch faces utterly distinct from their African surroundings, they were a tribe.”

The “handful of surnames” he is referring to are the Dutch and French surnames that we have kept and that have been Afrikanerised over the centuries. We can tell immediately by surname if someone is “one of us” or not. As Kuper, who is generally not sympathetic to Afrikaners, admits, that makes us a “white tribe”.

On Thursday night I attended a poetry reading at my children’s high school. It breaks one’s heart to see all those talented, clever children emerging into adulthood, able to write, to compose, to think, to reason, but who have one handicap: they are white in a black world. What will become of them? Will they be overwhelmed with “diversity” and simply get assimilated, or will they survive as white Afrikaners, bearers of our language and culture?

I think Southern identity in the US has the same potential to unite at least some Americans around an ideal. Often defeat, as during the Civil War or our Anglo-Boer War, leads to loss of territory but can create a more enduring sense of identity even stronger and more valuable than territory which depends so much on demography and military power. I think as Western populations decline world-wide, we have to accept that we are going to lose vast tracts of land to others. The trick will be to keep our sense of who we are and where we come from. Teaching our children about European art history and philosophy is as important as teaching them our language and literature.

Not that territory is unimportant, but this is as much a struggle for identity as it is for anything else.

The most horrifying aspect of all is that American military might, created by a vast army of Western scientists and engineers, will ultimately fall into the hands of the imperial multiculturalists, a mixed-race America, who will use it to oppress and persecute whites globally. South Africa is a precedent for this, as the ANC is using the power of the formerly white state and its institutions, including its highly efficient revenue-gathering capability, to wage identity war against whites.

The future ownership of the US military-industrial complex is therefore of concern to us all. The sooner Europeans realise this too, the better.

[followbutton username=’danroodt’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page