Africa: South Africa Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa.

Ethnic groups Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This statement: 'There are 40,000 mostly white commercial farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, close to 3,363 [17][dead link] farmers and family members have been murdered in thousands of farm attacks, with many being brutally tortured and/or raped. Some victims have been burned with smoothing irons or had boiling water poured down their throats.[18]' is possibly an exaggeration. I have read that these numbers are misleading as they conflate assault with murder and conflate assaults linked with theft with those not. The websites that host these reports are often very sensational and unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.228.143 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Roughly 60% of them speak Afrikaans as their mother language and about 39% speak English and/or another language."

That's roughly 99% for the total, not 100%. Do these statistics account for mute people, or did they include newborn babies?

63.215.27.199 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 1% of the whites speak some other language home than Afrikaans or English, for example such as German, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_South_Africa. Dr.Poison 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's stats, as originally written, still make no sense: "39% speak English and/or another language." Logically, this would include everything besides Afrikaans; it's an instance of the A or not A, and certainly needs to be corrected in some way.

- 63.215.27.199 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it. As of now it is like this: 1% of the white population speaks some other language as their mother language, such as for example German, Portuguese or Greek. . Dr.Poison 13:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - -

• Made some edits. Hopefully others who have more knowledge then me, would find it nice to edit and expanf this article. Iv'e tried to do my best and write my best English. Enjoy! Dr.Poison 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, it really helped the article's value. South Africa experienced a wave of Europeans arrived in the country's gold mining areas in the 1880's and 1890's. The majority of them are Anglo-British, but it included Welsh, Scottish, Irish, some North Americans and a few Australians, all were known to contribute in the growth of small mining gulches like Johannesburg and Pretoria, into major cities of a young promising, but racially strifen nation in the 20th century. Mike D 26 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there are about 3 million Afrikaans speaking Afrikaners in South Africa. Doesn't this mean that the percentage of Afrikaans is 70% against 30% for English? Does somebody know more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.100.44 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2001 census, there are approximately 2.54 million Afrikaans-speaking white people, and approximately 1.69 million English-speaking white people. The total white population numbered in that census approximately 4.29 million. Hence, 59% Afrikaans and 39% English. Where do you get the figure of 3 million from? - htonl (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten that there are Afrikaans speakers who are not white. Roger (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten that; I was looking specifically at the language statistics for white South Africans, since we are discussing the article entitled "White South African". Notice that I used the term "Afrikaans-speaking white people" and not the term "Afrikaans-speakers". - htonl (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently farms and gated communities to not receive census forms. There are somewhat 40,000 white owned farms, of which let's say the average has two parents and a child, thats already 120,000. And as for gated communities, thats a figure I don't know about. Furthermore, the white population increased by I think 300,000 from 2001 to the new 2007 estimate (4.6 million or something now). I am actually unsure about the number of whites/afrikaans/english in South Africa. 60% is definitley the right Afrikaner percentage, if not maybe 2 or more percent higher? Surely this small difference doesn't matter that much? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story about farms and gated communities being skipped has become a bit of an urban legend. Fact is, white people from gated communities and farms provided very few volunteers for the census. See http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/theCount/count.pdf, page 23. This meant that a special "mop-up" period after the census had to be extended by an extra month to allow the primarily black volunteers to finish up the enumeration process. It took longer than expected because these volunteers were all working in areas very far from their homes, and ones that they found difficult to access. Stats South Africa went to great lengths to ensure that these areas weren't skipped, despite having very few volunteers from them. Additionally, if farms had been skipped, it would have affected both the counting of farm labour and farm owners. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak out of personal experience. At the time of the last census I was living on my parent's farm. The census volunteers came, visited all the houses on the farm, did their thing amd left. There was no difficulty, no locked gates, none of that bullshit. Those stories arose as an excuse for simple incompetence in some areas. "When accused of incompetence always blame the white man. You score double points if the white man is a 'boer'." Roger (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was no problem on your parents' farm doesn't mean that there weren't problems on other farms, or in gated suburbs and high-walled properties. As Hilton points out, though, the enumeration period was specifically extended to handle these problems. - htonl (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I just remind you I only said that because I had read it somewhere. I will try and find the link but I have to also agree, my Great-Uncle and Aunt own a farm, and although they didn't tell me how, but they did do the census. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to take note on small scale European immigration to South Africa, primarily into the cities, took place in the 1950's and 60's but slowed down in the 1970's. The majority of white European immigrants happened to be British when South Africa was part of the British commonwealth until it withdrew in 1961. Some immigrants came from Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands, as well thousands of Arabs from Lebanon and Syria.

Usually the new South Africans as they were called assimilated into the white minority, but most immigrants joined South Africa's smaller English-speaking group for the reason that economic success required English skills, although are fluent in the Afrikaans language. The country has a sizable population of Chinese and east Asians, despite they encountered less overt segregation than south Asians in the days of apartheid.

However, the economic decline after the end of apartheid was unexpected and a large percentage of white South Africans left for good or temporarily in hopes to return or participate in a country rife with promise. The current government ever since tries to draw in more population of skilled workers and businessmen to boost the country's developed but crippled economy.

Post-apartheid South Africa is open for immigrants of all races, especially sub-saharan Africans came to South Africa in the 1990's and early 2000's to fulfill their dreams in the continent's most developed country, but the emigration of upper-class white South Africans to Europe or the US is an issue for the country wants to reverse the "brain drain" trend.

I believe the South African economy is going to improve in a couple of years and what I know is thousands-some American retirees actually move to South Africa for the kind of living standards the country is known for. Soon, every South African of race or creed will enjoy the post-apartheid prosperity if the nation ever accomplished that goal. I can see why South Africa hold such potential in the last century of high-paced industrial development.

Interestingly, there are many white South Africans who opposed apartheid and want to help make their country a better place for all of their people, but economic conditions must improve or they can't return to their homeland in terms of nationality if not indigenous to the country. South Africans aren't divided in race or color as much, but class divisions and geographic location in the distribution of rich and poor needs to be worked on. Mike D 26 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good information, thank you. Are you willing to write some of that information to the article? I know that there was many Lebanese who moved to South Africa during the civil war (or before). It is also interesting that there was many Scandinavians who moved during the early 21 century to SA, and made some kind of sucess as they could write and read. There was a documentery about that on Swedish Television last year ("Afrikafararna"). Good info and a happy new year! 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike - any refs for the economic decline after the end of apartheid? I'm not sure that that assumption is in any way correct and thus not tremendously keen to see it incorporated into this article in that form. This assumption wouldn't even have been correct several years ago. There are a couple of braking factors (infrastructure not being built fast enough and skills shortages) on the economy but other than that it's done a pretty good job of benefiting from the current emerging market upswing. Volatility of the currency shouldn't be confused with economic downturn; it can be related but in many cases, and particularly with smaller open economies, is just as likely to merely be speculative/money market related. Emigration after the end of apartheid was less related to actual economics and more related to perception/future expectation and social factors (eg. crime, general politics, advent of affirmative action and related expectations). Kit Berg (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ETA: Don't worry about it, I've just read your talk page so am assuming that no reply is forthcoming. Just as a heads-up for anyone else reading this, Mike's comments are stated as fact but many of them can be disproved relatively easily so please don't incorporate into the article without some kind of reference. Kit Berg (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were they? I've often read that of Japanese and Taiwanese, but not Koreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.167 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the Japanese and Taiwanese were honary were because they were both democratic states, surley S. Korea was too? This is also why the Chinese were treated the same as Blacks. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In recent years there have been high numbers of British expats relocating to South Africa. Among the British expat population, South Africa ranks as the 6th most popular destination and is ranked as the top destination amongst British retirees and pensioners."

Ah yes, it's a mark of a highly professional and useful encyclopedia to use slang or abbreviated words. gg wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That must be the most funny thing I read on Wiki, "diseases that kill white people~, especially the old". RGDS Alexmcfire Alexmcfire (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section makes no sense.

In recent decades there has been a steady proportional decline in the white African population, due to higher birthrates among the non-white population of South Africa...

I guess what this is trying to say is that there are proportionally less whites because the percentage of non-whites has increased.

And this dubious, (unreferenced), statement is then followed by:

..., more immunity towards many diseases, especially those can kill whites, mostly the elderly and children, and help from the government.

I am not even going to guess what this is trying to say, what diseases specifically kill whites? And what help is the government giving in killing white people?

This whole section looks like a thinly-veiled attempt at blaming the current government for the death of whites in South Africa. FFMG (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the info box says "5,265,300 (2008) (11% of total population)", Demographics says "4.3 million Whites in South Africa (2007)" or maybe it's 4.8 and then Distribution says "9.2%". So I'm really confused. How many crackers you got in that box? :) --Leodmacleod (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the Stats SA 2008 population estimates. On page 5 there's a table which gives low, medium and high estimates. The medium estimate gives 4.50 million whites out of a total population of 48.69 million. Alternatively, one can look at the Community Survey 2007 which gives 4 626 744 whites out of a total population of 48 502 066. (You have to use the "interactive data" facility to get that figure.) - htonl (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 census should clear this up. And I'm sure we'll find that Stats SA has greatly over-estimated the white population time and time again. I will be stunned if it turns out to be above 4 million. I think many academics will be shocked to see just how dramatically emigration has reduced the white population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.65.92 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately here on WP we don't care what you think or who might be stunned by whatever speculation. Only reliable sources matter, not the opinions of random anonymous commentators. We will have to wait for the 2011 Cencus data to be released before updating the numbers - the best we have at present is the "spread" as explained by htonl. Sorry to rain on your parade. Roger (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the white population that will be a shock. I also wonder if by the census Coloureds outnumber whites? hmm Personally speaking, some of my South African friends have immigrated back. Also, you have to make sure you don't forget the (albeit small) number of white Zimbabweans that came after the 2001 cenus. This number is probably just about 20,000, but who knows? Most of them have probably emigrated back to the UK anyway. :/ who knows, all we know is the figure is between 4-5 million. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People generally seem to think - it's mentioned on several articles here, though I don't know how true it is - that the last Census undercounted whites. - htonl (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't understand how, I am sure that the 2001 census undercounted whites, once again, I don't know how. 4.4 million seems tiny, depending on the peak white population in 1994, that would mean between 800,000-1.2 million emigrated before 2001. Although I would not be too suprised to see this figure now. Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should J. R. R. Tolkien really be listed as a White South African? I mean, yes he was born in Bloemfontein, but his parents were English expats and he went back to England at the age of 3. - htonl (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this has been discussed several times on Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien (see the archives) and the consensus there is that he should not be described as South African. I have removed him from this page. - htonl (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have him their because their are plenty of others to choose from anyway, but South Africa did not exist at the time of his birth any way so all SOuth Africans born before 1910 are British or Boer anyway. because under the same argument Paul Kruger should not be on the notible South African List as he was a Zuid-Afrikaner and NEVER had citizinship in South Africa.--Scottykira (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Volkstaat-link. You could at best put that into the Afrikaner-article (even that is questionable), but not every white South African is a racially/linguistically separatist bigot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Seb az86556 to look at the edit warring that is going on over this insertion. First of all, since multiple editors have expressed disagreement with it, Rgherbert needs to stop editing the article directly and engage in discussion here; this is what the talk pages are for.

As for my opinion about the edits itself...well, I also don't agree with it. I read the whole article that's given as a source (which was a painful endeavor, it's so poorly written), and did not see any mention at all of race. Furthermore, it's not really an acceptable source for the inflammatory statement given, since it only documents one case and doesn't say anything about a trend. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the current edit is that it hides the sexist reality of prison rape; its victims are almost exclusively male. It is intellectually dishonest, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible, to describe a crime with such a strong statistical gender bias in a gender-neutral manner. It would be considered unacceptable to do so if the genders were reversed. White South African women aren't being gang raped in prison — white South African men are.

The article cited at footnote 15 may not make specific reference to the race of the attackers, but it describes the way in which two men were quite literally thrown to the wolves in order to accommodate female detainees. The fact that the two game ranchers had been previously held separately from rape/murder suspects indicates the guards knew they were vulnerable, making their final cell placement decision all the more despicable.

In addition to being a systemic problem, the rape of men in jail/prison is exacerbated by gender segregation policies that often result in inappropriate cell placements of non-violent, vulnerable men. The gang rape of the game rancher has troubling implications for gender relations in a carceral context, given the way in which women were protected at the expense of men. As such, glossing over anti-male sexism by referring to prison rape of "white South Africans" in general is unacceptable.

I suppose my reference to black aggressors is superfluous since it is implied in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism. That being said, it is well recognized that the phenomenon referred to here is the disturbing trend of white men detained for non-violent misdemeanours (e.g. traffic violations, licence/permit issues) being thrown into cells with violent blacks and subsequently raped/assaulted. While I can't cite them off the top of my head, there are numerous academic studies confirming the interracial nature of male prison rape in South Africa (as well as America and the Caribbean).

As I mentioned in one of my previous comments, discussion of male victims (in the context of gender) and black aggressors (in the context of race) is taboo, hence society's refusal to confront male prison rape, and in the South African context, its intersection with race. The double jeopardy of sexism and racism faced by white South African men in a carceral setting needs to be acknowledged.

I maintain my proposed revision offers the most intellectually honest account of the crime problem referred to in this section of the article:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by blacks (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

I believe the reference to black aggressors reiterates the fact that these are racially motivated gang rapes, and disagree that it is inflammatory. That being said, as the race of the aggressors is implied in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism, I would accept the omission of the word "blacks" and submit the following instead:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

I will try and dig up some journal articles on prison rape in South Africa to add to the list of citations. For the time being, I propose the following as sources for my revision in addition to footnote 15:

http://dienuwesuidafrika.blogspot.com/2010/01/jail-rape-of-white-south-african-men.html

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2009/09/afrikaner-lawyer-threatened-with-racist.html

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2010/01/07/male-on-male-rape-in-prisons-and-police-cells/

http://www.servamus.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=58

On another note, since the Ministry of Safety and Security no longer exists, and since victims have often sued either the police, its overseeing ministry or both, I contend it is more appropriate to simply refer to "legal action against the government".

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo -- Vancouver, British Columbia -- rgherbert@gmail.com 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

That's all immaterial. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not truth. Most of your sources are not reliable sources; the first three are blogs. As for the last one, most of its content appears to be about prisons in general, not about South Africa in particular, and it doesn't specifically contrast men and women (it is only talking about male prisons) so it can't be used to make any statements about a gender imbalance, and certainly not to make the sort of racially loaded claims you were making in your edit. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this explanation; first off, "dienuwesuidafrika" is a highly partisan blog which cannot count as WP:RS; same is true for "censorbugbear-reports". #3, while still a blog, does at least come from The Mail&Guardian, so would need further scrutiny. I am unfamiliar with servamus.com.; looking at the spelling of "Februarie," I suspect some unofficial Afrikaner-site that claims to represent the old South African Police-force (servamus et servimus).
That being said, if you can indeed find multiple statistics that show a trend rather than isolated events, that could be cited. But read WP:RS first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think staing it in the context of "White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell." as a South Africam, this is an overexagerration of the actual percentage, yes, there shouldn't be 1 person, but I would believ it is less than half a percent of people in prison... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came across this article the section on "Current Trends" and anti-white racism struck me as problematic, first and foremost, with respect to gender in the context of carceral rape. A gendered crime problem (prison rape) is being described in a gender-neutral manner, despite the fact that the source (footnote 15) makes specific reference to male victims. The phenomenon of prison rape as a form of gendered violence against men falls reasonably within the domain of common sense, along the lines of a proposition such as "the moon orbits the earth".

The next problem had to do with race. I noticed that the text of the article specifically avoided mentioning black aggressors. I concede that footnote 15 makes no reference to race, and that specifically describing prison gang rapes as being committed by blacks against whites may be tautological in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism in a black-majority country. Alternative reports of the gang rape cited in footnote 15 not subject to the Orwellian censorship of mainstream South African media made it clear that the victims were white and the attackers were black. This was also reasonably implied by the Afrikaner ethnicity of the victims' names. While I maintain that my initial edition is not inflammatory in mentioning black aggressors as a statement of fact, I have agreed to omit specific reference to "black criminals", replacing it with "violent criminals" instead.

The other problems I noted with the two sentences immediately preceding footnote 15 had to to with efficiency and currency. The idea expressed therein does not warrant two separate sentences, and should be collapsed into one for the sake of efficiency of prose. In addition, the current edition makes reference to a no-longer-existent government ministry, resulting in a dated reference.

Having read the articles on Verifiability and Reliable Sources, I agree that none of my four aforementioned proposed references should be used as citations. I shall commit to compiling academic, peer-reviewed journal articles that describe prison rape in South Africa as a racial hate crime committed by black gangs against white male inmates to properly buttress the claims made in this section.

For the time being, I maintain that revising the current edition to make reference to white South African men (as opposed to white South Africans in general) is a verifiable edit given the mention of gender in the article cited at footnote 15, and that my concerns about efficiency and currency are more than reasonable. Furthermore, the current version contains a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article on rape which states: "For men, rape in prison has been a significant problem. Several studies argue that male prisoner rape might be the most common and least-reported form of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than female rape in the general population."

In addition to maintaining the hyperlink to the article on rape, I shall add a hyperlink to the article on prison rape (thus providing further evidence of carceral rape as a sexist phenomenon) as follows:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

Last but certainly not least, the added qualifier of "spurious" to the description of minor charges/offences refers to the fact that, more often that not, in such cases the allegations either did not warrant incarceration or were unfounded to begin with (e.g. administrative errors regarding traffic infractions, unreasonable presumption of public intoxication, etc). There are numerous such accounts in the mainstream South African press over the past decade, all of which mention male victims but avoid reference to race altogether.

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo -- Vancouver, British Columbia -- rgherbert@gmail.com 05:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

Sebaz86556 you repeatedly undo my edits, particularly this section. You offer no explanation other than calling it "crypto-racist" and "rant". If you can disprove any of the points please do and come and discuss them here. I have placed many verifiable references in there for you. Please be more meticulous and do not blanket erase people's contributions just because you don't like them.

""Whilst apartheid has left lasting scars, white South Africans have had many positive effects on South Africa and continue to do so. When van Riebeeck and his Dutch colonists arrived at the Cape they found a land centuries behind their own in terms of development. The whites brought to southern Africa enormous advances in science, agriculture, culture and medicine, amongst what was theretofore an unexploited wilderness of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist tribes. It is said that the only book Van Riebeeck brought with him to the Cape was the bible, and as such they were the first to spread Christianity too, which is now the dominant religion of all South Africans. He also brought the first vines and along with assistance from Huguenot immigrants, began the now burgeoning South African wine-making industry. They were the founders of large-scale industry and exploitation of the country's vast mineral wealth. Ensuing economic development of the country has made South Africa the wealthiest and most influential country in Africa and the 24th largest economy in the world.[6] Without the white South African, cities such as Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town would simply not exist.[7][8] This is a source of contention today as the ANC regime seeks to rename many cities with African names, despite their being originally European settlements.[9] [10] [11] Furthermore, the state of South Africa would not exist, itself a union of Dutch/Afrikaner republics and British colonies. In general terms there continues to exist a wealth gap between white and non-white South Africans, a legacy of white-domination of the economy. However, there is little reason to believe economic development would have occurred at the same rate if whites had not settled the region, with a commensurate increase in black living standards.[12] Whites, once pictured as the "great white hunter" are now at the vanguard of wildlife conservation, attempting to preserve the country's natural wealth rather than exploit it.

Modern South Africa is a sport-mad country and all the major sports played in the country were white introductions. Rugby, most popular among the white population was adopted by Afrikaner prisoners of war during the Anglo-Boer war. Cricket and football were also British introductions and the latter has been adopted as the favourite sport of non-white South Africans. That South Africa was able to host the 2010 world cup is undoubtedly in large part thanks to the historical and economic legacy of white South Africans.""

Soap already pointed out what the problem with these edits is. It's basically WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, mixed with good amount of not adhering to WP:NPOV. It reeks of the idea that only the white man saved savage Africa from doom and that all of them would be sitting in shit holes if it hadn't been for brain-endowed whites bringing enlightenment. That's the problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the time to tag every problem there is. I will let this stand for about two days; after, that, I will remove any unsourced, unverified, OR, and SYNTH-claims. As a procedural note, it is for you to prove, not for me (or anyone else) to disprove. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned hunter-gatherers and pastoralists (entirely verifiable!), and said nothing about shit-holes. If there is something factually unsound/unverifiable by all means let's get rid of it, but I do object to anyone merely purging material merely because it does not fit with a "politically correct" agenda. That is what seems to be happening here and it is not conducive to creating a sound representation of a people and their history, which is what this article is about. That said, you certainly cannot divorce the economic advancement of South Africa from the presence of its white population who brought so many modern innovations with them (or do we have to pretend the whites did nothing but marginalise blacks for 350 years?). Nor can you refute that the main cities of South Africa were founded, and named by white settlers - multiple references given. I don't know, you just seem to object to any representation of white South Africans which does not fit the "baddie" stereotype. Or am I wrong? Thanks for your time, anyway. Screwbiedooo (talk)

Your personal opinions aren't proof. You have about two days. Go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I had to prune it again. Please refrain from pulling another WP:SYNTH-stunt. Not everyone has the patience to go through every twisted or deliberately mis-quoted random source you throw in here. I will send the final warnings to your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rather tired of watching this edit war. If it is not resolved soon I will simply revert this article to the way it was before this whole mess started. Roger (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Zunaid 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any good edits that got removed as a result of this revert (collateral damage) can be undone on a case-by-case basis. As a white South African myself I found the junk that was here offensive and embarrasing besides being highly biased or simply untrue. Roger (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the "Sport" section to the version I previously edited, which IMHO is an improvement on what was there before. Zunaid 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No deliberate mis-quotes intended. This article is mean to be about one particular people. How can it not be biased, when it is about them only? I am seeing a lot of blanket dismissal from you, with no discussion! You claim untrue statements, well what then? Please correct! This people should be represented for what they did, bad and good, don't you think? White South Africans have directly, or indirectly helped make South Africa the most advanced country in Africa and shaped, rightly or wrongly, the way the society is today, but it simply must not be said must it! Call the thought police...

How can I revert any "good edits" when I have no idea what you object to or believe to be untrue? Everything I write has been purged and frankly I am disappointed with this process and reluctant to contribute any more to what is meant to be an open forum for knowledge. and how can this unqualified censorship be allowed? S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Screwbiedooo - You wouldn't know a good edit if it hit you in the face. A bad edit however is easy to recognise - its any edit by you! Some of the things you say above are indicative that you really don't have a clue what Wikipedia is about: "is meant to be an open forum" and "Who is the chief moderator here" - WP doesn't work like that. Please read and understand WP:NOT before you edit anything further. Roger (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The acrimony has gone on long enough

I've been watching this edit war for two weeks now, as an outside party, and have tried unsuccessfully to get admin attention here. Everyone needs to assume good faith, stop finger-pointing and get to the nuts-and-bolts of the added text, value and shortcomings. I am breaking it down sentence by sentence here. Please address specifics and leave off ad hominem attacks.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The apartheid system left lasting scars, not least an enduring obsession with racial classifications and quotas^[1].

-
+ 

• Nonetheless, white South Africans have made many positive contributions to South Africa.

-
+ 

• When van Riebeeck and his Dutch colonists arrived at the Cape in 1652 they collided with a culture far more ancient and far more primitive than their own.^[2]

-
+ 

• The whites introduced to southern Africa substantial advances in science, agriculture, culture and medicine, in what was theretofore an underexploited wilderness of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist tribes. ^[3]

-
+ 

• Upon constructing the first Church building at the Cape station, Van Riebeeck and his associates established the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa.

-
+ 

• Christianity as a whole was to become the dominant religion across the country. ^[4][5]

-
+ 

• He also brought the first vines and along with assistance from later Huguenot immigrants, began the now burgeoning South African wine-making industry.^[6]

-
+ 

• Whites were the first to engage in large-scale industry and exploitation of the country's vast mineral wealth, particularly gold and diamonds^[7], in unison with plentiful black labour.

-
+ 

• This accelerated the country's economic development, helping to make South Africa today the wealthiest and most influential country in Africa and the 24th largest economy in the world.^[8]

-
+ 

• Having first founded Cape Town they eventually founded other major cities, such as Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Lydenburg, Bloemfontein and Johannesburg along the route of the Great Trek.^[9][10]

-
+ 

• This is a source of contention^{[11][12][13][14]} as the ANC regime renames many cities with Bantu names, despite their being originally European settlements.^[15]

-
+ 

• Furthermore, being itself a union of Boer Republics and British colonies the State of South Africa in its present form, owes its existence to the whites.^[16]

-
+ 

• In general terms there continues to exist a wealth gap between white and non-white South Africans, a legacy of white-domination of the economy, though this now appears to be changing^[17] under the black-preferential policies of the ANC regime.

-
+ 

• The economic contrasts are also borne out in the built environment.

-
+ 

• South African cities typically feature European-style centres and suburbs with a mix of modern and colonial style (frequently Dutch) architecture.

-
+ 

• A mile or two out of town are the townships, typically featuring poor housing and formerly reserved for non-whites.

-
+ 

• There are signs that this pattern is changing too.^[18]

-
+ 

• White contact in Africa does not appear to have negatively impacted the growth of indigenous populations, which continue to outstrip whites^[19].

-
+ 

• This is in stark contrast to the Americas, where native populations dwindled catastrophically under white rule^[20] and have recovered poorly.

-
+ 

• Between 1900 and 1990 the black population grew from 3.5m to 35m.

-
+ 

• Some partly attribute this to better medical care and food production achieved under white rule.^[21]

-
+ 

• Indeed, it is testament to the agricultural traditions of the Afrikaners that they gained the collective title "Boers" (Dutch, meaning farmers), an epithet which endures to this day.

-
+ 

• Modern South Africa is a sport-mad country^[22] and all the major sports played in the country were white introductions.

-
+ 

• Rugby, most popular among the white population was first introduced by the British then later adopted by Afrikaner prisoners of war during the Anglo-Boer war.^[23]

-
+ 

• Cricket and football were also British introductions and the latter has been adopted as the favourite sport of non-white South Africans.^[24]

-
+ 

• South Africa's 1995 victory in the Rugby World Cup was a defining moment for the post-apartheid era and for a moment seemed to unite a divided nation.^[25]

-
+ 

• Building on its excellent (by African standards) transport, hospitality and sporting infrastructure^[26], South Africa gained the favour of the FIFA selection board to host the 2010 World Cup Finals Tournament, the first time ever the tournament has been held on African soil.^[27]

-
+ 

• In any democratic debate however, any white minority grouping in politics is easily outnumbered and their causes, such as preserving traditional city names, are outmanoeuvred.

-
+ 

• Although, the main causes may not be demographic. White emigration due to poor economic conditions and a general sense of disenfranchisement maybe the greatest contributors.^[28]

-
+ 

• The most popular destinations for white South Africans are Australia, New Zealand, UK and USA.

-
+ 

• In some cities of New Zealand 10% of the population is South African-born.

-
+ 

• Whilst it is relatively easy for whites of British or Portuguese origin to emigrate to Europe it has traditionally been much harder for Afrikaners since their lineage goes back many more generations.

-
+ 

• However a new movemement is emerging to allow Afrikaners of proveable Dutch origin the right to emigrate to the Netherlands. ^[29]

-
+ 

• Slogans such as "Kill the Boer" have become widespread and even sung by members of the ANC leadership. ^[30]

-
+ 

• Amongst the most high-profile emigres from South Africa are actors, such as Arnold Vosloo and Charlize Theron, and sportsmen such as Kevin Pietersen and several other members of the England cricket squad.

-
+ 

• These and many others have adopted foreign nationality and cite "affirmative action" legislation as a significant reason for defecting.^[31]

-
+ 

• The other principal reason is the high crime rate, especially murder.^[32][33]

-
+ 

• The readiness with which the white South African abandons his nationality^{[citation needed]} may be a cause for concern.

-
+ 

• Empirical evidence suggests a great many white South Africans are still more affiliated with their parents, grandparents' or even great-grandparents' nationality than the country of their birth.^[34]

-
+ 

• This contrasts with white Americans and white Australians, for example and could be symptomatic of the difficulty South Africa faces in defining its nationality, its "South-African-ness", in the wake of many decades of segregation, the whites' minority status and also the traditional disunity among English and Afrikaans speakers that still exists.

-
+

White South African population declining because of more non-white birth rates? And diseases that kills whites, especially the elderly? Looks like Wikipedia is afraid to talk about the genocide of White South Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.199.123 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White South Africans experience a lower murder rate than Black South Africans. How does this translate into a genocide? - htonl (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White South Africans have a lower population and they tend to stray away from urbanized cities, do some research and google "White South african genocide" and see for yourself. Don't be a "Politically Correct" swine, all genocides and all racism must be taken care of, WHITE OR NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.199.123 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised that the article makes no sense. You're not allowed to edit it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The white population isn't really that much affected by murder (not numerically) and the main reason for their declining numbers are emigration, however their fairly low birth rates are lowering their percentage of the country, as obviously the black people have about 3 times as many children. Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that figure thrown around anecdotally. Just as an FYI, it's about 30 years old. 12 years ago it had decreased to a 1:1.6 ratio, and it was trending sharply downward. I can't find any up to date figures right now. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfertility/RevisedSwartzpaper.PDF --HiltonLange (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me this article seems a hangover from the time of Apartheid. Race is a made-up category, a fiction. There is no such thing as a white race. If this article needs to exist, it should be headed "South Africans of European descent." White South African isn't even a coherent ethnic group in the sense that Afrikaner or English-speaking South African is. Incidentally, where is the "Black South African" wikipedia article? That's because there is no one Black South African identity just as there is no one White South African identity. There is no possibility of moving away from the old racial categories until articles like this one no longer exist.Totorotroll (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So should we move "Black British" to British people of African or African Caribbean Ancestry? And I don't see a "white British" article either?? White South Africans class themselves as "White South Africans", not "South Africans of European ancestry". Also, this title would include mixed race people (who make up 10% of the population!). Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "mixed race" person, because there is no such thing as race. In particular there is no such thing as a "caucasian" race, just as there is no such thing as a "mongoloid" or "negroid" race. These are outdated Victorian classifications which gave rise to eugenics and to Apartheid. There is, however, an ethnic group in South Africa that self-identifies as coloured. However I take your point. If a group of people in a country are calling themselves "White South Africans" so be it.Totorotroll (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant coloured. Coloureds and whites both have european ancestry. So the title of "South Africans of European Ancestry", would have to be "South Africans of complete European ancestry". Likewise, there is no "european" race either. You are assuming that all white originate from Europe, which is false? Your opinions seem philosophical, which would have to be debated with the wider community (of which many will disagree with you). Rather take your opinions to the general topic of "Race". Apartheid is over now, you need to also accept that it's done and the terms are only used for classification, not to "single-people" out or anything stupid like that. When we mean "White" or "Black" it denotes to the pigment of their skin. They can both live in lavish houses or shack-dwellers, but the bottom line is of their appearance? Are you saying "blond" people don't exist? If you say there is no "caucassian" race, then the US government, the supposidly most sophisticated and most powerful entity in the world.. has got it wrong? Apartheid wasn't because of Race, it was because of culture. At the time most black people hunted animals and were nomads, the white settlers obviously didn't mix with them because the grew up differently. I wouldn't start getting piercings with a Goth tomorrow, because they can do what they do, and I have to right to do what I do. I thank that you accept my point. And it has been very interresting that you have brought up this comment. :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "bottom line" as you point out yourself, is self-identification. If someone wants to call themselves a White South African, by all means let them. I have a few issues with what you have written above. I also don't believe all white people originate from Europe. I know that all people originate from Africa. There is no such thing as different races of people. People look different from each other because of their genes. If Apartheid is over, as you say, then there is no longer a need for "classifying" people, as there was under Apartheid. If people want to call themselves "White South Africans" or "Coloureds" or whatever other name they make up, that's up to them. At the end of the day, these people are all South Africans, or better yet, all human beings. We are all the same - things like blonde hair or dark hair are superficial, meaningless differences. Next point - just because the US may be the "most sophisticated and most powerful entity in the world" doesn't mean that everything it does is right. For example, currently a 13 year old is on trial in the US and faces life imprisonment without possibility of parole because the US refuses to sign the UN convention on the rights of the child. I don't believe this is right, just as I don't believe that the conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held are right. If you think that the white settlers didn't mix with the indigenous people, how do you explain the European ancestry of many coloured people? As regards the general topic of "race" I recommend you have a look at pages such as the one on caucasian race where a lot of what I am saying is already there to be found. I also think that you ought to examine the ideas that you are putting across here, which to my eyes are reminiscent of the ideas behind "seperate development." If people stop "growing up differently" as you put it, and start seeing themselves as one group of people as opposed to many different "races" of people, then divided countries like South Africa have a greater chance of being united at some point in the future.Totorotroll (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are all different for a reason, that's why we are different in the first place. I never said the "US" is the most "sophisticated" in the world (I actually stated "supposidly), but it's by far most powerful, and currently each 10 years over 310 million people tell us their "RACE", and when you say that "race" doesn't exist, you are literley disagreeing with all 310 million of them. Same goes for the rest of the census around this world. Apartheid is over, but it doesn't mean we are ALL the same. I like Geography, does that mean ALL south africans must like it? Should they ALL speak the same language? Since we are all the same? Unfortunatley white settlers mixed because of sexual intercourse, not because of real relationships or cultural mixing. I agree that nowadays it seems right to mix with other groups, as in the former years would have seemed naturally odd, but back then still just as prejudice and wrong. I think race has been designated to simply assign people different ways of describing them. Never purposley in the form of actually discriminating against them. When we take a cenus of language, it would be the same as a census on race. I will end this as my last comment to just say that self-classification is down to it at the end, therefore I agree with what you say and thank that you are accepting where this article stands. Very few wikipedians have that will. Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Christiaan Barnard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: 'There are 40,000 mostly white commercial farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, close to 3,363 [17][dead link] farmers and family members have been murdered in thousands of farm attacks, with many being brutally tortured and/or raped. Some victims have been burned with smoothing irons or had boiling water poured down their throats.[18]' is possibly an exaggeration. I have read that these numbers are misleading as they conflate assault with murder and conflate assaults linked with theft with those not. The websites that host these reports are often very sensational and unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.228.143 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the source? The Institute of Security Studies is a highly respected and reliable source of very high quality information. I suspect you might be projecting your own prejudices on this topic. Roger (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"80% used contraception in 1990, while only 79% used it in 1998"

Was it only me who laughed at this major change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.223.30 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... what point are you trying to make? Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a 1% drop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.168.229 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well by all means change it then. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"White South African is a term which refers to people from South Africa who are of European descent" isn't a useful definition. Coloured people often are also of European descent. Totorotroll (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, because although almost all whites are of European decent, not all those of European decent are white :) Thanks Totorotroll - Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "... entirely/exclusively of European descent"? Let's try to avoid copying the convoluted type of language used in White American or if you're feeling brave try reading Definitions of whiteness in the United States. A major problem with "European descent" is that it excludes Middle Easterners who are also clearly "white" in terms of "common sense" - Lebanese, Arabs, Iranians, Jordanians, Turks, Israelis, Afghans, Syrians, etc. Roger (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the number of Lebanese/Syrian etc. are too small to make a difference, so we "ignore" them. Just like there are some white south african muslims, but too pointless to mention. And once again apparently white South Africans have 7% non-white ancestry, which although I dispute is shown in many references. Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. definition of the word black if someone who has ancestors from Africa they are black no matter how light their skin is. That should be added. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer[reply]