If there is anything worse than a liar, it's a clever liar. You are
certainly clever, though I doubt you're intelligent.
Look up the word "eristic", it's your trademark. You are always far more
interested in appearing to win an argument, than in getting any closer to
reality through debate. You're a pedant, but let's give credit where it is
due... you're a persistent terrier pedant, obviously with a lot of time on
your hands to yap and snap at the heels of your so-called opponents.
In the past, certain Afrikaners (especially bureaucrats and pedantic
academics) could impose their idea of the truth from on high, backed by the
power of the State. Now such people can only yap and whine and post
portentous judgments. Some things have improved in SA!
I personally think it's a massive tragedy that the Afrikaans language and
Afrikaner culture as a whole has such a tenuous future. People like you,
far from contributing to Afrikanerdom's strength and endurance, are
ultimately responsible for its demise. You have nothing to do with the
independent boere of the 19th century who were prepared to fight the largest
power in the world. You have everything to do with the little people
(especially but not only Afrikaners) who hid behind the power of the state
in the 20th century and exploited the masses, all the time claiming you were
bringing civilization to them.
This is goodbye, Leendert. I leave it to you to have the last word. You're
good at that.
Leendert van Oostrum wrote in message ...
>
> Adam wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is correct. But let's not be naive here. It was not just
>> rhetoric. It was also real, bonecrushing discrimination.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Jan Smuts may (or
>> may not) have approved of screwing the blacks in SA, but he didn't just
>> pretend at election time. Between elections he acted as though he meant
>> every word. Even people like Hofmeyr, who despised the idea of
>> discrimination, sacrificed their principles in fact.
>
>
> Please don't tell those starry-eyed weepers who tell us "If only the Nats
> did not come to power"!
>
>>
>> Where Verwoerd was different from anyone before him (or any politician
>> before him) was that he changed the rhetoric by emphasising another
> rhetoric
>> altogether i.e. eiesoortige ontwikkeling. Like JJ Rousseau he was quite
>> prepared to "force them to be free" if blacks didn't have the good sense to
>> accept what he claimed to be in their best interests.
>
> That, actually, was in the spirit of the times. It was at the hight of
> modernety (Toffler's 2nd wave). It was commonly assumed that "experts" knew
> best.
>
> Doctors knew best what was good for your health (e.g. advising women not to
> breastfeed) Teachers knew best what was good for children. Colonial powers
> new best what was good for colonies. Brahmin knew what was best for Pariah
> (still do, in fact!)
>
>> Verwoerd found a way
>> for the white to have his cake and eat it... to pretend to help the black,
>
> Are you saying there was nothing other than pretense?
>
>> but to make sure he could not achieve his own aspirations...
>
>
> Please be specific about black aspirations that were thwarted (not your
> assumptions about such aspirations) and the ways in which Verwoerd "made
> sure" that they could not be achieved.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see. You are asserting that Verwoerd did not need to pay attention to
>>> voter perceptions?
>>
>>
>> SA was unique in that the govt really only had to pay attention to one
> voter
>> perception, "is this govt the best for the interests of the white man"?
>> Aside from that Verwoerd was very free to do what he wanted
>
>
> Precisely! In other words, Verwoerd was _not_ free to ignore what you choose
> to term "the best interests of the white man".
>
>>>> Nothing you can say, Leenhart, will ever change the fact that blacks
>>>> experienced one of the most repressive and exploitative regimes in
> history
>>>> under the National Party.
>>>
>>> I lose interest in discussions when the phrase "Nothing you say... will
>> ever
>>> change..." is brought in.
>>
>>
>> Sorry to lose your interest. In fact my statement doesn't interest me
>> either... it is so obvious that I was bored just making it. Apologies, I
>> thought you might contest the fact. I underestimated you
>
>
> Very well, then. Please support, with some evidence, the statement that you
> find so boring.
>
> And yes. You underestimate your readers.
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I totally agree with this. If you think I'm conducting a campaign to
>> spank and berate the old Nat govts, you're mistaken.
>
>
> What, precisely, is your campaign about then?
>
>>
>>
>> Well, if I misunderstood, I apologize. Did you not mean to say, then, that
>> Verwoerd wanted money for humanitarian and moral reasons to plough into
>> Bantu education, but that he was frustrated by the opposition?
>
> I did not mean to, nor did I say so.
>
>> Did you not
>> mean to say that the opposition (apparently thinking ahead of its time to
>> the neo-conservative in the UK and US in the 1980s) made it difficult for
>> Verwoerd to achieve his idealistic and unselfish goals by arguing for
>> keeping taxes down and letting the free market rule? If I got it wrong,
> I'm
>> sorry.
>
> I did not mean to say so, and neither did I.
>
>> Would appreciate your clarification.
>
>
> Start by reading what I wrote in the first place. And refrain from reading
> into my words what you would like me to say. That is very bad
> historiography.
>
>
>>> More to the point, though: If we insist on applying our own moral
>> judgements
>>> to our ancestors, neglecting the context of their own times, we must
> assume
>>> that our own descendants will do that to us - that, after all, is the
>>> example we set. It is, furthermore, wise to assume that their ideas of
>>> morality will differ substantially from our own, and that they will have
>>> much to reproach us for.
>>>
>>> Consider that - and cringe.
>>
>>
>> No, that does not make me cringe. I totally agree. Let us be very clear
>> that they were people like us (we came from them). Let us be clear that
>> many of us are as "guilty" as them of taking advantage of discrimination or
>> at least living comfortably with it)... this includes me and probably you
>> too Leendert, if you're over 30). Let us be clear that they were acting as
>> the majority of whites at that time throughout the world would have acted
> in
>> their situation.
>>
>> BUT let us not extrapolate from that that the way they acted was anything
> to
>> be proud of. If we try to do that, our descendants will simply laugh at
> us.
>
> Unless the alternative to their actions was worse than what they did. The
> alternative to what was done was _not_ a 1980's free market system. The
> alternative was African Socialism and Ujamaa.
>
>> I detect in many of your posts, Leendert, that transition from trying to
>> understand without judging with extraneous criteria, to justifying the
> past.
>
>
> What I detect in your writings, David, is no sign at all of trying to
> understand without judging with extraneous criteria. Your use of 1980's
> ideas of free market economies being a case in point.
>
> Furthermore: There is no such thing as "justifying" "the past". It cannot be
> done. All we can do is to attempt to understand why people did particular
> things, and not others.
>
> In your case, you choose to ascribe to people some motives while excluding
> others. This, of course, is correct. The problem is that you give no reasons
> for ascribing some motives while excluding others.
>
> I have, therefore, no reason to accept your judgement.
>
>> If I'm wrong, I apologize once again, but part of the blame lies with you
>> and the thin-skinned prickly way you express your opinions.
>
>
> I get thin skinned and prickly when people ascribe to me statements I did
> not make. You did that, and did so again in this post.
>
>>
>> Gloudina has already intimated that my criticisms of her are not acceptable
>> here if expressed in English. She has the right to do so. If you feel the
>> same way, I promise not to trouble (or bore, or amuse) you! Let me know!
>
>
> I do not feel se same way Gloudina does. However, I would also prefer not to
> be bored any longer. Neither am I interested in having any further words put
> in my mouth.
>
> Kind regards, LeeLeendert:
Hallo mijn naam is jolanda rees en ik heb familie in graaff reinet en
kaapstad en ben daarom erg geintresseerd in alles wat ik op het net kan
vinden over deze twee plaatsen in zuid afrika.
Ik spreek een beetje zuid afrikaans dus alle reacties zijn altijd welkom.
Als iemand leuke home pages weet van deze twee plaatsen of leuke info over
zuid afrika/cape town/graaff reinet laat mij het even weten.
In het hedendaags Nederlands is «bos» o.m een synoniem van
«woud», maar ik vermoed dat er in ons taalgebied vroeger ook
een totaal andere betekenis van het woord «bos(ch)» geweest
moet zijn. Een betekenis die overeenkomt met het Franse
«bosse»: buil, knobbel, uitwas of oneffenheid (van
terrein); en met een van de Engelse betekenissen van
«boss»: knop, bult, knobbel, ronde verhevenheid.
Misschien namen de Afrikaanders dat woord (met die andere
betekenis) indertijd mee naar het zuidelijk halfrond ?
Welke betekenis(sen) heeft/had het woord «bos» in het
Afrikaans ?
Wat moet ik me voorstellen bij «die stelle bosse kerels...»
van Bobbejaan ?
------------------------------------------
Ik zit hier in een culturele nieuwsgroep en 'k besluit
daarom met
«Een oudt Liedeken» naar Jean Richepin
Tsagh eens een cnape stervensgeern
een valsche, vreede, boose deern.
Sei totten cnape : «hael mi terstont
dijn moeders herte voor minen hont.»
Hi ging en sloeg sin moeder doot
en vluchtte mettet herte root.
Maar twijl hi loopt, stuict oppen steen
en valt, -- dat erme hert meteen.
Al botsen op de harde baan,
ving plots dat hert te spreken aan;
Al weenen vinghet te spreken aan :
«Och, jonghe, hebs di seer gedaan ?»
> Ek dink dis moontlik vir 'n
> Albertan om in 'n wit laer te bly, net soos die Afrikaners
> meestal in 'n wit laer in SA gebly het, before the deluge
> of 1994.
In antwoord op Leendert en Gloudina se "gesprek" van 12 deser die volgende:
(Ek wens ek het geweet waar op die aarbol julle tans verkeer. Kommunikasie
word aansienlik vergemaklik as jy weet aan watter kant van die teleskoop die
ander ou staan en wat sy gesigshoek aangaande dinge is.)
Gloudina verwys na die pot-heuning wat sy in sg. swart-onderwys kon verdien.
In antwoord hier op kan ek net reageer met : "Dream on, old girl!" Niemand
in die onderwys - wit of swart -
het ooit daardie pot goud gesien nie! Ek weet, want ek was daar! Daar was
verskille in wit en swart salarisse. Dit gee ek toe. Maar die stelsel het
hom grootliks daartoe geleen in die sin dat meeste wit onderwysers
sogenaamde "gesekondeerde" amptenare was wat deur die RSA regering betaal
is. Die "tuislande" het 'n mate van onafhanklikheid gehad en kon grootliks
hulle eie kurrikula en diensvoorwaardes saamstel. By swart kollegas het
byvoordele dikwels ontbreek - pensioen, medies, ens. Daarmee het ek empatie.
Wat die leerplanne betref, kan ek vermeld dat in die meeste gevalle
(Bophutatswana, ens), leerplanne noukeurig saamgestel was deur 'n instituut
vir onderwys wat aan 'n universiteit gesetel het. In sommige gevalle was
hierdie institute grootliks deur veral Britse dosente beman. 'n Redelike
mens moet toegee dat die "uitlander-probleem" (daar is niks nuut nie, né!)
dikwels sake bemoeilik het.
Ons moes bv. voorgeskrewe boeke deur Tolstoy behandel! Insgelyks was daar in
daardie jare
'n "book embargo" teen S.A. Ons moes dikwels 6 maande wag vir die boeke om
via
Botswana ingesmokkel te word. Daar was ook ander wesentlike didaktiese
probleme.
Beurse is aan studente toegeken om hulle in die onderwys te bekwaam. Baie
van hulle wat geen belang by die onderwys gehad het nie, het dié geleentheid
aangegryp in 'n poging om 'n kwalifikasie te bekom. Sodra die kursus
afgehandel was, het hulle beter opsies in die privaatsektor aanvaar.
Sodoende het die onderwys as geheel onsettend skade gely.
Vir my het die jare in swart onderwys net mooi herinneringe. As beroep leen
die
onderwys hom tot verhoudinge tussen mense. Ek was aan 'n onderwyskollege
verbonde en beskik oor die nodige kwalifikasies. Ek weet van min "pasella
jobs" in hierdie betrokke sektor.
Voorts : In hierdie sektor is ek soos 'n "witman" behandel ( dit staan u vry
om die metaforiek
disjunk, ajunk of konjunk te interpreteer!). Ek het ook by groot wit skole
(glaspaleise)
skoolgehou en daar het ek my dikwels vir die megalomaniese, diktatoriale,
kleingeestige en voorskriftelike "verhoudingstruktuur" vervies. Dit is die
eufemisme van die eeu! DAAR was 'n meneer 'n meneer en voor 'n doktor moes
jy kniel. Vra maar enige kollega wat dit beteken
om "ingeroep" te word. Die doodsteek van blanke onderwys lê daar in dat
hulle net die
B.Sc. ouens bevorder het. Ek het 'n getuigskrif in my besit wat so vol
spelfoute is dat ek te skaam was om dit ooit te gebruik! As jy in blanke
onderwys nie 'n sportonderwyser was
en die skoolbus kon bestuur nie, was jy niks!
Aangaande die kwalifikasies van swart kollegas: Aanvanklik het hulle 'n PTC
(Primary
Teachers Cert.) ontvang. Hiervoor was die toelatingsvereistes eers St.6
gevolg deur die twee jaar PTC. Later was St. 8 die toelatingsvereiste. Toe
Matriek. Toe word die PTC 'n PTD.
Cert. word vervang deur Diploma. Toe volg die STD (Secondary Teachers
Diploma).
Baie universiteite het dit goed gedink om hulle B-grade vierjarige kursusse
te maak. Hierdie oënskynlike ambivalensie in kwalifikasies is egter nie net
in Suid-Afrika ondervind nie.
Gaan kyk maar op die Net hoe gaan dit op ander plekke.
Baie van ons wat hierdie paadjie geloop het, sal die volgende dinge goed
onthou:
Rybeurte ( in ons geval 180 km per dag) om geld te spaar.
Warm vriendskappe met die "ander" deel van ons bevolking
Die besef dat jy "iets" bygedra het tot vooruitgang.
Die aangename "herontmoetings" as jy 'n oud-leerling iewers raakloop -
baie van hulle
vandag Prinsipale van hulle eie skole.
Die "lekker" werk. Ek wonder wie van die ou garde "wit" onderwyser sou
bereid
wees om "onder" 'n swart Rektor of prinsipaal te werk. Wat ons gedoen
het, was nie net
om den brode nie.
Ten slotte : onderwysposte bestaan nie meer in Suid-Afrika nie. Dit is nou
as jy nie bereid is om in 'n "Beheerraadspossie" vir R1,500.00 per maand te
gaan slawe-arbeid verrig nie.
sjoe ek lees al 'n hele rukkie met onbeskryflike belangstelling die doen en
late en sieninge van mede-Afrikaners/landgenote...maar alle standpunte (ek
respekteer geniune elkeen van die baie verskillende standpunte)is
eensydig..elkeen hetsy die van ANC of van Afrikaner,Boer of Brit, Reg of
Verkeerd of wat ook al verteenwoordig dit wat daardie individu voel of dink
....met ander woorde dit is net nog 'n standpunt/denke nie noodwendig DIE
STANDPUNT nie
ek het dringende behoefte aan die BALANSSTAAT van alle denke, (dit wat vir
EN teen) betreffende elkeen van elke vraagstuk/e in ons komplekse maar
DIERBARE land. dit wat ek vra is die onmoontlike...die rede weet ek
nie...almal soek DIE ANTWOORD op alle probleme...wat ek glo nie moontlik is
nie........rede: ons is te metropolitiaans/kosmpolitiaans.....of wat ook
al....dalk is daar te veel base vir die probleme/ashope..dalk wil te veel
mense base(hane) wees en daarom is daar dan te min ashope.....hoe sal ek
weet........
dalk is ons besig om ons mission op die aarde te mis...hoekom is ons hier
...om Afrikaans/ons land te red of ons siele...wens ek het DIE antwoord
geweet......
al wat ek vanaand weet ...dit is nadat ek deur 'n helse smeltkroes in my
lewe is ...en in hierdie proses het ek besef dat almal in hierdie FANTASIESE
land die veldblommetjies (dit wat eintlik saak maak) onder ons voete
vertrap terwyl ons die patiotiese stryd stry......en ek weet dat ons eendag
sal moet rekenskap daarvan sal moet gee
so ek pleit vanaand moenie die stryd van dit waarin jy glo prysgee
nie..............maar moet ook nie die veldblommetjies wat jy van God
pasella gekry stukkend trap nie.................
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
RSS
