Truth vs ARTHUR KEMP lies (Afrikaner identity)

[SwordandCompass]

Technology beyond the frontiers of History.


The role of the Internet in reshaping peoples' place in time


Inez Stephney


University of the Witwatersrand

Introduction
In this paper I argue that although there is a substantial amount of literature on the creation of an Afrikaner identity which demonstrates the importance of the ideological use of History in South Africa in the pre-apartheid and apartheid periods this identity has been reworked in the late 20th and 21st centuries and is therefore worthy of more study. Scholars have demonstrated how significant a role History played in the history of the National Party and how it continued to sustain nationalist values after 1948. The manipulation of History in the service of remaking Afrikaner identities is still potentially a potent issue.

One of the important aspects of the transition in South Africa since the 1994 Elections, is the fact that many white people feel pushed into a fringe group. Their perceptions of the African-led government, affirmative action, land restitution, attacks on white farmers, integrated education and escalating crime are all blamed on the present government and confirms predictions of the "swart gevaar", literally black terror. Swart gevaar is the paranoid belief that blacks would swamp the cities which would lead to anarchy, generated by the National Party and some of its predecessors, going back to at least the 1920s. This paper deals with a fringe group of such people who call themselves "Boers" who feel that they have been sold out by "Afrikaners".

Why Afrikaners or Boers?

Adopting "Boers" as a name is apparently quite bizarre in the light of South African history. As will be shown, the distinction between "Boers" and "Afrikaners" is made to emphasise that the former feel that their whole way of life is under attack, and that even their past is no longer exclusive. In South Africa the Dutch speaking farmers in the nineteenth century were called "boers", (literally "farmers"). In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries "boers" became a derogatory term which had its origin also in the Anglo-Boer Wars. The British characterised "boers" as primitive and irrational. Later, in the course of resistance to apartheid opponents used it to denote Afrikaans speakers in general as well as the government and police. It had connotations of backwardness, bigotry and even plain idiocy and brutality.

"Afrikaner" on the other hand, was used by Afrikaans speakers themselves to denote a special nation and Africander (of Africa) thereby claiming to be natives of Africa even in the 1920s. It was linked to the development of Afrikaner nationalism, pride in the emerging Afrikaans language, cultural institutions and history in a bid to take political and economic power away from the English speaking elite. (See Moodie, O'Meara, Hofmeyr).

Why then should the fringe groups under discussion in this paper reject "Afrikaner" with its positive associations in favour of "Boer" with its negative ones? Perhaps the answer lies in an appreciation of the symbolic role played by the Anglo-Boer War.

The Anglo-Boer War was a war fought between 1899 and 1902 when Paul Kruger, the President of the ZAR (Zuid Afrikaanse Republic), feeling threatened by extensive British propaganda against his government, which was unsympathetic to the economic aspirations of the "uitlanders" (literally "outsiders" used to describe residents of British origin), and by increased British troops in the British-controlled Cape and Natal, declared war on the British. Kruger was supported by the other Boer Republic of the OFS (Orange Free State) and combined Boer forces invaded Natal and the Northern Cape in 1899. As Worden has pointed out, one of the most surprising features of the war was that "almost half a million troops of one of the most powerful industrial nations on earth were bogged down by the commandos and guerrilla forces of what the British had belittled as backward and incompetent Boer rural states". It was a very destructive war with massive British casualties, but also over 30 000 farmsteads in the ZAR, OFS and the Northern Cape were destroyed and 26 000 Boer women and children died in the concentration camps set up as part of the British strategy to cut Boer guerrillas off from their supply lines.

For a long time the suffering of the Anglo-Boer War played a prominent role in Afrikaner Nationalist ideology, directed to mobilising Afrikaners against their historical enemies and in driving for a completely independent Republic.

Academic and political interventions in the last two decades have highlighted the suffering of black people, who also participated in the Anglo-Boer War and died in their thousands in concentration camps too. Under the leadership of the ANC, in the centenary year of the war, the trend of revealing the extent of black suffering has reached a climax and President Mbeki himself has proclaimed that the Anglo-Boer War was more accurately a "South African War". The "Boers" are reacting to what they see as an appropriation of "their" War and "their" suffering.

Their response must be seen against another transition, namely, affirmative action and integrated education, while their very language is regarded as being under threat, because Afrikaans is no longer one of two official languages, but one of eleven. Even some respectable Afrikaner academics have been upset by the inclusive gestures of Mbeki and while acknowledging that black people did play a role in the fighting of the Anglo-Boer War, have stressed that this was mostly in the capacity of "outriders" (scouts), messengers, transport drivers , and that the Afrikaners still suffered the most. (Speech made at an opening of the Anglo-Boer exhibit by Professor F.S. Pretorius at the Rand Afrikaanse University (RAU) in July 1999. Assertive claims about the Afrikaner's role in history and their unique suffering and debates about school history are worrying to Afrikaners because they minimise the great epics of Afrikaner history and they tend to represent them as less heroic than they had always thought . History has become once again a way of reclaiming the Afrikaner's right to be in South Africa and to be recognised as a unique and superior "nation". Some older avenues closed down. So where is this History presented?#nosmileys

[SwordandCompass]

Afrikaners or "Boers" and cyber-identity via the Internet.

In the early twentieth century Afrikaner Nationalist ideology was disseminated through re-enactments, pageants, film, popular newspapers and magazines. Later in school textbooks and the classroom. (See Hofmeyr, O'Meara, Thompson, Witz). The battle is now being waged increasingly on the Internet. The Internet is being used to rewrite "Boer" history and to redefine identities. The Internet allows for a whole new way of making global connections among extremist groups, as well as for writing a new history. It gives these extremist groups a platform on which they can write their history. The Internet helps this group of "Boers" to rewrite and mobilise ideas, which is much harder to do through conventional methods.

The Internet allows these groups to escape censure as would be the case if they espoused their ideas in conventional media, such as the newspapers, radio and television. The Internet is also a cheaper medium and is not constrained by the intervention of an editor or owner of a radio or television station or newspaper. The fact that it is unregulated and potentially anonymous, means that it is a powerful tool for the dissemination and distribution of information. With a personal computer and modem, individuals and groups are able to disseminate their message via the Internet. The Internet also allows them to reach a wider, global audience.

Connecting to a wider audience is also not too difficult, because these groups can utilise Internet café's, universities and schools and need not necessarily own a personal computer. As Martin Hall in his paper Mixed Messages, points out, although Africa has the least developed information infrastructure in the world, South Africa is an exception. Hall points out that in 1998 South Africa had 95% of the continent's hosts and Egypt a further 2%. Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe (one of the fastest growing sectors on the continent) share a further 1% of hosts, while the remaining 2% is shared between nineteen countries, all with less than 500 hosts each. The contrast is very great when comparing South Africa to the rest of the continent and, one should consider that plans are to narrow the gap between rural and urban connectivity by means of low cost, high speed wireless networks, instead of fixed lines would take time and cost a great deal more money to implement. Initially the venture will require a lot of capital to set up the infrastructure, but once this is done it will be much cheaper to operate.

Hall points out the contradictions inherent in the Internet. He noted that not, only does the Internet offer an opportunity for mass participation, but also one which excludes and is exclusive. However, one of the more important features of the Internet noted by Martin Hall is its central feature of collapsing both time and distance. This means that not only are messages exchanged and sent with greater speed than most conventional media, but also are not impeded by borders or distances.

The fact that people are now able (with a computer and a modem), to access, send, receive and communicate with people (via electronic mail- e-mail, Internet Chat Relay-IRC on a global scale in real time and at less cost, what previously took weeks, justifies the description of the Internet as the "information super highway". The fact that Internet access is not only readily available to millions of people, at schools, universities, Internet cafes, companies, and in homes, suggests many possibilities.

The Internet allows the "Boers" to rewrite their identity by means of being able to hide and resurface at will. The authors are also not obliged to make a full disclosure of their identity or even a truthful one. It also allows people or groups to join or to give support without any fear of censure or danger. This is different from conventional media which has strict boundaries and is regulated.

Furthermore, the "Boers" use the Internet to pose as being "anti-establishment", (as opposed to conventional media which is suspect) for example. They are able to reject the constituted government of the day as not serving their best interests. They can question the legitimacy of the government as well as the role it plays in their lives. The fact that one of the major concerns of the "Boers" is affirmative action, is an example of how they perceive the government not working in their best interests. This is a continuation of an older theme of "Boers" as persecuted and victimised. (See above, notably, the Anglo-Boer War). Mainstream Afrikaner nationalism used the suffering theme to mobilise Afrikaans speakers against perceived English domination and "traitorous" Afrikaner politicians in the twentieth century. Suffering was represented as part of a Divine Plan for the Afrikaner nation in which they would ultimately be vindicated. Some extremist groups during the Second World War in South Africa exploited the story of Afrikaner suffering to show that the Afrikaners never compromised.

This is what Moodie called the "sacred saga" of Afrikanerdom, which highlighted moments of conflict with Afrikaners being outnumbered, exploited, threatened and murdered by African groups or British governments, yet always wining through in the end. I argue that the Sacred Saga has resurfaced and that the idea of the "Boer" as victim-hero has been reclaimed.

The Boers in the present.

"I will be back to fight to fight for South Africa. I want to thank all my friends, especially the Tswana and Zulu who love me". Right. Sunday Times, 02, 04, 2000.

The above statement was given to reporters, by E. Terre'blanche before entering jail to serve a one year sentence for seriously assaulting a black man and causing brain-damage. Terre'blanche is the leader of the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweeging (AWB), an extremist right-wing group dedicated to the promotion of the interests of Afrikaner whites, or Boers as they call themselves on the Internet.

"Boer" history has long been a point of contention between progressives and conservatives and its history has long tried to present the "Boers" as independent, concerned paternalists of the South African "natives" as they called them . In response to the end of apartheid there has been a shift in ideology from confident paternalist to straight white supremacy of a people in power, to one of victimhood and oppression, who have been robbed of their independence, homeland and now even their language.

The need to place the "Boers" in the shifting parameters of historical discourse as either the victor or the victim is a part of an older tradition used to define the identity of the Afrikaners. This has been shown in the work of Dunbar Moodie who closely studied the impact that Calvinism had on the development of Afrikaner identity as well as the political thoughts of the Afrikaner ideologues, suggesting that it changes according to different intellectual influences and political experiences.

The article, entitled, Who are the Boers? The truth at last to which I now turn for a detailed analysis, is a 13 page booklet written by Arthur Kemp in defence of the Boers. It attempts to give a brief history of the Boers and in this way to establish a historically-based justification for the Boers continued concern for their culture and identity. Kemp attempts to portray a people who are robbed even in defeat, not only of their homeland (South Africa) their livelihood (affirmative action), but also of their culture (transmitted through the Afrikaans language) and their identity. The term "Afrikaners" no longer means, a group of whites who spoke Afrikaans, it also embraces other peoples, who were classified under apartheid as coloureds, blacks and Indians who speak Afrikaans. So the Afrikaners had to coin a new term to refer to this group exclusively, because Afrikaner was no longer acceptable. Hence the term "boer" was used to denote the white Afrikaans speakers who were agitating for their own homeland, the Volkstaat .

For the "boers" Afrikaners now meant the group who had betrayed them and had sold out to the African National Congress (ANC) and Afrikanses denoted a multicultural, and non-exclusivist description of people who spoke Afrikaans.

In line with the renewed Boer identity, leaders such as F.W. de Klerk (the last apartheid era State President) who was responsible for revoking the ban on the ANC and other opposition movements and for releasing Nelson Mandela and Constand Viljoen (the leader of the Freedom Front), are branded as traitors to the 'Boer Cause' and aspirations had to be discarded. In their place people such as Eugene Terre'blanche (leader of the AWB) and Bosshoff (leader of Orania ) are favoured by this minority because they seem to hold to the ideals espoused by the "boers".

I now propose to analyse the concepts of nation, race and culture promoted by certain white supremacist groups in a particular domain on the Internet. The article below is pasted on the web-sites of StormFront and Freedom 2000. StormFront is a white supremacist organisation whose domain site is situated in the United States of America. It appeared on the Internet in 1995 and acted as a host-site for Freedom 2000. Freedom 2000 is a South African based web-site and disseminated the ideas and ideology of a particular group of Afrikaners, or "Boers" as they call themselves.

[SwordandCompass]

WHO ARE THE BOERS?
THE TRUTH AT LAST

The question asked in the title of the article, namely, "Who are the Boers?", followed by the statement, "The truth at last", already sets up the idea that whatever else that has been written or said about "Boers" was either false or a misrepresentation of them. The sense of the words "at last" intimates that it has been a hard and long struggle which has finally been resolved and echoes a popular slogan of the ANC in the mid 1990s, "Free at Last" .

Dedicated to the 27,000 Boer women and children who died in the Great Boer Holocaust of 1900-1902.

The above dedication that follows the title immediately sets up the intention of the piece. This article is written to make clear the long history of the "Boers" and that it was purchased at the expense of the life-seeds of the nation, namely the women and children who died in the Anglo-Boer War. The figure of the women and children who died has also been increased by 1000 (See Nigel Worden above p. 2) and this is significant because it emphasises a need to stress that magnitude of the tragedy. The use of the term "Boer Holocaust" is significant in that it not only immediately sets up a comparison between the holocaust of the Second World War, but also that it is indicative of a considerable shift in "Boer" thinking. Whereas before there was a sense that "Boers" had to lay claim as it were to what was "uniquely Boer", now there is a move to identify with the rest of the world. Indeed, as will be shown later in this paper, history is used, (or more accurately past events) as a form of legitimating the aspirations of the "Boers". It is almost as if what had gone before, although in this case, it is what had happened afterwards, lends validity as well as precedent for what has happened. The fact that "Boers" now lay claim to a shared experience with the suffering of the Jews, during the period of the Third Reich somehow, to the Boers, lends them credence and is especially striking in view of the anti-Semitism which has encouraged much prior Afrikaner nationalism. It is also interesting to note that the "Boers" have chosen not to go the Holocaust Denial route, as some other groups have done.

THE cries of the dying children have been scattered by time, but the message of sacrifice and struggle which they carried can still be heard, the sound of distant drumming, the march of feet, the legions of the dead marching on. They beckon on those left behind: find the strength to carry on, for we died not in vain.

The emphasis placed on dying children echoes the dedication above. It once more argues the idea held that the "Boer" nation itself was under attack. Note that further on the distinction is made that it was 23,000 children and 4,000 women who died, by emphasising the greater loss as being children, their case for arguing that the "Boer nation" had been attacked is strengthened. The fact that this is set in the form of a poem, points to the fact that the "Boers" have not ceased to mourn not only the loss of the Anglo-Boer War, but also the loss of family, friends and neighbours.

From setting the tone where the emphasis is placed on suffering, martyrdom and victimhood, the paper then moves on to detail the ideas held about "culture, race and nationhood".

THIS work has in essence to do with the difference between culture, race and nation-hood. Too often, either through ignorance, indifference or maliciousness, the distinctions between these three concepts are blurred, obscuring the real drivers of history and preventing an understanding of the true causes of events.

Kemp, the author of many articles and books pasted on the web-sites of StormFront and Freedom 2000, here sets out the gist of his intended argument. He argues that the true "drivers of history" are culture, race and nationhood. He seeks to draw attention to his study by attempting to place it in the realm of dispassionate scientific analysis different from the one done in "ignorance, indifference and maliciousness". He proposes to illuminate the "true causes of events" implicitly suggested as being culture, race and nationhood.

[SwordandCompass]

A race can be defined as a group of individuals who share broadly the same common genetic characteristics. In this way, broadly speaking, the peoples of Europe share a common genetic inheritance which can be seen through their physical appearance .

It is telling that Kemp bases his definition of race upon "genetic characteristics". This he translates into "physical appearance. The "genetic characteristics" is also linked to the broader use of "blood" as explanatory concept for nationalism, hence only those of "pure white blood" are acceptable.

The same applies broadly speaking, to the other main racial groups around the world: the Black (Negroid); the Mongolian (Asian) and so on. This common genetic heritage defines not only the different races' physical appearance, but also (and more controversially), their intelligence and cognitive abilities .

Kemp argues that genetic characteristics influences much more than the physical appearance of the "different races". He is arguing along the lines of what was believed and studied in the 1930s. Saul Dubow in his book, Scientific Racism tackles this issue. For example, there were various psychological studies which might have influenced the way people thought about African intelligence and behaviour. Dubow points to the new techniques of mental testing carried out in the twentieth century and to the debates about how educable Africans really were. Dubow talks about how apartheid ideologues in the twentieth century looked for means to prove scientifically black intellectual inferiority, but it proved much more difficult. But, even Verwoerd came to think in the 1930s that there was "no demonstrable differences in the intelligence of blacks and whites. Dubow also suggests that some of the aspects of the mental testing movement were incompatible with Christian National ideology. Genetic intelligence ideas however, does not have much import anymore in conventional circles, but it seems as if Kemp is arguing that it is possible to determine "intelligence and cognitive abilities" by means of genetic heritage.

Nationhood can be defined as the feeling of unity experienced by a group of individuals, and not necessarily racially defined. It is possible for a collection of individuals from different races to claim a common nationhood, depending on how that nation defines itself .

Benedict Anderson and others have explored the idea of how a nation is constituted in the minds of its members. Anderson in Imagin'ed Communities explores the idea of History's role in making a nation. This notion has deep roots, and has not lost its appeal or power, even today. Note the use of History now by the present regime to bring about unity. An example of this is President Thabo Mbeki's speeches in which he makes numerous references to the past. In his inaugural speech he said "I am the child of Nongqawuse" .

This is liked to the concept of culture: for example, although the peoples of Europe share more or less a common genetic heritage, no-one in their right mind will claim that Irish culture is identical to that of, say, Austria. The fact remains that cultures differ, even amongst virtually identical racial groupings.

It is this difference in culture which forms the basis of this booklet .It is important to note that culture is transferable. An example: if a German born baby is taken at birth and raised in a Scottish household, that child will, culturally speaking, be a Scotsman first, and then a White person second. Being German will not even rate as a third place .

It is interesting to note that Kemp is following "invented" nation logic. (See B. Anderson) . While at the same time the racial category "white' is again emphasised as important. It appears that for Kemp, while certain characteristics are inherent genetically to certain races, the "white" race somehow appears exempt, by virtue of being white. Thus, the negative inheritance ascribed to "other races who are not white" due to genetic heritage, appears not to touch the "white race" except in a positive light. (See above p. 9).

In this way a nation known as Boers has come into existence in South Africa. The Boers are a collection of peoples originating in Europe who have coalesced into a culturally, even ideologically, uniform group which has set them apart from others in Africa- including Whites who have not made the cultural shift.

While Kemp believes that the "Boers" are a cultural and ideologically "uniform group" scholars such as Dan O'Meara have shown that Afrikaans speakers were nothing of the sort and that Afrikaner nationalist ideology was created in an attempt to heal numerous rifts. Even during the height of apartheid many Afrikaners disagreed with the policies of the Nationalist-led government, for example, Beyers Naude, a Dominee in the Dutch Reform Church who questioned the moral rightness of apartheid. Some historians and many ordinary people also questioned the apartheid policies, these included conscientious objectors. It must also be pointed out that many English-speaking South Africans also did not support the Regime and Kemp acknowledges this with his sly dig at them when he notes that they were "Whites who have not made the cultural shift".

The Dutch, German, French, Belgian, Danish, English and Irish surnames one sees amongst this group testifies to the transferability of culture- and also to the unique blending process which has given rise to one of the most hardy indigenous peoples of Southern Africa .

Kemp argues as if there is and can be a "pure race" in South Africa. He assumes that the surnames he has mentioned as belonging to the above groups are an assurance of unbroken "white" ancestry. It appears that he has forgotten the category "Coloured" established with the Population Registration Act (1950). Coloured" was a category in which people of mixed white, black and Indian and Malay decent (to mention a few) was placed because the government could not establish a clear-cut category. People were then separated physically with the Group Areas Act of 1950 .

[SwordandCompass]

1. Introduction
There is a conception held by the outside world- and indeed by many within South Africa- that all the White inhabitants of South Africa are a uniform group– that they are all united and until very recently, all wished to dominate other peoples under the banner of Apartheid
.
This is a misconception, a factual inaccuracy, perpetuated by those who had either absolute political power in South Africa as their aim, or who wished to see the only indigenous White people of Southern Africa, the Boers, be taken up and destroyed in a large whole .

Kemp with the above two paragraphs attempt to disassociate the "Boers" from any responsibility for the colonial past. In this manner the "Boers" are able to disavow any part in the former apartheid regime.

There are Whites in South Africa who are not part of the colonial heritage; who are not part of the "white South Africans" who until recently were regarded as the polecats of the world. This group of people is known as the Boers .

Again the suggestion is made, feeding back to the Anglo-Boer War, that the "Boers" are under threat and face the possibility of extinction, "the Boers, to be taken up and destroyed in a large whole".

2. Definitions
According to the Oxford Dictionary, "indigenous" is an adjective meaning "native, belonging naturally to the soil", (from the Latin indigena).
An indigenous people is therefore a people occupying a territory whose roots can be shown to have come from that particular territory, and not some other part of the globe. This is a crucial definition to bear in mind when the Whites of South Africa are analysed.
Although the outside world has now for many years wrongly regarded the Whites of South Africa as a single ethnic group, there are in fact three distinct ethnic groupings within the White population:
(i) the British South Africans,
(ii) the Afrikaners, and
(iii) the Boers.
The distinction between these three ethnic groupings, and particularly the last two (the "Afrikaners" and the "Boers") is of crucial importance in determining the Boers rights as an indigenous people .

The above paragraph gives a brief definition of the word "indigenous" and is part of a fuller explanation of who the "three distinct ethnic groupings within the white population" were. The choice and use of the word "indigenous" as definition is further reason for using "Boer" because it too has ties to the land, meaning farmer. A brief history is given which highlights the major events for the above three groups (see above). From this a historically based argument is made in a bid to justify the "Boers" claims to being indigenous and "natives" to South Africa.


Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated the importance of History for the "Boers; in explaining their origins and their identity. It has shown how "Boers" manipulated History and used it and the Internet to reshape their identity. The nature of the Internet is such that it allows for these groups to rewrite their History and to reinvent their identity. What is striking is the "Boers" use of words and concepts that not so long ago had negative connotations of barbarism, tribalism etc., for example, "ethnic" and "Boer" itself. Now they are making a fundamentally different argument from that of old, which was, "we are the harbingers of civilisation, peace etc.", to the new one where they regard themselves as "indigenous" denoted by their "ethnic identity", namely, "Boer". They have gone back on the idea of Afrikaner as nation and have moved away from the divine shaping and theology of nationhood as explained by Moodie. A counter to nation building ideology, is that the "Boers" still use the language of betrayal and victimisation, which now justifies ethnic separatism and African roots. It is not about "Africa" though, but a claim to the land - land as identity marker. They are the "boers" - of the land, related to the land, but also an exclusive group. There are no black Boers, unlike using Afrikaans, a better marker because not only whites speak the Afrikaans language.

The Internet also allows the "Boers" to disseminate their ideas to a wider audience. They have appropriated the language of multiculturalism, the struggle etc. and have in this way identified with other victims of genocide and terror. The Anglo-Boer War is supposed to give them the same moral standing as is granted to other victims of the holocaust, apartheid etc. Logic and scientific presentation make it convincing. The fact that the Internet is unregulated and accessible raises interesting and dangerous possibilities especially because people are able to reinvent their whole History on the Internet without any sort of check being placed on them. Because it is the Internet, people are more ready to believe that it is true, because of its status as a "scientific tool".

Finally, the move of the "Boers" to reshape their identity and history, must be seen against the background of the changes listed above, especially affirmative action (which is regarded as reversed discrimination), and integrated education, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this paper. The "threats" which the Boers see to their livelihood, independence and perhaps even existence cannot be easily dismissed. This is especially true, because of the enormous changes that have occurred in South Africa over the last few years. Changes such as the transition from apartheid to democracy, from an essentially single party state (only whites had the vote despite the Tri-Cameral Parliament ) to a multi-party democracy and the uncertainty of economic prospects and high unemployment. South Africa is a relatively new democracy which had been brought about by great change and the divisions of the past cannot be swept aside so easily.
Bibliography
  

[SwordandCompass]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.fl.ulaval.ca/celat/histoire.memoire/histoire/cape1/stephney.htm

Anderson, Benedict. R. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso, 1991.

Dubow, S. Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Furlong, P. J. Between Crown and Swastika: The Impact of the Radical Right on the Afrikaner Nationalist Movement in the Fascist Era, South Africa: Witwatersrand University Press, 1991.

Hall, M. Mixed Messages, A paper delivered at the International Symposium on Globalization and Social Sciences in Africa, 14-18 September 1998, University of the Witwatersrand: Johannesburg.

Hamilton, C. Terrific Majesty: The Powers of Shaka Zulu and the Limits of Historical Invention, South Africa: David Philip Publishers, 1998.

Kemp, A. Who Are The Boers? The Truth At Last, home.global.co.za/`rundle/p1.htm

Kros, C. Trusting to the Process: Reflections on the Flaws in the Negotiating of the History Curriculum in South Africa, Johannesburg: Cambridge University Press/ History Workshop, 1996.

Lipstadt, D.E. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, New York: The Free Press, 1993.

Mabin, A. "Comprehensive segregation: the origins of the Group Areas Act and its planning apparatus". Journal of Southern African Studies, 18, 1992, pp. 405-29.

Moodie, D.T. The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid and the Afrikaner Civil Religion, Berkeley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978 (1980).

Oikarinen, J. IRC Intro- Introduction to IRC for people using Windows. www.mirc.co.za.ircintro.html. 4th January 1988.

O'Meara, D. Volkskapitalisme: Class, Capital and Ideology in the Development of Afrikaner Nationalism 1934-1948, Braamfontein, South Africa: Ravan Press, 1983.

Peires, J.B. The Dead Will Arise: Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa Cattle Killing Movement of 1856-7, Johannesburg: Ravan Press, 1989.
Shain, M. The Roots of Anti-Semitism in South Africa, South Africa: Witwatersrand University Press, 1994.

Thompson, L.M. The Political Mythology of Apartheid, New Haven" Yale University Press, 1985.

Walker, C. (ed.) Women and Gender in Southern Africa to 1945, Cape Town: David Philip & London: James Currey, 1990.

Warwick, P. Black People and the South African War, 1899-1902, London: Longman Johannesburg: Ravan, 1983.

Witz, L. Commemorations and Conflicts in the Production of South Africa's National Pasts: The 1952 Jan Van Riebeech Tercentenary Festival, South Africa: University of Cape Town: PhD Thesis, 1997.

Worden, N. The Making of Modern South Africa: Conquest, Segregation and Apartheid, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.