Talk:Afrikaner Calvinism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Relevance[edit]

The vast majority of this article is not about Afrikaner Calvinism per se, but about the History of South Africa. Should we merge most of this over to there? -kwertii

The History of South Africa is a good article. However, in my opinion it would be difficult to merge this one into it because it approaches the history of South Africa as a theological issue - or at least as a psychologically religious issue. Taking that approach, certain things are emphasized here that probably should not be emphasized in a general article about the history of South Africa: the English Enlightenment, the Doppers, the Broederbund and the religious motivations behind Apartheid and its dismantlement. Because of that approach, this article is a special interest topic - it explores the intimate ties between the history of the people and the form of religion that arose in that context. It is, in my opinion at least, an unusual story and a unique theological development. The specific historical details seem to explain some the unique features of their theological approach...

...On the other hand, the History of South Africa article did not exist when the Afrikaner Calvinism article was begun. I think that the historical background is covered better there than here, which makes it possible to shorten this article considerably to eliminate overlap, and to maybe to concentrate more elaborately on the special topic. A rewrite might be in order. Mkmcconn

Bias?[edit]

This whole article smacks of plagiarism and bias. Citations and neutral language would go a long way in alleviating my concerns. Otherwise, the whole thing belongs in the delete bin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.196.121 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some issues[edit]

This article should NOT be merged with the Afrikaner History article. The reasons expressed above are correct in my view.

As to the article:

The section of the article dealing with history is flawed in places. The Great Trek went north, not east. The attacking parties were the Matabele (renegade Zulus led by Mzilikatse)and very specifically NOT Xhosa. The Great Trek was precisely in part to get AWAY from the incessant wars with the Xhosa.

The phrase "...attacked by the Zulu, when trade relations failed" is one of the greater euphemisms I have ever heard. The Trekkers had signed an arrangement with the Zulu King, Dingane, and had actually delivered on it. Dingane, for reasons of his own that have yet to be satisfactorily explained, had the Trekker delegation seized and summarily put to death (some say impaled) upon their return to his capital. Leaving out or disguising such crucial events of a formative nature, does not help the reader of history to understand.

Furthermore, the article represents the first time ever that I have seen a connection drawn betwen the "Dopper" church (a distinct minority church in South Africa) and the Broederbond. By far the dominating church among Afrikaners is, and has been for a very long time, the Dutch Reformed Church, which flows fairly seamlessly into the (very English) Presbyterian Church and they share/exchange ministers.Afrikaners, when in an English speaking community, will typically go to the Presbyterian Church. This may be seen very clearly in Canada, where there are several Afrikaans ministers in the Presbyterian Church and services are even conducted in Afrikaans.

The article muses that "International pressures mounted, increasingly isolating the Afrikaners and identifying their policies with the worst kind of godless oppression; but this was a long time in producing a crisis of conscience." White South Africans were simply doing their best to protect themselves against the unspeakable horrors that were rolling inexorably southwards down the length of Africa in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Country after country was becoming independent and lapsing into extreme nightmares like the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya. In many cases this happened with anti-religious Soviet support. The Simba horrors in the Congo were examples of this, where priests and nuns were specifically targeted for the worst atrocities.

In the early 1960s the barbaric Poqo attacks happened in the Cape Province. Clearly, for Afrikaners, the horror had arrived. The West was viewed as running away and leaving the Afrikaner to his own devices, while the West, now "sitting pretty", attempted to lecture the devoutly anti-colonialist Afrikaner after having been the very 19th century colonialists who had caused the violence in Africa in the first place. Hence the resentment against Harold MacMillan's speech on the "Winds of Change" (blowing through Africa). In 1834 the British government had also proposed evacuating its settlers and "leaving the Boers to make their own best future as best they could with the natives". History was repeating itself.

Some critics had skeletons in their own cupboards. Canada gave their own indigenous First Nations population the right to vote bare days before their Prime Minister launched a verbal attack on South Africa for lack of democractic rights in South Africa. At the time, Afrikaners read that behaviour as posturing by an Anglophone country for international political benefit at the UN. In hindsight, they may have been right. At the time the USA had massive social problems of its own in the racial domain and was apparently judging South Africa by the excesses of US history. It was easy to correct such wrongs in the USA when one was the majority.

Lastly, I need to see the evidence of indigenous people being taken as slaves under Dutch authority at the Cape in the 1600s. My best information is that slaves were brought from Bengale (what is now Bangla Desh), from Batavia (Indonesia) and black slaves were purchased from the Portuguese, but that the taking of locals as slaves was expressly forbidden. After all, the Dutch East India Company was a business, not an instrument of the church! I'm happy to be corrected, but I need to see evidence.

Nevertheless, the article is an interesting theoretical attempt to try and show an interrelationship between Afrikaner history, Calvinism, the Enlightenment and Apartheid. Whether the theory can be proved, is another matter.

The resistance to change in South Africa through the 1960-1990 period was quite pragmatic and had far more to do with the ineffective Western countering of the Soviet intervention in the collapse of colonialism in "Black Africa", and the associated incessant daily horrors, than with any religious concepts. When that Soviet threat disappeared, the SA government negotiated with the ANC, who now had lost its greatest sponsor.

24.81.64.198 05:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Harry[reply]

I hope that Harry will return to this article and oversee its improvement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Red Menace" rhetoric was inaccurate 40 years ago and only provides evidence of the paranoia that impells so many of the worlds dictatorships. Most Sub-Saharan Africans are deeply religious and culturally disinclined towards communism and the majority of African regimes deeply distrusted the Soviet Union. A cursory examination of their histories and policies is all that is needed to confirm this. As for being entitled to deny a people's rights because you're a minority group, dictatorships always have excuses for their repression. The maintenance of order/prevention of chaos argument is probably the single most common excuse and has been used by Saddam Hussein, Mao, Stalin, Mobutu etc, etc. As to slavery, the VOC (Dutch East India Company) was not allowed to carry out slave raiding in the Cape because of a binding agreement with the Dutch West India Company. They did carry out slave raids in the territory to the east and in other parts of Africa (such as modern day Ghana and Angola). There are plenty of sources to show that slaves were captured in both Asia and Africa by the VOC (eg http://www.museums.org.za/iziko/slavery/resources_bib.html) Doc Meroe 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's revisionism I think. Communism became a very important influence in Africa and in particular Southern Africa. The Soviet bloc, China and North Korea became the most important backers of self-described "liberation" movements in present-day Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique not to mention the ANC itself. By 1975 avowedly Marxist regimes had been established right on SA/SWA's borders in Angola and Mozambique, with Angola in particular witnessing an enormous Soviet, Cuban and East German military build-up. Indeed it was one of the "hot wars" that made up the Cold War. Thus the "red manace" was very real, and only belittled by those sympathetic to the communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then write about it! Most of what you speak about here, should instead be in sections in the article, properly cited with sources and example claimants. I propose section names like Criticism, Proponents arguments etc, etc.. The article can still be NPOV and balanced (a few most important ideals of WP) if all important argumentations stemming from the outside world are verified by citations, and all formulations in the article as objective as possible; example pattern: "Mr X have characterised Y as an evil fundibulism". The topic is controversial, then there must be much argumentation from outside wikipedia that is fit for this article. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

factual corrections needed[edit]

I've flagged the second paragraph of the section entitled "Laager strategy", as being in need of factual correction. It is inconsistent with a better treatment of the same issues, in the article, Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boer vs Afrikaner: who says?[edit]

The article has been edited to say that there is a difference between "boer calvinism" and "afrikaner calvinism". What does this mean? Is that really the best way to describe the differences? Who does that? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't suppose it would help it I let y'all in on the fact that I'm a Boer, an Afrikaner, and a Calvinist. I don't see a difference. Invmog (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, perhaps a distinction is made by comparing what the Boers of the Boer Republic Era's form of Calvinism was like, and what the mainstream Calvinism of today's Afrikaners are like, but I agree that if this could be discussed and/or expounded upon, it would be helpful as to prevent confusion. Invmog (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think this was just someone trying to distinguish between calvinism in the Cape and Transvaal. It seems to be the edit by some supporter of the discredited two-nations-theory. Yes, that's right, there is some people that believe that Boers and Afrikaners are two different nations. --197.229.244.51 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Calvinist?[edit]

the formulations "calvinist party"/"anti-calvinist party" in the section about the broederbond (in connection with verwoerd) require explanation. one could read here that verwoerd was adherent of another confession than the dutch reformed church, which he was certainly not. so why "anti-calvinist"? i would be very surprised if verwoerd stood for a push back of religion from politics.--Severino (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greatly helpful if this could be explained or expanded to avoid causing confusion as Verwoerd is already seen as a very controversial figure and so to describe him as "anti-Calvinist" as well should be well verified before being allowed to remain in the article. Invmog (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using 'their diety' vs. using 'God'[edit]

For some reason someone thinks it's a good idea to completely reroute this entire article by replacing all references made to the Almighty Creator with a 'their deity.' Please discuss this here before foisting POV secular beliefs on the Afrikaner Calvinism page. This is ridiculous as in all the other pages God is referred to as 'God.' Invmog (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Afrikaner Calvinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afrikaner_Calvinism&oldid=1198140584"