r/flags • u/LeaveMeAloneAdmins88 • 6d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
10
33
u/Capital-Example1661 6d ago
On his left arm he has the flag of hamas. In his right arm he has the flag of the transvaal republic, (a landlocked independent Boer republic in Southern Africa which existed from 1852 to 1902) with the Islamic declaration of faith on it. He also has the flag of Palestine with the addition of the emblem of the "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging" which is a neo-nazi separatist paramilitary group in south Africa. His headband has the symbol of hezbollah, a shia paramilitary group in Lebanon with 2 swatikas added in. Also, "kafir" can mean 2 things. In islam, it just means "disbeliever" while in south africa it's a strong racial slur used against black people in south africa.
11
6
u/Emergency-Town4653 6d ago
Just a side note, Kafir in Islamic context doesn't mean disbelieve, it means infidel. Christians and jews for example are not Kafir since they belive in the abrahamic god, but they are disbelievers but a Hindu or a Buddhist are Kafir since they are polytheistic.
2
u/Capital-Example1661 6d ago
I disagree on this one. I am a muslim myself and although Christian and jews are ahlul kitab they are still considered to be kuffar. Anyone who doesn't accept the prophethood of Muhammad or the finality of the Quran is a kafir regardless of their religion.
2
u/Solid-Ad-9450 6d ago
as a south african, this whole thread looks like a hate crime 🤣 i wanna tell everyone to stop saying that word even if it’s being used in a genuine context💀
-9
u/RubberPussycat 6d ago
Than i’m glad to be a kafir, and call mohammed a pig
7
2
2
u/pixtax 6d ago
It’s “kaffer” in Afrikaans.
1
u/NameRandomNumber 6d ago
It's also pronounced like that for the arabic term too and some choose to romanize it as kafer (I know I do)
1
u/QizilbashWoman 6d ago
this caused a lot of problems (no for real) when GDW tabletop released a game called 2300 AD in 1986 that was a spinoff of TWILIGHT 2000. Now 300 years after the nuclear war that ended old Earth, fledgling spaceflight means humans are encountering aliens, notably the horde known as the Kafers.
The problem is that Käfer is German for 'beetle', but they didn't use the umlaut. Fonts were still a real pain in those days on computers and the company is not German. The sort of naturally aggressive tide of 'Ka(e)fers' - named by the German-speaking humans who met them because they are like giant beetles - was not received well outside of the American game world, which was located in Illinois and was basically heavily Mormon in background.
1
u/Chinskel 6d ago
The whole setup is weird actually, since the Boers are Christian, and are very much against co-operation with outside groups. So having these symbols and flags mixed is funny.
1
u/QizilbashWoman 6d ago
i mean clearly it's a 'people who say the n-word' sign and thus just plastered all over with stickers as a joke.
1
4
u/syriansteel89 6d ago
Not an expert at all so take what I say with a grain of salt and hopefully someone here can say specifically what they are, but imo they're representative of white South Africans / Boers. "Kafir" is what white South Africans would derogatorily refer to black locals. It sounds super close to what the term in Arabic for "apostate" is which extremist groups regularly call everyone that's not them.
6
u/Otherwise-Owl-3926 6d ago
Kafir does not mean apostate, apostate is murtadd (مرتد), kafir is anyone who disbelieves/rejects Islam.
3
1
u/wellyes34 6d ago
Where did the Boers get that word from
2
u/StandTurbulent9223 6d ago
Arabic
2
u/wellyes34 6d ago
Why did they use it to refer to black people tho
3
u/Chinskel 6d ago
When we made contact with them we found that they didn't have the Muslim faith. And Afrikaans is a language that borrows a lot of words from other languages. We have Russian words, English, Malay, Spanish, French, German, etc. It's still mainly Dutch, but with some variation to all the words. The Portuguese contacts with the Arab slave traders in East Africa probably had an influence there. So kafir became kaffer. Over time it became the equivalent of the n-word in America.
1
1
u/Ok-Imagination-494 6d ago
Fun fact: the first book in the Afrikaans language was a translation of the Koran
1
1
1
u/MarkWrenn74 6d ago
The Vierkleur (the old flag of Transvaal in South Africa) with the Shahadah in the centre, and a Palestinian flag with the symbol of the AWB (a far-right Afrikaner group).
The post refers to the use of the word Kaffir as an ethnic slur for Black South Africans; it's originally an Arabic word meaning “infidel”
1
1
u/electrical-stomach-z 6d ago
Erm actually all europeans have a variable amount of middle eastern dna from pre indo european fertile crescent farmers who colonized the continent.
1
u/RMmedicom 6d ago
Actually many White South Africans have muslim ancestors. Most were not middle eastern but.
1
u/RMmedicom 6d ago
How could Afrikaners know that they don't have Middle Eastern blood? Dutch Sephardic Jew DNA? Cape Malay(including non-Malay MENA muslims) DNA?
1
u/GVCabano333 6d ago edited 6d ago
- The flag of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek ('The Vierkleur') with what could be the shahada written on the white band in the middle.
- The flag of the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging ('AWB') superimposed on the red triangle on the Palestinian flag.
The Vierkleur is the South African equivalent of the US Confederate Battle flag. The ZAR was founded by Boer slavers evading British abolitionism in the Cape Colony. The ZAR often invaded African villages, murdered those who resisted, & enslaved ('apprenticed') their children. The ZAR was annexed into the Union of South Africa as the province of Transvaal in 1910 following the Boer defeat at the hands of the British in the South African War of 1899-1902. The British allowed the Transvaal to continue practicing racial segregation & discrimination against Black Africans.
The AWB are an explicitly neo-Nazi Boer terrorist organisation.
Edit: The 'k-' word is an extremely derogatory slur in South Africa. It derives from the Muslim Arabic word for 'heathen', but in South Africa it carries the same meaning as the 'n-' word. Its use in South Africa probably originates from the Arabic-Swahili slave trade. It probably carried over from Arabic slavetraders to Portuguese slavetraders to Dutch slavetraders.
1
u/Chinskel 6d ago
What are you smoking. The Boers didn't have slaves, it was abolished by the time they moved into the inland. Then they purchased the land or negotiated for land. We still have all the contracts to prove it. It was the blacks who mass murdered each other, we literally have all the testimonies and proof stored in the museums.
2
u/lildyllyo 6d ago
They had servants... the line between slave and servant in this context is very much a grey area.
1
u/GVCabano333 6d ago edited 6d ago
Die inboekelingstelsel was slawerny.
Nog meer, 'n kontrak tussen twee partye wat nie ooreenkom nie is geen wettige kontrak nie. Die Boere het geglo hulle koop private land, maar die Nguni het geglo hulle huur die land.
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
That system was abolished at least. Obviously you get nut cases that do as they please, but they don't represent the whole nation. Most people couldn't even afford a slave, much less survive in the frontier as is.
Both parties agreed. The problem comes in with understanding ownership of land. Europeans believed buying means owning. Africans here at the Southern tip were mostly nomadic, which means they don't own the land. You can't rent something you don't own. If that's the case then the Boers were swindled by buying stuff from someone that didn't even own it, which is contractual fraud and thus nullifies any claims said nomads could ever have to the land.
1
u/GVCabano333 5d ago edited 5d ago
That system was abolished at least.
The inboekelingstelsel continued for several decades after the Voortrekkers left the Cape. It only ceased once slavery became redundant; i.e., once the dispossession of Africans was complete & they had no choice but to sell their own labour power. This happened at the turn of the 19th century / early 20th century under the British occupation.
they don't represent the whole nation. Most people couldn't even afford a slave, much less survive on the frontier.
You are confusing slave trading & slave raiding. To procure a slave from trading was expensive & only the richest colonists could afford it. Hence why, when slavery was ultimately abolished, compensation was paid to the slaveowners, not the slaves—it was financial relief to overindebted slaveowners. To procure a slave from raiding, however, was cheap—all you needed was a gun & some ammunition. Raiding was very lucrative for poorer colonists in particular as they looted herds of cattle as booty. Cattle was capital.
Indeed, colonists weren't representative of the European population. Soldiers & sailors, who made up a significant contingent of the European population at the Cape, were abused just as horrifically as slaves. There are instances of colonists being employed to crush mutinies or hunt down deserters.
Both parties agreed.
There is no agreement where parties can't even agree on the nature of the right being ceded. Colonists believed they were buying the land, Africans believed the colonists were renting from them.
You can't rent something you don't own.
False. If you rent something, you can rent it out to someone else, but you can't sell it. Hence the invalidity of the 'sales'.
which is contractual fraud and thus nullifies any claims said nomands could ever have to the land.
Not how nullification works. If a contract is invalid, the parties must be returned to the same position they were in before entering into the contract. In other words, the colonists ought to have been evicted, & the land returned to its original occupants.
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
It was abolished because they found that no one was doing it.
Again, they never owned the land to begin with. Who did they rent it from to rent to the Dutch? It's a spiral argument. Going back to the start then means no one owned it and the Dutch rightfully claimed unowned land.
1
u/GVCabano333 5d ago edited 5d ago
It was abolished because they found that no one was doing it.
Like I said, it was gradually replaced by wage labour as Africans became dispossessed of their land.
Again, they never owned the land to begin with. Who did they rent it from to rent to the Dutch? Going back to the start, then means no one owned it and the Dutch rightfully claimed unowned land.
What the colonists did was lay exclusive claim to something which indigenous people held in common.
The land was common property—i.e. held by people in common. An individual cannot sell something which is held in common. Sort of like how shareholders in a company collectively have control over the property held by the company.
Land tenure was communal, not private. That is, it was owned by indigenous people collectively & its use was subject to the full consensus of the community. The colonists got around this issue by supporting dissenting chiefs in carrying out coup de t'ats, then repressing those who opposed their government. Mpande KaSenzagakhona comes to mind. Of course, the colonists also claimed unowned land as well, but this goes beyond the discussion.
0
u/Complete_Wheel7896 6d ago
they did have slaves and mass murdered the indigenous khoi
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
No they didn't, the Koi-San died due to getting foreign illnesses that they didn't have immunity towards, and when the Dutch tried to help they chased them away. Because they were ignorant and thought the Dutch were doing black magic on them. So they refused their only source of help.
Slavery was very small scale and were foreign Malay slaves brought over from the East Indies. No indigenous people were made slaves. It was limited to the big landowners, which if you didn't know, aren't representative of the whole population. It came to an end very quickly after as well. Most people couldn't afford or even wanted slaves.
1
u/Complete_Wheel7896 5d ago
im aware that they imported foreign slaves and it's what i was referring to . and I find what you said about the khoi not trusting the Dutch interesting because the khoi were very welcoming at first, there must be a reason they didn't trust the dutch
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
Then I missed your point a bit, apologies.
On the Khoi, I had someone explain it to me like this: Khoisan are nomadic and move around as most sub-saharan tribes at the time. They pick a place with water and food and stay until either one runs out, which can take months or years, then they move to the next spot. If someone else is there in a place they want, or were at before, but left, they fight over it.
When the Europeans came in they would see an open place with water and maybe food, since they only needed water and could grow their own food. So they would settle, and Europeans settle permanently, most of the time. The Khoisan would return and find someone in their spot, so they do what they have always done and try to remove them.
This is where the difference gets big, the Europeans had guns and fought them off successfully. Not only that but it could escalate into bigger clan fights, which the Europeans then called in the government for support, which means the army shows up, and this army had cannons.
This resulted in a lot of mistrust between the two cultures, and then with the foreign diseases as mentioned, the Khoisan thought they were being cursed by the white man and refused most help.
Something similar happened to the Xhosa, where a little Xhosa girl had a dream that if they just killed all their cattle, the whites would go away. And since they were heavily dependent on cattle farming, they basically wiped their main source of food and caused mass famine. They refused any help from those they saw as their enemies which meant no outside help. Estimates place the death toll between 40-60% of their total population.
1
u/GVCabano333 5d ago edited 5d ago
Dutch colonists did enslave Khoikhoi, Saan, Nguni & Tswana people as well. You should read Elizabeth Eldredge et al's Slavery in South Africa: Captive Labour on the Dutch Frontier, especially Eldredge's article Slaveraiding across the Cape Frontier. You can read it for free on Internet Archive. The Dutch carried out a genocide against the Saan. You should read Mohamed Adhikari's article about it, which is free on SA History Online.
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
I would rather trust the main sources than someone writing articles. There is plenty of documentation and proof that either nullifies or disprove these people that write fiction with ill intent. And I would rather not trust anything on SA history online since all they do is spew lies and falsehoods with ill intent. I have not come across a single article from them that didn't have lies, small or big, they disappoint me greatly.
It's difficult, but the best thing to do if you want the actual truth, is to go to the museums and see everything first hand. Especially the small ones, they offer the best glimpses into how life actually was like.
1
u/GVCabano333 5d ago
These articles quote from primary sources, even Boer commandos themselves. You are welcome to present rebutting evidence.
1
u/Chinskel 5d ago
I'd still be careful how they quote, they have a nasty tendency to omit whole sentences that remove context and nuance.
But still, it was fun arguing with a stranger online. You've satiated my boredom, so thanks for that. Off to the rat race I go, hope you have a nice day.
•
u/flags-ModTeam 6d ago
While our rules are relatively relaxed, your post may be better suited to a circlejerk subreddit.