humans, tend to differentiate ourselves to the extent that we focus
on differences rather than our commonalities.
There are many reasons
for this, like identity, superiority and survival of our culture,
religion and ideologies. However, differences are more often
perceived than real. Stripped of race, religion, culture, wealth and
gender, we are all pretty much the same.
History and circumstances
have proved this time and time again. When stripped naked with no
possessions we tend to see the world in a different light.
sociological structures tend to herd us into the differential corral,
where we sometimes defend the indefensible. From a South African
standpoint I would like to examine what it was that drove Africans
and Europeans to have these differences.
history reminds us that competing groups, Europeans and Africans,
stood on the battlefield of a piece of land we now call South Africa.
Those Europeans were mainly from Dutch, English and French origins.
They brought with them some superior technologies, chiefly, "the
Other than their weaponry, there was not much to
differentiate them. They both had a culture, they both had a
sociological structure, they both wanted to survive and they both
wanted to live their lives in freedom.
Many Europeans had established
good relationships with the African tribes. if it were not for "the
gun" Europeans may not have survived. The indigenous people of
this piece of land, the Koi and Bushmen were over run by numbers.
Africans were competing tribes. They had different languages,
cultural structures, beliefs and traditions, and they were also
competing for this piece of land. The superiority of weaponry at that
stage made little difference, but it would, later on, after "the
big guns" were drawn.
diamonds were discovered in a place we now call Kimberley. This
created little differences between Europeans and Africans because
they joined together in digging the biggest man made hole on the
This discovery however, drew the attention of the "big
gun", Britain, and more specifically the monarchy, who were
persuaded that the diamonds in Kimberley were "easy pickings".
So they sent their avaricious emissaries (a euphemism for spies) to
observe and report back on what was going on.
As the hole got bigger
and the diamonds kept coming, so the greedy eyes of the monarchy got
the monarchy established a well-drilled machine to siphon off the
wealth of the diamonds in their usual enigmatic way. In the meantime,
the Africans and Europeans got on pretty well, learning about each
other and working pretty hard to survive.
for the monarchy and unfortunately for the Europeans and Africans,
Gold was discovered not many years later in a place that we now call
This lead to the biggest "gold rush" the
world has seen. So the monarchy in England sent more emissaries to
South Africa, to ply their trade.
Organise, bully and siphon off as
much of the wealth as possible.
they met stern resistance from an obstinate old President of the Boer
Republic, Paul Kruger. In the meantime, the Africans were becoming
increasingly marginalised by this sophisticated game and gun playing.
There was this display of troops neatly dressed, organised and well
armed who would bully their way around and create a frightful display
of power. It mist have amused many Africans.
the monarchy in Britain decided to "beat up" on these poor
pathetic boers and sent a "paltry" 10,000 troops to South
Needless to say, the Europeans (who were now called "boers",
even though they were made up of both European and African people)
considered this less of a challenge, and sent those troops packing
with their tails between their legs.
Incensed the monarchy sent 30,
000 troops, with the same result.
The monarchy realising that the
wealth to be obtained determined the cost, sent 450, 000 troops to
The same result would have followed, except the
monarchy's troops had been ordered to use a "scorched earth"
policy, and destroy all the homes, fields and cattle of any "boers"
or Africans. Many "boer" and African women and children
would die as a result of this.
the "boers" and Africans succumbed to this onslaught. and
the monarchy was able to defeat them. The "big guns" had
won the battle, but not the war. The monarchy was still faced with
how to subdue these people.
devised a cunning, but not altogether new, plot . "If you can
organise these people ("boers" and Africans) into opposing
camps, then you can defeat them quite easily by supporting one side,
when it is convenient, or the other."
they arranged something that they called the "Union of South
Africa" in 1910. When this was instituted they made sure that
there would be an increased marginalisation of Africans, and at their
insistence they devised the "Land Act of 1913". What this
did was deprive Africans of their right to own land in certain
Fortunately, one young character called Sol Plaaitjies saw
through this and arranged a congress of African people in
Bloemfontein (of all places) which was latterly called the African
National Congress (ANC).
divisive tactic worked well for the monarchy for many, many years,
while they plundered the wealth of South Africa.
At their behest the
table turned, and they recognised the emergence of an immaculate
African leader called Nelson Mandela.
He was the ideal spiritual and
iconic leader and through this "window" South Africa could
be changed (these "boers" were becoming petulant and
influential because they realised they had a wealth of store under
Mr Mandela was installed as president, a new plan was set in motion.
"There are no African leaders who can match Mandela, so let's
set, together with our European allies, and devise a new plan. We
will corrupt the ANC to the extent that they will lose all
We will offer their leaders riches they could not have
dreamed of, and then we will watch as their democracy is destroyed
and then we will step in and offer a solution to their problem"(That
solution? An economic recolonisation of South Africa.
Africa is one of the richest countries in the world, but it's all
under our feet. Minerals. The problem is we are so busy squabbling
about what's above ground that we don't recognise the power we have
below the ground.
The above-ground activities, politically speaking,
is determined by others, not from South Africa. We conform to the
“Queensbury Rules”, in order to win a fight that someone else
wrote the rules for.
need to establish our uniqueness as South Africans, and fight for
each other, rather than against each other, no matter our colour,
gender, culture, religion and creed.
we going to allow others to steal it again, or are we going to
recognise our sovereignty? This game by the monarchy of Britain has
been going on for a long, long time.
Remember that the monarchy
established the Union of South Africa, they brought down the
Nationalist government, they are going to bring down the ANC. Who
will be left standing? Only the monarchy of Britain.
on my fellow South Africans. Time to join hands and say, "No
We must stand together; black, white, asian, in-between
and even if you're an alien from outer space.
Time to stand up
against this mass manipulation, that assumes that you have no voice.
Speak out against this madness.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.