Can you comment on this study? For the layman it seems contradictory? Genuine question link.springer.com/article/10.1...

We’re pissed because our pluralist society has fought for centuries to be free of “doose” (boxes); and the richness of this place comes from the interlocking cultural streams that create the mengelmoes. Now 49/59 (?) people want their doose to be THE box. No man that’s not lekker.

But we are such a “mengelmoes” (mixed stew) in SA, both DNA mix & cultural, that “Afrikaner” is a broad brush open to multiple interpretations. Much of it very progressive, impossible to box within a “race”, or a profession such as farmer (“Boer”), or music/dance/humour/literature/religion.

Those behind the National Party (came into power in 1948) & Broederbond (brother fraternity) sought to fence off Afrikaans as solely “owned” by conservative, Christian, white’s as their mother tongue & political counter to the British colony. And this gave rise to the notion of “Afrikaner”.

Yep. Complicated & contested. About 8 million people speak Afrikaans as their 1st language, of which about 40% can be considered “white”. Afrikaans was a “kitchen Dutch” mixed with some Malay and spoken by slaves/servants in the Cape colony. Originally it was written in Arabic script.

Back here in SA we’re particularly interested in how “Afrikaner” was defined (given who speaks Afrikaans), what “farms” these persons came from, and just a little pissed at the maligning of our country.

It’s a big ask. So why would anyone think it has merit?