Afrikaner versus Afrikaner
An open letter by a group of Afrikaners rejecting the United States’ decision to give white South Africans priority for refugee status has caused a backlash from another group of Afrikaners.
The open letter was signed by forty prominent intellectuals and academics, including Professor Piet Crouwcamp, journalist Max du Preez, and Professor Pierre de Vos.
The letter, directed at United States President Donald Trump, rejects the portrayals of Afrikaners as victims of racial persecution in post-apartheid South Africa.
They argue that their community’s story is being misused and selectively presented in ways that reinforce victimhood rather than acknowledge complexity.
The letter urges that Afrikaners should not be framed simply as oppressed in the new South Africa, and that doing so can deepen divisions rather than promote healing.
The authors emphasised they speak not in their personal capacities alone but as part of a broader Afrikaner voice that says, “Not in our name”.
They rejected the narrative that the entire community consents to being the victim of systemic racism or being defined solely by victimhood.
They argue that perpetuating a victim-narrative limits the community’s agency and obscures other aspects of their identity and history.
The letter took aim at Solidarity and Afriforum, saying they refuse to allow these organisations to speak on their behalf.
The group said that no single organization have a clear and legitimate mandate to speak on behalf of Afrikaners.
They said the letter was signed by Afrikaners who believe in truth, justice, and the importance of opposing the misuse of history.
“We make an urgent appeal to our fellow South Africans and international observers to challenge these distorted narratives and to recognise the dignity of all people,” they said.
Solidarity and others hit back
Another group of Afrikaners, including Solidarity CEO Flip Buys and writer Frederik van Dyk, criticized the open letter.
Van Dyk highlighted that the letter was conceived and penned by mostly academics, intellectuals, and religious leaders, without input from ordinary Afrikaners.
He argued that a wider consultative process would have produced a more inclusive letter and a better view of what Afrikaners thought about these issues.
Solidarity’s Buys said it was no surprise that the ANC was the only group that welcomed the open letter.
“The trouble is that the signers of the open letter are really letting the ANC off the hook for the ruinous paths of rule that have thrown the land into this hardship,” he said.
He said the ANC oversaw a period of stagnant growth in trade and record joblessness, with towns and public works infrastructure deteriorating.
“The main cause of this is the ruling group’s race-based rule. The World Bank and many others have already said the ANC should drop this policy,” Buys said.
Buys argued that the letter’s signers deny that there is a problem in the land and that Afrikaners and white folk are on the wrong side of race-based laws.
“This really means they are letting the ANC get away with all these paths of rule, and the ANC feels its ways are being righted by these few folk,” he said.
He added that they do not deny that there is great hardship among black people in South Africa.
“However, that does not mean that when Afrikaners are now being ruled against, we should keep quiet about it.”
In Our Name: Thank You President Trump
Prominent podcaster Renaldo Gouws launched a petition in response to the open letter, titled “In Our Name: Thank You President Trump”.
The petition, directed at Dear President Trump and Fellow Americans, shows profound gratitude and unwavering support towards the United States.
“Your administration’s bold Refugee Admissions Program for South Africans has illuminated our shared struggles in ways that are profoundly affirming,” it states.
Gouws said they welcomed Trump’s decision to prioritise vulnerable minorities, including Afrikaners and all other racial minorities in South Africa, for refugee status.
“You have extended a lifeline to those of us facing genuine racial persecution in post-apartheid South Africa,” he said.
“We wholeheartedly embrace the narrative that highlights the targeted suffering of Afrikaners and other minorities amid South Africa’s escalating challenges.”
“Far from misleading, this framing truthfully exposes the brutal realities: farm murders, land expropriations without compensation, and discriminatory policies.”
“South Africa grapples with profound crises, rampant crime, deepening inequality, and the gross negligence and corruption by our government.”
He added that Afrikaners are not pawns in America’s culture wars. “We are grateful partners in a transatlantic alliance for freedom and safety,” he said.
The petition received 5,876 verified signatures since it was created on 26 October 2025, pointing to widespread support for this view.
Loading ...
Reminder of the GROOT TREK
“Die Groot Trek” (The Great Trek) was a large-scale migration of mainly Dutch-speaking settlers (Boers) from the Cape Colony into the interior of South Africa during the 1830s and 1840s.
Background & Reasons for the Trek
The Boers (later known as Voortrekkers) left the Cape for several reasons:
British Colonial Rule: The Cape had been under British control since 1806, and many Dutch settlers were unhappy with British policies, including the abolition of slavery (1834) and the legal system that favoured indigenous groups over settlers.
Land Shortages: Population growth in the Cape meant that land was becoming scarcer for farming families.
Desire for Independence: The Boers wanted to establish their own self-governing communities, free from British interference.
The Trek Itself
Thousands of families left the Western Cape in ox-drawn wagons, heading north and east into what are today the Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, and Gauteng. Some key leaders of the Great Trek included:
Piet Retief: Negotiated with the Zulu king Dingane but was ultimately killed along with his party.
Andries Pretorius: Led the Boers to victory at the famous Battle of Blood River (1838) against the Zulu.
Hendrik Potgieter: A leader in the establishment of Boer settlements in the interior.
Key Outcomes
The Great Trek led to the founding of several Boer republics, including the Natalia Republic, the Orange Free State, and the South African Republic (Transvaal).
The migration sparked conflicts with local African kingdoms, including the Zulu and Ndebele.
It played a major role in shaping Afrikaner identity and nationalism.
The Voortrekkers were never a completely unified group, and as they moved inland, internal conflicts and leadership disputes caused them to split up into different factions. The main reasons for their disagreements were:
1. Leadership Disputes
The Voortrekkers were made up of independent-minded farmers, each with their own views on leadership.
Some preferred a more structured government, while others wanted complete autonomy.
Leaders like Piet Retief, Hendrik Potgieter, and Andries Pretorius had different leadership styles and strategies, leading to tensions.
2. Differences in Strategy & Priorities
Hendrik Potgieter and his followers wanted to avoid British-controlled areas and preferred moving deeper inland, away from the coast.
Piet Retief and his group aimed to settle in Natal, negotiating with the Zulu king Dingane.
After Retief and his men were massacred by Dingane in 1838, Potgieter and Pretorius had different ideas about how to deal with the Zulu threat.
3. The Aftermath of the Battle of Blood River (1838)
After Andries Pretorius defeated the Zulu at the Battle of Blood River, there was debate over what to do next.
Some Voortrekkers wanted to stay in Natal, but when the British annexed the area in 1843, many—including Pretorius—decided to move inland.
Others, like Hendrik Potgieter, had already begun establishing settlements in the interior (Orange Free State & Transvaal), leading to separate groups forming.
4. Religious & Cultural Differences
Some Voortrekkers were more religious and believed their movement was part of a divine mission, while others were more practical and focused on securing land and resources.
This sometimes led to divisions over decision-making and priorities in governance.
5. Conflicts Over Land & Alliances
Different groups had different agreements with local African kingdoms.
Some trekkers clashed over where to settle and how to deal with African leaders, such as the Ndebele under Mzilikazi.
Final Split
By the mid-1840s, the Great Trek had effectively splintered into separate groups:
The Natal group, which eventually came under British rule.
The Potgieter faction, which settled in Potchefstroom and the Transvaal.
The Pretorius faction, which moved into what became the Orange Free State.
The divisions ultimately led to the formation of the independent Boer Republics in the decades that followed.
The Great Trek and the modern Afrikaner emigration debate both revolve around themes of identity, leadership struggles, and divisions over the best path forward. Here are some key similarities and differences:
Similarities Between the Great Trek & Afrikaner Emigration to the U.S.
1. Division Over Leadership & Strategy
Just like the Voortrekkers were divided between different leaders (Retief, Potgieter, Pretorius), Afrikaners today are debating whether Trump’s offer (which isn’t officially a policy) is a realistic or desirable option.
Some Afrikaners are eager to leave, while others believe in staying and fighting for their place in South Africa.
2. Disagreements Over Destination & Approach
In the Great Trek, some wanted to settle in Natal, others in Transvaal, and some in the Orange Free State—leading to internal conflict.
Today, some Afrikaners see the U.S. as a solution, while others prefer places like Australia, Canada, or Eastern Europe (where there’s also been talk of Afrikaner resettlement).
Many others reject emigration entirely and believe in staying to preserve their cultural identity within South Africa.
3. Fear of External Control
The Voortrekkers left the Cape to escape British rule, which they saw as a foreign power imposing laws they didn’t agree with.
Similarly, some Afrikaners today feel marginalised under South Africa’s current government and fear policies like land expropriation without compensation.
However, others argue that emigrating to the U.S. would mean submitting to a new foreign government (the U.S.), which may not ultimately have their best interests at heart.
4. Cultural & Religious Identity in a Foreign Land
The Great Trek was partly driven by a belief in Afrikaner self-determination—creating their own societies based on their values.
Today, many Afrikaners worry that moving to the U.S. could erode their language, traditions, and religious heritage in a foreign environment.
Some even argue that history would repeat itself—just as the Voortrekkers’ republics eventually came under British rule, emigrating to the U.S. might not guarantee long-term security.
Differences Between Then & Now
1. The Great Trek Was About Expansion, this is About Emigration
The Voortrekkers were moving within South Africa to create their own states.
Today’s Afrikaner debate is about leaving South Africa entirely, which is a much bigger step.
2. The Political & Economic Landscape is Different
The Voortrekkers were escaping British rule in a pre-industrial world.
Today’s world is globalized, and migration comes with legal, economic, and cultural barriers that make resettlement more complex.
3. There’s No Unified “Afrikaner Nation” Today
The Great Trek was driven by a strong sense of shared Afrikaner identity.
Modern Afrikaners are much more divided—some are conservative, others liberal, and many identify more with being South African than just Afrikaner.
Conclusion: History Repeats Itself?
Much like the Voortrekker leaders struggled to agree, today’s Afrikaners are debating whether Trump’s idea is a lifeline or a dead end. The challenge is the same: Should they stay and adapt, or leave in search of a better future? And even if they leave, will they be able to stay united, or will history repeat itself with new divisions forming in a foreign land?
“The Great Trek… Again?”
Once upon a time, a group of stubborn, determined, and ever-bickering people packed their ox wagons, looked at Table Mountain one last time, and muttered, “Dis nou genoeg!” With British rule tightening its grip, taxes rising, and the unspeakable horror of being told to treat everyone equally, the Voortrekkers turned their wagons inland, seeking a place where they could be free—free to govern themselves, farm in peace, and, of course, argue amongst each other about who should be in charge.
“We’ll go to Natal!” declared Piet Retief.
“No! We should go north!” grumbled Hendrik Potgieter.
“Let’s just make a laager and talk about this for another six months!” suggested an elder.
And so, the debates continued while the oxen stood idly by, waiting for someone—anyone—to make a decision. Eventually, they all split up, because the one thing an Afrikaner hates more than British rule is another Afrikaner telling him what to do.
Fast forward nearly 200 years, and it’s happening all over again. Only this time, there are no ox wagons, just Facebook groups, WhatsApp debates, and over-filtered YouTube videos with titles like: “TRUMP OFFERS AFRIKANERS LAND!”.
“Dis nou genoeg!” someone shouts from his bakkie, scrolling through news about land expropriation. “Trump is calling us to America! We must go!”
“America? Are you mad? We should go to Russia! Putin won’t let the ANC take our farms!”
“Nee man, Australia is better! They at least have proper rugby.”
“Why don’t we just go to Orania? That’s like emigrating, but you still get boerewors!”
And so, the modern-day Trekkers, much like their forefathers, find themselves locked in endless debate. No one can agree on where to go, how to get there, or who should lead. Some are convinced Trump will hand them a state in Texas. Others believe Eastern Europe is their best bet. A few die-hard patriots insist on staying put, because if their ancestors could survive British rule, Zulu attacks, and South African politics, then surely they can survive this too?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the U.S. immigration office sighs deeply. “Boers? What’s a Boer?” one official asks. “Oh, they’re farmers from South Africa,” his colleague replies. “They want their own land.”
“Ah, so they’re like the Amish?”
“Sort of… but with more biltong and conspiracy theories.”
And so, as history repeats itself, the question remains: Will the Afrikaners make the Great Trek 2.0? Or will they, like their ancestors, split into a thousand factions, argue themselves into oblivion, and realise too late that nowhere is perfect?
Because if there’s one thing an Afrikaner loves more than his land, his rugby, and his bakkie—it’s a good argument.