Suchergebnisse

The newspaper De Zuid-Afrikaan was founded in 1830 mainly to serve as a mouthpiece of the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the Cape Colony. It was strongly in favour of the establishment of a legislative body as part of a system of representative government for the colony. De Zuid-Afrikaan advocated an educational qualification to determine which inhabitants should participate in the appointment of members of this body. The main colonial officials and leading colonists, however, were in favour of a property qualification. Some of them wanted a high property qualification while others preferred a lower property requirement. De Zuid-Afrikaan expressed itself in favour of a low property qualification, and advanced as its main argument that a high property requirement would almost completely exclude the coloured people from the franchise. In 1853 the British government approved a constitution for the colony which included a low property qualification for the franchise. De Zuid-Afrikaan welcomed the new constitution as "liberal beyond expectation" and expressed the hope that considerations based on class and colour would not play a role in the new parliament. ; http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0018-229X2014000100001&script=sci_arttext

Although professional historians usually concentrate on specific areas of research, they sometimes use their knowledge and understanding of history to give a perspective on contemporary events and provide guidelines regarding the formulation and implementation of government policies. Since the 1950s Afrikaner historians have participated in intellectual debates on the future of the Afrikaners as a minority group in South Africa. Three eminent Afrikaner historians, GD Scholtz, FA van Jaarsveld and Hermann Giliomee, produced a number of publications in which they commented on the apartheid policy of the National Party government. While Scholtz and Van Jaarsveld were very subdued in their criticism, Giliomee was more openly critical. On the other hand, Scholtz and Giliomee were more consistent in their criticism than Van Jaarsveld, who repeatedly changed his views. Scholtz and Giliomee, however, overestimated the power of the government to control the factors that determined South Africa's political and economic development during this period.

Although professional historians usually concentrate on specific areas of research, they sometimes use their knowledge and understanding of history to give a perspective on contemporary events and provide guidelines regarding the formulation and implementation of government policies. Since the 1950s Afrikaner historians have participated in intellectual debates on the future of the Afrikaners as a minority group in South Africa. Three eminent Afrikaner historians, GD Scholtz, FA van Jaarsveld and Hermann Giliomee, produced a number of publications in which they commented on the apartheid policy of the National Party government. While Scholtz and Van Jaarsveld were very subdued in their criticism, Giliomee was more openly critical. On the other hand, Scholtz and Giliomee were more consistent in their criticism than Van Jaarsveld, who repeatedly changed his views. Scholtz and Giliomee, however, overestimated the power of the government to control the factors that determined South Africa's political and economic development during this period. ; http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/contemp/contemp_v37_n1_a3.pdf

Although professional historians usually concentrate on specific areas of research, they sometimes use their knowledge and understanding of history to give a perspective on contemporary events and provide guidelines regarding the formulation and implementation of government policies. Since the 1950s Afrikaner historians have participated in intellectual debates on the future of the Afrikaners as a minority group in South Africa. Three eminent Afrikaner historians, GD Scholtz, FA van Jaarsveld and Hermann Giliomee, produced a number of publications in which they commented on the apartheid policy of the National Party government. While Scholtz and Van Jaarsveld were very subdued in their criticism, Giliomee was more openly critical. On the other hand, Scholtz and Giliomee were more consistent in their criticism than Van Jaarsveld, who repeatedly changed his views. Scholtz and Giliomee, however, overestimated the power of the government to control the factors that determined South Africa�s political and economic development during this period

Various issues relating to historical periodisation have been discussed in scholarly publications. Against the background of these studies the article examines ten overviews written or edited by professional historians since 1990. It appears that there are many similarities between the periodisations of these authors. This indicates that despite differences in aims and viewpoints, they identify the same patterns of continuity and change in South African history. Yet, no periodisations are exactly the same, and the identification, as well as the naming of the different periods in the various overviews, reflect particular interpretations of South African history. Writers of recent overviews still emphasise political and economic developments. Therefore social and cultural aspects do not play an important role in their periodisations. If authors of future overviews pay more attention to these aspects, this will probably have a significant influence on the periodisation of South African history Verskeie vraagstukke in verband met historiese periodisering is in wetenskaplike publikasies bespreek. In aansluiting by hierdie studies word tien oorsigwerke wat sedert 1990 verskyn het en waarvan professionele historici die skrywers en/of redakteurs was, in die artikel in oënskou geneem. Dit blyk dat daar heelwat ooreenkomste tussen die periode-indelings in hierdie werke bestaan. Dit dui daarop dat historici, ten spyte van verskillende uitgangspunte en oogmerke, dieselfde patrone van kontinuïteit en verandering in die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis identifiseer. Tog kom geen van die periodiserings presies ooreen nie en verteenwoordig elke skrywer se periode-indeling en periodebenamings 'n besondere interpretasie van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis. Die sterk klem wat steeds deur oorsigskrywers op politieke en ekonomiese geskiedenis gelê word, bring mee dat sosiale en kulture aspekte nie 'n belangrike rol in hulle periodiserings speel nie. In toekomstige oorsigwerke sal groter aandag aan hierdie aspekte waarskynlik 'n belangrike invloed op periode-indelings van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis hê

Two historians, GD Scholtz and H Giliomee, have written extensively about liberal political thought among Afrikaners during the period 1775-1975. Their interpretations of the influence of liberalism on Afrikaner political thought differ from one another in some respects. Scholtz acknowledges the influence of the political ideas of the Enlightenment on the Cape Patriot movement of the late eighteenth century, but does not regard these ideas as a form of liberalism. He views liberalism as a political ideology alien to the Afrikaners, that was introduced to South Africa in the early 1800s by British officials and missionaries. Since the middle of the nineteenth century the main exponents of liberal political thought in South Africa were British colonists and their descendants. There were always a few Afrikaners with liberal political ideas, but they were strongly influenced by British culture or by English-speaking South Africans. Giliomee, however, is of the opinion that there were already Afrikaners with liberal ideas at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It appears from his study that, although none of the major Afrikaner political leaders from the eighteenth century until the present can be described as a liberal, in the course of two centuries a number of politicians and intellectuals with an Afrikaans background played an important role in various liberal political movements and had a significant influence on the development of Afrikaner political thought. Although Scholtz and Giliomee have both made an important contribution to research on Afrikaner liberal political thought, it is clear that more research should lead to a better understanding of this phenomenon. ; https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v7i2.234

Various issues relating to historical periodisation have been discussed in scholarly publications. Against the background of these studies the article examines ten overviews written or edited by professional historians since 1990. It appears that there are many similarities between the periodisations of these authors. This indicates that despite differences in aims and viewpoints, they identify the same patterns of continuity and change in South African history. Yet, no periodisations are exactly the same, and the identification, as well as the naming of the different periods in the various overviews, reflect particular interpretations of South African history. Writers of recent overviews still emphasise political and economic developments. Therefore social and cultural aspects do not play an important role in their periodisations. If authors of future overviews pay more attention to these aspects, this will probably have a significant influence on the periodisation of South African history. ; http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/hist/v56n1/v56n1a07.pdf

• Summary: Scholars who specialize in local or regional history study the characteristics and development of a society on a micro-level. These characteristics include demographic, economic, social, political, juridical, cultural and religious aspects. Historical writing on the relations between the indigenous Khoisan and the Western colonizers in the Cape Colony during the period before 1900 has a strong socio-economic focus. Furthermore, regional differences have received little attention in these texts. Therefore a regional approach may provide a fuller and more nuanced perspective. A provisional examination of historical studies on rural areas in the western part of the Cape Colony and the Karoo was done for the purpose of this article and only seventeen studies were found that contain significant research results regarding the relations between the colonizers and the colonized peoples. In the article these results are evaluated. It appears that, although the seventeen studies provide important information, none of them deal with the whole spectrum of relations between the indigenous peoples and the colonizers. The available source material inevitably puts restrictions on the results that can be achieved. However, in none of the studies optimal use was made of all the relevant sources. There is a strong need for more research in the field of regional history with a focus on colonial relations.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.