This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Africa: Kenya / South Africa / Zambia / Zimbabwe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Zambia. This article is supported by WikiProject Zimbabwe (assessed as High-importance). United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth

• small point: in the vernacular 'soapie' can also mean a bottle of beer with a shot of spirits in it
• Removed message. The main article page is not a place for messages - if an editor has a message for other editors, it belongs on this page, the Talk page.
• Removed linked images to external sites - no longer allowed on Wikipedia.
• Removed first person narrative and informal tone - this is an encyclopaedic article, not a personal web page.
• Removed non-working external link
• Removed bias towards South Africa/Zimbabwe
• South African history - removed a mass of POV/original research irrelevant to this article. I have replaced this section with a brief summary relevant to the article's subject.

Also removed unverified refs to:

• Network AA - I don't seem able to find this organisation on Google, which infers that there's not a lot of point mentioning it in this article
• British South African - does not appear in Dictionary of SA English, inferring that it may be a neologism
• Canadian settlers - surely not a significant minority, if so a reference would be useful
• Reinstated ref. to rooinek = sunburnt neck; this is the explanation given in the DSAE, so a verifiable and authoritative reference otherwise would be useful

It might be helpful if someone could come up with an image less politically charged than the signing of UDI to illustrate this article - this is an encyclopaedic article, not an apologia for white minority rule. Humansdorpie 11:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems very muddled. RACE (such as say white people from Europe or genetically from Europe) is muddled with ETHNICITY (say people who have followed the cultural traditions of a community). So someone born in Ireland, but adopted by a Zulu family and raised speaking only zulu would be ethnically Zulu, but racially not. THUS here "Anglo" should be clearly distinguished. So Anglo-Africans could be black or white or Xhosa in RACE but ethnically ANGLO-AFRICANS if they have grown up in a family or live in a family that is predominantly anglo in culture and language. Probably many Europeans have been angalcized over the last century (so Dutch, German, Finnish people for example) an are living this way. However many of purely african racial decent may also have been anglacized in culture, language etc.

Next the article seems to be focused on just south africa and a perspective from there. Perhaps this could be made clear and also if Rhodes talked frm the Coast to the Cape - then what about the Anglo-Africans say in Egypt (a British colony) etc. Kenya - where there has been considerable cultural (politics, science) involvement by for example the Leakey's.

Thus with this logic then Jews and Hugenots who passed through the Anglo cultural sphere can be Anglo-Africans. As probably many did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"RACE (such as say white people from Europe or genetically from Europe) is muddled with ETHNICITY (say people who have followed the cultural traditions of a community)." So Race is biologically defined, but ethnicity is culturally defined? The problem is that there is no such thing as races among modern humans. There isn't enough genetic variability. The real problem is that this article seems like one of the propaganda efforts underway to define Whites in Africa as a prosecuted minority, which needs to be protected like the spotted owl. (See for instance Mugabe And The White African). As such, it leans heavily on Apartheid era concept of race.MrSativa (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are actual neutrality problems with this article, please point them out. But it sounds like you think this article shouldn't exist at all, which is kind of silly. I mean, do you think this group of people doesn't exist? - htonl (talk)

The article is a lot more neutral than it was before the recent clean up. Race exists as a social construct and is not going away anytime soon. HelenOnline 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"they can be of any ancestry including French Huguenot, Jewish, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian." Really? Surely they should be considered as separate "anglo" specifically refers to England (though is inclusive of the whole of Britain in a modern sense).

They are saying that Anglo-Africans include people of these heritages, I am an English speaking South African but have Dutch, French Huguenot, Italian, German, English, Scottish and Irish ancestry. In other words it is the same case as with Afrikaners being descendant form multiple groups, This is a result of the diverse immigration to SA --Scottykira (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Anglo-African needs some work. I believe it should be "people in Africa, descendent all or in part from British (incl Irish) settlers, who speak South African English (or similar) as their home language." This descripion should include people of mixed race, and assimilated groups from elsewhere in Europe, who speak English as a home language. For example there are many so called coloured people who speak English and are praticing Anglicans, for example.

I also believe that although most Anglo-Africans are probably main stream Protestants - Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian etc, many are also Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic and, of course, agnostic or atheist.

I question I would like to put up for debate is whether Jewish South Africans should be considered Anglo-Africans. Most South African Jews are descended from Lithuanian immigrants. In many respects I would argue that they form a different ethnic group, despite having adopted South African English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.212.85.82 (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely offensive and should be removed. I have lived in South Africa all my life and I have never heard of most of this nonsense.

i think you should add afrikners to the realted ethnic groups as alot of settlers married afrikners but kept their english culture.

In the introduction it should say at the end of the first sentence: "English as their first language", and I agree many people of Dutch descent are today so-called Anglo Africans.For some reason the first section can't be edited.

Regarding the debate on British South Africans, I think this was a term used in the early twentieth century, hence current people would not be familiar with it.

I have never heard this term Anglo-African before and find it quite obnoxious as an English speaking South African with its connotation of Anglo Indians who didn't have a great record, or for English S.Africans and their other British colony cohorts who overall have a group of people who have quite a colonial and racist history. It sticks in the throat that we should as a group claim "African" in our ethnic identity!

Terminoloy I am a little concerned about how much SA history the writer has read beyond school level (or even how much he really took in at school!) when he writes that the English speakers never established a strong cultural or political entity in SA. This is so completely wrong about the history of SA, and is just a common myth we current English speakers have about the Afrikaners having had the only power.

I am also concerned about the mixup that goes on between SA issues and Zimbabwe and Kenyan history - it is not clear whether the article is about this broader group of Anglo-Africans that the writer needs to claim or about English speaking issues in SA.

As you have gathered the article has got up my nose - sorry about getting up yours probably in response - the culture section is incredibly weak - the history section ditto. There seems to be a Rhodesian cause somewhere in there that hasn't been resolved by the writer - I believe claiming to be African means getting over the white bit. Comfortable with being white, but comfortable being with other Africans. I just don't think it is of encyclopedia quality, sorry and I will leave you alone now. Cheers

Since this article is about Anglo-Africans, surely the history section should only start with British involvement/annexation of the Cape Colony? Anything prior to that is just South African History, not Anglo African History. Also, I'm not convinced by the term British South African - I've never heard it. It's usually just English or English-speaking South African, no? Joziboy 12 April 2006, 21:25 (UTC)

I think it is great with the new pics and text, put the article should be clean up, it is a little confusing and messy . Dr.Poison 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've done some tidying and removing - let me know what you think. Joziboy 15 April 2006, 23:22 (UTC)

Much better, in my opinion. �Dr.Poison 16:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What parties want to form an independent state like Quebec? I've never heard of parties wanting to do that Joziboy 15 May 2006, 11:10 (UTC)

More of Luke's personal opinion, I'm afraid. The Sons of England were not an independence movement - they were an early-20th century Friendly Society. The "British African Front"/"The English African Front for Liberty" was a one-man movement (known in the trade as "green-inkers") that never progressed beyond posting a manifesto on a web site and designing several flags. Humansdorpie 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yeah. Some very odd stories creep into this page from time to time. The page seems to blur the distinction between Anglo Africans and Anglo-South Africans. It mentions how they live in various countries but then talks almost exclusively about South Africans. Maybe it should specifically be reduced to an article about English-speaking South Africans, since they account for almost all "Anglo Africans" anyway, and are - and this is me stating opinion here - more of a coherent bloc than the scattered white English-speakers in the rest of the continent who tend to regard themselves as British expats. As an English-speaking South African, I certainly feel no particular attachment to the UK, despite what this article often seems to claim (I remember reading omething about respecting the Crown and Commonwealth?!) Joziboy 15 May 2006, 19:20 (UTC)

It makes good sense to change the focus of the article more closely to English-speaking white South Africans - there is already a corresponding article on Whites in Zimbabwe; and White African, which deals with European colonists in general. Perhaps Whites in Kenya and Whites in Zambia will appear a couple of years down the line. My only caveat is that the name of the article might need to change to reflect the limited geographical scope - maybe English-speaking white South African is too long! Humansdorpie 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah it definitely is a little long.. and no one would ever find it in searches! :) I can't really think of what it could be called... South African English? That way it would correspond to the language too... like Zulu (the ethnic group) and Zulu (language) on wikipedia. Joziboy 16 May 2006, 12:26 (UTC)

That makes really good sense. I see the DSAE lists South African English as a collective term for English-speaking South Africans, so it's a recognised expression. Maybe that's the answer? If I can work out which account Luke J is using at the moment I will drop him a line and ask him to post his views, as he appears to be the originator of the page. Humansdorpie 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following exchange has been copied from User talk:Bhunduboy:

Hi Luke, User:Joziboy and I are having a discussion on the Talk:Anglo-African page about maybe renaming the page to reflect a closer focus on white South African history and culture. As you are the originator and one of the main contributors, it would be very constructive to have your views. Humansdorpie 13:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid idea! btw... there is an Afrikaner page and a White African page already! (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takkies (talk • contribs).)

Thanks for your message - I've copied it to the Talk:Anglo-African page to try to keep the conversation in one place. It would be very helpful if you could explain there why you think it's a stupid idea. (If you type four ~ symbols after a comment (~~~~), it automatically signs the comment - it's a good habit to get into!) Humansdorpie 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humansdorpie 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily need to replace this article. It could just be a separate article which focuses on the South African English. Especially since the table at the bottom is of ethnic groups of South Africa. Although most of the history which is specific to South African English-speakers would need to be taken over to the new page I suppose. Joziboy 17 May 2006, 18:26 (UTC)

Luke, it would be really helpful if you could discuss on this page some of the edits that you are making. I have removed some of them today for a variety of reasons:

• Factual inaccuracy - there is no such thing as a "Rhodesian dialect"; the white Zimbabwean slang term "mush" does not come from Shona.
• Stylistic - I assume that you are not using the word to make a racist point, but the word Bantu, when used to refer to a black South African person, has strong racist connotations and in modern South Africa is viewed as a deliberately offensive term.
• Notability - I have removed the reference to the "English African Front for Liberty" - not only is there no evidence of its notability, but the Wikilink you provided leads straight to a copyvio notice.
• Personal opinion - e.g. "The phrase Kaffir became common among Anglo Africans". It isn't a phrase; it's a word. If you're going to make sweeping statements like that, you need to provide a reference. Without a reference, it is nothing more than your personal opinion.

Humansdorpie 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm tempted to revert the picture change too. Considering it's from a one-man movement, and thus not overly representative of Anglo-Africans :) Let me know what the verdict is on moving the page to South African English (ethnic group) (or something like that) Joziboy 16 May 2006, 17:32 (UTC)

It is good that this article has been edited! I am just wondering, which flag is that on the article? Dr.Poison 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the Apartheid years in South Africa, many Anglo-Africans considered themselves to be more moderate than their Afrikaner compatriots, and generally supported the United Party rather than the National Party which established Apartheid in 1948.

• Didn't many Anglo-Africans also vote for the National Party? Should this not be noted also? Dr.Poison 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the the number of Anglo-Africans that high? 4 million? In South African, there is about 2million and in Zimbabwe maybe 70 000? But are there over 2 million outside Africa? If somebosy would have a source for that number? ���Dr.Poison 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In asking this question, are you referring to Anglo-Africans only as those of English descent? If so, your number for Zim is inaccurate because it reflects the number of white Africans there and not necessarily those of Anglo descent. If speaking of just whites, the number is actually even higher than 4 million since there are almost 5 million in South Africa alone.

2001 census [1] reports that 8,2% of South African people spoke mostly English at home. At that time the whole population was 44,819,778, so we have at least some 3,650,000 Anglo-Africans in South Africa.

Incorrect, this number includes pretty much all the Indian South Africans (who number +1,000,000) and some 20% of the coloured population (who number +4,000,000). Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section seems a little odd. It's a one-man movement, has no support among the South African English and is entirely irrelevant to modern South African politics or culture. Who wishes for a volkstaat? Maybe 0.001% of English-speaking South Africans? Joziboy 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Anglo-Africans were much more opposed to an end to Apartheid, it doesn't suprise me that many of my countrymen have wised up. That's like saying that support among Afrikaners for a volkstaat is almost non-existent because they all don't go out and vote for volkstaat-supporting parties, doesn't mean there isn't support.

There has not been public debate in SA about the issue and not one party in parliament that supports the idea, in contrast to the volkstaat that is supported by the VF+, Unless their is substantial evidence of the movement it should not be included --Scottykira (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" ... Considering that Anglo-Africans were much more opposed to an end to Apartheid, ..." - then why were the majority of white South Africans who supported Nelson Mandela when he was on Robben Island these very Anglo-Africans.

It was these very people, the British South Africans, who had opposed the introduction of apartheid by Vorster's Government in 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglo-African" is also used (e.g. Daniel Brown, "Songs of Slavery", Index on Censorship, Volume 36, Number 1, 2007, p. 138–140.) to refer to people in England of African descent. This article should at least have a hat text indicating where (if anywhere) the appropriate article for that topic would be found. - Jmabel | Talk 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Johnny clegg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy to North American Rednecks is incorrect.

Specifically, in modern outside usage, "Redneck" refers to certain segments of the rural poor-to-working class people of any race (usually white, although many Southern US Blacks consider themselves Rednecks) in the US and Canada, usually indicative of ignorance, xenophobia, or lack of class. The term can be used by Rednecks to describe themselves as proud of their rural working-class background without any of the negative stereotypes. In this article, it is argued that "Redneck" refers to "lower class Americans". I am going to amend the sentence if no one objects.

Secondly, in North American usage, "Redneck" was not derived from sunburnt necks, as is argued in this article. Specifically, "Redneck" referred to rural Appalachian mountain-folk, usually miners, laborers, and their families, who wore red cloths around their necks to signify their opposition to Labor Union-led development of transportation lines through their communities. It was actually a large movement that led to several deadly battles in US history. I will also amend this sentence.

It is important to clarify that they are different, but both the analogy and explanation are incorrect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"An idiosyncracy of Anglo-Africans is that should you ask them where their family is from, they will generally answer "Norfolk" or "Hampshire" or "Aberdeen" as the case may be, rather than "Mombasa" or "the Eastern Cape" where they grew up, even if their families came to Africa a century ago."

I have never in my life heard a South African born 'Anglo-African' describe their family as coming from anywhere in England. I personally have no clue where my family may have originally immigrated from when they came to South Africa. 219.164.140.125 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard a white English speaking South African (born and raised in SA for generations so not including recent immigrants from the UK) use the term Anglo-African to describe themself. If one looks at the term itself, them by analogy with Anglo-Indian and other similar terms it would seem to indicate a person of mixed racial/ethnic heritage - British and (black) African. Another issue is that English speaking South Africans (and most likely also English speaking people from other African countries too) are not all white and many have no British ancestors at all. The term simply stinks of the jingoistic imperialism of Rhodes and Kichener - "I say old chap, we're British, not heathen savages!" Roger (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Roger, I don't agree. Ethnicity is a fraught topic of discussion for sure, but I increasingly hear english speaking people in Africa refer to themselves as Anglo-African. I do, it is how I choose to self identify - in part because it isn't a racially exclusive definition. Nowhere does this article suggest that Anglo-Africans are necessarily racially white or even necessarily of British descent as it includes people of mixed race and people of other European ancestry who have assimilated into the Anglo-African community - which is not restricted to SA. There are people in the notables list that are of mixed race, for example. It is about speaking english as a home language and I suppose being something of an Anglophile, but exact definitions of the term will remain difficult. I also believe it is more about asserting an "African" identity rather than an "Anglo" one, anyway.

If you actually believe that no Anglo-African community actually exists at all, rather than that one exists but should not be referred to as "Anglo-African" then perhaps that is the angle you should take.

I think saying that this article "stinks" says something about your point of view, and I think that after 120 years the views of Kitchener and Rhodes have little remaining influence. To my mind "Anglo-Africans" are undoubtedly no longer British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoloxolo (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but how can there be a 'Jewish' race in South Africa? From what I understand, 90% of Jews in South Africa are of Lithuanian decent, so surely the correct word would be more along the lines of Lithuanian decent? And can Jewish South Africans be classed as 'Anglo-African'? Albeit they are English speaking whites, they practise Judaism, and is that one of the 'symbols' of Anglo-Africanism? Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen or heard any present day white English-speaking South African use the tern "Anglo-African" to describe themself. All the references to the term itself in the article are relevant to the colonial era when most such white English-speaking people (in SA and elsewhere in colonial Africa) were born in the UK or at most the first or second generation descendents of people actually born in the UK.

As far as I can see the use of this term to describe English-speaking white South Africans in the present is in fact a fabrication of the editor(s) who wrote the relevant part(s) of this article. Most of us (yes I am one) have no personal connection with the UK, our closest British ancestors came to SA almost 100 years ago. I will only be convinced otherwise if a South African publication can be cited referring to a currently alive white English-speaking South African (who is of purely SA descent for at leat 2 generations) as an "Anglo-African". When I first saw this term here on WP I imagined it to refer to a mixed race person of British and African parentage in the same way that the term Anglo-Indian refers to such mixed British and Indian descent. Roger (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and I too have never heard an English speaking-SAfrican call themselves Anglo-African, but it is the only real way to describe them? Not all white english-speakers are of Anglo-heritage as well, my uncle is english speaking but he was born in the Netherlands? My grandmother was of 1st Generation South African of Austrian decent, but was a native English speaker? Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only "real" way to describe "English-speaking South African" is "English-speaking South African". We are NOT souties fresh off the boat. WP is not allowed to invent terms to describe concepts, it may only report on the terms that are actually used in the real world. "Anglo-African" is only relevant in the historical colonialist sense. It is not a current term for people whose only connection to anything "Anglo" is that they might possibly have an ancestor who came to SA from the UK in 1820. Speaking for myseif I'll be very offended if someone called me "Anglo-African" even though my mother is in fact British born and is still a UK citizen. I want to see a present day South African published cite that calls people like me or your uncle "Anglo-African". BTW, Wikipedia is the only place I have EVER seen the term "Anglo-African" at all. Roger (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I have also never heard anyone say "Afrikaner"? My parents actually get kind of offended when called Afrikaner. So what? Should we move that as well, I am not disputing what you are saying by the way. And yes, I know you are not a soutie, because I've lived in England for white a while now my family call me a soutie from time to time, so I'm probably more "English" than you haha :) Maybe we should propose a move and see what others have to say? English-speaking South Africa wouldn't work either, because what about the 97% native english-speaking 1.2million South African indians?? It would have to be white-English Speaking South Africans. And often there are people who dispute saying that berbers and arabs are white, so it would most likely have to be "white-English speaking South Africans of north-western European ancestry". What a title! Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution for this article would be to simply remove all material about present day WESSAs. We simply are not not Anglo-Africans by any of the "definitions" used in the cited sources. Cecil Rhodes was one, but not me and people like me. Roger (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I repeat my earlier comment - Sorry Roger, I don't agree. Ethnicity is a fraught topic of discussion for sure, but I increasingly hear english speaking people in Africa refer to themselves as Anglo-African. I do, it is how I choose to self identify - in part because it isn't a racially exclusive definition. Nowhere does this article suggest that Anglo-Africans are necessarily racially white or even necessarily of British descent as it includes people of mixed race and people of other European ancestry who have assimilated into the Anglo-African community - which is not restricted to SA. There are people in the notables list that are of mixed race, for example. It is about speaking english as a home language and I suppose being something of an Anglophile, but exact definitions of the term will remain difficult. I also believe it is more about asserting an "African" identity rather than an "Anglo" one, anyway.

If you actually believe that no Anglo-African community actually exists at all, rather than that one exists but should not be referred to as "Anglo-African" then perhaps that is the angle you should take. I think saying that this article "stinks" says something about your point of view, and I think that after 120 years the views of Kitchener and Rhodes have little remaining influence. To my mind "Anglo-Africans" are undoubtedly no longer British

You are misunderstanding my position. I am not saying Anglo-African does not exist at all - There probably are people who identify with this term. What I am saying is that (in my experience) most white English-speaking South Africans do not consider themselves to be a part of the Anglo-African group. We reject it because we do not consider ourselves to be "Anglo". To us it is the term "Anglo" that stinks of colonialism, not the article, not the people. I am not an "Anglo-anything". I am an African, I am an English-speaking African, I am a South African, but I am most definitely NOT! an "Anglo". I am stating my case from the white perspective because that is what I know - I am not rejecting or disregarding the perspective of people who are not described as "white" - I am just not qualified to speak from their perspective. Roger (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-African is a WHITE South Africa who speaks English as his first language. The 800,000 odd coloureds who speak English, are Coloured by ethnicicty, not Anglo-Africa. Indian South Africans already have a term to describe them, why have another label for them? Anglo-Africa historically was suppoed to mean an English-Speaker from the British Isles, however it increasingly grew to any white of any ethnicity, as long as their first language was English. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the web and found what the following articles called "them", I will continue to add to this list in the future Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• South Africa.info - "White South Africans include: 1) Afrikaners 2) English speakers 3)Immig...
• South Africa-travel.net - "English Speaking part of the white population"
• SA-venues.com - "with the remaining 40% being of British decent"
• exploreSouthAfrica.net - same as above

Although I do sympathise with your point and think that it is a good one and although I had nothing to do with coming up with the term "Anglo-African" I do however see the relevance and usefulness in having it as a descriptive social construct. There is a strong cultural similarity between almost all white English speaking people in Africa to the point where they can, and indeed many would consider them selves to be part of, be part of a common ethnic community that is at once unique and very similar to other people that come from Anglo-Saxon countries. Or countries where an Anglo-Saxon culture (such as the UK, Australia, Canada, the US, ect.) it dominant. Although by far the vast majority might live in South Africa, hence the desire to call this group simply "white English South African", to only include South African's in this category would be to needlessly and (I would argue) indefensibly exclude others who would fall into it. It would be like saying that only Afrikaners from South Africa are truly Afrikaners. Which, because it is an ethnic construct and not a national one, would be an inaccurate assertion. All this is just another way for me to say that although the term "Anglo-African" might not be in common use and although its name might imply (which I would argue that in practice it does not imply as it refers to a more cosmopolition ethnic group that includes people from many other, mainly Eurocentric, ethnic groups that have been absorbed into a larger ethnic construct in the same way that "Americans" have) that it only includes people of British decent, it is still a very useful term that has real meaning and application. But thats just my 5 cents. --Discott (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article simply shouldn't exist. Yes, "Anglo-INDIAN" is a term with a very specific meaning related to a small cultural community of the offspring of England's relationship with India. England's relationship with Africa, and South Africa, is completely different and "Anglo-AFRICAN" doesn't describe it at all. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating new terms and concepts that aren't in use.

I will repeat what has been said before: no credible sources describe English-speaking South Africans (or any English-speakers anywhere in Africa) as Anglo-Africans. Could somebody who knows how Wikipedia works please get this silly article removed? WellingtonMiette (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very odd to remove this article, since it describes an ethnocultural group that exists. The dispute is rather about the title to be give to the article. - htonl (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an English mother (who had a Swiss-Irish mother) and a (German-)Canadian father, my first language is English, and I was born in SA in the 1960's. When my mother used to fill out forms for school etc she always used to write down "immigrant child" for what I am. I never heard the AA term before I saw it here. No wonder reporters write such nonsense about us such as in the Oscar Pistorius Time cover story (quote: "In white areas, Afrikaner whites separate themselves from English whites, nursing a distrust that dates from the 1899–1902 Boer War."). Helen (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I mean there has to be an article to discuss the topic of "African people of (primarily) British ancestry". We can discuss what title that article should have (I certainly don't identify with the term "Anglo-African" myself) but the article must exist somewhere. - htonl (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British diaspora article suggests British African (sounds funny to me) or British in Africa. I am still wary of lumping all (white?) English-speaking South Africans under this label though, and think the term mainly has historical relevance. The British American article is quite informative. Helen (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's actually two related but divergent topics here: on the one hand there's the history of British people in Africa; and on the other hand there are the contemporary groups of people who are descended from British settlers or have assimilated into that group: principally the English-speaking white South Africans, but also white Zimbabweans and white Kenyans. - htonl (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Based on some Googling, I think British African is likely to be confused with Black British, plus this article appears to be linked to White Africans of European ancestry#British diaspora in Africa. I think the latter article and this one need to treat the subject consistently, with non-British specific info going to more general articles such as South African English. Helen (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the inclusion of Hugo Weaving, JRR Tolkien and Richard Dawkins in the infobox is appropriate. When an British couple went out to the colonies, had children in Africa, and then returned to Britain, that did not make their children Anglo-Africans. To be included in that term I would suggest that a person must either (1) be born to a family that had permanently settled in Africa, or (2) themselves be permanently settled in Africa. - htonl (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, but I also find the concept of Anglo-Africans being a separate ethnic group in South Africa somewhat bizarre. I never heard the term until I saw it recently on Wikipedia. Whites were separated from non-whites during apartheid, but there has been a lot of mixing within that population group and nowadays across all population groups. I am still trying to wrap my head around these "ethnic group" articles. Helen (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is definitely a fuzzily-defined group of English-speaking white South Africans who share a common language and ancestry and generally a common culture. So it does fit into the general idea of an ethnic group. - htonl (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it some more thought, right now I have some difficulty with the terminology and the concept and I see from the comments above I am not the only one. As it stands, in my mind an AA would be a person of British parentage born in Africa, not an English-speaking South African with mixed European ancestry (and just to confuse matters I am both of those). This does contradict your point, but I am not anywhere near ready to put my head on a block about it. Helen (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you kept William Boyd (who I had never heard of before)? Helen (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped William Boyd for Graeme Smith, assuming the idea is that they still have a strong connection to Africa. I also swapped Sharlto Copley (who is not that well-known) for Charlene Wittstock, who is a female and born in a different African country to SA (to provide some balance). Helen (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed William Boyd, but I agree with the removal (both for the reasoning I described above and because he's not that well-known). I'm happy with the other change as well. - htonl (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: I think it's a little weird that we have three sportspeople in a row in the infobox. It'd be nice if we could get maybe one politician (I'd love it if we could get a free photo of Guy Scott) and one writer/artist type. - htonl (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the whole list in the AA category and very few well-known people who still have a strong SA/Africa connection have a decent WP photo if one at all. I am open to adding another row/three if we can find decent pics but I would like to keep the ones we have now. Helen (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about Rob Davies for a contemporary politician? His photo's OK. Or Helen Zille, of course; she may be German by descent but is definitely ESWSA herself. - htonl (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know for sure Rob Davies has significant British ancestry? (His pic is good but his article is not great.) I don't think Zille is "British" enough for this article, and there is also a more relevant page namely Jews in South Africa. I will also look for others in List of South Africans. Sorry to be contrary, I'm not trying to be difficult. Helen (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions: Alan Paton, Richard Leakey, David Livingstone. Helen (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started tentatively to clean up this and related articles. They are broad topics. There might be some major changes. I won't always get it right. I appreciate feedback. I am posting this to pre-empt any hostility. If there are any major issues with my editing (I am not talking about copy editing or the odd fact), please bring it to the talk page. Helen (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few more changes since the move (to lede and templates), but will not have much time for editing this week. I hope to focus on this article next week. Helen (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the background I have been updating numerous backlinks – primarily in the main namespace (note that those linked via templates won't update immediately), and have proposed the merging of Category:Anglo-African people with Category:African people of British descent. I still have to tackle the main article text (eish). HelenOnline 11:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started tackling the main text and will probably have to be ruthless removing unsourced/unsourceable material. HelenOnline 09:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am done cleaning up, thanks to those who helped. I will be watching the page and revert any new unexplained and/or unsourced edits like this one. HelenOnline 08:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting additions of people based only on the idea that they have "English sounding" names - no actual evidence is presented of a strong "British expatriate" identity. Being white and English speaking is not enough for inclusion here, otherwise we're simply back to using this as a synonym for "rooinek". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but edit warring is wearing me down. :( HelenOnline 14:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a clear grasp of the scope of this article, then. I mean, "diaspora" is not the same as "expatriates". There are people in the "diaspora" whose families have been in this country for generations (1820 Settlers etc.) and are not "expatriates" in any sense of the word. If this article isn't about White Africans whose ancestry is principally British and Irish, then what is it about? - htonl (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think diaspora includes expats such as retired Brits living here, but semantics can be subjective. I was primarily concerned with only including people whose WP articles indicate British ancestry with sources – even if I had to find them and add them myself. Most of the latest additions would not qualify and I am not going to hunt for any more sources. :) HelenOnline 16:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the discussion, but I think this use of "diaspora" stretches its original meaning to meaningless. It has historically been used for populations that were expelled by another, majority population, such as the Jews from ancient Israel, Jews and Moors from the Iberian peninsula, or taken in slavery, such as sub-Saharan Africans taken to other areas by Arab or European traders, or fled because of famine and economic distress, such as the Irish from Ireland during and after the potato famine. Why not use "History of British immigrants in Africa"? (which appears to included assimilation and identification with the country they settle in) Or "Migration of British to Africa"? Populations migrate for a variety of reasons, but to put the effects of colonialism and imperialism under "diaspora" seems to distort the meaning. Or is all population movement now to be referred to as "diasporas"?Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parkwells it seems to me like you are conflating "diaspora" with "refugees" or some other type of forced emmigration. A diaspora is not neccessarily the result of forced migration, it simply means a population outside of its "homeland". Aiui, the long struggle about this article's title and terminology is about what to call English-speaking white people in Africa who do not have recent direct connections to the UK and reject being labelled some type of "British". In South Africa that basically means non-Afrikaner whites, except for small numbers of Greek, Portuguese, German, etc. speakers and actual immigrants from the UK. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British diaspora in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131121153548/http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php to http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8414/pc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British diaspora in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711171013/http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2006/socioreport.pdf to http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2006/socioreport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British diaspora in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622212242/http://www.cbn.co.za/motoring.php?motor_id=26 to http://www.cbn.co.za/motoring.php?motor_id=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• David Livingstone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]