This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
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 articles
I split the original
Kaffir page into (1) explanation of the historical uses of the word, as synonym of "south African native", and (2) discussion of its current usage in South Africa as an ethnic slur. Part (1) went to a new article
South Africa Kaffir people. Part (2) was merged into this page. My excuse is that it is the same word, used in the two coutries with basically the same disparaging and offensive purposes, only with relatively small differences of usage.
Jorge Stolfi02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Kaffir was no "racial slur". In fact it's used mostly neutral in the literature, which one can check with some effort. However some influential circles tried to get it declared or perceived as an ethnic slur. Obviously for the purpose of sowing discord. --
105.12.3.178 (
talk)
12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)I Agree to the statement that this word is never a racist word. It has a meaning of: "a disbeliever in Devine Entity (Allah) or his prophet(s)". originally it means the covering, and it was used to refer to none believer meaning the one who covers the "Truth"reply
My friend from Trinidad says that Blacks refer to East Indians as "coolies" and they in turn refer to black as "niggers" (when they are not in a charitable mood, I suppose). There is a lot of racism between the 2 groups, although it seems to be quite arbitrary - there are many exceptions to the rule.
Removed history of Jamaican Indian-African ethnic conflict
I removed the following material from the page. Since this page is about the ethnic slur term, keeping the following information here would inevitably look like a highly subjective attempt to justify or apologize for the use of the word. Perhaps this can be moved to some other article, say on the
History of Jamaica tree.
Jorge Stolfi02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)reply
In
Jamaica, while "kaphar" and its many forms are used, there are not a result of
racism (belief that a race is inferior to your own), but of
prejudice (literally "judge before-hand", to stereo-type or generalize a group of people based on pre-conceived idea). The use of "kaphar" in Jamaica is exclusive to East
Indians. Its primacy cause was the religious discrimination Hindus and Muslims received from Blacks, who were predominately Christian. Black Christians often openly called Indian "heathens" and "pagans". They also advocated banning Indians from migrating to Jamaica and sending all Indians already in Jamaica back to India. Faced with widespread discrimination, many Indians developed prejudices and saw all Blacks as anti-Indian. This led to
Hindustanis (e.i. East Indians) beginning to refer to Blacks as "kaphars". The persistence of this word would be ensured due to legal discrimination against Indians (All Indians in Jamaica were recognized by the government as having the status of Indentured Immigrant until 1960) and governmental efforts to assimilate Indians into Jamaican society. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it was not uncommon for Indian school children to be taunted by Blacks who irreverently referred to them as "
coolies". During recent years racial discrimination in Jamaica has declined although by no means extinct.
Most Indians in Jamaica today are unaware of the origin of the word "kaphir", mainly because of the fact that most Indians only speak little or no Hindustani as a result of assimilation. Present day Indians use "kaphir" and Black as synonyms much like how Blacks use the words "
coolie" and Indian interchangeably. Although "kaphir" is widely used, it rarely used when not speaking to another Indian. In this aspect it differs from "
coolie" which Blacks use to openly refer to Indians even when addressing one.
South Africa
Corrected the errors in the article as it relates to South Africa:
The word kaffir is not only used by white people.
The word is used in a South African context to refer to black people. I am unaware of any widepread current or historical use of it to refer to Indian or so-called Coloured people in South Africa; more to the point, the Dictionary of South African English does not appear to be aware of any such use.
Whatever the scriptwriter of Gandhi may have written, the word kaffir does not appear in Gandhi's own account of the
incident at Pietermaritzburg
Irvin Khosa is a South African soccer administrator. Nicknamed "Iron Duke", he is the chairman of the South African organising committee of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, chairman of the South African Premier Soccer League and vice president of the South African Football Association. He is also owner of glamour South African Premiership side Orlando Pirates.There was recently a lot of controvercy because of his use of the word.--
143.160.124.40 (
talk)
17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Would a race denier or egalitarian be a more reliable source? Well, Arthur Kemp isn't even a White Supremacist, since he's not interested in ruling over Blacks. He simply doesn't want to be in the same political/social system with them. --
105.8.193.117 (
talk)
22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It is mainly "white liberals" that do so. The Blacks just copied that.
I have no opinion myself (I have never read/heard the word before coming to Wikipedia); however, those claims have been in the article for quite a while. So excuse me for asking: have you lived in South Africa, or is your opinion based only on the sources you listed? All the best,
Jorge Stolfi09:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I agree with these changes. Also note that there is a huge difference between the words "kaffer, kafir and kaffir." Not many English speaking people understand the correct word used among all races in SOUTH AFRICA refered to as "kaffer." This word is an Afrikaans word like "apartheid" and taken up in the English understanding and some times misundertood. Contributors should not get confuse by the AFRIKAANS word "Kaffer" and belief it has the same meaning as "kafir and kaffir." Coloured people and mainly in the Cape use the word "kaffer" as Afrikaans speaking white South Africans. This word cannot be seen as racist or ethnic slur as not many English speaking people understand the Afrikaans context this word is used in. They try to contribute to this site leading into further confusion due to their lack of the Afrikaans language. They normally generalise towards their English misunderstanding of the word "kaffer" and refer to the term "kafir or kaffir." This may lead to great confusion among white English speaking people whom do not even understand the colored/coloured Afrikaans speaking individuals use of Afrikaans. Generalisation is made to refer to "kaffer" as a racist or offensive word. For most Afrikaans speaking people the word "f u c k" or "O my God" is far more offensive that the comic or racist use of the word "kaffer" when used in the correct context, even among black South Africans. This is typical due to the misunderstanding of English speaking people of the Afrikaans language whom generalise the English meaning of an Afrikaans word. The reference that the use of the word "kaffer" may lead to prosecution is nonsens! This again is a perfect misunderstanding of the Afrikaans langauge and the context the word is used. NO cases of prosecution exist in South Africa for the use of the word "kaffer." The government may be prosecuted first as many name places refering to kaffer stil exist. Not to mention the general reference to kafferwaatlemoen that refers to a type of watermelon. == RV ==
I've reverted the two changes made earlier today.
That the word "is regarded as the most offensive word you could find" reflects opinion rather than demonstrable fact
Use of the word has been actionable in a South African court since at least 1976 (I believe the case was Ciliza -v- Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243) although I think
Joziboy is quite right to highlight that the number of successful cases seems to have increased dramatically in recent years
Can someone remove the "Slang" section please. Saying that the shortened version "kaff" is used frequently by young people of the Western Cape is absolute nonsense. I can confirm that as I am one of them.
Certain editors do not seem to like the fact that Gandhi liberally used the word "Kaffir" and did not like native Africans in South Africa. These editors are bound to vandalize that section on the article by repetitively removing it without discussing why they want it removed. The reason is simple, these facts are from Gandhi's own writings in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi", his columns in the Gujarati newspaper of those times, his letters written to British officers in South Africa etc and so cannot be denied. Please do not make wikipedia a place of propaganda and tell us if these words from Gandhi were false. Regards, --
Roadahead (
talk)
18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The use of "kaffir" by Gandhi has already been mentioned in the lead
in this version as per
this very reliable source (which Gandhi indeed did do). The sources you're adding (gandhism.net) doesn't count as
Reliable given it's advocate is a militant
Khalistani terrorist website. The excessive emphasis on Gandhi's use constitute
WP:UNDUE, and finally, arguing with a
Khalistani terrorist sympathiser is a waste of time, since
WP:TIGERS states that we are not required to debate with extremists.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Goingoveredge: in your statements above you went onto baseless allegations. First, www.gandhism.net does not have even a single word reflecting Khalistan or that they support it. Nevertheless, you went onto calling them "terrorist website" going even a step ahead in your baseless allegations and name calling. What is so much of terror on that website?. I went back again to check that site and feel that the only terror that site poses is to Gandhi apologists. Secondly, you failed to understand that the primary citation of those words from Gandhi are from his own writings and not Gandhism.net. Are Gandhi's own writings unreliable now? Here are the references that existed on the original section [
HERE] which you are continually deleting. Out of 6 citations, 5 are Gandhi's own writings. Do you deny that? Let me reproduce them below for other Wikipedians to read:-
^ a b Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi, 1905
^ Letter to Dr. Porter, Medical Officer of Health for Johannesburg (15 February 1905); later published in The Indian Opinion.
^ a b Singh, G.B. (2004). Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Prometheus Books.
ISBN1573929980.
^ Comments on a court case in The Indian Opinion (25 March 1905)
^ Comments on a court case in The Indian Opinion (2 June 1906)
^ "[www.gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php Gandhi on Blacks]". Retrieved on 2007-12-09.
Stop trying to create prejudice by using words like "extremist", "terrorist", "bigot", "racist" without much proof. Just using these words and copy pasting wiki tags here and there will not let you bypass Wikipedia rules. You have passed all limits of decency in scholarship by continually pushing your agenda and trying to create confusion. Here again, you went onto reverting without arriving at consensus. Now, go ahead and prove your statements and allegations above: -
. that Gandhism.net supports Khalistan.
. that Gandhism.net is terrorist website.
. that all the references 1-5 above are not Gandhi's own words.
. that I'm an extremist.
With the habits of propaganda, stubborn reverts, name calling, and fact suppressing you are not going to survive long on wikipedia. --
Roadahead (
talk)
20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, my dear
Khalistani friend, but you can't bomb wikipedia as easily as you did
Air India Flight 182. The issue here is not whether Gandhi used the term "kaffir" (he obviously did). The issue here is you Khalistani
revisionists using wikipedia as a
Soapbox to tout your
Indophobic and terroristic views, which we can unceremoniously deny. iit's fairly well known that anti-Gandhi attacks are a purview of Khalistani revisionists in the US and Canada, who, despite their declared genocidal hatred for Hindus, have no trouble allying with extremist Hindu outfits like RSS (who were behind Gandhi's assassination) to tout their views under the bogus aegis of "multicultulturalism" (where any ridicilous idea is accepted as fact if it's put forth by a minority).The website in question clearly constitutes
WP:FRINGE and is disallowed, regardless of your terroristic whining and moaning.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Stop vandalizing my replies, why did you deliberately delete the template that I used for my reply above? (I restored it now) And are you being serious? Now you are going even more further in your attempt to create hatred on Wikipedia by alleging that I bombed Air India flight? Do you have any credibility at all? Did you even read my reply above completely? Be warned you are very close to being banned from Wikipedia if you do not stop this behavior. --
Roadahead (
talk)
20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
You are still evading real discussion and pursuing flaming. Let me again remind you to respond to my points appropriately, less you make no appealing argument. --
Roadahead (
talk)
23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I've added back the bit about Gandhi's use of the term in the article, but in a toned down manner. This certainly deserves a mention in the article, but not an entire section. An entire section titled "Famous personalities to have used racial slur Kaffir" talking about how Gandhi used the term is clearly a case of an editor trying to impose his point-of-view on others. Please see
WP:UNDUE,
WP:TIGERS and
WP:NPOV.
utcursch |
talk09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Utcursch, so seems like there was a problem with the title of previous text only? However, I beg to disagree with your conclusion. Is it false that those words are Gandhi's own words from his letters and columns from Indian Opinion newspaper? How is then a Wikipedia contributor guilty of "trying to impose his point-of-view on others" as you say? ..shooting the messenger? Those writings by Gandhi have African people in subject and Gandhi is liberally using the term to describe them in derogatory way. Where does the wikipedia contributor's point of view come into picture? --
Roadahead (
talk)
17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Ignoring such laughable outbursts, there is one question I'd like to ask Utcursch. Given that scholarly consensus behind
Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity has dismissed the book as garbage, should it be ccited as a
Reliable Source? I think that the indian opinion citations are sufficient to show that Gandhi used the term "Kaffir" to refer to SA blacks.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Try
Wikiquote instead (it already contains some quotes that involve the use of the word Kaffir). Just like the Wikipedia article on
non-violence or
Quit India Movement doesn't contain numerous quotes from Gandhi, this article doesn't need to contain a list of quotes from Gandhi. Please see
WP:UNDUE -- including five qoutes from a single person on an article not related to person is clearly pushing your point-of-view.
I'm a busy person in real life, and I don't have much energy or time to waste over such childish disputes. Please see
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I've already wasted my Saturday fixing articles on Sikh Rajputs, Kaffir, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity etc., and I don't wish to waste more time over these.
utcursch |
talk17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
False attribution
I'll be editing the following line in the current form of the article: "Although used often inoffensively between the 16th and 19th centuries, including being used by Mahatma Gandhi[3], as racial tensions increased in 20th century South Africa, its use became more racially slanderous than just a general word to describe a race of people."
Issues:
. It makes a claim that Gandhi used the word "Kaffir" inoffensively. This claims seems
Original Research
. then hints attribution to the current citation [3]
[1]. This news article does not claim anything like that.
An editor has marked the following piece of information as dubious: "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, during his stay in South Africa, often used the term "Kaffir" to refer to the native Black Africans. For example, he once wrote in Indian Opinion, "The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs."[3] Many such examples are cited in the book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, which alleges that Gandhi had a racist attitude towards the Blacks, whom he considered inferior to the Europeans and the Indians."
However, this editor has put no section on the talkpage containing his contentions despite the fact line contains information which is easily
verifiable and is well cited. Gandhi's words where he extensively used the word "Kaffir" in derogatory way are present in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" and not just in the book by author G. B. Singh. Another information given by this line above is also very well
verifiable that the book contains several such examples. Please do not use wikipedia "dubious" template to mark and delete information within a day. This is not the intention of this tag. I feel the information conveyed by the line you marked dubious is verifiable and accurate. If you still think otherwise, prove this here on the discussion page. Otherwise, the "dubious" tag will be removed. --
Roadahead (
talk)
19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities
Goingoveredge, Have you yourself read the wikipedia policies that you are pointing me to? You are again pursuing your habit of "cherry picking" by first selecting the reviews that suit your POV and then generalizing that book has been rejected by the whole world. In the same reviews that you are pointing to also contain reviews by a senator recommending the book to be read to understand the "real Gandhi", another reviewer telling that the book very well presents the facts and proofs of Gandhi's racism, another reviewer telling that the book has broken the Gandhi myth. In user wishful thinking, you are selectively using reviews that suit your POV and hence are damaging information on wikipedia not only on this article but elsewhere as well. Please refrain from such activities. --
Roadahead (
talk)
20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
No, I'm "choosing" reviews that reflect scholarly consensus, as opposed to partisan extremist "reviews" made by propagandistic nonentities and militant autodidacts.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
You are still not understanding that wikipedia is not your POV. Here you are now going even step ahead by acusing that all other reviewers (Senator Edolphus Towns, Professor Manfred Steges, Alan Cruba from bookreviews.com and Dr. Baldev Singh) whose reviews does not suit your POV are "propangandistic", "nonentities", and "militant autodidacts". Please refrain from pushing your unsubstantiated POVs and belittling everyone who does not suit your POV. Such activities can earn you a ban from editing wikipedia. --
Roadahead (
talk)
20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
And YOU are still not "understanding" (sic) that wikipedia is not a
Soapbox for Khalistani revisionism from the likes of political propagandists like Ed Towns (who has no academic credentials), or that dentist chap Baldev Singh (who probably has no credentials of any kind). I mean, I am a "Dr" someone too (I have a PhD). can I write up some crap in my blog and have it included on wikipedia as a
Reliable Source too? Pleeeease? </sarcasm>
Wikipedia reflects academic and peer reviewed consensus, which Khalistanis are fundamentally incapable of comprehending, so clearly any debate is useless and they can be treated as run-of-the-mill internet trolls with a revisionist agenda to push.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Cherry picking and name-calling continues once again? Why are you so much obsessed with this word "Khalistan" and keep calling all and sundry with this name? Cherry picking Senator Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh from the list (by me in previous reply) again because they have some views that do not suit yours while you are conveniently neglecting Prof. Manfred Steges and Alan Cruba in the same list. While a senator's views are notable if mentioned as "his views" and not generalized, Dr. Baldev Singh (whom you call a chap) is not a "Dentist" as you call him. This is shows that your prejudice and hatred is blocking your conscience. Evey Dr. is not dentist. As far as Dr. Baldev Singh's credibility as a reviewer of this book is concerned, he is far more credible than Mr. Xaviers (who is involving in ad-hominem attacks on the author while simultaneously declaring that he himself is not an expert on history in his review. Oxymoron, right? The so called reviewer Xaviers not only attacks the author because of his religion but also says that he himself (Xaviers) is no expert on history. Nevertheless, he is simultaneously posing as an expert on history in the same review. Did you read Xavier's review fully? --
Roadahead (
talk)
22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not talking about Xavier but about Manfred Steger, an accredited historian. On wikipedia, his analysis carries precedence over a random fellow with no real credentials or propensity for critical thought (a common affliction among Khalistani revisionists).
Goingoveredge (
talk)
22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
You are defeating your argument youself by continually making claims and changing them just to contradict yourself again. Now that you have reduced your statement to calling Prof. Manfred Steger as the only credible reviewer note that professor has said that the author offers "much better evidence" for the second thesis - Gandhi's racist attitude and calls that part of the book as the most strong part. This is the same claim in G. B. Singh's book that you seem to have most problem with but Prof Manfred Steger opines is well presented. Do you even know what you are supporting and objecting? --
Roadahead (
talk)
23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. The fact that Gandhi had anti-Black views is not in dispute here (the Indian opinion article clearly demonstrates that). The issue here is the
Notability of an unscholarly and non peer-reviewed work by a khalistani radical that ahs been almost universally panned in the academia, though it's been supported by
Khalistanineo-fascists.
Goingoveredge (
talk)
23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Seems like you are adamant enough to neglect all wikipedia policies and keep calling people with different names in derogatory way. Once again you are making a sweeping generalization by claiming that the book "Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity" is "unscholarly" and "universally panned in the academia". I'm sorry to say that you are not showing understanding of the words scholarly and "universal" either. Additionally, you are again calling the author of the book as "a khalistani radical". Can you now also make it clear you are these "
Khalistanineo-fascists" (as you call them) who are supporting this book?. I cannot highlight your uncivil behavior more. A tacit approval by an admin seems to have made you more haughty in your approach, nevertheless, this approach will not take you far on Wikipedia. --
Roadahead (
talk)
00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
2009 Information
Concerns about the recent additions to the page
I have some concerns about the massive recent additions to the page. I've already reverted it once
[2] and it has been added back, so I'm here on the talk page to stave off an edit war.
Some of the changes read as highly
POV. Examples (note that these particular statements aren't sourced):
"For many years, the term kaffir was used as a general derogatory reference to a dump[sic] and idiotic black person not believing in a god"
"The word is still used but as a general reference to black people, that lead to discrimination against whites after 1994 when
apartheid was demolished in South Africa"
"When the word is used by a white person it may refer to a dump[sic] idiotic black person that discriminate against the white individual. In this context the word is not racist at all but a reference to a type of individual's behaviour."
"There is no reference to
hate speech in this context, but may be seen as hate speech depending on the uninformed English speaking person"
The changes are poorly sourced. Many whole paragraphs are unsourced, and the sources that are there don't necessarily back up the statements that they are supposed to support, which makes it look like much of the new text is
original research and
published material that advances a position. For example:
The statement "Today it may be considered a form of hate speech but is not necessarily considered a form of hate speech as it depends on the context and race of the individual using the word" is sourced by
an essay that takes issue with the fact that the word "kaffer" was left out of a recent dictionary, but doesn't say anything about whether or not it is considered hate speech. The essay doesn't mention hate speech at all.
The statement "This is also referred to as reverse discrimination or affirmative action and the term "kaffer" is mainly use today in this context" is sourced by a reference to the National Organization for Women's
Origins of Affirmative Action page, which doesn't mention the word "kaffer" or refer to South Africa at all, and also explains why NOW doesn't think that the term "reverse discrimination" is entirely legitimate.
The entire
Modern use section is sourced by a single reference to
urbandictionary.com, which is hardly a
reliable source. This section is an entirely new addition. The source listed for the statement "use of the word among colored people sometimes referred to as hotnot" is also urbandictionary.com.
Aside from the problems above, the additions have some real grammar and style problems.
I suspect from the comments on my talk page by the user who made these changes
[3][4] that it will turn into an edit war if I make any drastic changes myself to the article, but is there a consensus here to remove most or all of the new additions? It's possible that the user who wrote this has some good points that could be integrated into the article (if reliably sourced, of course), but I really don't think the article should be allowed to stand as it is. --
Dawn Bard (
talk)
16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Dawn Bard, I agree. The material recently added is mostly nonsenese - as well as being unsourced POV, it is barely English. I am cleaning up the article now. --
hippo43 (
talk)
00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge proposal
I propose we merge
Kaffir (ethnic slur) with
Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa). Both articles are about the same word, and address different periods of its use. For me, we should have one article with sections covering Etymology, Usage in various periods and countries, and the Current meaning. See
nigger - one article can easily encompass both the history and current use of a word like this. --
hippo43 (
talk)
02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree - I never really understood why they were separate. As you say, it's easy enough to cover historical and modern usage in the same article.
Dawn Bard (
talk)
02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Under the "[edit] Apartheid-era South Africa" section, it was only alledged by the accused that the victim called him a kafir. It was not found by the court and there was no other supporting evidence of the fact. It should be noted that the intention of Almond Nofomela was to steal from the farmer that alledgedly called him a kafir. All of it is in the cited documents. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.19.76.237 (
talk)
19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Etymology
"Kaffir is derived from the Arabic word kafir"
"Kaffir is derived from the 'Boer'"
Which is it? The sentence claiming it to be derived from "Boer" is at best marginally literate. I'm removing that sentence on the grounds that it seems unlikely and the already-cited marginal literacy. If whoever believes this to be correct can provide citations (unlikely, as Boer is Dutch for "farmer" and is entirely unrelated to the KFR root), they can put it back in.
174.65.175.154 (
talk)
02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
2012
I forgot to clarify a change made: if anybody is wondering, all I did was change the opening paragraph's section's ultimate paragraph's phrase from "In any case..." to "In either case...", as it is grammatically, and semantically, more appropriate.
41.160.162.144 (
talk)
18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply
When?
Re the query in the following, viz.:
The works of Richard Hakluyt[4] contains an early[when?] written use of the term in English. He writes: calling them Cafars and Gawars (Ilitterate), which is, infidels or disbelievers.[5]
The passage referenced dates to July 1568 according to the source it derives from. See "The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation", Volume 4, p. 46 (for the quotation), and p. 44 (for its apparent date).
Vancouveriensis (
talk)
02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
By Richard Hakluyt, Edmund Goldsmid
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kaffir (racial term). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on
Kaffir (racial term). 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:
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.
The pronunciation that's given is specifically for British English. To anyone who doesn't already know that, the pronunciation looks like it should be [KAF-uh]. Can someone please point this out through an edit, or change the pronunciation so it isn't just specific to British? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.113.151.63 (
talk)
01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
In the early 20th century, Kaffirs was a common reference for South African mining shares traded on the LSE. People trading in these shares where called "
Kaffir circus" also described in the Dictionary of South African English (
here). Although nowdays considered derogative, the term made the headlines of the London Times and other notable newspapers of those days and ought to be mentioned here.
Yotwen (
talk)
06:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply