If you find that quote as racist you must be reading it out of context.

I don´t believe I am. If you look closer at the article you will note that the BBC has asked for the opinions of their audience. The BBC knowingly and willingly allows writers to refer to Pretoria as a colonial name. Pretoria was named by Africans (Boers)after having been built by Africans in an internationally recognised African Republic. By referring to the name as colonial is both inaccurate and delegitimises the Boer people. Renaming Pretoria would be identical to renaming Washington, the US capital - a city named by Americans after an American to be the capital of an American Republic. How would you feel if Washington were referred by the BBC to be a colonial name?

"How would you feel if Washington were referred by the BBC to be a colonial name?" I couldn't give a toss, I'm English.

Washington? Stinking place built on a swamp, isn't it? ;) In all honest, though I'm not american and therefore not sentimentally attached to the names, I would view the likes of New York, Boston etc as 'colonial' names, being cities created by, well, colonists. I'd say the same thing about Australian cities, New Zealand cities and yes, South African cities where those cities were set up by or named in honour of European colonists who moved to another country. I hope you don't see my referring to the Boers (Afrikaners? I'm not sure of the term you prefer) as european colonists as Boer-bashing, Vryheid. I know how heated discussions of that sort can get. Hell, I attended a series of talks by Desmond Tutu, someone I consider a great man, but had a white South African friend who refused to come with me on the basis of him being an evil man. However, if the boers did originate in Europe, and moved, then surely they were colonists?

Well, I live in Washington, and I don't think I care what the BBC says. They don't amount to a hill of beans in the big scheme of things. To be honest with you the BBC is well known in the states to be solidly left leaning. I think anyone who is politically aware is cognizant of that. I mean, It's the BBC, what did you expect they are a bunch of thumb sucking liberals. As for Pretoria vs. boolee boole or whatever the hell spear chucker name they want to give it. That's good. People who plan to visit should have an indication what they are getting into based on the name. Oh yes, this is what you get when you let the zulus try to run a modern contry. They destroy it. Did you know that statistically S.A. is more dangerous than Iraq. What a friggin shame! Look at Zimbabwe. Used to be the bread basket of Southern Africa. Now, under Shona/Ntebele control it can't even feed itself. They have like 400% inflation, and a life expectancy of 36, no joke. Besides, all these floppies will be dead of AIDS by 2050, and then the Africanners/Boer, who are smart enough to wear condoms, will change the name back to Pretoria. Project Coast really worked out!

No town named after a Boer can be legitimately considered a colonial name since they were named after the indigenous Boers who were founded as a distinct people on African soil during the 1600s. "However, if the boers did originate in Europe, and moved, then surely they were colonists?" Well the fact of the matter is that the Boers did not originate in Europe. The Boers as a people originated on African soil. The Boer people & culture did not develop in Europe than suddenly transplant itself later in the Cape. The Boers developed in Africa & are a combination of many diverse origins. Some of which non European in origin. While many of their ancestors did in fact arrive from Europe, it is important to remember that they did not come as colonists on behalf of a European power but in fact as servants of the Dutch East India Company -as many were forced to accompany the tyrannical Jan Van Riebek. Later many were let go & became free citizens. When about 300 French Huguenots arrived in the Cape as refugees -escaping religious persecution in France- from 1671 until 1707 (one family as late as 1726), the basis of the Boer nation was formed as these French Huguenot refugees viewed Africa as their new home & shaped the emerging Afrikaans language with its nasalization features (which is uncommon for a Germanic language), gramatic features & a number of words. A number of German Protestants also came as political & religious refugees as well. The basis of the Boer people / nation was the amalgamation of the Dutch & Frisian settlers with the French Huguenot refugees & German refugees. The Boer nation is likely descended mostly from refugees as the French & German ancestors combined outnumber the Dutch & Frisian ones. Further dispelling the erroneous colonial notion of their origins. The Boers have even been referred as the " White tribe of Africa" in the past & some Bantu groups did in fact recognized them as a tribe during the era following the Great Trek. Not all the the Boer Afrikaners' ancestors arrived from Europe. Their non White genes are estimated at being from 5 - 7 %. The fact of the matter is that a significant number of the early White settlers & refugees intermarried with Indian slaves / Malay slaves / & Khoi -the aboriginal people of the Cape (& of much of southern Africa before being displaced). The result was: number of these mixed race offspring were absorbed into the Boer nation. The nascent Boer nation broke ties to Europe most notably during the 1690s & throughout the 1700s when they began trekking eastward & inland in order to escape the authoritarian rule of the Dutch East India Co. Therefore: when uninformed or ill-informed Westerners assert that the Boers are " White colonials" they betray their total lack of knowledge on the matter. While many of those who remained in the western Cape could certainly be considered colonials -the migrating Trekboers can not honestly be considered as such since they viewed themselves as being African & developed their own dialect which has been classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans after the expanding border regions of the eastern Cape frontier. Remember: most of the Voortrekkers -who would later go on to found the more successful & various Boer Republics- were of Trekboer descent. Furthermore: the Boers developed into a people / nation long before their first encounter with a black (Bantu) group. Their first encounter with a Bantu group was with the Xhosas in about 1775. 120 years after the first arrivals of their European ancestors in the Cape. This is a very significant point as it moots any ignorant notion opposing their presence in their own land of birth. While their ancestors did encounter indigenous people in the western Cape: they were Khoisan peoples (a yellow-brown skinned people with Oriental looking features & believed to be of Hamitic origin) who were once native to much of the southern & eastern half of Africa before being displaced & annihilated by migrating darker skinned Bantu groups. These Khoisan groups are now only found in the Northern Cape & Namibia (mainly the San / Bushmen) while the Khoi were absorbed into the emerging Cape Coloured population. The BBC does not fully describe the significance of Andries Pretorius. He was not simply a folk hero, but the Boer equivalent of a George Washington as he was the Voortrekker leader who turned the tide against the besieged Voortrekkers in Natal, lead the short lived Natalia Republic & was instrumental in actions related to the eventual independence of the Transvaal Republic & the Orange Free State. This is the significance of having named the (second) capital of the Transvaal Republic (also known as the South African Republic) after him. This was not colonialism but local Africans of Trekboer descent honouring one of their own leaders. Remember also that the Voortrekker leaders wer