meaning of boer trek

• Corrections

What was the Great Trek?

The Great Trek was a perilous exodus of pioneers into the heart of South Africa, looking for a place to call home.

When the British took control of Cape Town and the Cape Colony in the early 1800s, tensions grew between the new colonizers of British stock, and the old colonizers, the Boers, descendants of the original Dutch settlers. From 1835, the Boers would lead numerous expeditions out of the Cape Colony, traversing towards the interior of South Africa. Escaping British rule would come with a host of deadly challenges, and the Boers, seeking their own lands, would find themselves in direct conflict with the people who resided in the interior, most notably the Ndebele and the Zulu.

The “Great Trek” is a story of resentment, displacement, murder, war, and hope, and it forms one of the bloodiest chapters of South Africa’s notoriously violent history.

Origins of the Great Trek

The Cape was first colonized by the Dutch , when they landed there in 1652, and Cape Town quickly grew into a vital refueling station between Europe and the East Indies. The colony prospered and grew, with Dutch settlers taking up both urban and rural posts. In 1795, Britain invaded and took control of the Cape Colony, as it was Dutch possession, and Holland was under the control of the French Revolutionary government . After the war, the colony was handed back to Holland (the Batavian Republic) which in 1806, fell under French rule again. The British responded by annexing the Cape completely.

Under British rule, the colony underwent major administrative changes. The language of administration became English, and liberal changes were made which designated non-white servants as citizens. Britain, at the time, was adamantly anti-slavery, and was enacting laws to end it.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Tensions grew between the British and the Boers (farmers). In 1815, a Boer was arrested for assaulting one of his servants. Many other Boers rose up in rebellion in solidarity, culminating in five being hanged for insurrection. In 1834, legislation passed that all slaves were to be freed. The vast majority of Boer farmers owned slaves, and although they were offered compensation, travel to Britain was required to receive it which was impossible for many. Eventually, the Boers had had enough of British rule and decided to leave the Cape Colony in search of self-governance and new lands to farm. The Great Trek was about to begin.

The Trek Begins

Not all Afrikaners endorsed the Great Trek. In fact, only a fifth of the Cape’s Dutch-speaking people decided to take part. Most of the urbanized Dutch were actually content with British rule. Nevertheless, many Boers decided to leave. Thousands of Boers loaded up their wagons and proceeded to venture into the interior and towards peril.

The first wave of voortrekkers (pioneers) met with disaster. After setting out in September 1835, they crossed the Vaal River in January, 1836, and decided to split up, following differences between their leaders. Hans van Rensburg led a party of 49 settlers who trekked north into what is now Mozambique. His party was slain by an impi (force of warriors) of Soshangane. For van Rensburg and his party, the Great Trek was over. Only two children survived who were saved by a Zulu warrior. The other party of settlers, led by Louis Tregardt, settled near Delagoa Bay in southern Mozambique, where most of them perished from fever.

A third group led by Hendrik Potgieter, consisting of about 200 people, also ran into serious trouble. In August 1836, a Matabele patrol attacked Potgieter’s group, killing six men, two women, and six children. King Mzilikazi of the Matabele in what is now Zimbabwe decided to attack the Voortrekkers again, this time sending out an impi of 5,000 men. Local bushmen warned the Voortrekkers of the impi , and Potgieter had two days to prepare. He decided to prepare for battle, although doing so would leave all the Voortrekker’s cattle vulnerable.

The Voortrekkers arranged the wagons into a laager (defensive circle) and placed thorn branches underneath the wagons and in the gaps. Another defensive square of four wagons was placed inside the laager and covered with animal skins. Here, the women and children would be safe from spears thrown into the camp. The defenders numbered just 33 men and seven boys, each armed with two muzzle-loader rifles. They were outnumbered 150 to one.

As the battle commenced, the Voortrekkers rode out on horseback to harry the impi . This proved largely ineffective, and they withdrew to the laager. The attack on the laager only lasted for about half an hour, in which time, two Voortrekkers lost their lives, and about 400 Matabele warriors were killed or wounded. The Matabele were far more interested in taking the cattle and eventually made off with 50,000 sheep and goats and 5,000 cattle. Despite surviving through the day, the Battle of Vegkop was not a happy victory for the Voortrekkers. Three months later, with the help of the Tswana people, a Voortrekker-led raid managed to take back 6,500 cattle, which included some of the cattle plundered at Vegkop.

The following months saw revenge attacks led by the Voortrekkers. About 15 Matabele settlements were destroyed, and 1,000 warriors lost their lives. The Matabele abandoned the region. The Great Trek would continue with several other parties pioneering the way into the South African hinterland.

The Battle of Blood River

In February 1838, the Voortrekkers led by Piet Retief met with absolute disaster. Retief and his delegation were invited to the Zulu King Dingane ’s kraal (village) to negotiate a land treaty; however, Dingane betrayed the Voortrekkers. He had them all taken out to a hill outside the village and clubbed to death. Piet Retief was killed last so that he could watch his delegation being killed. In total, about 100 were murdered, and their bodies were left for the vultures and other scavengers.

Following this betrayal, King Dingane directed further attacks on unsuspecting Voortrekker settlements. This included the Weenen Massacre, in which 534 men, women, and children were slaughtered. This number includes KhoiKhoi and Basuto tribe members who accompanied them. Against a hostile Zulu nation, the Great Trek was doomed to fail.

The Voortrekkers decided to lead a punitive expedition, and under the guidance of Andries Pretorius, 464 men, along with 200 servants and two small cannons, prepared to engage the Zulu. After several weeks of trekking, Pretorius set up his laager along the Ncome River, purposefully avoiding geographic traps that would have led to a disaster in battle. His site offered protection on two sides by the Ncome River to the rear and a deep ditch on the left flank. The approach was treeless and offered no protection from any advancing attackers. On the morning of December 16, the Voortrekkers were greeted by the sight of six regiments of Zulu impis , numbering approximately 20,000 men.

For two hours, the Zulus attacked the laager in four waves, and each time they were repulsed with great casualties. The Voortrekkers used grapeshot in their muskets and their two cannons in order to maximize damage to the Zulus. After two hours, Pretorius ordered his men to ride out and attempt to break up the Zulu formations. The Zulus held for a while, but high casualties eventually forced them to scatter. With their army breaking, the Voortrekkers chased down and killed the fleeing Zulus for three hours. By the end of the battle, 3,000 Zulu lay dead (although historians dispute this number). By contrast, the Voortrekkers suffered only three injuries, including Andries Pretorius taking an assegai (Zulu spear) to the hand.

December 16 has been observed as a public holiday in the Boer Republics and South Africa ever since. It was known as The Day of the Covenant, The Day of the Vow, or Dingane’s Day. In 1995, after the fall of apartheid , the day was rebranded as “Day of Reconciliation.” Today the site on the west side of the Ncome River is home to the Blood River Monument and Museum Complex, while on the east side of the river stands the Ncome River Monument and Museum Complex dedicated to the Zulu people. The former has gone through many variations, with the latest version of the monument being 64 wagons cast in bronze. When it was unveiled in 1998, The then Minister of Home Affairs and Zulu tribal leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi , apologized on behalf of the Zulu people for the murder of Piet Retief and his party during the Great Trek, while he also stressed the suffering of Zulus during apartheid.

The Zulu defeat added to further divisions in the Zulu Kingdom, which was plunged into a civil war between Dingane and his brother Mpande. Mpande, supported by the Voortrekkers, won the civil war in January 1840. This led to a significant decrease in threats to the Voortrekkers. Andries Pretorius and his Voortrekkers were able to recover Piet Retief’s body, along with his retinue, and give them burials. On Retief’s body was found the original treaty offering the trekkers land, and Pretorius was able to successfully negotiate with the Zulu over the establishment of a territory for the Voortrekkers. The Republic of Natalia was established in 1839, south of the Zulu Kingdom. However, the new republic was short-lived and was annexed by the British in 1843.

Nevertheless, the Great Trek could continue, and thus the waves of Voortrekkers continued. In the 1850s, two substantial Boer republics were established: The Republic of the Transvaal and the Republic of the Orange Free State . These republics would later come into conflict with the expanding British Empire.

The Great Trek as a Cultural Symbol

In the 1940s, Afrikaner nationalists used the Great Trek as a symbol to unite the Afrikaans people and promote cultural unity among them. This move was primarily responsible for the National Party winning the 1948 election and, later on, imposing apartheid on the country.

South Africa is a highly diverse country, and while the Great Trek remains a symbol of Afrikaner culture and history, it is also seen as an important part of South African history with lessons to learn from for all South Africans.

6 Crazy Facts about Cape Town

By Greg Beyer Assistant Editor; African History Greg is an editor specializing in African History and prolific author of over 100 articles, with a BA in History & Linguistics and a Journalism Diploma from the University of Cape Town. A former English teacher, he now excels in academic writing and pursues his passion for art through drawing and painting in his free time.

Frequently Read Together

British History: The Formation of Great Britain and the United Kingdom

The French Revolution in 5 Iconic Paintings

Mandela & the 1995 Rugby World Cup: A Match that Redefined a Nation

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

Great Trek 1835-1846

The Great Trek was a movement of Dutch-speaking colonists up into the interior of southern Africa in search of land where they could establish their own homeland, independent of British rule. The determination and courage of these pioneers has become the single most important element in the folk memory of Afrikaner Nationalism. However, far from being the peaceful and God-fearing process which many would like to believe it was, the Great Trek caused a tremendous upheaval in the interior for at least half a century.

The Voortrekkers

The Great Trek was a landmark in an era of expansionism and bloodshed, of land seizure and labour coercion. Taking the form of a mass migration into the interior of southern Africa, this was a search by dissatisfied Dutch-speaking colonists for a promised land where they would be 'free and independent people' in a 'free and independent state'.

The men, women and children who set out from the eastern frontier towns of Grahamstown, Uitenhage and Graaff-Reinet represented only a fraction of the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the colony, and yet their determination and courage has become the single most important element in the folk memory of Afrikaner nationalism. However, far from being the peaceful and God-fearing process which many would like to believe it was, the Great Trek caused a tremendous social upheaval in the interior of southern Africa, rupturing the lives of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people. But this time the reports that reached the chiefs of the Sotho clans on the northern bank were more alarming: the white men were coming in their hundreds.

Threatened by the 'liberalism' of the new colonial administration, insecure about conflict on the eastern frontier and 'squeezed out' by their own burgeoning population, the Voortrekkers hoped to restore economic, cultural and political unity independent of British power. The only way they saw open to them was to leave the colony. In the decade following 1835, thousands migrated into the interior, organised in a number of trek parties under various leaders. Many of the Voortrekkers were trekboers (semi-nomadic pastoral farmers) and their mode of life made it relatively easy for them to pack their worldly possessions in ox-wagons and leave the colony forever.

After crossing the Orange River the trekkers were still not totally out of reach of the Cape judiciary - in terms of the Cape of Good Hope Punishment Act (1836), they were liable for all crimes committed south of 25 deg latitude (which falls just below the present-day Warmbaths in northern Transvaal).

The trekkers had a strong Calvinist faith. But when the time came for them to leave they found that no Dutch Reformed Church minister from the Cape was prepared to accompany the expedition, for the church synod opposed the emigration, saying it would lead to 'godlessness and a decline of civilisation'. So the trekkers were forced to rely on the ministrations of the American Daniel Lindley, the Wesleyan missionary James Archbell, and a non-ordained minister, Erasmus Smit.

The trekkers, dressed in traditional dopper coats (short coats buttoned from top to bottom), kappies (bonnets) and hand-made riempieskoene (leather thong shoes), set out in wagons which they called kakebeenwoens (literally, jawbone wagons, because the shape and sides of a typical trek wagon resembled the jawbone of an animal).

These wagons could carry a startling weight of household goods, clothes, bedding, furniture, agricultural implements, fruit trees and weapons. They were ingeniously designed and surprisingly light, so as not to strain the oxen, and to make it easier to negotiate the veld, narrow ravines and steep precipices which lay ahead. Travelling down the 3500 metre slope of the Drakensberg, no brake shoe or changing of wheels could have saved a wagon from hurtling down the mountain were it not for a simple and creative solution: the hindwheels of wagons were removed and heavy branches were tied securely underneath. So the axles were protected, and a new form of brake was invented.

The interior represented for the trekkers a foreboding enigma. The barren Kalahari Desert to the west of the highveld, and the tsetse fly belt which stretched from the Limpopo River south-eastwards, could not have been a very inviting prospect. Little did they realise that neither man nor animal would escape the fatal malarial mosquito. Yet the Voortrekkers ploughed on through treacherous terrain, eliminating all obstacles in their path, and intent on gaining access to ports beyond the sphere of British control, such as Delagoa Bay, Inhambane and Sofala. In order for their new settlement to be viable, it was crucial that they make independent links with the economies of Europe.

Trek and the 'empty lands'

The Empty Land Myth The Empty or Vacant Land Theory is a theory was propagated by European settlers in nineteenth century South Africa to support their claims to land. Today this theory is described as a myth, the Empty Land Myth, because there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support this theory. Despite evidence to the contrary a number of parties in South Africa, particularly right-wing nationalists of European descent, maintain that the theory still holds true in order to support their claims to land-ownership in the country.  Read article

Reconnaissance expeditions in 1834 and 1835 reported that Natal south of the Thukela and the central highveld on either side of the Vaal River, were fertile and largely uninhabited, much of the interior having been unsettled by the ravages of the Mfecane (or Difaqane as it is called in Sotho). The truth of these reports - many of them from missionaries - has long been a source of argument among historians, and recent research indicates that the so-called 'depopulation theory' is unreliable - the devastation and carnage by African warriors is exaggerated with every account, the number of Mfecane casualties ranging between half a million and 5-million.

This kind of historical inaccuracy strengthens the trekkers' claim that the land which they occupied was 'uninhabited and belonged to no-one', that the survivors of the Mfecane were conveniently spread out in a horseshoe shape around empty land. Probably in an attempt to justify their land seizure, the trekkers also claimed to have actually saved the smaller clans in the interior from annihilation, and defeated the 'barbarous' Ndebele and Zulu warriors.

Africans did indeed move temporarily into other areas, but were soon to reoccupy their land, only to find themselves ousted by Boer intruders. For example, in Natal the African population, estimated at 11000 in 1838, was increased by 'several thousand refugees' after Dingane's defeat at the hands of his half-brother Mpande two years later. In 1843, when the Republic of Natalia was annexed by the British, the official African population was put at 'between 80 000 and 10 0000 people'. But even this may have been an underestimation.

Trekker communities and technology

Military prowess was of paramount importance to the trekker expedition. It had to be, for they were invading and conquering lands to which African societies themselves lay claim. Bound by a common purpose, the trekkers were a people's army in the true sense of the word, with the whole family being drawn into military defence and attack. For instance, the loading of the sanna (the name they gave to the muzzle-loading rifles they used) was a complicated procedure and so the Boers used more than one gun at a time - while aiming and firing at the enemy with one, their wives and children would be loading another.

Armed with rifles on their backs and a kruithoring (powder horn) and bandolier (a bullet container made of hartebeest, kudu or ox-hide) strapped to their belts, formidable groups of trekkers would ride into battle. Bullets were often sawn nearly through to make them split and fly in different directions, and buckshot was prepared by casting lead into reeds and then chopping it up. Part of every man's gear was his knife, with a blade about 20 centimetres in length. When approaching the battlefield, the wagons would be drawn into a circle and the openings between the wheels filled with branches to fire through and hide behind. When they eventually settled down, the structure of many of the houses they built - square, with thick walls and tiny windows - resembled small fortresses.

The distinction between hunting and raiding parties was often blurred in trekker society. Killing and looting were their business, land and labour their spoils. When the trekkers arrived in the Transvaal they experienced an acute labour shortage. They did not work their own fields themselves and instead used Pedi who sold their labour mainly to buy arms and ammunition.

During commando onslaughts, particularly in the eastern Transvaal, thousands of young children were captured to become inboekselings ('indentured people'). These children were indentured to their masters until adulthood (the age of 21 in the case of women and 25 in the case of men), but many remained bound to their masters for much longer. This system was akin to child slavery, and a more vicious application of the apprenticeship laws promulgated at the Cape in 1775 and 1812.

Child slavery was even more prevalent in the northern Soutpansberg area of the Transvaal. It has been suggested that when these northern Boers could no longer secure white ivory for trade at Delagoa Bay, 'black ivory' (a euphemism widely used for African children) began to replace it as a lucrative item of trade. Children were more amenable to new ways of life, and it was hoped that the inboekselings would assimilate Boer cultural patterns and create a 'buffer class' against increasing African resistance.

Dispossession and land seizure

The trekkers' first major confrontation was with Mzilikazi, founder and king of the Ndebele. After leaving the Cape, the trekkers made their first base near Thaba Nchu, the great place of Moroka, the Rolong chief. In 1836 the Ndebele were in the path of a trekker expedition heading northwards and led by Andries Hendrik Potgieter. The Ndebele were attacked by a Boer commando led by Potgieter, but Mzilikazi retaliated and the Boers retreated to their main laager at Vegkop. There in October, in a short and fierce battle which lasted half an hour, 40 trekkers succeeded in beating off an attack by 6000 Ndebele warriors. Both sides suffered heavy losses - 430 Ndebele were killed, and the trekkers lost thousands of sheep and cattle as well as their trek oxen. But a few days later, Moroka and the missionary Archbell rescued them with food and oxen.

Gert Maritz and his party joined these trekkers in Transorangia (later the Orange Free State) and in January 1837, with the help of a small force of Griqua, Kora, Rolong and Tlokwa, they captured Mzilikazi 's stronghold at Mosega and drove the Ndebele further north. The trekkers then concluded treaties of friendship with Moroka and Sekonyela (chief of the Tlokwa).

When Piet Retief and his followers split away and moved eastwards to Natal, both Potgieter and Piet Uys remained determined to break the Ndebele. At the end of 1837, 135 trekkers besieged Mzilikazi 's forces in the Marico valley, and Mzilikazi fled across the Limpopo River to present-day Zimbabwe. He died there, to be succeeded by Lobengula, who led a rather precarious life in the area until he was eventually defeated by the forces of the British South Africa Company in the 1890s.

Meanwhile, Retief and his followers continued marching towards Port Natal (later Durban). After Retief's fateful encounter with Dingane, chief of the Zulu, and the ensuing Battle of Blood River, the trekkers declared the short-lived Republic of Natalia (1838). They formed a simple system of goveming, with Pretorius as President, assisted by a volksraad (people's assembly) of 24 members, and local government officials based on the traditional landdrost and heemraden system. In 1841, an adjunct council was established at Potchefstroom, with Potgieter as Chief-Commandant. The trekkers believed that at last they had found a place in the sun....

But the British would not recognise their independence. In December 1838, the Governor, Sir George Napier, a determined military man who had not allowed the loss of his right arm in battle to ruin his career, sent his military secretary, Major Samuel Charters, to occupy Port Natal, which effectively controlled Voortrekker use of the harbour. Three years later, when the Natal Volksraad resolved to drive all Africans not working for the whites southwards beyond the Mtamvuna River (later the border between Natal and the Transkei), Napier again intervened. He was concerned that this would threaten the eastern frontier of the Cape, and so instructed Captain Thomas Charlton Smith to march to Port Natal with 250 men. Smith, who had joined the Royal Navy at the age of nine and was a veteran of the Battle of Waterloo, tried to negotiate with Pretorius, but to no avail.

On the moonlit night of 23 May 1842, Smith attacked the Boer camp at Congella but Pretorius, who had been alerted, fought back. The trekkers proceeded to besiege the British camp. One of their number, Dick King. who became known as the 'saviour of Natal', evaded the siege and rode some 1000 kilometres on horseback to seek reinforcements in Grahamstown. In June a British relief force under Lieutenant-Colonel Abraham Cloete arrived on the scene and Boer resistance was crushed. On 15 July the volksraad at Pietermaritzburg signed the conditions of submission.

Although most trekkers had travelled into Natal or into the far north with the main expeditions, some had remained on the fertile land above the junction of the Caledon and Orange rivers, and gradually began to move north-eastward.

The trekkers' pioneer in this area was Jan de Winnaar, who settled in the Matlakeng area in May-June 1838. As more farmers were moving into the area they tried to colonise the land between the two rivers, even north of the Caledon, claiming that it had been abandoned by the Sotho people. But although some of the independent communities who had lived there had been scattered, others remained in the kloofs and on the hillsides. Moshoeshoe, paramount chief of the Sotho, when hearing of the trekker settlement above the junction, stated that '... the ground on which they were belonged to me, but I had no objections to their flocks grazing there until such time as they were able to proceed further; on condition, however, that they remained in peace with my people and recognised my authority'.

The trekkers proceeded to build huts of clay (instead of reed), and began planting their own food crops (no longer trading with the Sotho). This indicated their resolve to settle down permanently. A French missionary, Eugene Casalis, later remarked that the trekkers had humbly asked for temporary rights while they were still few in number, but that when they felt 'strong enough to throw off the mask' they went back on their initial intention.

In October 1842 Jan Mocke, a fiery republican, and his followers erected a beacon at Alleman's drift on the banks of the Orange River and proclaimed a republic. Officials were appointed to preside over the whole area between the Caledon and Vaal rivers. Riding back from the drift, they informed Chief Lephoi, an independent chief at Bethulie, that the land was now Boer property and that he and his people were subject to Boer laws. They further decided that the crops which had been sown for the season would be reaped by the Boers, and they even uprooted one of the peach trees in the garden of a mission station as indication of their ownership. In the north-east, they began to drive Moshoeshoe's people away from the springs, their only source of water. Moshoeshoe appealed for protection to the Queen of England, but he soon discovered that he would have to organise his own resistance.

Land seizure and dispossession were also prevalent in the eastern Transvaal where Potgieter had founded the towns of Andries-Ohrigstad in 1845 and Soutpansberg (which was later renamed Schoemansdal) in 1848. A power struggle erupted between Potgieter and Pretorius, who had arrived with a new trekker party from Natal and seemed to have a better understanding of the political dynamics of southern Africa. Potgieter, still anxious to legitimise his settlement, concluded a vredenstraktaat (peace treaty) in 1845 with Sekwati, chief of the Pedi, who he claimed had ceded all rights to an undefined stretch of land. The precise terms of the treaty are unknown, but it seems certain that Sekwati never actually sold land to the Boers.

Often in order to ensure their own safety, chiefs would sign arbitrary treaties giving away sections of land to which they in fact had no right. Such was the case with Mswati, chief of the Swazi, who, intent on seeking support against the Zulu, in July 1846 granted all the land bounded by the Oliphants, Crocodile and Elands rivers to the Boers. This angered the Pedi, who pointed out that the land had not even been his to hand over.

There was no uniform legal system or concept of ownership to which all parties interested in the land subscribed. Private land ownership did not exist in these African societies, and for the most part the land which chiefs ceded to the Boers was communally owned. Any document 'signed' by the chiefs, and its implications, could not have been fully understood by them. Misunderstandings worked in the favour of the Boers.

Large tracts of land were purchased for next to nothing. For example, the northern half of Transorangia went to Andries Potgieter in early 1836 for a few cattle and a promise to protect the Taung chief, Makwana, from the Ndebele. The area between the Vet and Vaal rivers extended about 60 000 square kilometres. This means that Potgieter got 2000 square kilometres per head of livestock! Also the 'right of conquest' was extended over areas much larger than those that chiefs actually had authority over. After Mzilikazi 's flight north in November 1837, the trekkers immediately took over all the land between the Vet and Limpopo rivers - although Mzilikazi's area of control covered only the western Transvaal.

But it was only after the Sand River Convention (1852) and the Bloemfontein Convention (1854) that independent Boer republics were formally established north of the Vaal and Orange rivers respectively.

Reader’s Digest. (1988). Illustrated History of South Africa: the real story, New York: Reader’s Digest Association. p. 114-120.

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

GEOGRAPHY POINT – YOUR GATEWAY TO GLOBAL GEOGRAPHY

EXPLORE THE WORLD OF GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY, AND MAPS AN EDUCATIONAL SITE ABOUT GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY

20 Causes of the Boers Great Trek

The Great trek was massive movement or exodus of the Boers from the Cape colony into the interior of South Africa.

The Great trek was a large-scale migration of the Boers from the Cape colony and well organized under disciplined leadership.

The following were the causes of great Boer trek

Desire for freedom and independence from british rule.

The Boers’ yearning for freedom and independence was deeply rooted in their history. Since the British took over the Cape Colony from Dutch administration in 1795, the Boers had been subject to British rule. Over the years, they grew increasingly resentful of British control, as their cultural and political values clashed with those of the British. The Boers’ determination to escape British dominance fueled their decision to embark on the Great Trek.

Abundance of Unoccupied Land

The interior of South Africa offered vast stretches of unoccupied land that were alluring to the Boers. These fertile lands seemed ripe for settlement and commercial farming. The Boers saw an opportunity to establish their own communities and livelihoods away from the confines of British-controlled territories, and this promise of land acted as a catalyst for their migration.

Search for Fertile Soils

Agricultural production was vital to the Boers’ way of life, and they sought fertile soils to sustain their agricultural endeavors. The interior of South Africa held the promise of fertile lands that could support their farming practices. The Boers believed that by moving into these regions, they could secure their agricultural future and build prosperous lives.

Rebellious and Defiant Nature

The Boers displayed a rebellious and defiant spirit, particularly in their interactions with British legal reforms. Their resistance to British-imposed changes and regulations was a manifestation of their desire for self-governance. By migrating away from British-controlled territories, the Boers aimed to assert their independence and shape their own destinies.

Impact of the Hottentots Code of 1809

The Hottentots Code of 1809 had a profound impact on the Boers’ decision to trek. This legal document restored land to the Khoi-Khoi people that the Boers had acquired. The Boers saw this as an infringement on their property rights and an affront to their interests. The perceived injustice of losing land they considered rightfully theirs contributed to their decision to move inland.

Limited Influence of the Dutch Reformed Church

The Dutch Reformed Church held significant importance to the Boers, both as a religious institution and a cultural anchor. However, the limited influence of the church in British-controlled regions frustrated the Boers. The church was unable to wield the same influence it had in Dutch-administered times. This diminishing influence eroded their sense of identity, motivating them to seek territories where their faith could thrive.

Rejection of British Religious Reforms

The British introduced religious reforms that granted freedom of worship to various groups, including Africans. This decision conflicted with the Boers’ traditional religious beliefs and practices. Feeling that their way of life was being threatened by the British’s religious reforms, the Boers saw migration as a means to safeguard their faith and traditions.

Discontent with Freedom of Press

The British policy of granting freedom of press to Africans frustrated the Boers. They viewed this as a challenge to their cultural and social dominance. The British’s approach to press freedom was seen as a breach of their privileges, and the Boers sought territories where they could maintain their traditional social hierarchy.

Missionary Marriages and Annoyance

The Boers’ Great Trek was significantly influenced by their disapproval of missionaries marrying Africans. The Boers, a deeply conservative and religious community, held traditional beliefs and values that clashed with the actions of missionaries. The idea of interracial marriages challenged their worldview and societal norms. The Boers perceived this as a threat to their culture, family structures, and racial purity. The increasing frequency of such marriages led to growing annoyance and resentment among the Boers, contributing to their decision to migrate into the interior of South Africa in order to escape this perceived threat to their way of life.

Contradictory Missionary Acts

The Great Trek was also influenced by the contradictions between the missionaries’ preaching and the Boers’ perceived discriminatory practices. Missionaries arrived with messages of liberty, equality, and fraternity, ideals that stood in stark contrast to the Boers’ support for racial discrimination against non-white populations. This glaring incongruity between missionary teachings and the Boers’ actions highlighted the clash of cultural values and contributed to the Boers’ desire to distance themselves from the missionaries and establish their own way of life.

Racial Segregation and God’s Chosen People

The Boers’ belief in their own racial superiority and their perception of themselves as God’s chosen people played a pivotal role in the Great Trek. This ideology justified their racial segregation and resistance to mixing with other races, particularly non-whites. The belief that they were destined for a higher status fueled their resistance to social changes and interactions that challenged their sense of racial supremacy. This mindset, coupled with their resistance to the notion of equality and integration, prompted them to move away from areas where these dynamics were changing, culminating in the Great Trek.

Economic and Currency Concerns

The decision to migrate was also influenced by economic factors, notably the Boers’ dissatisfaction with the replacement of the Dutch Rix dollar with the English Currency (English silver) at the Cape. The shift in currency created economic challenges for the Boers, impacting their trading practices and daily lives. Their opposition to the new currency and the economic changes it brought motivated them to explore new areas where they could regain their economic independence and maintain their preferred trading practices, leading to the movement inland.

Racial Prejudice and Cultural Supremacy

The Great Trek was driven by the Boers’ desire to promote their culture and racial supremacy. They viewed the interior of South Africa as a place where they could establish their own social order and norms, unburdened by the perceived interference of other racial groups and outside influences. This desire for cultural and racial dominance compelled them to leave areas where their dominance was being challenged or diluted.

Missionary Education and Cultural Clash

The missionaries’ role in providing education to Africans became a point of contention that contributed to the Great Trek. The Boers were resentful of the missionaries for educating non-whites, a privilege they themselves had been denied for generations. This clash over education underscored the cultural differences between the Boers and the missionaries and deepened their resolve to seek a new home where they could shape education and cultural practices according to their own preferences.

Alarming Changes in Legislation

The introduction of the 1828 50th Ordinance, which restored civil rights to non-whites and abolished discriminatory pass laws, greatly alarmed the Boers. This legislation challenged the Boers’ established power structures and the racial hierarchy they had maintained. The Boers, fearing a loss of control and influence, were driven to seek new territories where they could continue their social and racial dominance without interference from such progressive legislation, thus contributing to the Great Trek.

Imposition of English Language

The imposition of the English language by the British, which replaced the Dutch language as the official language, was a significant catalyst for the Boers’ Great Trek into the interior of South Africa. Language holds immense cultural and identity value, and the sudden replacement of their native Dutch language with English was deeply unsettling for the Boers. This linguistic change represented a broader attempt by the British to exert their control over the region and assimilate the Boers into British colonial culture. The Boers felt a strong attachment to their Dutch heritage, and the sudden shift to English further accentuated their sense of alienation and cultural erosion. This linguistic imposition served as a poignant symbol of British dominance and contributed to the Boers’ desire to seek refuge and independence in the interior regions.

Population Increase and Pressure on Services

The influx of British settlers to the Cape colony led to a significant population increase, straining existing resources and services. The increased demand for land, jobs, and infrastructure put immense pressure on the available resources, leading to heightened competition and tensions among various groups. The Boers, who had historically occupied these regions and developed their unique ways of life, found themselves marginalized and overshadowed by the growing British presence. As the Cape’s services struggled to accommodate the burgeoning population, the Boers faced a changing landscape that threatened their traditional lifestyle. This pressure on resources and the erosion of their accustomed way of living motivated the Boers to undertake the Great Trek in search of new lands and opportunities.

British Policy of Anglicization

The British policy of Anglicization aimed to transform the Cape colony into a more British-centric entity. This policy sought to replace Dutch cultural practices and institutions with British counterparts, intending to assimilate the diverse populations into a homogenized British colonial identity. For the Boers, who had strong ties to their Dutch heritage and traditions, the British policy was viewed as a threat to their cultural autonomy. The Boers resisted this cultural imposition, feeling that their way of life was being undermined and suppressed. This friction between the British colonial authorities and the Boers fueled a sense of alienation and resentment, providing a significant impetus for the Boers’ decision to embark on the Great Trek into the less governed interior regions.

British Judicial Reforms

The British legal system’s implementation, which replaced the old Dutch Roman criminal law, posed a significant challenge for the Boers. This legal overhaul disrupted the established norms and practices that the Boers had grown accustomed to. The British legal framework often clashed with the Boers’ customary laws and traditions, leading to misunderstandings and tensions. The Boers saw this imposition as a symbol of British interference in their self-governance and local affairs. Faced with the prospect of living under a legal system that did not align with their values, the Boers sought refuge in the unexplored interior regions, where they could maintain their legal autonomy and avoid the British legal system’s influence.

Long-Term Hatred and Animosity

A history of animosity and conflict between the British and Boers at the Cape colony laid the foundation for the Great Trek. Tensions had simmered for years, marked by clashes over land ownership, cultural differences, and political power struggles. The Boers’ resentment toward British colonial dominance and their desire to escape the British sphere of influence were deeply rooted. As the Boers grew weary of living under British rule and influence, the Great Trek represented an opportunity to distance themselves from their historical adversaries and establish their own territories where they could govern themselves according to their own beliefs and values.

Spirit of Adventure

The Boers harbored a spirit of adventure and exploration that contributed to the massive migration during the Great Trek. Many Boers were drawn to the idea of discovering new lands and carving out their own destinies. The allure of uncharted territories, untamed landscapes, and the possibility of starting anew ignited a sense of excitement and curiosity among the Boers. This spirit of adventure was fueled by a desire for independence, self-sufficiency, and the prospect of creating a better life for themselves and their families. The promise of unexplored opportunities in the interior of South Africa acted as a driving force behind the Great Trek.

Positive Reports from Scouts

Reports from Boers’ scouts who had ventured into the interior regions of South Africa played a pivotal role in inspiring the Great Trek. These scouts returned with accounts of fertile lands, abundant resources, and the potential for establishing prosperous settlements away from the pressures and interference of British colonial authorities. These reports circulated among the Boer communities, sparking enthusiasm and optimism about the possibilities that awaited them in the uncharted territories. The positive narratives shared by these scouts fueled a sense of hope and determination among the Boers, motivating them to undertake the arduous journey of the Great Trek in pursuit of a better future.

Reduction of Dutch Official Salaries

The reduction of Dutch official salaries by the British had profound consequences for the Boers, serving as a catalyst for their Great Trek. The Boers, descendants of Dutch settlers, were established in the Cape Colony. However, British colonial authorities implemented policies that led to significant economic and social changes, including salary cuts for Dutch officials. This action greatly angered the Boers, as it not only affected their livelihoods but also symbolized British disregard for their presence and contributions. Faced with economic difficulties and increasing discontentment, many Boers began to seek opportunities elsewhere, prompting them to undertake the Great Trek in search of a more promising and independent future.

Introduction of Black Circuit Courts

The introduction of Black Circuit courts in the Cape Colony marked another pivotal factor in the Boers’ decision to embark on the Great Trek. These courts allowed Africans to voice their grievances against their European masters. For the Boers, who often practiced forms of indentured labor and control over African communities, this represented a direct challenge to their authority and a perceived infringement on their way of life. The idea that Africans could now challenge Boer dominance in legal proceedings fueled the Boers’ resentment and fears of further encroachment on their autonomy. Consequently, many Boers viewed the interior of South Africa as an escape from these evolving dynamics, spurring them to leave the Cape Colony in search of new territory where they could preserve their social and economic structures.

Slachters’ Nek Incident

The Slachters’ Nek incident of 1815 added to the grievances that culminated in the Great Trek. During this event, several Boers were hanged for their involvement in a rebellion against British colonial rule. This execution deeply unsettled the Boers and intensified their dissatisfaction with British governance. The incident not only led to loss of life but also exposed the Boers to British judicial power, illustrating a potential future where their autonomy could be curtailed. Feeling increasingly marginalized and mistreated, the Boers began to consider a migration away from the Cape Colony, seeking a place where they could live free from British interference and persecution.

Loss of Cheap Labor due to Emancipation

The Boers’ reliance on cheap labor was disrupted by the emancipation of slaves through the 50th ordinance. The British Empire’s decision to abolish slavery had wide-ranging implications for the Boers, who heavily depended on slave labor for their economic activities. The emancipation meant a significant loss of an exploitable workforce, impacting their agricultural practices and overall prosperity. Facing economic challenges and feeling disillusioned by British policies, the Boers saw the interior of South Africa as an opportunity to establish new agricultural communities that would not be reliant on the labor that had been taken away from them.

Emancipation of Slaves by Britain

The broader emancipation of slaves in the British Empire, which also applied to South Africa, was a major turning point in the Boers’ decision to undertake the Great Trek. The emancipation represented a clash between the Boers’ economic interests and British humanitarian ideals. As Britain took steps to end slavery, the Boers were confronted with a new reality that went against their traditional social and economic systems. The Boers felt that the British were imposing their values and disregarding their own way of life. In response, many Boers sought refuge in the interior of South Africa, where they believed they could maintain their established practices and principles away from British influence.

6. Lack of Compensation after Emancipation

The British failure to adequately compensate the Boers for the loss of their slave labor was a significant driver behind the Great Trek. The Boers had invested heavily in the slave-based economy, and the emancipation of slaves without proper compensation dealt a severe blow to their economic stability. The disparity between the value of the liberated slaves and the compensation provided further fueled Boer resentment. This lack of compensation was perceived as another instance of British exploitation and disregard for their interests. Consequently, the Boers sought to distance themselves from British rule and its perceived injustices by moving into the interior of South Africa, where they hoped to establish their own self-governing communities.

Rumours of Forced Military Conscription

The catalyst behind the Boers’ Great Trek lay in the unsettling whispers that circulated within Boer communities. These rumours suggested that the British colonial authorities were considering the imposition of forced military conscription upon the Boers. This looming threat of mandatory enlistment fueled deep-seated fears among the Boer population, who cherished their independence and had a strong aversion to being conscripted into a foreign military force. Faced with the prospect of being compelled to fight in conflicts that held little relevance to their interests, the Boers decided to seek refuge further inland, embarking on the arduous journey known as the Great Trek.

Annexation Nullification and Provocation

The nullification and revocation of Boer annexations by the British added fuel to the fire of discontent. When the Boers had annexed the regions of Queen Adelaide and Natal, they did so with a sense of autonomy and authority. However, the British administration’s abrupt reversal of these annexations conveyed a message of British dominance and disregard for Boer sovereignty. This affront to their territorial claims and the subsequent snubbing of their authority stoked feelings of resentment and frustration among the Boers. It was these emotions, combined with a desire to escape British control, that drove them to migrate inward and establish their own settlements.

Lord Glenelg’s Cancellation of Territorial Adjustments

The actions of the British Secretary of State, Lord Glenelg, played a significant role in shaping the Boers’ decisions. When Governor Benjamin Durban proposed adjustments to territorial boundaries, he aimed to address practical administrative and financial concerns. However, Glenelg’s decision to cancel these adjustments stemmed from a fear of exacerbating the British government’s administrative and financial responsibilities. This perceived negligence towards the needs of the Boers and their regions compounded the existing disillusionment with British governance. The Boers’ realization that their interests were not being adequately considered by the British establishment fueled their determination to forge their path away from British interference.

Resistance to New British Land Reforms

The introduction of new British land reforms marked another turning point that incited the Boers to embark on the Great Trek. These reforms required individuals to possess mapped and fenced land, along with official title deeds, in order to claim ownership. The Boers, who had traditionally maintained a more fluid and communal approach to landownership, found themselves at odds with this new system. The British insistence on imposing their land practices upon the Boers further reinforced the sense of cultural and ideological clashes between the two groups. Feeling that their traditional way of life was under threat, the Boers sought to escape these reforms by migrating deeper into the interior of South Africa, where they could maintain their customs and values without British interference.

RELATED POSTS

• What were the effects of the Great trek on Boers and British
• How did the movement of the Boers into the interior of South Africa affect the people of South Africa?
• The Effects of the Great Trek on the Africans
• What was the Great Trek? (Origin of great trek)

Share this:

Published by.

IAM experienced geography teacher with more than three years of teaching and creating content related to geography and other subjects for both high school and college students. hope you will find the content of this website useful to your studies and daily life View all posts by mwaikusa

One thought on “20 Causes of the Boers Great Trek”

• Pingback: How did the movement of the Boers into the interior of South Africa affect the people of South Africa?

Comments are closed.

Services on Demand

Related links, tydskrif vir geesteswetenskappe, on-line version  issn 2224-7912 print version  issn 0041-4751, tydskr. geesteswet. vol.49 n.4 pretoria  2009.

Was die Groot Trek werklik groot? 'n Historiografiese ondersoek na die gevolge en betekenis van die Groot Trek

Was the Great Trek really great? A historiographical inquiry into the consequences and significance of the Great Trek

Pieter de Klerk

Vakgroep Geskiedenis, Noordwes-Universiteit (Vaaldriehoekkampus), E-pos: [email protected]

Sedert die laat negentiende eeu het historici die gevolge en betekenis van die Groot Trek bespreek. Daar kan verskillende hooftendense in die interpretasies onderskei word. Daar is eerstens die vroeë beskouing dat die Trek die beskawing in suidelike Afrika uitgedra het. Tweedens is daar die siening van Afrikaanse historici dat die Groot Trek die totstandkoming van die Afrikanervolk moontlik gemaak het. Derdens het lede van die liberale skool van historici die Trek beskou as 'n ontvlugting van progressiewe Britse beleidsmaatreëls in die Kaapkolonie; dit was 'n ramp vir die ontwikkeling van Suid-Afrika. Vierdens is daar die siening van die radikale skool dat die Groot Trek 'n fase was in die uitbreiding van kapitalisme en kolonialisme in Suid-Afrika. Vyfdens is daar die resente opvatting dat die Groot Trek net een van verskeie migrasies in Suid-Afrika was en nie uitgesonder kan word as van besondere betekenis nie. Sesdens beskou latere Afrikaanse geskiedskrywers die Trek as 'n gebeurtenis met uiteenlopende gevolge. Dit blyk dat historici steeds beïnvloed is deur tydsomstandighede in hul beklemtoning van bepaalde gevolge van die Trek. Sommige van hul stellings oor die langtermyngevolge van die Trek is spekulatief en kan moeilik gestubstansieer word. Gesien binne die perspektief van die huidige tydsgewrig was die Groot Trek primer deel van 'n omvattende proses van verwestering en modernisasie in suidelike Afrika. Alhoewel dit nie as dié sentrale gebeurtenis in die geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika gesien kan word, soos vroeër dikwels beweer is nie, is dit tog een van 'n klein aantal sleutelgebeurtenisse in die geskiedenis van die land.

Trefwoorde: Groot Trek, Voortrekkers, Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis, historiografie, Afrikanernasionalisme, Afrikanasionalisme, liberale historici, radikale historici, kolonisasie, kapitalisme, rassebeleid.

Since the late nineteenth century historians have discussed the consequences and significance of the Great Trek. G M Theal, who wrote an authoritative multi-volume history of South Africa, described the Trek as a unique event in the history of modern colonisation. He, together with scholars such as G E Cory and M Nathan, saw the importance of the Great Trek especially in terms of the expansion of Western civilisation and Christianity into the eastern parts of South Africa. During the period between approximately 1900 and 1980 many Afrikaans- speaking historians were strongly influenced by Afrikaner nationalism. They linked the Great Trek to the birth of the Afrikaner nation. Some historians, such as G S Preller and C Beyers, saw the Voortrekkers as people who were already conscious of their identity as a nation and wanted to become free of British dominance. Later historians, such as G D Scholtz, C F J Muller and F A van Jaarsveld, believed that Afrikaner nationalism only developed after the Great Trek, but that the Trek prevented the anglicization of the Boers in the Cape Colony and therefore made possible the development of an Afrikaner nation. W M Macmillan, E A Walker and C W de Kiewiet, three prominent members of the liberal school of historians, also regarded the Great Trek as a very important event in the development of South Africa, but thought that it had mainly negative consequences. In their opinion, the Voortrekkers had escaped from the economic and political changes in the Cape Colony with the aim of preserving an antiquated way of life. In the Boer republics, and later in the Union of South Africa, the racial policies of the Dutch colonial period were continued, instead of the liberal racial policies practised in the Cape Colony under British rule. Some contemporary historians still accept major elements of the early liberal interpretations. Authors with a Marxist viewpoint, such as D Taylor and W M Tsotsi, also regarded the Voortrekkers as representatives of a pre-capitalist economic system, but at the same time saw them as the vanguard of the imperialist advance in Africa; the Voortrekkers were conquerers and the oppressors of the indigenous population. P Delius, T Keegan and others, however, viewed the Voortrekkers as being part of the expanding capitalist system in Southern Africa. Since the 1960s a number of historians argued that the Great Trek should not be seen as a central event in the development of South Africa. A R Willcox and N Parsons emphasized the similarities between the Great Trek and the Mfecane. N Etherington, who is critical of traditional views of the Mfecane as a dispersal of peoples in Southern Africa caused by the rise of the Zulu kingdom under Shaka, viewed the Great Trek as one of a number of "treks" by various groups during the period 1815-1854. According to him the Great Trek was not larger or more significant than the other migrations and therefore does not deserve to be called "great". During the last four decades several Afrikaans historians pointed out that the Great Trek had a number of diverse consequences. From the perspective of the history of the Afrikaners there were various negative consequences. As a result of the Trek, the Afrikaners remained politically divided for many years. Furthermore, the Trek resulted in the cultural and economic isolation of the Boers. The Great Trek increased the conflicts between the Boers and indigenous tribes, but, on the other hand, stimulated trade between black and white groups. It would appear that in their various interpretations of the consequences of the Great Trek historians were influenced by the circumstances of their own time. Consequences which during a certain period seemed very important are now no longer regarded as particularly significant. De Kiewiet, for instance, pointed out in 1941 that the Great Trek connected the future development of the whole of South Africa with the Afrikaners, but today the Afrikaners are no longer the politically dominant group. Interpretations of the signifance of the Great Trek have also been strongly influenced by philosophical and ideological views. Afrikaner nationalists, African nationalists, Marxists and liberal historians have emphasized different consequences. While the view of the liberal school that the Great Trek caused the continuation of non-liberal racial policies had been influential for a long time, it was challenged by later scholars who regarded racism and apartheid as products of capitalism and colonialism. Some statements on the long term consequences of the Great Trek are speculative and cannot be proved or disproved. Among these are the proposition of several Afrikaner historians that the descendants of the Voortrekkers would have been completely anglicized if they had remained in the Cape Colony; and the statement by De Kiewiet that the Great Trek had prevented the development of separate white and black states in Southern Africa. The Great Trek was an important phase in the Western colonisation of South Africa. Early historians such as Theal saw the colonisation process as a positive development. For African nationalist writers, however, colonisation meant primarily the oppression of the indigenous peoples. Political decolonisation did not bring an end to the process of westernisation and modernisation in Africa, and the dominant political and economic system in South Africa today is mainly of Western origin. The Great Trek was a key event in the history of South Africa, comparable with events such as the British conquest of the Cape Colony in 1806 and the transfer of political power to the black majority in 1994.

Key concepts: Great Trek, Voortrekkers, South African history, historiography, Afrikaner nationalism, African nationalism, liberal historians, radical historians, colonisation, capitalism, racial policy

Full text available only in PDF format.

BIBLIOGRAFIE

Ajayi, J.F.A. (ed). 1989. Africa in the nineteenth century, until the 1880s. Paris: Unesco. (General History of Africa, volume 6.         [  Links  ] )

Benyon, J. 1988. The necessity for new perspectives in South African historiography with particular reference to the Great Trek. Historia, 33(2):1-10.         [  Links  ]

Beyers, C. 1941. Die Groot Trek met betrekking tot ons nasiegroei. Argiefjaarboek vir Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis, 4(1):1-16.         [  Links  ]

Bundy, C. 1986. Vagabond Hollanders and runaway Englishmen: white poverty in the Cape before poor whiteism. In W. Beinart, P. Delius & S. Trapido (eds). Putting a plough to the ground; accumulation and dispossession in rural South Africa, 1850-1930. Johannesburg: Ravan.         [  Links  ]

Bundy, C. 2007. New nation, new history? Constructing the past in post-apartheid South Africa. In H.E. Stolten (ed). History making and present day politics; the meaning of collective memory in South Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.         [  Links  ]

Cana, F. 1909. South Africa, from the Great Trek to the Union. London: Chapman & Hall.         [  Links  ]

Carruthers, J. 2002. Book review of N. Etherington, The Great Treks. Kleio, 34:167-170.         [  Links  ]

Cory, G.E. 1919. The rise of South Africa; a history of the origin of South African colonisation and of its development towards the east from the earliest times to 1857, volume 3. London: Longmans & Green.         [  Links  ]

Cory, G.E. 1926. The rise of South Africa; a history of the origin of South African colonisation and of its development towards the east from the earliest times to 1857, volume 4. London: Longmans & Green.         [  Links  ]

Davenport, T.R.H. & Saunders, C. 2000. South Africa; a modern history. London: Macmillan. (Fifth edition.         [  Links  ] )

De Kiewiet, C.W. 1941. A history of South Africa, social and economic. Oxford: University Press.         [  Links  ]

De Klerk, P. 2008. F.A. van Jaarsveld se Die ontwaking van die Afrikaanse nasionale bewussyn na vyftig jaar. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 48(3):338-356.         [  Links  ]

Delius, P. 1983. The Pedipolity, the Boers and the British in the nineteenth-century Transvaal. Johannesburg: Ravan.         [  Links  ]

Denoon, D. & Nyeko, B. 1984. Southern Africa since 1800. London: Longman. (Revised edition.         [  Links  ] )

Du Bruyn, J.T. 1986. Die Groot Trek. In T. Cameron & S.B. Spies (reds.). Nuwe geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika in woord en beeld. Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau.         [  Links  ]

Du Bruyn, J.T. 1997. Early Transvaal - a historiographical perspective. Suid-Afrikaanse Historiese Joernaal, 36:136-144.         [  Links  ]

Elphick, R. & Giliomee, H. 1989. The origins and entrenchment of European dominance at the Cape, 1652-c.1840. In R. Elphick & H. Giliomee (eds). The shaping of South African society, 1652-1840. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.         [  Links  ]

Etherington, N. 1991. The Great Trek in relation to the Mfecane: a reassessment. Suid-Afrikaanse Historiese Joernaal, 25:3-21.         [  Links  ]

Etherington, N. 2001. The Great Treks; the transformation of South Africa, 1815-1854. London: Longman.         [  Links  ]

Etherington, N. 2002. Reviewing "the evidence" for the Great Treks. South African Historical Journal, 47:191-202.         [  Links  ]

Etherington, N. 2008. Is a reorientation of South African history a lost cause? South African Historical Journal, 60(3):323-333.         [  Links  ]

Fredrickson, G.M. 1981. White supremacy; a comparative study in American and South African history. Oxford: University Press.         [  Links  ]

Freund, B. 1998. The making of contemporary Africa; the development of African society since 1800. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. (Second edition.         [  Links  ] )

Gebhard, W.R.L. 1988. Changing black perceptions of the Great Trek. Historia, 33(2):38-50.         [  Links  ]

Gie, S.F.N. 1939. Geskiedenis vir Suid-Afrika of ons verlede, deel 2, 1795-1918. Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia.         [  Links  ]

Giliomee, H. 1981. Processes in development of the Southern African frontier. In H. Lamar & L.M. Thompson (eds). The frontier in history; North America and Southern Africa compared. New Haven: Yale University Press.         [  Links  ]

Giliomee, H. 2003. The Afrikaners; biography of a people. Cape Town: Tafelberg.         [  Links  ]

Giliomee, H. & Mbenga, B. (reds.). 2007. Nuwe geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.         [  Links  ]

Hamilton, C. 1995. Introduction. In C. Hamilton (ed). The Mfecane aftermath; reconstructive debates in Southern African history. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.         [  Links  ]

July, R.W. 1998. A history of the African people. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press. (Fifth edition).         [  Links  ]

Keegan, T. 1988. Rural transformations in industrializing South Africa; the southern Highveld to 1914. Johannesburg: Ravan.         [  Links  ]

Keegan, T. 1996. Colonial South Africa and the origins of the racial order. Cape Town: Philip.         [  Links  ]

Lester, A. 2002. Redrawing cartographies of power. Journal of Southern African Studies, 28(3):651-653.         [  Links  ]

Macmillan, W.M. 1927. The Cape colour question; a historical survey. London: Faber & Gwyer.         [  Links  ]

Macmillan, W.M. 1963. Bantu, Boer and Briton; the making of the South African native problem. Oxford: Clarendon. (Revised edition; first edition 1928).         [  Links  ]

Magubane, B.M. 1979. The political economy of race and class in South Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press.         [  Links  ]

Majeke (pseudonym of D.Taylor). 1952. The rôle of the missionaries in conquest. Johannesburg: Society of Young Africa.         [  Links  ]

Malan, J.H. 1913. Boer en barbaar of die lotgevalle van die Voortrekkers, viral tussen die jare 1835 en 1840. Potchefstroom: Unie Lees- en Studiebibliotheek.         [  Links  ]

Maylam, P. 2001. South Africa's racial past; the history and historiography of racism, segregation and apartheid. Aldershot: Ashgate.         [  Links  ]

Muller, C.F.J. 1963. Die Groot Trek. In F.A. van Jaarsveld et al. Die hervertolking van ons geskiedenis. Pretoria: Universiteit van Suid-Afrika.         [  Links  ]

Muller, C.F.J. 1974. Die oorsprong van die Groot Trek. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.         [  Links  ]

Muller, C.F.J. 1980. Die Groot Trek-tydperk, 1834-1854. In C.F.J. Muller (red.). Vyfhonderd jaar Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis. Pretoria: Academica. (Derde uitgawe).         [  Links  ]

Nathan, M. 1937. The Voortrekkers of South Africa; from the earliest times to the foundation of the republics. London: Gordon & Gotch.         [  Links  ]

Omer-Cooper, J.D. 1966. The Zulu aftermath; a nineteenth-century revolution in Bantu Africa. London: Longman.         [  Links  ]

Omer-Cooper, J.D. 1995. The Mfecane survives its critics. In C. Hamilton (ed). The Mfecane aftermath; reconstructive debates in Southern African history. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.         [  Links  ]

Parsons, N. 1993. A new history of Southern Africa. London: Macmillan. (Second edition).         [  Links  ]

Parsons, N. 2002. Reviving the Treks debates. South African Historical Journal, 46: 308-312.         [  Links  ]

Peires, J.B. 1989. The British and the Cape, 1814-1834. In R. Elphick & H. Giliomee (eds). The shaping of South African society, 1652-1840. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.         [  Links  ]

Preller, G.S. 1920. Piet Retief; lewensgeskiedenis van die grote Voortrekker. Kaapstad: Nationale Pers. (Tiende uitgawe).         [  Links  ]

Reader's Digest (publisher). 1988. Reader's Digest illustrated history of South Africa; the real story. Cape Town: Reader's Digest.         [  Links  ]

Saunders, C. 1988. The making of the South African past; major historians on race and class. Cape Town: Philip.         [  Links  ]

Saunders, C. 2002. Great Treks? South African Historical Journal, 46:300-307.         [  Links  ]

Scholtz, G.D. 1970. Die ontwikkeling van die politieke denke van die Afrikaner, deel 2, 1806-1854. Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers.         [  Links  ]

Smith, K. 1988. The changing past; trends in South African historical writing. Johannesburg: Southern.         [  Links  ]

Theal, G.M. 1887. History of the Boers in South Africa or the wanderings and wars of the emigrant farmers from their leaving of the Cape Colony to the acknowledgement of their independence by Great Britain. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Lowrey.         [  Links  ]

Theal, G.M. 1902. Progress of South Africa in the century. Toronto: Linscott.         [  Links  ]

Theal, G.M. 1918-1919. History of South Africa. London: Allen & Unwin. (Fourth edition, 11 volumes).         [  Links  ]

Thompson, L.M. 1985. The political mythology of apartheid. New Haven: Yale University Press.         [  Links  ]

Thompson, L.M. 1995. Southern Africa, 1795-1870. In P. Curtin et al. African history; from earliest times to independence. London: Longman. (Second edition).         [  Links  ]

Tsotsi, W.M. 1981. From chattel to wage slavery; a new approach to South African history. Maseru: Lesotho Printing and Publishing Company.         [  Links  ]

Van Aswegen, H.J. 1989. Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika tot 1854. Pretoria: Academica.         [  Links  ]

Van der Walt, A.J.H. 1951. Die Groot Trek tot 1838. In A.J.H. van der Walt, J.A. Wiid & A.L. Geyer (reds.). Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika, deel 1. Kaapstad: Nasionale Boekhandel.         [  Links  ]

Van der Walt, A.J.H. 1964. Die Groot Trek tot 1838. In A.J.H. van der Walt, J.A. Wiid, A.L. Geyer & D.W. Krüger (reds.). Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika. Kaapstad: Nasou. (Tweede uitgawe).         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1951. Die eenheidstrewe van die republikeinse Afrikaners, deel 1, Pioniershartstogte (1836-1864). Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1957. Die ontwaking van die Afrikaanse nasionale bewussyn, 1868-1881. Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1961. Lewende verlede. Johannesburg: Afrikaanse Pers- Boekhandel.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1962. Die tydgenootlike beoordeling van die Groot Trek, 1836-1842. Pretoria: Universiteit van Suid-Afrika.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1963. Die beeld van die Groot Trek in die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedskrywing, 1843-1899. Pretoria: Universiteit van Suid-Afrika.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1974. Geskiedkundige verkenninge. Pretoria: Van Schaik.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1982. Van Van Riebeeck totP.W. Botha; 'n Inleiding tot die geskiedenis van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Johannesburg: Perskor. (Derde uitgawe).         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1984. Omstrede Suid-Afrikaanse verlede; geskiedenisideologie en die historiese skuldvraagstuk. Johannesburg: Lex Patria.         [  Links  ]

Van Jaarsveld, F.A. 1992. Afrikanergeskiedskrywing; verlede, hede en toekoms. Johannesburg: Lex Patria.         [  Links  ]

Venter, C. 1985. Die Groot Trek. Kaapstad: Don Nelson.         [  Links  ]

Visagie, J.C. 2005. Etherington oor die Afrikaner en die Groot Trek. Historia, 50(1):1-21.         [  Links  ]

Voigt, J.C. 1899a. Fifty years of the history of the republic in South Africa (1795-1845), volume 1. London: Fisher Unwin.         [  Links  ]

Voigt, J.C. 1899b. Fifty years of the history of the republic in South Africa (1795-1845), volume 2. London: Fisher Unwin.         [  Links  ]

Walker, E.A. 1930. The frontier tradition in South Africa. London: Oxford University Press.         [  Links  ]

Walker, E.A. 1965. The Great Trek. London: Adam & Charles Black. (Fifth edtion; first edition 1934).         [  Links  ]

Willcox, A.R. 1976. Southern land; the prehistory and history of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Purnell.         [  Links  ]

Wilson, M. & Thompson, L.M. (eds). 1969-1970. The Oxford history of South Africa. Oxford: University Press. (2 volumes).         [  Links  ]

1  Vergelyk Etherington (2008:323-324, 332). 2  Vergelyk Saunders (1988:9); Smith (1988:31). 3  Vergelyk Theal (1887:357); Van Jaarsveld (1963:52). 4  Vergelyk Muller (1963:54-55); Van Jaarsveld (1974:55); Smith (1988:47-48). 5  Vergelyk Muller (1963:53-54); Thompson (1985:180); Van Jaarsveld (1992: 28). 6 Majeke, Introduction, ongenommerd; vgl. Van Jaarsveld (1974:101); Muller (1974:37); Saunders (1988:137). 7 Vergelyk Van Jaarsveld (1984:58-65); Saunders (1988:154-161); Smith (1988:139-144). 8 Vergelyk die kritiek van Saunders (2002:300-307). 9 Vergelyk ook Muller (1974:20-21; Visagie (2005:2).

Pieter de Klerk is professor in Geskiedenis aan die Vaaldriehoekkampus van die Noordwes-Universiteit. Hy het aan die Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHO (tans bekend as die Noordwes-Universiteit) en aan die Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam gestudeer, voordat hy in 1971 die graad D.Litt. in Geskiedenis aan eersgenoemde inrigting verwerf het. Hy is in 1968 as junior lektor in Geskiedenis op die Potchefstroomkampus van die PU vir CHO aangestel en is sedert 1983 aan die Vaaldriehoekkampus verbonde. Hy is die outeur van 'n aantal boeke en artikels op, hoofsaaklik, die volgende terreine: die teorie en filosofie van geskiedenis, historiografie en vergelykende geskiedenis. Hy het verskeie voordragte op internasionale en binnelandse vakkonferensies gelewer en was redaksielid van enkele akademiese tydskrifte.

Pieter de Klerk is professor of History at the Vaal Triangle Campus of North-West University. He studied at the Potchefstroom University for CHE (presently called Northwest-University) and at the Free University of Amsterdam, before he obtained the degree D.Litt. in History in 1971 at Potchefstroom University. In 1968 he was appointed as junior lecturer in History at the Potchefstroom Campus of the PU for CHE, and since 1983 he has been a staff-member at the Vaal Triangle Campus. He is the author of a number of books and articles focusing largely on the following fields of expertise: the theory and philosophy of history, historiography and comparative history. He has presented several papers at international and national academic conferences and has served on the editorial boards of a number of scholarly journals.

Causes of the great trek. 

Back to: o level History of south Africa

Causes of the great trek. 

• The great trek is also a white revolution, which took place in 19 th century
• It was the movement of the Boers into the interior of south Africa
• It took place as a revolt against the British liberal policies which the Boers became satisfied with
• It took place under different leaders like Piet Retief at different occasions
• It involved about 14000 trekkers who moved with Ox wagons carrying all movable property
• Presence of un occupied land in the interior of south Africa made the Boers to move in force
• The Boers didn’t want to be under the leadership of the British
• The Boers were pastorals who wanted water, pasture for their animals
• Shortage of land at the cape due to increased population made them to trek 
• Many Boers trekked because of adventure
• The British publication of the cape colony 
• The cape land had lost fertility therefore they were looking for fertile land in the interior
• Presence of weak African societies in the interior like Khoi-khoi made the bores to victorious in their trek
• They wanted to preserve their culture since they considered themselves God chosen race

NB. Add the British reforms in south African as causes for the great trek eg

• Emancipation of slavery
• Introduction of black circuits courts ✓ Paying dutch priest salaries
• English legal court
• Introduction of English pound
• Nullification of the province of queen Adelaide

The course of great trek.

• The great trek began in 1835 in the district of Grafreiner, Swollen dam at the eastern frontier of the cape
• It took place in 3 major groups
• The main leaders who led these groups are Piete,Portgieter Hendrick and Pretorious
• They used ox wagons to carry their property 
• In most cases they avoided coastal crowded areas and followed the middle grassland
• In the interior they mostly settled on a western side of Drankeberg Mountain

Lousi Trgardto led the first group

• He moved and crossed with his group R.Caledon and R.Orange
• They continued and crossed plains Orange Free state toward river Vaal 
• They settled in Zoutpansbeg of Transvaal 
• During their movement many Boers died
• Those who remained established small temporary settlement
• Van Reinsbeg group later joined this group
• The two groups tried to make attempt to capture the Portuguese territory at Delagoa Bay near the coast but failed 
• Out of the 100 families moved during this journey 27 survived
• Later this group was forced to establish the Transvaal republic
• Hedrick Potgieter led the 2 nd group with colliers
• Mauritz from Graafreint later joined this group
• They also crossed R.Vaal to Orange Free state.
• This group started moving in 1836
• During their movement Ndebele under Mzilkazi attacked them at the battle which came to be called Vegkop in 1836
• During this battle many Boers lost their lives even though they won the war
• This forced Ndebele to move northwards the present day Zimbabwe
• In addition this group was left at orange free state to establish the republic
• Piete Retief led the 3 rd group in 1837
• Retief was 57 years of age and he had been appointed as a president of United Lager 
• His aim of movement was to occupy the natal land, which he had heard from the hunters and the traders
• He moved via Drankensberg mountains crossed orange river and reached Zulu land
• When he reached Zulu land found dingane as the king and asked him  for land
• Dingane told him that he was only to give them land after rescuing their cattle which had been stolen by Sekonyela of Tlokwa
• Retief tried and got back the cattle from sekonyela
• After Retief getting back their cattle, dingane made him a beer party
• Here dingane tricked Retief and killed him at beer party 
• Now andries Pretorius was appointed as the Boer commander in 1838 to replace Retief
• Later pretorious organized the revenge to dingane at the battle of blood river
• Dingane was defeated because his brother Mpande had given assistance to Pretorius group
• Dingane was forced to hand in natal republic was established
• Later in 1839-43 the natal republic was established
• In 1843 the British had followed the Boers and chased them out of natal
• Pretorious led the chased Boers and joined their friends in Transvaal in 1852 which crowned up the great trek 

Problems faced by the trekers.

Show the problems faced by Boer trekkers.

• Resistance from Africans e.g. the Ndebele
• Many trekkers lost their lives like Piet Retief
• There was starvation during the journey because they were ill prepared for it
• They experienced slow movement during their journey because of the activities they were carrying out e.g. cattle rearing, looking for food etc
• Some Boers were followed by the British e.g. at Natal
• Diseases like fever, wild sickness attacked the trekkers
• The military weakness of the Boer made them less defensive against the nature of unforeseen circumstances e.g. wild animals, wars etc
• They received inadequate education to their children due to short time in an attempt to get assistance’s 
• Poverty became the order of  the day during trekking hence lack of necessities
• Communication amongst the Boers was also difficult especially in an attempt to get assistance’s
• Frequent quarrels among themselves this is evidenced when
• Transvaal once was separated into five units  amongst Boers
• Poor accommodation facilities characterized by grass hatched houses which were even linking
• Some of the Boers experienced remoteness areas especially where they settled for example Zoutpansberg

THE BATTLE OF VEGKOP

Causes of the battle of Vegkop

Why did the Ndebele conflict with the Boer in 183637 or Why did mzilukzi fought Hedrick in 1836

• This was a conflict between the Ndebele and the Boers
• It originated because of great trek
• It started in October 19 th 1836 
• Portieter ,Sarel Cilliers, Gerritz Maritz, were the leaders of the Boers during the war
• He wanted to maintain the independence of the Ndebele that is why he fought
• Need to maintain the value and culture of Ndebele people from being eroded by the intruders
• Cattle rustling/stealing by both the Boers and the Ndebele from each other caused the conflicts 
• Boers fought because they wanted to solve the problem of cattle rustling
• Both the Ndebele and the Boers wanted to get more cattle
• Need for more land by both the Ndebele and the Boers for pastrolism  and settlement
• The courage given to the Boers by chief Moloka made them to fight against Mzilikazi
• The Ndebele had natural haterage against foreign intrusion
• The killing of Erasmus and Liebenberg made the Ndebele to think that the Boers were militarily weak hence the war
• The Boer wanted to rescue the 3 American missionaries who had been kidnapped by the ndebebe
• The ndebebe and the Boers wanted to get food from the area that is why they fought

The Boers considered the Ndebele to be backwards, uncivilized that is why they fought them.

COURSE OF THE BATTLE OF VEGKOP

Explain the course of veg kop war..

• The chief commander of the boers was portigieter and the Ndebele ahd Mizilikazi
• The war started because of Ndebele destroying of th boer group of trekkers that was led by Erasmus and Liebenberg
• When the boers were crossing the Ndebele land were not careful because they did not manage to avoid the Ndebele patrols
• When the boers smell about an attack from the Ndebele
• They made their wagons in a circular form and the gaps,which remained in between the laager, were filled with horny bushes
• The Ndebele failed to pass through the laager to attack the boers because even they were well equipedwith guns and gun powder
• The Boers later managed to join their friend nuder the leadership of Maritz
• In addition it was decided that revenge should be taken to the Ndebele
• The Boers  now organized a surprise attack to the Ndebele kraal under the leadership of Portigieter
• This was successful because around 7000 cattle a number of lost wagons and 3 American missionaries were rescued or received
• Because of continued defeat of the Ndebele, they decided to vacate organge free state and occupy the present day of Zimbabwe.

EFFECTS OF THE WAR (1836-37) VEGKOP.

Explain the effects of the Vegkop war.

• The Ndebele were defeated at Mosega
• The war forced the Ndebele to cross, R.Limpopo and settle in the present day Zimbabwe
• It formulated a back ground for the formation of Orange free republic
• Laager military way of fighting was adopted
• Many people lost their lives e.g. Erasmus, Liebenberg etc
• Over 10,000 heads of cattle were lost
• Because of death during the war, depopulation in the area was registered
• Insecurity in the area and surrounding in the area was common especially in Transvaal 
• Agriculture and trade came to a stand still because energetic people were fighting 
• Famine was registered because of decline in agriculture
• Poverty became the order of the day because the Boers injected a lot of finance in the war
• It created way for further wars like the Anglo Boer wars , blood river war.

WHY THE NDEBELE WERE DEFEATED DUTING THE WAR?

• Lack of effective mobilization from Mzilikazi
• The Africans were militarily weak because of the inferior weapons they had like arrows, bows spears
• The Africans were not militarily trained therefore were unfit for battle frontier
• Disunity amongst the Africans who couldn’t support each other
• The Africans were so poor therefore they couldn’t sustain in the war for so long
• The betraying of the Ndebele by chief Moroka who reported the Ndebele hide outs
• The boers were very determined to defeat the Ndebele
• The good plans and preparation, which the Boers made before attacking the Ndebele ,made the later defeated
• The surprise attack made by the Boers to the Ndebele may loose the war
• New military fighting ge use of larger by the Boers
• The Boers were warriors because they had moved a long distance from the cape 

THE BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER (1837-1838) THE COURSE OF BLOOD RIVER. How did the 1837-8 war took place?

• The Africans were not militarily trained therefore were unfit for the battle frontier
• Disunity amongst the Africans who couldn’t support each other Africans were so poor, therefore they couldn’t sustain in the war  for so long
• The Boers were very determined to defeat the Ndebele The good plans and preparation,which the Boers made before attacking the Ndebele , made the later to be defeated 
• The surprise attack made by the boers to the Ndebele made them to loose the war
• The Boers were many in number and yet the Africans were few
• New military fighting for example use of larger by the Boers
• The Boers were warriors because they had moveda long distance from the cape.

EFFECTS OF THE BATTLE OF BLOOD RIVER

Explain the impacts of Blood River.

• The zulu land gave rise to a new king Mpande
• Dingane raised his cattle, which were stolen by Sekonyera
• The Boers acquired large parts of Natal district
• Dingane was humiliated and expelled by his people from Zulu land • It led to massive killing o f Zulu people by the Boers
• Due to continuous support to the Boers natal  republic was established
• It also led to the killing of Piet Retief at a beer party by the Zulu people
• Dingane’s plans to attack the Boer camps failed
• After the death of Piet,Pretorious was appointed as new commander of the Boer to replace Retief
• Peoples property were destroyed e.g. cattle
• It laid foundation for the down fall of Zulu nation 

Why Dingane failed to win the battle?

• Dingane failed to  unite his people at first
• The local rulers gave support to Mpande
• He was not a trained soldier
• He neglected military training
• Increased number of Boers in Zulu land weakened him
• He was brutal ruler that people hated

Mpande’s collaboration with the Boer created Dingane’s defeat

• Failure to return the Zulu refugees created low population in his land
• His royal family members did not support him
• His relaxation of age regiments weakened his support
• He was weak and lazy leader
• Arrival of Portuguese at natal coast
• Break away of small states like Queba
• He created hatred with his neighbors like Swazi
• He gave away land to the boers
• He always danced and womanized which made him unpopular 

IMPACTS OF GREAT TREK ON AFRICANS

Describe the significance of great trek in the history of south Africa 

• Africans like zulu lost their land to boer trekkers
• During the so many wars fought eg Vegkop war Africans lost their lives
• Properties were destroyed including cattle of over 17000 heads
• Great trek made the Africans divided ge Mpande who separated  from Dingane
• Africans leaders were killed like Dingane
• Africans were now enslaved in the boer’s farms
• Africans language ws put in writing 
• Africans chiefs like Mpande acquired guns from trekkers
• Africans acquired western culture like dressing , religion etc
• Africans socities were displaced from their original land eg the Ndebele were pushed to Zimbabwe
• The interior was opened to europeann settlement
• It was the boer trekking that led to the discovery of minerals in south Africa eg Gold,Diamond etc
• It led to the establishment of boer republic like Natal,Organge Free state, Transvaal 

Impacts of the trek on whites

• It mad the whites to increase in the interior of south Africa eg the British
• The whites to an accession of Natal by the British in 1843
• It was the great trek which led to Anglo Boers war in south Africa  • It increased British interests of protecting Africans
• Racial segregation increased since the Boers didn’t mix with the Africans in the interior
• Boer’s culture and integrity continued to stay after separating from the British at the cape

Qn Describe the relationship between the Boer trekkers and the British.

• At first the British didn’t stop the Boers from trekking later in 1836 laws were passed that Boers were under the British
• In addition this made the British to take over Natal in 1843
• Between 1845-52 governor Sir Harry Smith of the British tried also to enter into the affairs of orange free state and Transvaal 
• He managed to acquire the land between orange river and river Vaal but had enough force to control the area
• In 1852 the sand river convention was signed this gave Transvaal republic independence 
• In 1854 Bloemfontain convention was concluded and gave orange free state independence 
• Therefore at the beginning of their relationship was hostile
• The British felt insecure at natal because could be attacked from  the north 

The Establishment Of Natal

Describe the establishment of Natal by the Boers 

• Boer trekkers who came from the cape established natal
• The way in which it was developed can better be understood by the coarse of blood river war
• At the end of blood  river war zulu land became in the hands of the boers and captured thousands of cattle
• Refer to the coarse of blood river and put the coarse of blood river here
• They set up their capital in 1839 at Piet Maritz burg A council of people called volks rand was elected
• It consisted two executive, legislative and judicial powers
• A president was elected and the council of people was to act as court of appeal
• However natal republic was short leaved because the british took it over in1843 

TIE Teachers Guide Books For Primary Class VII (Darasa la VII)

TIE Teachers Guide Books For Primary Class VI (Darasa la VI)

Tie teachers guide books for primary class v (darasa la v), tie teachers guide books for primary class iv (darasa la iv), tie teachers guide books for primary class iii (darasa la iii).

Baseline Orientation Course Form One PDF

Study Notes Basic Mathematics Form One PDF

Study Notes Biology Form One PDF

Study Notes Geography Form One PDF

Study Notes History Form One PDF

ENVIROMENTAL PHYSICS

Culture And Gender Relations In The Societies

Positive And Negative Aspect Of Our Culture Values

Advantages and disadvantages of element of culture.

Characteristics And Importance of of Culture

Midterm Exams Standard Three New Format (MESP) March 2024 – Primary School Exam

Mock Darasa la Saba Kata ya Nadato Marcch 2024 – Primary School Exams

Standard Four Midterm Exams (PENTA) MARCH 2024

Form Two Joint Midterm Test (Kaliua DC), March 2024

Form Four Joint Midterm Test (Kaliua DC), March 2024

Litembo Health Laboratory Sciences School (Chuo cha afya Litembo) Joining Instruction & Courses Offered | Apply Now

Fee Structure Santamaria Institute of Health and Allied Sciences

Courses offered Santamaria Institute of Health and Allied Sciences | Apply Now

Santamaria institute of health and allied sciences – smihas joining instruction & courses offered | apply now.

Kahama College of Health Sciences Online Application | Apply Now

Ajira Mpya Walimu: How to Apply OTEAS | Apply Now

New Jobs: Job Vacancies Opportunities TAEC, March 2024

Ajira mpya: halamashauri ya wilaya ya kisarawe, march 2024.

Ajira Mpya: Ualimu Teacher Grade IIIB – DUCE March 2024

TANAPA: Nafasi za Kazi Mpya (Job Vacancies Opportunities) March 2024

NECTA: GRADE A TEACHER CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION (GATCE) TIMETABLE, MAY 2024

NECTA: DSEE EXAM TIMETABLE, MAY 2024

NECTA: Candidates Item Response Analysis CIRA CSEE 2015

Necta: vijitabu vya uchambuzi wa ujibuji wa mitihani cira csee 2022, necta: vijitabu vya uchambuzi wa ujibuji wa mitihani (candidates’ item response analysis – cira csee) 2012 – 2023.

TAMISEMI (PWANI) Form Five Selection 2024/2025

Selection Form Five 2024 & 2025 by TAMISEMI

Salary Slip Portal | Log in

PEPMIS (ESS UATUMISHI) – How to Attach and Submit Documents

FFARS Sign up & Login  

Download TIE Books PDF (Form 1 – 6) – All Subjects

Primary School Exams – All Classes – All Subjects (Pre-Primary & Standard 1- 7) Download Free 2024

Home Packages for Pre, Primary and Secondary School

The Boer Trek Causes And Effects

BOER TREK | GREAT TREK | THE VOORTREKKERS | what are the causes of Boer trek | meaning of Boer trek | What are the causes of Boer trek and what were the effects | effects of Boer trek in South Africa | causes of great Boer trek in South Africa

THE BOER TREK | GREAT TREK | THE VOORTREKKERS

The Great Trek was a movement of Dutch-speaking colonists up into the interior of southern Africa in search of a land where they could establish their own homeland, independent of British rule.

 In 1835 and 1841 , 7000 Boer men, women, and children, with further 7000 Boer servants crossed the Orange River and left the colony permanently. The Boers who trekked away from the cape colony in the late 1830s were known as the Voortrekkers

This was the northward and eastward migration away from British control in the Cape Colony during the 1830s and 1840s by the Boers.

The move is viewed as a rebellion against the policies of the British government and in search of fresh pasturelands. The migrating Boers, called themselves Voortrekkers (Afrikaans: “Early Migrants”)

Having crossed the Limpopo, the Boers were divided, some wanted an outlet to the sea and therefore settled in Natal. Some decided to settle in the Highveld (an inland plateau)area.

In both areas, after initial setbacks, they were able to defeat powerful African military kingdoms through the skilled use of horses, guns, and defensive laagers / military camps (encampments)

In Natal the Voortrekkers established a short-lived republic, however in 1843, the Boer republic was annexed by the British.

In 1852 and 1854 the British granted independence to the Trekkers in the Transvaal and Transorangia (the area between the Orange and the Vaal river) regions , respectively

While the British were establishing themselves at the Cape, the Boers were penetrating further into the territory. This is because the Boers never trusted the British administration at the Cape. They saw their interests being eroded and superseded by these of the British.

Thus, they decided to move as far away as possible from the control of the British administration.

THE REASONS OR CAUSES OF THE BOER TREK

1. Desire for freedom from British control (British occupation of the cape)

Taking the form of a mass migration into the interior of southern Africa, this was a search by dissatisfied Dutch-speaking colonists for a promised land where they would be ‘free and independent people’ in a ‘free and independent state.

British introduced their new types of administration which was seen as constraint to Dutch welfare, as they prohibited Dutch to expand any more land in the local people in interior. Moreover, Local Boer Government officials were replaced by British commissioners and magistrates appointed by the Governor.

2. Introduction of Farm lend law

This law was only applied to Dutch people who owned massive land. The law demanded that the owner of the land must have heavy investment, heavy money and labour power but Dutch were economically poor

So this law was geared favouring British who were rich capitalist. The solution of this was to move to the interior where the law was not applicable and where they could establish their new settlement

3. Abolition of slave trade (Restrictive laws on slavery and its eventual abolition)

This removed the final element of forced labor, slaves first were owned by the Boers, so after the coming of the British this system of slaves was established, that is why the Boers move to the interior where they could get the laborers easily who may work into their mining, farms and industries.

Dutch or Boers depended much on slaves whereby slaves were used as labour to work on their farms but the coming of British at the Cape marked the end of slavery in South Africa.

In 1834, there was abolition of slavery, hence removed the final element of forced labour meaning that there was ‘equality before the law’ to labour, therefore Dutch were discontented by the way they were treated by British.

4. Influence of Christianity (Anglicization policies)

Christianity was opposed by Dutch simply because it planted to the mind of local people the question humanity, equality, fraternity and egalitarian. Dutch recognized that Christianity is there to conscintize people about their evils.

T he Dutch did not belong to Anglican Church they had their own religion but British introduced it in South Africa. The religion later dominated the Cape and other areas where British settled, and then its teaching influenced local people.

Anglican Church teaching pointed out the evils that were done by Dutch farmers to local people because Boers treated inhuman indigenous people, as they did not recognize any rights and land rights to indigenous people. Therefore, Anglican revealed those evils as a result Boers decided to move from the cape.

5. Introduction of English language as official language in all colonies

The Dutch-speaking people also felt that their identity was being threatened. A series of laws proclaimed between 1823 and 1828 enabled the government to substitute the official use of Dutch with English. 

When the magistrates and councils were also abolished, the colonists no longer had any say in the government and their desire for self-government increased. Therefore this action hurt Dutch greatly as Dutch felt that they are degrading or suppressed by British. The Boers are opposed to all forms of alien culture. They preferred to preserve their own customs and civilization.

Therefore, they regarded the introduction of English language as deliberate efforts made by the British to undermine their culture. This was one of the most important grievances which contributed to the outbreak of the great trek.

Beyond this, It as not easy for the old people and rural population to carry out their official transaction in English. They needed more time to learn the new official language. They hated the idea of communicating in English as it was a foreign language. Thus, they were not ready to accommodate the new language.

6. Introduction of British judicial system

The new legal changes introduced by the English system of magistrates and abolished the old judicial system of the Dutch. This new system was greatly hate by the Dutch because it was unfamiliar to them, therefore its application caused a lot of inconveniences.

Also it was foreign and replaced the Dutch one which was part and parcel of Dutch cultural heritage, which the Boers were fully committed to preserve it.

7. Desire for freedom from British control

Taking the form of a mass migration into the interior of southern Africa, this was a search by dissatisfied Dutch-speaking colonists for a promised land where they would be ‘free and independent people’ in a ‘free and independent state .

8. Racial prejudice / discrimination

The Boers believed that, they were chosen race, God’s own people. Therefore, they had clear duty to God and mankind to preserve their tradition and culture. They had a responsibility to preserve their race by avoiding mixing with other races.

The great trek was therefore, regarded by the Boers as something which would provide them an opportunity to preserve the purity of their race and culture by founding a new home in a new country under their control. In joining the trek, they believed that, they were fulfilling God’s mission, to keep God’s race from contamination through intermixing with the inferior race.

THE EFFECTS OR IMPACTS OF THE BOER TREK

1. rapid expansion of white settlements into the heart of the southern africa interior..

The Boers migrated interior of the Southern Africa where their anticipation was to establish new settlement as to avoid the direct control from British. Large number of Dutch moved to the interior of South Africa for example, some went to Natal region and others to Orange free state where they formed their independent states.

The interior was opened for European settlement. More and more Europeans went to settle in the interior of South Africa where they established large farms and ranches.

2. The establishment of the Boer Republics of the Natal, Orange Free State and the Transvaal.

After the movement from the Cape Dutch succeeded to establish new republican government in the interior like Orange Free State, Natal Republic and Transvaal these states were independent from British control.

In those states Dutch succeeded also to from new hybrid language known as Afrikaner language, a language that was a mixture of Dutch language, local language, French language and German language.

These were independent self governed republics created by the Boers in the northern and eastern parts of South Africa. Several of these states were established after military defeats of the local population by the Boers who had superior weapons

3. Discovery of precious minerals in the interior

The most important were gold and diamond.  In 1867 diamond was discovered along the Vaal and Orange river. In 1886 , gold was discovered in Witwatersrand . The discovery of these precious metals was responsible in transforming the economy of South Africa from an agricultural one to industrial one.

4. Annexation of indigenous land by Voortrekkers

Zulu land and other indigenous land for example were annexed massively by Dutch, the Dutch wanted to posses all the fertile land found in the interior. Therefore this situation led to the creation of landless people to the indigenous people, they only remained labourers to the Boer’s famers

5. Existence of apartheid based on racial segregation.

Having occupied and established themselves in the interior of South Africa, the Boers were forced to preserve their material interests. They had to maintain themselves as a strong united group by treating the Africans as their enemies to be eliminated or as their source of cheap labor.

The Boers regarded the British as imperialists threatening their cultural and economic interests. This hostility between the Boers and the British colonizers eventually resulted to violent clashes / armed conflicts, especially when the British wanted to annex the Boer republics.

6. Acquisition of firearms by African Kingdoms of the interior.

Boers brought firearms to the interior of South Africa whereby it was easy to reach at the hands of Chiefs of Kingdoms, these firearms was later used as a defense weapons against external enemies and sometimes in conquering the neighboring states.

7. Brought Spirit of Nationalism to Afrikaner nationalist.

British suppression was a lesson to Afrikaner nationalist whereby many Dutch accumulated a lot of grievances and claims against British due to their maltreatment. Therefore, this was a catalyst to Dutch in demanding their lost freedom; they began to fight for the independence from British government.

Generally , Boer Trek created misunderstanding between the British and the Boers due to the introduction of different systems of administration and different culture which interfere with other’s culture, for example introduction of Anglicization where by the Dutch had their own way of life especially religion system which was very different from that of British.

Click here to Join WhatsApp

Click here to Join Telegram

HISTORY NOTES FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL FORM I, II, III, IV, V And VI PDF

Form One History Study Notes – All Topics & Free Download

THE COMING PORTUGUESE IN EAST AFRICA

HISTORY FORM FOUR ESSAY QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS

HISTORY FORM THREE ESSAY QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS

History form two essay questions with answers.

HISTORY FORM ONE ESSAY QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS

Necta history essay questions with answers from 1985 to 2023 (i – iv).

• SCHEME OF WORKS

Friday, October 27, 2017

The boer trek meaning and its consequences; history of south africa, 0 comments:, post a comment, search here .

• Blog Archives
• Civics Notes
• English Notes
• History Notes

Blog Archive

• ►  07/07 - 07/14 (1)
• ►  05/19 - 05/26 (1)
• ►  04/21 - 04/28 (1)
• ►  01/20 - 01/27 (1)
• ►  12/30 - 01/06 (1)
• ►  11/04 - 11/11 (3)
• ►  10/28 - 11/04 (4)
• ►  10/21 - 10/28 (2)
• ►  10/14 - 10/21 (2)
• ►  08/19 - 08/26 (2)
• ►  08/05 - 08/12 (1)
• ►  07/29 - 08/05 (1)
• ►  07/15 - 07/22 (1)
• ►  07/08 - 07/15 (2)
• ►  07/01 - 07/08 (76)
• ►  06/24 - 07/01 (3)
• ►  05/13 - 05/20 (3)
• ►  04/15 - 04/22 (1)
• ►  02/11 - 02/18 (2)
• ►  12/31 - 01/07 (15)
• ►  10/29 - 11/05 (6)
• The Mfecane War and the rise of the Zulu Kingdom ;...
• The Boer Trek Meaning and Its consequences; Histor...
• British control of the Cape and Boer Trek; History...
• White colonization at the Cape and its Consequence...
• Top legit ways to make money with your android pho...
• ►  10/15 - 10/22 (11)
• ►  10/08 - 10/15 (3)
• ►  10/01 - 10/08 (10)
• ►  09/17 - 09/24 (7)
• ►  08/20 - 08/27 (5)
• ►  07/23 - 07/30 (10)
• ►  07/16 - 07/23 (1)

Theme Support

Unordered list, recent posts, text widget.

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

trek Boer noun

• Hide all quotations

What does the noun trek Boer mean?

There are two meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun trek Boer . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

Entry status

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

How common is the noun trek Boer ?

Where does the noun trek boer come from.

Earliest known use

The earliest known use of the noun trek Boer is in the 1830s.

OED's earliest evidence for trek Boer is from 1835, in the writing of A. Steedman.

trek Boer is formed within English, by compounding.

Etymons: trek n. , Boer n.

Nearby entries

• tregetting, n. c1440
• trehala, n. 1862–
• trehalase, n. 1893–
• trehalose, n. 1862–
• treillage, n. 1698–
• treillaged, adj. 1810–
• treille, n. 1780–
• treillis, n. 1706–
• trek, n. 1849–
• trek, v. 1850–
• trek Boer, n. 1835–
• trek-bok, n. 1824–
• trek-cart, n. 1928–
• trek chain, n. 1878–
• trek-farmer, n. 1912–
• trek fever, n. 1897–
• trekker, n. 1851–
• trekkie, n. 1888–
• trekking, n. & adj. 1850–
• trek-net, n. 1913–
• trek path, n. 1934–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Entry history for trek boer, n..

Originally published as part of the entry for trek, n.

trek, n. was first published in 1914; not yet revised.

Revision of the OED is a long-term project. Entries in oed.com which have not been revised may include:

• corrections and revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations which have been added in subsequent print and online updates.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1914)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View trek, n. in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for trek Boer, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for trek boer, n., browse entry.

Never Heard Of Star Trek: Discovery’s Red Directive Before? There’s A Simple Explanation

Warning: SPOILERS for Star Trek: Discovery Season 5, Episode 1 - "Red Directive"

• Star Trek: Discovery Season 5 introduces a new Red Directive mission, showcasing unprecedented secrecy and urgency in Starfleet protocols.
• Captain Burnham embarks on a dangerous intergalactic treasure hunt that's a sequel to the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "The Chase".
• The Red Directive mission in Star Trek: Discovery Season 5 revolves around seeking the technology of the Progenitors, with high stakes involved.

Captain Michael Burnham's (Sonequa Martin-Green) new mission in Star Trek: Discovery season 5 is classified as a Red Directive, which hasn't come up in Star Trek before. Written by Discovery showrunner Michelle Paradise and directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi, Star Trek: Discovery 's season 5 premiere, "Red Directive," launches Burnham and the USS Discovery on a mission to a derelict 800-year-old Romulan starship. This kicks off an intergalactic treasure hunt that sets Discovery season 5 as a sequel to the Star Trek: The Next Generation season 6 episode, "The Chase."

Captain Burnham is summoned to her Red Directive mission by Admiral Charles Vance (Oded Fehr) and Dr. Kovich (David Cronenberg) in Star Trek: Discovery 's season 5 premiere. Burnham is given her orders in a secure location called the Infinity Room. The USS Discovery's Red Directive mission must succeed at all costs , and Dr. Kovich even personally oversees Captain Burnham's efforts. Even as Burnham and the crews of the USS Discovery and the USS Antares led by Captain Rayner (Callum Keith Rennie) risk their lives, Kovich maintains the Red Directive's secrecy until Burnham finds her own answers to force Kovich into cooperation.

Star Trek: Discovery Season 5 - Everything We Know

Why discovery’s red directive hasn’t been heard of in star trek before, it's a different starfleet in the 32nd century.

There's a simple explanation for Star Trek fans who may be wondering why they've never heard of a Red Directive before: the Red Directive is an invention of Star Trek: Discovery season 5 . There have certainly been countless Starfleet priority one classified missions, but a Red Directive takes secrecy and urgency to another level. Red Directives are also indicative of how different Starfleet is in the 32nd-century era of Star Trek: Discovery , which would naturally have different protocols following crises like the Temporal Wars and the Burn.

During Star Trek: Discovery season 3, Burnham and Discovery's crew were integrated with the 32nd-century Starfleet.

Captain Burnham and the crew of the USS Discovery know of Red Directives despite being time-traveling transplants from the 23rd century. This is likely because, during Star Trek: Discovery season 3 , Burnham and Discovery's crew were integrated with the 32nd-century Starfleet. Discovery's crew gained new uniforms and tech like personal transporters, and their ancient Crossfield Class starship was upgraded with detached nacelles and programmable matter. Discovery 's crew got up to date on current Starfleet protocols , especially Burnham following her promotion to Captain.

What Star Trek: Discovery’s Red Directive’s Rules Are

A red directive can't be questioned.

Star Trek: Discovery' s Red Directive might be the most severe and uncompromising protocol seen in Starfleet yet. The mandate for Star Trek: Discovery season 5's Red Directive comes from the United Federation of Planets itself, and Starfleet Officers were kept in the dark about the actual details of their mission. Not only did Captain Burnham not know what her actual mission was, but Dr. Kovich had the authority to withhold vital information from the head of Starfleet, Admiral Vance .

Admiral Vance authorized Lt. Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman) to break into the secure Federation database to learn the truth about the Red Directive.

The imperative of a Red Directive is that the mission must succeed and anyone and anything can be sacrificed to make it so. Lethal force is also authorized and is a first resort. Star Trek: Discovery season 5's Red Directive is indeed a jaw-dropper. With Captain Burnham searching for the technology of the Progenitors, the Ancient Humanoids introduced in Star Trek: The Next Generation 's "The Chase" who created all humanoid life in the galaxy, whoever controls the Progenitors' secrets can decide the course of life itself. There can't be bigger stakes for Star Trek: Discovery season 5's Red Directive.

Star Trek: Discovery season 5 is streaming on Paramount+

Cast Blu del Barrio, Oded Fehr, Anthony Rapp, Sonequa Martin-Green, Doug Jones, Wilson Cruz, Eve Harlow, Mary Wiseman, Callum Keith Rennie

Streaming Service(s) Paramount+

Franchise(s) Star Trek

Writers Alex Kurtzman

Directors Jonathan Frakes, Olatunde Osunsanmi

Showrunner Alex Kurtzman

Where To Watch Paramount+

• Entertainment
• Rex Reed Reviews
• Awards Shows
• Climate Change
• Restaurants
• Gift Guides
• Business of Art
• Nightlife & Dining
• About Observer
• Advertise With Us

‘Star Trek: Discovery’ S5 Review: Final Season Is Its Best

This season has a brisk pace and the sense of fun that in the past has been crushed under the weight of grave galactic stakes..

Star Trek: Discovery occupies an interesting place in the celebrated franchise. It was the first Trek series of the streaming era, the first to debut behind a paywall, the first produced after J.J. Abrams’ big screen reboot, and the first to put a woman of color in the captain’s chair. Discovery redefined the look and feel of the franchise on television, bringing Trek into the modern world of feature-level photography, effects, and pace of story. It blazed a trail for a new generation of Trek media, like direct spin-off Strange New Worlds and the upcoming Section 31 TV movie. It is also not terribly popular amidst the old guard of Trekkies, nor is it a mainstream hit or a critical darling. Discovery has struggled to find its footing from the very beginning and is still uneven after years of retooling. I do not consider its cancellation after five seasons to be a tragic loss for television. However, Discovery may still have one “first” left to achieve: It may be the first Star Trek series whose final season is its best. 

Sign Up For Our Daily Newsletter

Thank you for signing up!

By clicking submit, you agree to our <a rel="nofollow noreferer" href="http://observermedia.com/terms">terms of service</a> and acknowledge we may use your information to send you emails, product samples, and promotions on this website and other properties. You can opt out anytime.

(A quick personal note to the handful of Trekkies who just clutched their pearls: Season 4 of Enterprise is not better than Season 3, it merely has more familiar stuff for fans to point at with childlike glee. And you’ve likely already read my thoughts on Picard ’s final season .)

Even as a critic of the show, I have to acknowledge that every season of Discovery has started with a bang. It’s the nature of a serialized, season-long story arc to kick off with something resembling the first act of a feature film, and Season 5 is no different. The opening chapter, “Red Directive,” is a fast-paced space adventure packed with flashy action set pieces. The illustrious Captain Michael Burnham ( Sonequa Martin-Green ) and her crew are on the trail of Moll (Eve Harlow) and L’ak (Elias Toufexis), a spacefaring Bonnie and Clyde who have stumbled across a secret with enormous implications for the future of the galaxy. Just like the previous three seasons, this sets Team Disco off on another cosmic scavenger hunt, jumping to a new world each week to find the next clue to the season’s grander mystery. 

Historically, this is where Discovery has run into trouble. While each chapter tends to have its own contained adventure plot or even a classic Trek “message of the week,” they’re rarely that memorable and they advance the season’s overarching storyline without adding much depth. This season, though, has a brisk pace and a sense of fun that, previously, has been crushed under the weight of grave galactic stakes. Paramount has promoted this season as having an Indiana Jones energy to it , and that’s a fair comparison. The characters are enjoying themselves more, and for the first time since Season 2, the story isn’t built around some unfathomable tragedy. T o my best recollection, none of the episodes provided in advance to critics feature any crying. That’s four consecutive episodes, possibly a new track record.

This is not the only way in which Discovery ’s new season throttles back on the show’s occasionally cloying sentimentality. The season premiere introduces a new character, Captain Rayner ( Callum Keith Rennie ), a gruff pragmatist who serves as a contrast to Burnham’s soft-spoken, personable, firmly feminine command style. At first, Rayner appears to be a straw man representing aggro, entitled white male authority, a trope Discovery goes to often. As the season progresses, Rayner acquires some depth and even some likability. It’s fun to watch this grumpy old guy interact with a cast full of characters who are totally in touch with their feelings. Most importantly, Rayner provides something that the series has needed ever since Burnham took command of Discovery: a professional peer with whom to disagree and occasionally compromise. It’s an essential role that her first officer, Saru ( Doug Jones ), has become too adoring and loyal to play. Burnham has earned the devotion of her crew, but watching her gracefully manage dissent only enhances her aura of strength and leadership.

Even though production was wrapped before Discovery was canceled (with additional shooting after that announcement to tie up loose ends), Season Five feels like a finale from the very beginning. A few characters are moving on with their lives, pursuing new interests and relationships. There are more fun, non-intrusive callbacks to Treks past than in the last two seasons, which makes it feel a bit like a victory lap for the streaming era’s flagship show. Above all, there is a sense of ease, as if the cast and crew have finally got their engine running smoothly and can cruise to the finish line. It’s the energy a series possesses at its peak, a point to which fans will often look back and say “They probably should have stopped there.” Barring a significant misstep in its final six episodes, Star Trek: Discovery will never be past its prime, and that’s a distinction its creators can wear with pride. 

• SEE ALSO : Hank Azaria On What It Takes to Change

We noticed you're using an ad blocker.

We get it: you like to have control of your own internet experience. But advertising revenue helps support our journalism. To read our full stories, please turn off your ad blocker. We'd really appreciate it.

How Do I Whitelist Observer?

Below are steps you can take in order to whitelist Observer.com on your browser:

For Adblock:

Click the AdBlock button on your browser and select Don't run on pages on this domain .

For Adblock Plus on Google Chrome:

Click the AdBlock Plus button on your browser and select Enabled on this site.

For Adblock Plus on Firefox:

Click the AdBlock Plus button on your browser and select Disable on Observer.com.

Your last-minute guide to Monday's total solar eclipse

A total solar eclipse will cross North America on Monday , offering millions a rare opportunity to see afternoon skies temporarily darken as the moon blocks the face of the sun.

Tune into NBC News NOW as Lester Holt hosts a two-hour special at 2 p.m. ET Monday from Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

The eclipse's path fortuitously cuts across Mexico, 15 U.S. states and a small part of eastern Canada. In all other states in the continental U.S., viewers will be treated to a partial solar eclipse, with the moon appearing to take a bite out of the sun and obscuring part of its light.

Here’s everything you need to know about the rare celestial event.

What is a solar eclipse?

Solar eclipses occur when the sun, moon and Earth align. The moon passes between Earth and sun, temporarily blocking the sun’s light and casting a shadow on Earth.

A total solar eclipse is when the moon fully obscures the sun, whereas a partial solar eclipse means it blocks just a portion of the sun’s face.

Solar eclipses occur only with the new moon. Because the moon’s orbit around Earth is tilted, the three bodies don’t always line up in a way that creates an eclipse.

“Imagine if the moon’s orbit were in the plane of Earth’s orbit around the sun — if that were the case, then every new moon, you’d have a total solar eclipse and every full moon, you’d have a lunar eclipse,” Neil DeGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, told NBC News. “So, because things don’t always align, it lends to the rarity of the event and the specialness of the event.”

Where and when will the eclipse be visible?

This year’s eclipse will follow a slightly wider path over more populated areas of the continental U.S. than other total solar eclipses have in the recent past.

NASA estimates that 31.6 million people live within what’s known as the path of totality, where the total solar eclipse will be visible. An additional 150 million people live within 200 miles of the path, according to the agency.

The path travels through Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Tiny parts of Michigan and Tennessee will also be able to witness totality if conditions are clear.

After the eclipse crosses into Canada, it will pass over southern Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton, at the eastern end of Nova Scotia.

Those outside the path of totality can still take part in the astronomical event by viewing a partial solar eclipse — visible throughout all 48 states of the contiguous U.S. — or a NASA livestream.

The timing, including how long totality lasts, depends on the location, but some spots will see the moon fully cover the sun for up to 4 minutes and 28 seconds.

Below is a list of timings for some cities along the path of totality, as  provided by NASA . A number of other resources, including NationalEclipse.com  and  TimeandDate.com , can also help people plan.

• Dallas: Partial eclipse begins at 12:23 p.m. CT and totality at 1:40 p.m.
• Little Rock, Arkansas: Partial eclipse begins at 12:33 p.m. CT and totality at 1:51 p.m.
• Cleveland: Partial eclipse begins at 1:59 p.m. ET and totality at 3:13 p.m.
• Buffalo, New York: Partial eclipse begins at 2:04 p.m. ET and totality at 3:18 p.m.
• Lancaster, New Hampshire: Partial eclipse begins at 2:16 p.m. ET and totality at 3:27 p.m.

How to safely view a solar eclipse

It is never safe to gaze directly at the sun, even when it is partly or mostly covered by the moon. Special eclipse glasses or  pinhole projectors  are required to safely view solar eclipses and prevent eye damage. Failing to take the proper precautions can result in severe eye injury,  according to NASA .

Eclipse glasses are thousands of times darker than normal sunglasses and specially made to enable wearers to look at the sun during these kinds of celestial events.

Sky-watchers should also never view any part of the sun through binoculars, telescopes or camera lenses unless they have specific solar filters attached. Eclipse glasses should not be used with these devices, as they will not provide adequate protection.

However, during the few minutes of totality, when the moon is fully blocking the sun, it is safe to look with the naked eye.

Beware of fake eclipse glasses. On legitimate pairs, the lenses should have a silver appearance on the front and be black on the inside. The manufacturer’s name and address should be clearly labeled, and they should not be torn or punctured. Check, as well, for the ISO logo and the code “IS 12312-2” printed on the inside.

If you don’t have eclipse glasses, you can make a homemade pinhole projector, which lets sunlight in through a small hole, focuses it and projects it onto a piece of paper, wall or other surface to create an image of the sun that is safe to look at. 

All you need is two pieces of white cardboard or plain white paper, aluminum foil and a pin or thumbtack. Cut a 1- to 2-inch square or rectangle out of the center of a piece of white paper or cardboard. Tape aluminum foil over that cut-out shape, then use a pin or thumbtack to poke a tiny hole in the foil.

During the eclipse, place a second piece of white paper or cardboard on the ground as a screen and hold the projector with the foil facing up and your back to the sun. Adjusting how far you hold the projector from the second piece of paper will alter the size of the image on the makeshift screen.

What to look for while viewing the total solar eclipse

For people along the path of totality, there are some fun milestones to keep track of as the total solar eclipse unfolds.

As the eclipse progresses and the sun gets thinner in the sky, it will start to get eerily dark, according to Tyson.

When the last beams of sunlight are about to become obscured, look out for the “diamond ring effect”: The sun’s atmosphere will appear as an illuminated halo, and the last light still visible will look like the diamond of a giant ring.

As the sunlight decreases even further, an effect known as Baily’s beads will be created by the moon’s rugged terrain. Tiny “beads” of light will be visible for only a few seconds around the dark moon, as the last bits of sunlight peer through the moon’s mountains and valleys.

When the moon is fully blocking the sun, it is safe to remove eclipse glasses and look at the total solar eclipse with the naked eye.

Some lucky sky-watchers may even catch a glimpse of a comet .

Comet 12P/Pons-Brooks — nicknamed the “ devil comet ” because an eruption last year left it with two distinct trails of gas and ice in the shape of devil horns — is currently visible from the Northern Hemisphere as it swings through the inner solar system.

The comet can be seen in the early evenings by gazing toward the west-northwest horizon. During the eclipse, when skies darken during totality, it may be possible to see the comet near Jupiter, but its visibility will depend on whether it’s in the middle of an outburst and thus brighter than normal.

Most likely, all eyes will be on the alignment of the moon and sun.

“Most people won’t even notice,” Tyson said. “But if you know to look, it’s there.”

When is the next solar eclipse?

The next total solar eclipse will be in 2026, but it will mostly pass over the Arctic Ocean, with some visibility in Greenland, Iceland, Portugal and northern Spain. In 2027, a total solar eclipse will be visible in Spain and a swath of northern Africa.

The next total solar eclipse visible from North America will be in 2033, but only over Alaska. Then in 2044, a total solar eclipse will cross Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, parts of Canada and Greenland.

The next total solar eclipse to cross the continental U.S. coast-to-coast in will occur in 2045. The path of totality for that eclipse will cut through California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

Denise Chow is a reporter for NBC News Science focused on general science and climate change.

Lucas Thompson is a content producer for the NBC News Climate Unit.

Screen Rant

What star trek’s next movie giving tng’s legacy heroine a section 31 twist means.

TNG's Rachel Garrett will appear alongside Michelle Yeoh's Georgiou in Star Trek: Section 31. What does this mean for the heroine's Starfleet legacy?

• Captain Rachel Garrett's inclusion in Star Trek: Section 31 could complicate her heroic Starfleet legacy.
• Her involvement with Section 31 raises questions about her past actions and the impact on her reputation.
• Being part of Section 31 may lead to redemption or revelations that could reshape Garrett's Star Trek story.

The inclusion of a younger version of Star Trek: The Next Generation 's Captain Rachel Garrett in Star Trek: Section 31 could mean a big change for her Starfleet legacy. Since the character's single appearance in TNG season 3, episode 15, "Yesterday's Enterprise", fans have only known how Captain Rachel Garrett died, not how she lived. Now that The Magicians ' Kacey Rohl will play the future captain of the USS Enterprise-C in Michelle Yeoh's Section 31 movie , it provides a chance to learn more about this important figure in Starfleet history.

Star Trek 's most tragic Enterprise captain died a hero, bravely defending the Klingon colony on Narendra III from an attack by the Romulan Star Empire. The loss of Garrett and the entire crew of the USS Enterprise-C made such an impact that it would be another 20 years before Starfleet launched its successor at the start of Star Trek: The Next Generation . Garrett's heroic sacrifice even resulted in a statue being erected on M'Talas Prime in Star Trek: Picard season 3. However, revelations that she was involved with the shady Starfleet intelligence organization Section 31 could now complicate the legacy of Captain Rachel Garrett .

Where You've Seen Star Trek: Section 31's New Actors Before

Rachel garrett may be a section 31 agent - what this means.

The Variety report that broke the news about Rachel Garrett in Star Trek: Section 31 didn't confirm that the character was a member of Starfleet's intelligence organization. However, it was revealed that Kacey Rohl's younger Rachel Garrett shared a scene in an alien nightclub with Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou . At the very least, this means that Rachel Garrett had some tangential links to Section 31 in her past. Alternatively, Rachel Garrett is now a confirmed member of Section 31 , which has interesting implications for the character going forward.

First introduced during Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 's Dominion War, Section 31 has never been presented as a heroic organization . Section 31's methodology is in direct opposition to the values and ideals of Starfleet and the Federation, even if they were set up to protect those very things. Section 31's crimes in Star Trek include attempted genocide, political assassination, and torture of prisoners. If Rachel Garrett is a member of Section 31, then she could be guilty of similar crimes , drastically changing how the captain of the USS Enterprise-C is viewed in the wider Star Trek timeline.

How Rachel Garrett In Section 31 Could Change Her Star Trek Legacy

Rachel Garrett being a Section 31 agent could change her Star Trek legacy in some interesting ways. Firstly, it's not unknown for Section 31 members to become Star Trek heroes. For example, Star Trek: Enterprise 's Lt. Malcolm Reed (Dominic Keating) was a member of Section 31 , but redeemed himself through his service aboard the Enterprise NX-01. Leading her crew into a no-win situation against the Romulans to preserve peace with the Klingon Empire is a heroic sacrifice that could redeem most crimes Garrett may commit as a member of Section 31.

The fact that Starfleet gave Rachel Garrett the Red Lady statue in Star Trek: Picard season 3 does suggest that her work with Section 31 was either redacted, or redeemed by Narendra III. Interestingly, Star Trek: Section 31 's synopsis describes Georgiou atoning for the sins of her past. This could mean that the former Terran Emperor is instead trying to bring down the organization. In that context, Rachel Garrett helping to destroy an organization that is in direct opposition to the ideals of Starfleet and the Federation could make the Star Trek: The Next Generation character an even bigger hero than before.

Star Trek: Section 31 will be released exclusively on Paramount+ at a later date.

Star Trek: Section 31

In this Paramount+ exclusive movie event, Michelle Yeoh returns as Emperor Philippa Georgiou, who was first introduced in Star Trek: Discovery Season 1. Star Trek: Section 31 centers on Yeoh's character as she faces her past sins and is recruited by Starfleet's secret division that protects the United Federation of Planets.

Star Trek: The Next Generation

*Availability in US

Not available

Star Trek: The Next Generation is the third installment in the sci-fi franchise and follows the adventures of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the crew members of the USS Enterprise. Set around one hundred years after the original series, Picard and his crew travel through the galaxy in largely self-contained episodes exploring the crew dynamics and their own political discourse. The series also had several overarching plots that would develop over the course of the isolated episodes, with four films released in tandem with the series to further some of these story elements.