Senate Apartheid and South Africa

Carrying over from the deadpool thread, and comments made about the legacy of Winnie Mandela in the practice of necklacing - torturing and murdering blacks "suspected of collaborating with white authorities" by filling a tyre with petrol, putting it over the torso of the victim so their arms are pinned to their side, and then setting it alight.

The contentions coming out highlighted a knowledge gap in RSA history, between it seems the Dutch (who have a cultural tie to RSA via the Afrikaaner/Boer whites) and Australians (who have geographic proximity to RSA, as Commonwealth nations in the southern hemisphere) and the rest of the world. We learned, pre-1989, about Apartheid as a hugely negative system which it was. We also ended up with a lot - arguably too many - white English and Boer South Africans after the system collapsed.

Yes, there are two "types" of white Saffers. Afrikaaners or "Boers" (Dutch for farmer) have a stronger accent, speak Afrikaans, and tend to come from cities like Jo'berg and Pretoria and Durbin. They'll have Dutch names more often than not and are descended from mostly Dutch farmers or landowners.

English tend to come from the Cape, have a softer accent which is much closer to an Australian/Kiwi accent than not, and are less likely to be astonishing pricks in every regard.

Now.

What was apartheid and where did it come from?

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that means "apartness". If you're unsure; Afrikaans is the language that non-English white Saffers speak, a mixture of mostly Dutch with some German and English thrown in (Afrikaans itself being a nationalist reformist language challenge to Dutch and English). It was introduced in 1948 by the Boer Herenigde Nasionale Party, or "Reunited National Party". The United Party, the main opponents in the 1948 elections, were lead by Jan Smuts - who was a guerilla leader during the Boer War, in which the British sought to retain influence away from Afrikaaners in the Colony. They won the battle, but lost the war as the Dutch influence remained strongest in the RSA.

Apartheid therefore took historic segregationist policies favoured by the Dutch and implemented them into a codified system of racial segregation at all levels of state. To understand this, you have to understand the three distinct "racial groups" in South Africa, as per their policy - blacks, whites, and coloured (Indians, Asians etc). Whites had all rights; Coloured, limited, and blacks virtually none.

It was repealed in 1991 and the first truly racially open elections voted the whites out in 1994.

The following stems from Wikipedia, though it is accurate:

Under the 1806 Cape Articles of Capitulation the new British colonial rulers were required to respect previous legislation enacted under Roman Dutch law[23] and this led to a separation of the law in South Africa from English Common Law and a high degree of legislative autonomy. The governors and assemblies that governed the legal process in the various colonies of South Africa were launched on a different and independent legislative path from the rest of the British Empire.

In the days of slavery, slaves required passes to travel away from their masters. In 1797 the Landdrost and Heemraden of Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet extended pass laws beyond slaves and ordained that all Khoikhoi (designated as Hottentots) moving about the country for any purpose should carry passes.[24] This was confirmed by the British Colonial government in 1809 by the Hottentot Proclamation, which decreed that if a Khoikhoi were to move they would need a pass from their master or a local official.[24] Ordinance No. 49 of 1828 decreed that prospective black immigrants were to be granted passes for the sole purpose of seeking work.[24] These passes were to be issued for Coloureds and Khoikhoi, but not for other Africans, who were still forced to carry passes.

The United Kingdom's Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) abolished slavery throughout the British Empire and overrode the Cape Articles of Capitulation. To comply with the act the South African legislation was expanded to include Ordinance 1 in 1835, which effectively changed the status of slaves to indentured labourers. This was followed by Ordinance 3 in 1848, which introduced an indenture system for Xhosa that was little different from slavery. The various South African colonies passed legislation throughout the rest of the nineteenth century to limit the freedom of unskilled workers, to increase the restrictions on indentured workers and to regulate the relations between the races.

The Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892 instituted limits based on financial means and education to the black franchise,[25] and the Natal Legislative Assembly Bill of 1894 deprived Indians of the right to vote.[26] The Glen Grey Act of 1894, instigated by the government of Prime Minister Cecil John Rhodes limited the amount of land Africans could hold. In 1905 the General Pass Regulations Act denied blacks the vote, limited them to fixed areas and inaugurated the infamous Pass System.[27] The Asiatic Registration Act (1906) required all Indians to register and carry passes.[28] In 1910 the Union of South Africa was created as a self-governing dominion, which continued the legislative programme: the South Africa Act (1910) enfranchised whites, giving them complete political control over all other racial groups while removing the right of blacks to sit in parliament,[29] the Native Land Act (1913) prevented blacks, except those in the Cape, from buying land outside "reserves",[29] the Natives in Urban Areas Bill (1918) was designed to force blacks into "locations",[30] the Urban Areas Act (1923) introduced residential segregation and provided cheap labour for industry led by white people, the Colour Bar Act (1926) prevented black mine workers from practising skilled trades, the Native Administration Act (1927) made the British Crown, rather than paramount chiefs, the supreme head over all African affairs,[31][better source needed] the Native Land and Trust Act (1936) complemented the 1913 Native Land Act and, in the same year, the Representation of Natives Act removed previous black voters from the Cape voters' roll and allowed them to elect three whites to Parliament.[32][better source needed] One of the first pieces of segregating legislation enacted by Jan Smuts' United Party government was the Asiatic Land Tenure Bill (1946), which banned land sales to Indians.[33]

The United Party government began to move away from the rigid enforcement of segregationist laws during World War II.[34] Amid fears integration would eventually lead to racial assimilation, the legislature established the Sauer Commission to investigate the effects of the United Party's policies. The commission concluded that integration would bring about a "loss of personality" for all racial groups.

Wocky contended that the policy smacked of historic British racism; as you can see, that's a fairly superficial act and ignores the unique consequences of Dutch reformist influences, such as Jansenism. That the Boers sought to get around anti-slavery laws by reclassifying slaves as indentured labour is a key; so is the Boer War. RSA was simply far more Dutch than English, ever. it doesn't mean the British were generally racially quite good; they suffered the same liberal enlightenment paternalism that we understand to be historically abhorrently wrong. It just means in this instant the offenders were not the British. It was the Dutch settlers, people who had lost the fight for this ideology in the Netherlands proper. South Africa was to be directed by these people, not by the English.

What's the general understanding around apartheid? Is the stuff I'm saying new to people, or generally widely understood or taught in schools?

 

And

 

I love that song so much.

 

Do you mean to suggest that the only thing the British were guilty of was "enlightenment paternalism?"

 

Wocky this is all you take from the above?

Is it pride, or what? What's causing your position of denial?

 

What position of "denial" are you referring to?

I've not argued that South Africa was either more Dutch or British. I said that the racist policies there found fertial ground among the British. Beyond that, I've remarked that you know more on South African history, and I'll say again (for what, the fourth time) that there were some interesting and new points for me above.

But they add detail that don't really influence the fundamental drive of our argument. In particular, to back up:

1. We were never really discussing "necklacing" You have brought it up several times, but no one that mentioned Winnie Mandela in a positive fashion has done so. Indeed, this whole discussion started with highlighting your reductive approach to Mandela as contrasted with the great pains you take to see nuance in people and institutions that have done things as bad, if not worse. You've still not attempted to offer any clear explanation for this disparity.

2. From there, we deviated into a discussion about the causes of and culpability for apartheid. You have argued pretty vociferously that the intellectual heritage of apartheid was Dutch. That is fine. But it also wasn't my point, which was about British culpability. If you think their legal contribution to the situation is over-stated, fine. Those two concepts, though, are certainly distinct from one another.

3. In fact, per your dancing around the "paternalism" line, you still pretty distinctly loathe to acknowledge that the British were much more than well-meaning but misguided in regards to their dealings with non-whites.

One of us is certainly denying something.

 

Oh my god, I was wrong. It was Dutch all along. You've finally laid apartheid out to me.

 

No, Wocky.

The British were awful. Less awful than other colonial powers, but I can't be here castigating the Stolen Generation as genocide and pretending it wasn't the Brits.

My point is that the racism in South Africa was actually very uniquely derived from the Boers, not the English, who are the two distinct white groups in RSA. There'd been a fight for control of RSA during the pre-1994 years, and the Boers won it and enacted policies to support it. That's all. You're dead wrong to suggest the British were the architects of this. The material out there in cyberspace will confirm it.

 

Wow, I knew it was bad but I didn't know the details. I also hadn't realised how intermeshed Britain was with South Africa.

Mind you, my generation in the UK seemed to be surprisingly ignorant of basic history, even pertaining to the British Isles. I was in my teens before I really understood anything about Northern Ireland, and this was pretty common - in the early 90's I once overheard two English teenage girls talking about visiting Ireland, and it became clear that neither of them understood:
a) which part of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and
b) that it was the UK part where things tended to explode.

But that seemed to be par for the course I'm afraid. People mock the Americans for this kind of stuff, but in my experience my generation of British were just as ignorant and uninterested. Of course before the internet you actually had to go to libraries to look things up (though my family did own a set of encyclopaedias - the Wikipedia of their day), and certainly my school history class barely scratched the surface of any sort of history - I remember a bit on the feudal system and motte-and-baily castles, and maybe the mention of one of our civil wars, and that was about it. For all the flak today's kids get, they've got so much information at their fingertips I think they can't help be better informed.

 

I hate every Afrikaans that I see, from ANA to ANC...

 

No you'll never make a saffer out of meeeee

 

I love @Diggy for posting my favourite Spitting Image song

 

It's an excellent song, youngling. I even owned in on 7" vinyl. It was the B-side to The Chicken Song (another good one), which reached number one in the UK 1986.

 

I was never taught about Apartheid in school, all I really knew about it was that it had something to do with segregation in South Africa.

 

Afrikaans is the language, domkop. You either mean Boers, Afrikaaners (who are white); or Africans (hence ANC) and you're racist.

Why do you hate blacks?

 

It was too long for the Simpsons reference otherwise...

 

Oh. So square peg/round hole as a way of shoehorning yourself into a discussion?

Cool. Good contribution. Great way to get Wocky to admit he's wrong.

 

If you want to learn more the best resource is Lethal Weapon 2.

 

I exited my service elevator yesterday onto plastic on the floor and was immediately afraid...

 

I watched Lethal Weapon 2 before I had heard of Apartheid, so I had no idea what this scene was about:

 

Ender what’s your read on FW de Klerk?

 

You need to tag me Wocky so I see these.

de Klerk's not a great guy but he managed to do a great thing in dismantling Apartheid. As PW Botha's deputy and then successor he vigorously defended the system; upon assuming the top job, he still sanctioned or at least ignored widespread human rights abuses.

Arguably he was also just merely cognisant of a falling, failing system and he elected to join the right side of history at the 11th hour.