Sunday, March 07, 2010

More on Apartheid...

Having read through ExZanian's recent post on Apartheid and its responses, I thought it worth a proper comment.
While it is gone, and nothing can ever change that, Apartheid will be a part of South Africa's future as much as it is a part of her past. Rather than engaging in nostalgic longing for a utopian ideal that never really was, it's important to look at the whys and wherefores if only because without the past we have no idea of where we are now.

The truth is, the current ANC government is in power fuelled largely by the legacy of Apartheid, and they continue to use this as an election platform. In fact, because of Apartheid, the current regime has an endless list of blame, ready to be allocated for its each and every failure, and for the ANC, Apartheid is the gift that keeps on giving.

Whatever Apartheid was, it was in many ways the opposite of colonialism. It was conceived in the 19th century by liberals (yes you read that right) who bemoaned the opression and destruction, as they saw it, of the 'noble savage' way of life. This combined, in the 20th Century with Nationalism, and also with the desire of many Afrikaners and English-South Africans to heal the long-standing rifts between their communities, which, for better or for worse, required the construction of a "white" identity. (No, I'm not saying that "race is a social construct")

The Government of 1948 that instituted Apartheid, it must never be forgotten, did not invent racial segregation. Race has mattered at the Cape since its founding in the 17th Century and all the 1948 Government did was to make law what already existed in practice. However, this, in the view of many commentators, was its greatest failure. In making explicit what was implicit, the regime sowed the seeds of its own downfall.

Added to this, the idea of Apartheid was really only rational when applied to blacks and whites. There were of course many ethnic groups in South Africa that did not neatly fit those two basic categories, and these were allowed to fall by the wayside. This was the greatest tragedy of Apartheid, in the eyes of this author. Indians, "Coloureds", and other minorities were dragged into a system they should never have been made a part of. One cannot help wonder
if there was some malice afoot; after all, these had generally been allies of the British, culturally and historically, and their exclusion and segregation may have been intended to create an artificial rift in this historical symbiosis on the part of an unashamedly anti-British regime.

But that is mere conjecture. The reality is that segregation of a 'natural' kind had always existed in South Africa. The so-called "Bantu" stuck to their traditional areas, and the successive British administrations did everything in their power to avoid having to import them into "European" areas. In this regard they brought labour from, first, England, and then from India and China with the express purpose of creating a perfectly acceptable type of segregation - one based on traditional homelands and areas of European influence.

At some point, however, African labour was dragged into the equation, altering South Africa for ever. I sincerly believe that were it not for the influx of African workers, there would have been no Apartheid, and South Africa would be an entirely different place today. Simply put, a country cannot use a people's labour and deny them the rights associated with being a part of that nation. It must be stressed that every effort was made to prevent this.

Documents show that the earliest black slaves in Cape Town were brought from Angola, not from the North and East of what is now South Africa; laws dating from the 1820s forbade residents of Port Elizabeth and surrounds from employing Xhosas. Of course, this was as much for the benefit of the colonists as for the locals, but nonetheless the early administrators were savvy enough to foresee problems with the 'natives'.

One of the reasons discussing these things is important, and why I appreciated ExZanian's post, is because the current Marxist regime is happily doing what Marxist regimes are best at: rewriting history to suit their own twisted interpretation of history. Just as Stalin did in the 1920s and 30s, good communists have to see resistance to their ideals as part of Marx's 'last ditch' defence of Capitalism by the capitalists, as "predicted" back in the 1800s. And, as good Marxists, there's no such thing as history for them anyway, they are free to play about with it
as they see fit.

We at ILSA are not so keen on this, being generally a bunch of truth-seekers who like to deal with "facts" before the Comms "edit" them. So, disagree with this analysis all you like, folks, but kindly say why, rationally.

History is a very fragile thing.

11 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Today it is common knowledge that the Rothchild sponsored British invasion that became known as the Boer war, only happened because of minerals that were found in South Africa.

Eventually the Boers took back political control of South Africa. The control of the British mining companies, that stole ownership of the South African minerals after the British defeated the Boers, however stayed in British hands.
This was easily accomplished by buying the cooperation of the Afrikaner leaders.

But as the years progressed new leaders emerged that began to make life increasingly difficult for these mining companies. The NP government would for instance refuse to grant these companies new concessions, stating reasons like the preservation of the Bushveld complex for the next generations, as more important.
This made the elites determined to rid themselves of these pesky Afrikaners and their NP government.

Firstly they identified a suitable candidate and this was identified as a fledgling party by the name of the ANC. It was agreed that in turn for mineral concessions and control of the reserve bank they would provide financial support to the ANC. More importantly the elites would use their control over the world's media networks to wage a propaganda war against the whites of South Africa.

The white government was demonised in the main stream media. At that time people were not as questioning as they are today and thus they lapped up the endless brain washing about the evil whites and the poor blacks.

Of course the brain dead blacks were just to happy to be painted as victims, because they sensed that this could lead them down a road that could satisfy their demand for instant gratification, without having to do anything for it.

To view apartheid fairly, you have to forget all that you have ever heard in the media, because to say that extreme bias was applied is putting it mildly.


Piet the Pirate said...

Manipulating history to suit ones own agenda is nothing new, and far from confined to communists.
There is an old saying that history belongs to the victors.
As control passes, so history changes. It´s always been like that, and it will never be any different. History isn´t only a record of events, but also a justification of those events as seen by those calling the shots.
How different would the recorded history of WW2 have been if the forces of nationalism had defeated the internationalists? How different would the recorded history of America have been if the South and not the North had prevailed? However, the most significant question is, how would the morality that is now attached to these events have been different? The answer is, obviously, very different.
Apartheid will always occupy a position at the very top of the evil scale, alongside the holocaust even, because that is what suits those who defeated it. There will be no defending it, no denying it, and certainly no justifying it, and anyone who dares to even try will be branded a criminal of the worst kind. In fact, I am willing to bet that in 20 or 30 years time, anyone who attempts to question the official version of Apartheid will be charged with inciting hate, much like those who question the holocaust today.
History, more so contempory history, is not to be taken too seriously, not if one is seeking the truth that is.

Anonymous said...

It is undoubtedly the case that financial interests have become uncoupled from ethnic interests and this, in the not too distant future, will bring both of them down.

Just look at SA, look at Zim, and look at Europe, and at the USA. It is all the same theme; short term greed and screw our people.


Anonymous said...

So what?

Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...

That is a total lie Anon 23:03 because the Boers NEVER "took back political control of South Africa"! hell - they never had it in the first place as they only ever ran their own small republics. The folks who ran South Africa were not of Boer descent as they were overwhelmingly of Cape Dutch descent. Just go down the list. D F Malan / John Vorster / Hendrik Verwoerd [ from Holland ] none of them of Boer descent. The Afrikaner establishment prevented the Boers from taking back or restoring their republics.

Afrikaner said...

Ag Bullshit Ron! Louis Botha, JBM Herzog, Jan Smuts, twice. Were all BOER Generals who were Prime ministers of the Union of South Africa.

Malan was born in the Cape but served as a Dutch reformed minister in Transvaal (former Boer territory.

Strijdom comes from Willomore area in the Eastern Cape, The exact place you say the Boers originated from. NP leader in Transvaal (former Boer territory). His house in Nylstroom is a museum.

BJ Vorster also comes from the Eastern Cape.

PW Botha comes from the Freestate and his father fought in the Boer Comandos, his mother was interned in a British Camp.

CR Swart was born in Winburg in the Freestate. (Former Boer Republic). His father fought on the Boer side and his mother with her three sons including CR Swart 5yo at the time were interned in British camp.

Jim Fouché was born in the Freestate (Former Boer territory).

Marais Viljoen was from Robertson in the Cape.

And the greatest traitor, F.W. de Klerk was born where? JOHANNESBURG. Slam bang in the midlle of your beloved Boer Republic. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Now go do some proper research and tell us how many of all the ministers, deputy ministers, etc from 1910 - 1994 were from Boer decent. Looking at the prime ministers and the state presidents, it is clear that far more are from the former Boer areas than from the Cape.

Ron. said...

Stop with this constant twisting. For one thing I have repeatedly pointed out that Louis Botha & Hans Strijdom were Boers!!!!! So you have been caught deliberately misrepresenting once again! Next: D F Malan was not from the Boer people despite having LATER served as a minister in the Transvaal & for sure Jan Smuts was NOT A BOER despite the fact that he fought on the Boer side just as JBM Hertzog was not a Boer despite having fought on the Boer side as a LOT of folks around the world fought on the Boer side BUT they can not be called "Boer" combatants. P W Botha & F W de Klerk might be of Boer descent but they were fully in-calculated into the Afrikaner. Once again you promote ODIOUS lies as you claim people as "Boers" just because they fought on the Boer side [ without looking into their TRUE ethnicity ] while also presuming that the Boer descendents who were part of the government ran things without the oversight & tutelage of the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners.

fuechs said...

@Ron. aka Pinard7...etc
It does not matter how often and how hysterically you repeat everywhere your "Boers are superior, the chosen volk, compared to the rotten Afrikaners" dividing nonsence. It still remains just nonsence… Quatsch. At least you should face the truth: the Boers got assimilated into the Afrikanerdom as a little part of them already a quite long time ago.
Come on man, write something NEW because you really sound like a broken gramophone.
Honestly, I do not get it why do you enjoy such a Narrenfreiheit on this blog.

Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...

Fuechs: once again you have exposed yourself as a liar as I have never said what you claim I said. But it is no surprise to see that you are a demagogue & are against any form of Boer & White self determination. Is this the only trick you anti-self determination folks have? Because all you ever say is that it is "divisive" for Boer or White people to want to have self determination EXACTLY as the ANC would also believe! Then you try to stir the pot by claiming that I think Boers are "superior" [ ? ] or that Afrikaners are "rotten" in a BLATANT attempt at causing division because everyone here should be supporting the Boers in their struggle for self determination & not seeking to cause division by claiming that anyone advocating self determination thinks "less" of any segment of the population.

As to why I am on this blog: I was SPECIFICALLY ASKED by Doberman the the founder & former administrator because he wanted someone to contribute stories that had a Boer perspective / angle. I left a month later but came back after being asked by Doberman again. Though so far only you / Afrikaner & Greg have ever complained.

This is the very reason why I note the truth about the Boer people because you perpetuate the lie that they were all "assimilated" into Afrikanerdom [ which in itself as a COMPOSITE based on Boer history & spliced with Afrikaner direction ] therefore if the Boer segment of this Afrikanerdom wants its identity back then what place is it of us to tell them no & that they must remain part of a designation which does them a lot of harm because it prevents them from representing themselves as Boers & looking out for their own interests & prevents them from obtaining self determination that they have been struggling for for centuries now.

You ave never told us why you are so against any form of White self determination or why you think it is so great to remain part of the illegal macro State of South Africa in the fact of its anti-White inertia. Advocating AGAINST Boer self determination [ as you inexplicably do ] is certainly going to destroy any future for White South Africans as a whole because as the Boers go so will the rest of us for sure.

Look. No one would deign to tell the Scots to "stop their divisive nonsense" as they attempt to find greater self determination & break away from the British State & the bulk of the British people. They do not do this because they are anti-English or are anti-Welsh but because they want more responsibility to look after their own affairs. Just as those Boers who want self determination are not anti-Afrikaner nor anti-English nor anti-Portuguese nor even anti-Bantu for that matter because the point of self determination is not based on an unfavourable reaction against others but an affirmative & pro-active action in favour of achieving self determination.