Aparthied South Africa / White Africa

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to have the Afrikaner dominated apartheid state in South Africa survive at least until this date, October 13th, 2011, with a POD no later than 1900. Please consider world-wide effects.
 

MarshalBraginsky

Banned
Simple enough, really. Have Nelson Mandela assassinated somewhere while he's campaigning for the end of apartheid by some radical pro-apartheid Afrikaner.
 
black angel

black angel

Finn said:
Will the Afrikaners what?
Click to expand...

the will of the Afrikaners, apartheid fell because the USSR and communism fell and the white population didn't want to deal with sanctions, but they weren't falling apart if the whites had been willing to tough it out a little it would have lasted, but they didn't have the fear of Communism so were unwilling to deal with an less than first world standard of living
 

Mad Missouri

Enigmajones said:
Which results in massive riots and military rule in South Africa.
Click to expand...

Why would there need to be military rule? The white minority government already excluded the people that would be rioting from the political process unless you think it would be the British South Africans would be rioting.
 

Enigmajones

Mad Missouri said:
Why would there need to be military rule? The white minority government already excluded the people that would be rioting from the political process unless you think it would be the British South Africans would be rioting.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't need it. Just threw it in their for S&Gs.
 

Marius

Sibirskaya said:
Simple enough, really. Have Nelson Mandela assassinated somewhere while he's campaigning for the end of apartheid by some radical pro-apartheid Afrikaner.
Click to expand...

Nelson Mandela was not some omnipotent being. His death would not end the process. The day he got released, the end of apartheid was inevitable.
 

Marius

Kaptin Kurk said:
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to have the Afrikaner dominated apartheid state in South Africa survive at least until this date, October 13th, 2011, with a POD no later than 1900. Please consider world-wide effects.
Click to expand...

I think it is ASBs, unless you change the demography of South Africa, or the current territory of South Africa.
 

Marius

black angel said:
I think it'd be very easy for Aparthied to last to today, its a matter of will the Afrikaners
Click to expand...

Most Afrikaners realised by the 1980s that apartheid was unworkable, and had accepted its demise.

That's why the whites-only referendum had nearly 70% of the electorate vote for continuing reforms to end apartheid.
 

ivanotter

All,

The first point is that Afrikaners are not more “apartheid” minded than other white people. The horrible notion that an Afrikaans speaking person was automatically National Party supporter is by and large false. It was another ploy of the apartheid government to claim support. Even AWB had a fair amount of English speaking supporters. Of course it was also mixed up with the usual notions of: “If you are Afrikaans and not supporting us, you are a traitor” those things.

It is not unique to any country. Try one of these:

“If you are from Alabama, you should have a confederate flag on your car, otherwise you are a….”

And so on.

Now, that settled.

Let’s try to look at the parameters for a continuation of apartheid:

Middle class support
Can only be obtained if the life style of the predominantly white middle class is not touched. Well, the sanctions did push the income down of the middle class, so something else should have happened. With the gold pricing going down and the oil pricing going up, SA would not have had something the outside world wanted desperately enough to continue trading with us.

Political support from black middle class
Unless a black middle class could be created, and made to prosper, black “support” for apartheid would not be forthcoming. PW Botha tried to create something like that, but was not successful.

Outside world
The de-investments were starting to cripple the economy from 1988 and onwards. SA was nearly bankrupt in 1994.

Military might
Starting to be problematic insofar as the coffers were going dry.

Conclusion
If anyone can find a way to sole those things, Apartheid could have been on the cards (although I don’t believe it).

Comments?

Ivan
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

Well I guess if we play with the terms of the OP a little it might be possible. For one, go for a lesser race based state, one that is not a product of the National Party "Grand Apartheid" mode but is still influenced by such ideas as part of inevitable political compromise. So basically, W/I Smuts did not lose in 1948, and the NP, in its OTL form did not gain power for sometime after 1948.

So perhaps no mass urban clearances, but still perhaps developing the tribal areas into a homeland like structure (not necessarily with the pretence of being a state). Keeping the restrictions on education, employment, voting etc that were already in place by the 1930s. Pursuing a more engaged relationship with the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how long such a South Africa could last as an Afrikaner dominated state. However so long as Whites are able to dominate the state, SA would be in effect dominated by the Afrikaners.
 

Marius

Well said Ivan, I hate the assumption that white South Africans are somehow inherently more racist than other nationalities.
 

ivanotter

Nothing is exactly as it seems. Remember, a good load of the "apartheid" laws were already in place before 1910 (the union). Those were introduced by Milner.

In terms of racism, the most racist one's i have met were the one's having emigrated here. Some - I think - found it very nice with being superior.

In many ways, the afrikaaners are behaving like another "tribe" here, albeit white tribe. They belong here as much as anyone else, and that colours the outlook I think.

Smuts was not interested in majortity society. He was fully behind the pre-apartheid laws.

We have to look at some of the significant events:
1976: the Soweto riots. this established in everybody's mind the notion of black political aspirations in general.

1984: State of emergency: This convinced everybody that it was over.

PW Botha did not have any problems with black people having good jobs, etc. He tried to create a black middle class, because it would, he hoped, negate political aspirations. He was not interested in a black government.


He also chucked a lot of the "silly" apartheid laws, so it was not a matter of urban cleansing or those things (although i think he supported white neighborhoods).

The homelands were designed for something else.

In essence, as specifically the mining sector used a lot of black labour, this was a huge expenditure. We had (and have) a significant part of the workforce being migrant labour, coming frm other countries.

So, by robbing the workers of their SA citizenship, and giving them citizenship in the homelands, theyu became migrant workers. Then put in a little dictator as the ruler to ensure no ANC and no unrest. If the workers did not like it, they could get kicked out of SA and put back to thir "own" country. That took care of some of the labour costs. smart?

It is probably not a matter of an afrikaaner state, but more a matter of continuing white minority rule. There was no hope of making amends with the outside world.

On top of, the upcoming generation, who had also been travelling abroad, stqrted to see the simple and pure injustice of apartheid and would have voted them out anyway. it waqs sort of in the air in the 1980's and 1990's

In my opinion, it all comes down to middle class again. Make them poor and they go for the kill. They voted for the continuation in the white referendum (70%). They would not care about the skin colour of the president as long as he/she can look after them.

Ivan
 

ivanotter

Looking at the rest of Africa could be an idea.

However, there we have to realise that South Africa was heavily influenced by the "white tribe" from 1700's. Not small numbers, by the way. That determined our development. The first "settlers" were not there to live off the land, they worked the land. The comparison is the early US.

South Africa was never "colonised" where a very small minority "ruled" as you otherwise would see. Here it was a large number of "settlers" who were not rich (quite poor as a matter of fact), who became part of the land.

It was not a matter of pulling as much money out of the country as possible. It got put into the economy. The first automatic telephone switch (PABX sort of) outside of the US was installed in SA (Johannesburg actually). there was commitment to the country. It makes it different.

The time factor is important. SA was much more a part of the world until the rest of Africa got "discovered".

Here is a thought: Look at the president of say Malawi. if he is 70 years old, meaning he was born in 1940. when he was 10 (say), his granny could be 60. She would then have been born in 1890. SOOO, she woudl be able to remember the time before "white people" came to the village. Before electricity, etc etc.

We do not need to go back much more than three generations in the rest of Africa, before we hit "un-discovered" parts.

So, compare a Dane with an "institutional" memory of compulsory schooling since Chr IV, some 1680's, to a situation where people can still remember the time before the concept of school was even there.

That is also the case with the rest of Africa, but not in SA.

So, could apartheid have been "viable" in another part of Africa? Nigeria? Malawi? Rwanda? DRC?

So, let's make up a country with a recent history of "colonisation" (in say, 1890), a very small white population ruling the country via a police force made up of black mercenaries.

Still, it wouldn't fly, would it?

Ivan
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

I would be really interested in seeing a timeline where Smuts or the United Party did not lose the 1948 election. It would be interesting to see how the country developed, with a more understated, but still very real policy of White privilege.

Assuming that he stayed in control (and didn't die) for the full term I imagine SA would have sent troops to Korea at the very least.

On another point, assuming the UP won 1948, would they win in 1953? Who knows. But assuming the NP or some sort of successor did win, would that NP still be gunning for Grand Apartheid? Would have SA and the World have changed enough by 1953 to stop that?
 

ivanotter

Vogel, yes that could be fascinating.

Now, I am guessing a bit here, but I don't think the basic outlook on black rule was different from NP to UP in 1948.

I think it was very strategic for US, UK and France that SA supplied the best part of their Uranium.

The support would have been immense for whomever in government. I don't think the notion of black rule was particular prevalent in Europe or in the US for that matter. I mean, US still had segregation at that time.

So, NP or UP? maybe not different?

SA did have a few squadrons in Korea, the flying cheetas. flying P-51 and later Sabre. I don't think ground troops were involved.

Could UP have won in 1953?

I think people were generally tired of Smuts, he was nearly more english than the english towards the end.

I think it had a lot to do with the nationalistic movement worldwide rather than any major political shifts, but I am guessing here.

Comments?

Ivan
 

Arachnid

I agree with ivanotter about Smuts, from reading his biography it was not surprising that he lost in '48. There was a upsurge in nationalism among all the Dominions post war and Smuts had been neglecting South Africa for the world stage. Also his party had been in government since 1934 and like Britain people felt that was too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top