Avoid Apartheid?

With a POD after 1899 is there a way for South Africa to avoid Apartheid? How could this come about?

 
Last edited:

Germaniac

Donor
Have Rhodesia join the union before 1948 and the nationalist party will probably lose to the union party, avoiding apartheid.
 
Interesting. Why does Rhodesia joining cause the nationalist party to lose?
theirs a split in afrikaans who get grouped together usually.

Boers= Dutch decended (nationalists)
Anglos= British decended (unionists)

adding Rhodesia adds two million more anglos to the equation
plus a lot more black
 
It's quite possible, all things considered Apartheid was a sort of close thing, the parties opposing such a system did win most elections, if anything I'd argue it was a specific set of events that allowed for Apartheid as we know it in the first place.


adding Rhodesia adds two million more anglos to the equation
plus a lot more black
No it would not, White people at their peak only numbered 270,000 in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, and that was in 1970.

At the time of the South Rhodesia Status Referendum (1922) Whites only numbered about 20,000 while Zimbabwe/Rhodesia itself at the time only had a population of 915,000.
 
It's quite possible, all things considered Apartheid was a sort of close thing, the parties opposing such a system did win most elections, if anything I'd argue it was a specific set of events that allowed for Apartheid as we know it in the first place.




No it would not, White people at their peak only numbered 270,000 in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, and that was in 1970.

At the time of the South Rhodesia Status Referendum (1922) Whites only numbered about 20,000 while Zimbabwe/Rhodesia itself at the time only had a population of 915,000.

???
i think i used the wrong census
:D
 
When the Union of South Africa is formed have the franchise extend to all coloured South Africans throughout the entire union. The Boers won't like it but they are a conquered people in 1911.
 

Cook

Banned
After 1899 but before 1900? You aren't leaving much of a window of oportunity.
 
When the Union of South Africa is formed have the franchise extend to all coloured South Africans throughout the entire union. The Boers won't like it but they are a conquered people in 1911.
How?

In the Cape quite a few coloureds and some blacks had the franchise already.

And the British were as racist as the Boers, or Afrikaners. They won't be giving the franchise to anyone, willy-nilly.

In addition, 1911, South Africa was effectively an independent state, with a predominantly Afrikaner executive (Louis Botha, one of the Boer generals was the PM at that time, for example).
 
It's quite possible, all things considered Apartheid was a sort of close thing, the parties opposing such a system did win most elections, if anything I'd argue it was a specific set of events that allowed for Apartheid as we know it in the first place.
Not really, most white parties in pre-1960 South Africa were for some form of segregation, none of the major parties were explicitly opposed to segregation, until the formation of the Progressive Party in 1959.
 
Not really, most white parties in pre-1960 South Africa were for some form of segregation, none of the major parties were explicitly opposed to segregation, until the formation of the Progressive Party in 1959.
However, not having Apartheid/Grand Apartheid would be a bonus. It would not change the pre-existing barriers/segregation, but without the NP's doubling down on segregation SA is much more likely to transition after the War. That being said, looking at the lists of discriminatory measures introduced in the 1920s/30s is pretty depressing!

Adding Rhodesia in the 1920s would have a bit of a difference, but remember that the Rhodesia of the 1920s was a much less "white" place than say 1970, as it had not had the massive post WW2 white migration wave (the population increased massively from 1939 levels). South Africa would still be dominated by Afrikaner voters and Afrikaner politicians. Rhodesia would probably elect one or two themselves and more as internal migration stepped up (Afrikaner immigration to Rhodesia was apparently reasonable OTL anyway, so making it part of the Union proper may increase that).

However, having half a dozen or more Anglo MPs could actually change the balance of power in some ways I guess.
 
However, not having Apartheid/Grand Apartheid would be a bonus. It would not change the pre-existing barriers/segregation, but without the NP's doubling down on segregation SA is much more likely to transition after the War. That being said, looking at the lists of discriminatory measures introduced in the 1920s/30s is pretty depressing!

Adding Rhodesia in the 1920s would have a bit of a difference, but remember that the Rhodesia of the 1920s was a much less "white" place than say 1970, as it had not had the massive post WW2 white migration wave (the population increased massively from 1939 levels). South Africa would still be dominated by Afrikaner voters and Afrikaner politicians. Rhodesia would probably elect one or two themselves and more as internal migration stepped up (Afrikaner immigration to Rhodesia was apparently reasonable OTL anyway, so making it part of the Union proper may increase that).

However, having half a dozen or more Anglo MPs could actually change the balance of power in some ways I guess.
Well have the Rhodesians join in 1922, it is likely they will mainly support the relatively pro-British South African Party (Rhodesia joining the Union may butterfly away the United Party, but let's assume it doesn't).

The ave Parliamentary seat in SA was made up of about 7 000 voters in 1948. In elections held in Southern Rhodesia in 1940, about 35 000 voters cast their ballots. This would mean that the So Rhodesians would (using very crude calculations) be entitled to five seats. However, the number of seats they would have received in 1922 (assuming they had joined) would have probably been out of proportion to their population, perhaps as a deal sweetener. So, the NP would probably have lost the 1948 election.

But remember, just being an Afrikaner did not make one a rabid Nationalist. Smuts was an Afrikaner, as was Jan Hofmeyr, his deputy as PM, and considered by many to be the greatest liberal SA has ever produced. Smuts's successor as UP leader was also an Afrikaner, and many Afrikaners played a role in opposing apartheid, both within and outside Parliament.

Rene de Villiers, Bram Fischer, Antje Krog, Frederik Van Zyl Slabbert etc.
 
Not really, most white parties in pre-1960 South Africa were for some form of segregation, none of the major parties were explicitly opposed to segregation, until the formation of the Progressive Party in 1959.
Oh no I'm not saying they were all for Equal Rights, but from my research for my old South Africa TL it did become apparent that they did oppose the Apartheid system, essentially you had a bunch of bigots, but a minority were beyond the pale even for the rest of them.
 
Oh no I'm not saying they were all for Equal Rights, but from my research for my old South Africa TL it did become apparent that they did oppose the Apartheid system, essentially you had a bunch of bigots, but a minority were beyond the pale even for the rest of them.
Generally no more bigoted than any other white people of the era, to be fair.
 
In the Cape quite a few coloureds and some blacks had the franchise already. And the British were as racist as the Boers, or Afrikaners. They won't be giving the franchise to anyone, willy-nilly.
Any way to avoid grand apartheid, perhaps keep the voting rights tied to literacy and property or a minimum income but open to everyone like the Cape had? Would allow you to filter out the masses, both white and others, whilst still allowing the 'respectable' types that have managed to better themselves to vote. You still more than likely get some racial laws but not on the grand scale.
 
There were a hell of a lot of individual discrimination measures enacted or considered by the pre Apartheid governments from Union onwards and given that some of the people involved in the 1948 NP government had been involved in these decisions, given the NP's origins, that is not surprising.
 
After 1899 but before 1900? You aren't leaving much of a window of oportunity.
What, there's a whole year for you to play around with. That should be enough.
Yeah, it may have been more appropriate to post this in the post-1900 forum. Very interesting discussion everyone, please keep it up.

Say apartheid doesn't come about. Would the more racist elements try and establish/move to a territory where they could become the majority?
 
Top