With a POD after 1899 is there a way for South Africa to avoid Apartheid? How could this come about?
Last edited:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generally no more bigoted than any other white people of the era, to be fair.
What, there's a whole year for you to play around with. That should be enough.After 1899 but before 1900? You aren't leaving much of a window of oportunity.
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.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.
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.