In that section I wasn’t making an argument- I was pointing out that there was a rather large gap in your treatment of the history of South Africa, which skipped over a period of 81 years for the largest colony. Was there some reason for you specifically excluding those, and including Rhodes?Is there some reason for you specifically excluding the Rhodes Administration from your argument?
Indeed. However, harsh as they were, they never distinguished between coloured and white voters specifically on the basis of their skin (as you yourself admit) which Apartheid did.what initially amounted to very reasonable property qualifications WORLD WIDE were over time amended
You are inviting me to accept your premise that I claim apartheid was ubiquitous, British & Imperial.
The word Apartheid is merely a clumsy translation into Dutch (not Afrikaans) of an established British Colonial economic & social system, otherwise in English known throughout the colonies as the 'Class System' & the 'Colour Bar'
I do not make your point. Your point was that an apartheid-like policy was inevitable in British South Africa if the Boers won the Second Boer War. I’ve shown that the largest colony in British South Africa not only admitted black voters on the same basis as whites, restrictive though that was, but sent a delegation urging a multi-racial franchise to negotiations with two countries who had black inequality written into their constitutions:it was British policy. Saving the "honourable exceptions" - & I concur - you make my point. Thanks.
Article 9.—The people will not allow any equalization of the coloured inhabitants with the white. (Constitution of the South African Republic [1889], Article 9)
1. Burghers of the Orange Free State are:
(a) White persons born from inhabitants of the State both before and after 23 February, 1854.
(b) White persons who have obtained burgher-right under the regulations of the Constitution of 1854 or the altered Constitution of 1866.
(c) White persons who have lived a year in the State and have fixed property registered under their own names to at least the value of £150.
(d) White persons who have lived three successive years in the State and have made a written promise of allegiance to the State and obedience to the laws, whereupon a certificate of citizenship (burghership) shall be granted by the Landrost of the district where they have settled.
(e) Civil and judicial officials who, before accepting their offices, have taken an oath of allegiance to the State and its laws.
(Constitution of the Orange Free State [1868], Chapter 1, Section 1)
Yes, you can. But you would enact legislation to supervene those strictures, not to codify them. Putting it as clearly as I can state it: Apartheid means “Separation”. Having coloured voters on the same list as white voters, voting for the same MPs, is not apartheid. Having coloured voters on a different list, voting for different MPs, is apartheid. Notice that in New Zealand, where the British introduced separate MPs for the Maori, the individual could choose whether they voted for these MPs or territorial MPs.you can indeed enact legislation to supervene social strictures, even as you may to monetary, or cultural, or even circumstantial.