What was the purpose of Apartheid if it only segregated people based on race and exacerbated tensions that nearly went into civil war? Can anyone explain?
What was the point of Apartheid?
- Thread starter Joriz Castillo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apartheid
Honestly it hard to really say since there are many "reasons" as to why it was created. But as for what was the point of Apartheid in South Africa, well that is hard to really say because it does make you wonder as what the fuck was the point of segregating people and forcing them to live like second class citizens by a minority population. Honestly I don't know really what the point of it was, and quite frankly I could care less because it was a system of evil to divide a nation by race, ethnicity, etc. I mean same goes with the Jim Crow laws in the South US and even things like the White Australia Policy for much of Australia's history, they were laws or simply a system made to divide people.
-Preserving white rule for the sake of it.
-Fear of it being the first step towards a Haitian genocide on the white landowners.
-18th century racial science.
-Fears that the uneducated once in power are going to drive the country to the wall.
-Fear of reparations
Lots of fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
-Fear of it being the first step towards a Haitian genocide on the white landowners.
-18th century racial science.
-Fears that the uneducated once in power are going to drive the country to the wall.
-Fear of reparations
Lots of fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
They wanted to disempower black South Africans so that whites could call all the shots and enjoy all the wealth.
People don't wake up in the morning, stretch, and say, "gee, I think I will be evil today."
Basically all the policies you listed were about protecting their own tribes. Take the Afrikaners. They had been pushed around for the last hundred years, sometimes quite harshly, and were finally getting on top of the English demographically. No way on earth are they going to let themselves be pushed back to the bottom of the pile again. So you smash down any group that is likely to tear you down. Keeping the black South Africans as poor with limited education limits their ability to coordinate and challenge the Afrikaners.
As noted above. Fear. Lots of fear. And some of it justified based on past experiences. Does it make it right? YMMV.
Fear of being dominated by the black majority, but deeper than that, I think it was fear of intermixing occuring between whites and blacks, specifically black men and white women. This was the main impotence behind Jim Crow.
They wanted to maintain their standard of living. IIRC white South Africans had a higher standard of living than white Americans, and that was only possible with an easily abused pool of non-citizen labourers.
Power.
Afrikaner South Africans wanted whites to rule South Africa forever, exclusively.
Anglo South Africans wanted whites to control South Africa. Though some were open to sharing some power with non-whites eventually, most went along with the Afrikaner program.
The point of calling it apartheid ("apartness") was to set in stone that the white and non-white communities were completely and permanently separate. No intermarriage, for instance. Each race would live "separately". Blacks were to have autonomous "homelands" and districts, in a ludicrous pretense at justice. That whites owned nearly all the land and industry, and the national government; well, that was just how things were.
=====
Joke told by white South Africans to Robert Heinlein when he visited the country in 1953 or so.
White housewife, addressing her black house servant: "Sixpence, I hear that you blacks are going to cut all white people's throats. You wouldn't cut my throat, really?"
Sixpence: "Oh, no! I cut throat of missy lady next door - her boy cut your throat!"
=====
Afrikaner South Africans wanted whites to rule South Africa forever, exclusively.
Anglo South Africans wanted whites to control South Africa. Though some were open to sharing some power with non-whites eventually, most went along with the Afrikaner program.
The point of calling it apartheid ("apartness") was to set in stone that the white and non-white communities were completely and permanently separate. No intermarriage, for instance. Each race would live "separately". Blacks were to have autonomous "homelands" and districts, in a ludicrous pretense at justice. That whites owned nearly all the land and industry, and the national government; well, that was just how things were.
=====
Joke told by white South Africans to Robert Heinlein when he visited the country in 1953 or so.
White housewife, addressing her black house servant: "Sixpence, I hear that you blacks are going to cut all white people's throats. You wouldn't cut my throat, really?"
Sixpence: "Oh, no! I cut throat of missy lady next door - her boy cut your throat!"
=====
YMMV? Your mileage may vary on whether the apartheid system was evil or not? Are you shitting me?
As for the original question—it was useful to the ruling class of South Africa to maintain this system for two reasons: first, it created an enormous laboring lower class consisting of the indigenous Black population, and second, it ensured that enough of the resources, jobs, and infrastructure would be restricted to the Black majority that the poor white people could convince themselves they were an upper echelon of society, and become less likely to engage in unrest or political agitation. "Hell, give [the lowest white man] somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Ironically, apartheid probably lowered the potential living standards of South African whites in the long run, by denying economic opportunities to about 85% of the entire population.
It'd be like settling for a white per capita GDP of $20,000 and a black per capita of $2,000, as opposed to a $30,000 and $12,000.
It'd be like settling for a white per capita GDP of $20,000 and a black per capita of $2,000, as opposed to a $30,000 and $12,000.
LucaTheDevilCat
Banned
My dad is an English South African, he was drafted into the navy and spent his time in the Suid Wes now of course known as Namibia, Afrikaners were more into the army being farmers whilst English is a more technical/engineering language. Afterwards he found the best jobs were for Afrikaners. In short some whites were more equal than others so it’s not far fetched to see Apartheid as the Afrikaner minority within a minority clinging on to power. I believe the voting districts were redrawn prior to 1948 for some reason to favour rural areas and the rest is history.
Without Apartheid, most if not all segregation would’ve ended by the 70s, it might of been replaced with institutional white privilege. However the National Party really shot themselves in the foot by scrapping much needed European immigration.
Without Apartheid, most if not all segregation would’ve ended by the 70s, it might of been replaced with institutional white privilege. However the National Party really shot themselves in the foot by scrapping much needed European immigration.
>point
Social meaning only exists in social contexts. Things only have points for groups of people.
Apartheid was established by the parliamentary section of the ruling class Afrikaners. It was so important to them they threatened a republican parliamentary coup against British inspired rule of law. Given that ruling class economic interests are transmitted through a cultural ideological scheme*1, the point would be to promote at the first level their ideological goals of cultural maintenance through racial superiority, and at a second order to promote keeping Afrikaner capitalist rulers well capitalized via the first.
History doesn’t have points in general. History has points for specific groups of people. The creation and maintenance of apartheid flowed from the ideological (and thus to a certain extent economic) interests of ruling class afrikaners.
*1 to the best of my knowledge, and I’ve done a lot of social history historiography.
Social meaning only exists in social contexts. Things only have points for groups of people.
Apartheid was established by the parliamentary section of the ruling class Afrikaners. It was so important to them they threatened a republican parliamentary coup against British inspired rule of law. Given that ruling class economic interests are transmitted through a cultural ideological scheme*1, the point would be to promote at the first level their ideological goals of cultural maintenance through racial superiority, and at a second order to promote keeping Afrikaner capitalist rulers well capitalized via the first.
History doesn’t have points in general. History has points for specific groups of people. The creation and maintenance of apartheid flowed from the ideological (and thus to a certain extent economic) interests of ruling class afrikaners.
*1 to the best of my knowledge, and I’ve done a lot of social history historiography.