WI: Larger bantustans?

[abc123]

That 'state' was for South Africa's share of the same Tswana/Bechuana people who predominate in Botswana/Bechuanaland just across the nearby border, wasn't it: H'mm, could the two realistically have been merged?

Well, with SA pretending that this area is really independent, I don't see why not? In fact, I even see SA encouraging that, as a way to get some sort of international recognition of the situation ( at least from Botswana, Lesoto and Swazi ).

 

[abc123]

Also, could you post a larger version of that map?

I would love to do that, but dumpt gives only this size...
Can you tell me how to do that?

 

[abc123]

The QwaQwa bantustan, and some areas on the southern and eastern border appears to be on the table, but not much else really.

I found a map of the proposed Swaziland extension

Intresting.
But isn't that Ingawuma part predominantly Zulu populated?

 

[Ijon Tichy]

At the very least, if you made the major parts of Bophuthatswana contiguous, they would have had a very good shot at making it as an independent nation. Heck, they tried to carry on post-Apartheid but there was coup d'état.

Also, could you post a larger version of that map?

This post made me go and look up the story of the coup, which is at this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bophuthatswana_coup_d'état_of_1994

Looks to me rather differently than it looks to you. . . your post seems to imply that everything was ticking along nicely, and that coup only knocked it off track.

Reading that account of the history, it seems to me that the coup was a product of the same process that was lowering the curtain on that despicable so-called "homeland".

Bop was always going to go down, once the regime it parasitized on died - and good riddance to both of them.

 

[abc123]

Verwoerd apparently wanted to partition the country.

There's a conspiracy theory that Verwoerd was planning on announcing this on the day he was assassinated. To this day, a copy of the speech he was due to give on the day was never found, so, who knows...

Larger bantustans are difficult, you would probably have to do away with the 1913 Land Act to have any chance of that happening.

So what could that his idea of partition mean?

 

[Ijon Tichy]

My god. Swaziland with sea access. That'd change things somewhat.

Swaziland was actually offered that land corridor, but rightly told Pretoria to get knotted.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

So what could that his idea of partition mean?

And after all, partition has been such a brilliant solution in other cases of ethnic and national strife.

Oh, wait. . .

 

[abc123]

We have to remember the idea behind these "states":

In short:

1) Deprive the black population of SA citizenship. This entails that they can be evicted back to the "home land" if they aer 'out of line", i.e. supporting ANC

2) As they are now migrant workers in SA (sic!), their salaries can be lowered -> mine profit goes up. We are essentially talking mining here.

3) Put in a "ruler' in the homeland sufficiently tame to keep the population out of politics. i.e. no ANC

4) Keep the home lands sufficiently poor so as not to be attractive to living there.

Crude, but rather smart for its time.

Just to put it in perspective: A bigger mine in SA employes some 25,000+ people. I used to sell to gold mines.

There was (as far as I understood it), not any real political will to make home lands viable. It would be totally counterproductive.

Enlarging them would also be counter-productive. They were supposed to act as a cheap labour pool.

Ivan

Maybe yes, maybe no. After all, Zimbabwe is viable country, yet 3+ millions of Zimbabweans are in South Africa because of poverty. Same thing for the most African states, more-less potentialy viable, but undeveloped. South Africa IMO could only gain by giving more land to bantustans to make them contiguuos- they would remain dependant on SA. ( Providing that mineral wealth stays firm in SA ).

 

[abc123]

And after all, partition has been such a brilliant solution in other cases of ethnic and national strife.

Oh, wait. . .

Because prolongued and with no end in sight ethnic and national conflicts are better- right?

 

[Marius]

So what could that his idea of partition mean?

I can't remember exactly. The details are in Apartheid's Friends, the story about South Africa's intelligence services and its partnerships with Western intelligence services.

I would imagine that it would have been made up of what is today the Western and Northern Cape, the western half of the Eastern Cape, with a land corridor linking what is today Gauteng to this area, through the Free State. I would think Durban and Pietermaritzburg would also be part of this rump South Africa, possibly along with places like Potchefstroom and perhaps Pietersburg (today Polokwane).

 

[Ijon Tichy]

Because prolongued and with no end in sight ethnic and national conflicts are better- right?

Because partition does nothing to end such conflicts, and often helps make them worse. Duh.

 

[Marius]

Because prolongued and with no end in sight ethnic and national conflicts are better- right?

Which is not the case in South Africa...

One positive by-product of apartheid, is that it did create a common 'South Africanism'. There have been warnings from politicians recently that tribalism is rearing its head in South Africa, and Jacob Zuma's cabinet and inner circle is dominated by Zulus.

 

[abc123]

Because partition does nothing to end such conflicts, and often helps make them worse. Duh.

Sometime yes, sometime no.

If good implemented partition can be a good thing.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

Which is not the case in South Africa...

One positive by-product of apartheid, is that it did create a common 'South Africanism'. There have been warnings from politicians recently that tribalism is rearing its head in South Africa, and Jacob Zuma's cabinet and inner circle is dominated by Zulus.

Genuine question: how much does that matter, or how much could it matter in the future?

I know the ANC is experiencing rapid political degeneration, but as far as I know (looking at it from Europe) the movement as a whole is still as diverse in its membership as South Africa is as a whole.

 

[Marius]

Sometime yes, sometime no.

If good implemented partition can be a good thing.

Only where ethnic groups have well-defined geographical areas. The thing about South Africa is that the white population was not really concentrated area, and spread out across pretty much the whole country.

 

[abc123]

Which is not the case in South Africa...

One positive by-product of apartheid, is that it did create a common 'South Africanism'. There have been warnings from politicians recently that tribalism is rearing its head in South Africa, and Jacob Zuma's cabinet and inner circle is dominated by Zulus.

I was speaking more generally, not only refering on SA.

I wouldn't say that tribalism ever really left SA, only that South African identity appeared, but it didn't replace tribal identities. Something like European identity, it didn't replace German, French, British etc. identity.

 

[abc123]

Only where ethnic groups have well-defined geographical areas. The thing about South Africa is that the white population was not really concentrated area, and spread out across pretty much the whole country.

I know that. I don't argue otherwise.
As I said, I was speaking in more general sence.

But, knowing a lot of people who have to leave their homes because of war and settle elsewhere, I think that I can say that their relocation made a great deal in relative pacification of area where I live.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

Sometime yes, sometime no.

If good implemented partition can be a good thing.

The only recent example of such a partition I can think of is the separation of Slovakia and the Czech Republic - and for our purposes that doesn't count, because it wasn't preceded by an outbreak of Czech/Slovak violent conflict.

In the most recent case - the partitioning of Sudan and South Sudan - there are still clashes along the border region between the two states.

On a wider note, I find your lack of faith. . . disturbing.

 

[Marius]

Genuine question: how much does that matter, or how much could it matter in the future?

I know the ANC is experiencing rapid political degeneration, but as far as I know (looking at it from Europe) the movement as a whole is still as diverse in its membership as South Africa is as a whole.

There have been some rumblings about it, and in the last election the only province where the ANC increased its support was in KwaZulu-Natal, the only province with a Zulu majority. This was probably because Zuma is a Zulu.

There are few ethnically-based parties in South Africa. There is only really the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party (which has a surprisingly diverse leadership, three of its prominent members of parliament are an ethnic Indian, a white Afrikaner, and an Italian immigrant) and the Freedom Front Plus, which is an explicitly white Afrikaner party.

The ANC's leadership is still quite diverse and still has quite a few whites within its leadership.

I don't think tribalism will become a major problem in the near future, but who can say what the situation will be in the next decade or two.

 

[abc123]

I would imagine that it would have been made up of what is today the Western and Northern Cape, the western half of the Eastern Cape, with a land corridor linking what is today Gauteng to this area, through the Free State. I would think Durban and Pietermaritzburg would also be part of this rump South Africa, possibly along with places like Potchefstroom and perhaps Pietersburg (today Polokwane).

It seems as logical idea ( from White minority Government POV ofc ).