PDA

View Full Version : Why Apartheid?



Loki
Friday, December 19th, 2008, 11:52 PM
An interesting video I found on youTube ... gives some background on what led to the rise of Afrikaner nationalism which led to the establishment of Apartheid in South Africa.

ml7NNSeTnbQ

rainman
Saturday, December 20th, 2008, 12:53 AM
This reminds me of school. Typical hate propaganda. "we are horrible people" .. "of course you never heard this side of the story because the "truth" has been suppressed until now- our people ate babies and tortured and killed everyone. The world despised us and hated us- in other words we owe minorities. It is terrible to dominate over anyone or succeed or be strong- guilt! have guilt! hate your own people! be ashamed of your culture"

"the failures of history had great morals- we had none". They say this about Natives here. They were noble great people and we were sick moralless swine. In this video its British culture/nation that's attacked. Usually in American we just get plain old white hatred and shame pushed on us. Whenever I do some digging and research I usually find it's %100 lies.

So do I believe that for no reason whatsoever the British decided to go in and put boers in concentration camps and ruthlessly torture them? No I don't believe it. Was this produced by a Jew? lol

Here's real history from what I understand:

Primarily Dutch were first settlers. Later came British settlers. They fought over who would control South Africa. The British won.

Loki
Saturday, December 20th, 2008, 01:12 AM
So do I believe that for no reason whatsoever the British decided to go in and put boers in concentration camps and ruthlessly torture them? No I don't believe it. Was this produced by a Jew? lol


This is not mere propaganda, it's the truth. It's the history of a nation, that of the Boer/Afrikaner. You should not despise this. The English invented concentration camps, but nowadays you only hear about German atrocities. It is time the English owned up to what they did.

It is a disgrace how they have now also supported the rise of the ANC in South Africa, in light of their quite recent crimes against humanity in South Africa.

My grandfather was in such a concentration camp when he was a 9-year old boy. His mother died there but thankfully for me he survived.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, December 20th, 2008, 01:37 AM
"It is terrible to dominate over anyone or succeed or be strong- guilt! have guilt! hate your own people! be ashamed of your culture"
The point is that the British have failed spectacularly in South Africa and Germanics are now going extinct there as a result. If success means the successful destruction of your own people, then I guess congratulations are in order.

I think we have a difference in our world view here. I am not interested in seeing "the best" succeed, by whatever measure that may be determined, I want my people to succeed. Bettering ourselves is an important means to get there, but so is propaganda and sabotage against the competition. If we are failing, this means that we have to be more determined and efficient in our efforts instead of accepting our destruction in a pointless act of submission to the law of nature.

rainman
Saturday, December 20th, 2008, 01:43 AM
Yeah I've been watching youtube videos of Afrikaners. I guess it is true.

The funny thing about it though. And this is a good one. They think the racism going on now is for some noble reason like to correct past wrongs. I get the same experience in the U.S. and we haven't had apartheid in about 70 years which in itself was "seperate but equal". Actually in this state we never had apartheid. We only have a history of discriminating against whites.

The only difference in the U.S.A. if you are rich and white you get really good jobs and can get a good education. If you are not rich and not white male you can get all kinds of social assistance. Poor white male you can be a genius, the hardest worker in the world, highly competent. You get no assistance, passed over for jobs, education etc. And when you do get a job you are expected to do most of the work and correct the mistakes of the imbeciles they hired who were non white male. With one exeption: mentally retarded or "disabled" white males also get assistance. So as long as your not a white male who isn't rich you wont be discriminated against in the U.S.

They seem to think that what is going on in South Africa is unique.

But about the death camps. I'm going to try to research this a little bit. Because from experience the British are historically painted as evil oppressors when I find the real truth they seem to be rather kind.

I'll give an example: Native Americans. We are taught in history class that British colonist "stole their land" and mass murdered them and nearly whiped them off the face of the planet, would make land deals with them when they had no concept of personal ownership of land, hunt down and kill Indians.

Real history actually is that there weren't many Natives here, but they would attack anyone they saw that wasn't their tribe. English "bought" the land off of them to secure peace but the Indians didn't honor the deals and kept attacking (some of them) then after getting their ass kicked in war repeatedly the British kept trying to make deals with them even when they could have crushed them. Similar stories with India and other such things. The British are human and have done some bad things in its history, but the main thing they are guilty of is being successful. And in modern times we hate the smart, strong and successful and rain down sympathy on the failure.

I would say that there was some aggitation on the part of the South Africans and the British wanted to bring a quick end to the war would be my guess. Did the execute people in these "concentration camps"? They probably didn't I would guess but I'm going to look it up.

edit: and here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

much like native americans the boers declared war on britain, lost then later in history portray britain as the agressor and evil plague of man.

The Boers were the first to wage guerilla war far destroying british telegraph lines, base's, sneakily atacking troops and killing them. In response the british started burning down boer farms and arresting civilians and putting them into concentration camps which were little more than a fancy word for a jail to detain them in order to get a quick end to the war. No one was executed in these camps either.

Loki
Saturday, December 20th, 2008, 02:08 AM
But about the death camps. I'm going to try to research this a little bit. Because from experience the British are historically painted as evil oppressors when I find the real truth they seem to be rather kind.

Look, I have no problem with English folk, they are fellow Germanic people -- regardless of what happened in wars. The vast majority of English people had nothing to do with this, so nobody can blame them or blame an entire nation.

The idea of the concentration camps came from Lord Kitchener, in some sort of "final solution" to prevent an embarrassing defeat of the British Empire against a handful of brave Boers. In fact, this was the Second Boer War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War). The first one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War) was actually won by the Boers. Only after 500,000 British soldiers from all over the empire was sent to South Africa to fight the Boers, could they defeat this band of Germanic peasants who numbered less than 100,000 in men strength. They could not conquer the men so they went after the women and children who stayed back on the farms, in what they called a "scorched earth policy".

You seem to be equating this instance with other European colonial endeavours. This one was very different. The Boers were not a native African tribe like the Zulus. They were pioneering families of Dutch and German descent who fought for land to stay on and farm in peace. It was the discovery of gold and diamonds which caused the British to lust after the riches of South Africa, and defeat the Boers at all costs.

This suffering actually became known in Europe at the time, and caused the British government an embarrassment. There was much opposition from the British public, and a kind lady named Emily Hobhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Hobhouse) did much for the Afrikaner people in humanitarian assistance. She is still regarded as a hero in South Africa.



much like native americans the boers declared war on britain, lost then later in history portray britain as the agressor and evil plague of man.


Wow you certainly have a gift of reaching swift, simple conclusions to complex historical questions.

Rozenstorm
Wednesday, December 24th, 2008, 11:33 AM
It's funny though how the moral crusade against Apartheid in S-Africa (even though blacks had a bigger life-standard in S-Africa than in ANY other black country) was so large and enduring resulting in various boycots and sabotage while Israel does the same with walls and terror and nobody talks about that.

Sad to see...

Ocelot
Friday, December 26th, 2008, 09:16 PM
It's funny though how the moral crusade against Apartheid in S-Africa (even though blacks had a bigger life-standard in S-Africa than in ANY other black country) was so large and enduring resulting in various boycots and sabotage while Israel does the same with walls and terror and nobody talks about that.

Sad to see...

Aren't you forgetting that the Israel you seem to hate so much actually helped SA with its nuclear program back in the days? However, I believe that we have an agreement on the fact that the hatred towards apartheid was wrong, and that the vision of Verwoerd was the right one.

Rozenstorm
Saturday, December 27th, 2008, 12:09 AM
Aren't you forgetting that the Israel you seem to hate so much actually helped SA with its nuclear program back in the days? However, I believe that we have an agreement on the fact that the hatred towards apartheid was wrong, and that the vision of Verwoerd was the right one.

What is your point? They would have lost all their credibility (if they had, at any time, any) if they didn't.

Ouma
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 06:24 AM
The British killed thousands of women and children, in order for them to stop them expanding the nation. This is the reason why SA whites is in the minority today.
If all those women and children lived, and had children of their own, we could have stopped the communism taking over our Country.
Now, 15 years later, it is sad, not being able to go into town, to buy a mere bread, and feel safe. you have to look over your shoulder all the time. If your children goes to school, you don't know if they will be seen alive the afternoon. If you leave for work, chances are, you don't return. Leaving orphans, and a widower.
SA became a sick country, with opression all over again, draining the land from whites. Killing Boers, at an alarming rate...
The Afrikaners, is becoming extinct....
:~(
And we have no means of fighting this, because we have no rights... your skin is your enemy, in every means possible...
But... I WILL not lie down, I WILL keep fighting for my Country, and I WILL make a statement, wether heard, or unheard... I am PROUD of being South African, a Boer South African.
:thumbup

Stormraaf
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 07:16 AM
The British killed thousands of women and children, in order for them to stop them expanding the nation. This is the reason why SA whites is in the minority today.

Those thousands were indeed a significant proportion of the Boer population back then. Fifty percent of all Boer children had died in those camps.

It was very deliberate as well, judging from Kitchener's quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281 900_-_1902.29):

flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organized like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children.... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war.

Patrioten
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 09:27 AM
I think the example of South Africa needs to be used alot more by nationalists today, as an example of a society where racial policies were enforced, but where there weren't any gas chambers or ovens. The argument that the left often makes is that racial policies inevitably equals holocaust by making insinuations or flat out accusations which goes something like this: "in nazi Germany it started off small by introducing meassures like the ones you are suggesting now, and with time this escalated into the horrors of the holocaust" and then they name drop KZ camps in the hopes of evoking the pre-programmed emotions of people.

By using the example of South Africa, and also the American South, we can hopefully get away, to some degree at least, from discussing the third reich.

Apartheid and segregation were flawed systems because they could not be expected to be upheld indefinately, but what we want to see here in Europe is ethnically "homogenous" countries, just like we had up until 50 years ago or so, where there is no need for segregation since there is only one racial element present.

The leftists' equation is simply wrong, and history proves them wrong, but the average person must be made to understand this. We need to get them to admit that yes, introducing racial policies does not pave the way for gas chambers and 6 million jews, even if our sworn political enemies (always truthful and objective and never biased or partisan) say so.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 05:08 PM
It's funny though how the moral crusade against Apartheid in S-Africa (even though blacks had a bigger life-standard in S-Africa than in ANY other black country) was so large and enduring resulting in various boycots and sabotage while Israel does the same with walls and terror and nobody talks about that.

Sad to see...

I really don't approve of Apartheid anywhere, be it institutional racism and racial domination laws inflicted by either SA Dutchmen or British, SA Communists or Isreali Zionists. The Isreal-Firsters and Jewish Supremacists being the reason why I boycott hollywood films and levi jeans. To be honest about the sitution in South Africa from what I've heard about it though, I think if I was a young white South African that I would be applying for either an Australian or USA passport. South Africa is unconquered and unsettled land anyway, if I moved to Australia I'd largely be amongst my own people and where I belong.;)

Stormraaf
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
I really don't approve of Apartheid anywhere, be it institutional racism and racial domination laws inflicted by either SA Dutchmen or British, SA Communists or Isreali Zionists.

I notice you have your politics defined as "white separatist" on your profile. You're aware, of course, that apartheid is Afrikaans for separatism. I won't blame you for disapproving of a particular implementation thereof, but being generally opposed to the idea while calling yourself a separatist is simply contradictive.


South Africa is unconquered and unsettled land anyway, [...]
That's not a very informed opinion. The Dutch settled without much resistance, and when Boers needed to fight the "native" population for their safety and their land, they generally succeeded, only to succumb to another European power later on. Under colonial and Boer rule, all of our arable land was developed for agriculture, keeping in mind that SA is a comparatively arid country. The problem isn't one of inadequate conquest or settlement, but of an unchecked bantu population increase and unrestrained invasion into historically European settlements.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 07:18 PM
I notice you have your politics defined as "white separatist" on your profile. You're aware, of course, that apartheid is Afrikaans for separatism. I won't blame you for disapproving of a particular implementation thereof, but being generally opposed to the idea while calling yourself a separatist is simply contradictive.


That's not a very informed opinion. The Dutch settled without much resistance, and when Boers needed to fight the "native" population for their safety and their land, they generally succeeded, only to succumb to another European power later on. Under colonial and Boer rule, all of our arable land was developed for agriculture, keeping in mind that SA is a comparatively arid country. The problem isn't one of inadequate conquest or settlement, but of an unchecked bantu population increase and unrestrained invasion into historically European settlements.

I know that it sounds contradictive but I mean it as racial separatism as opposed to racial supremacy. A nation and race shouldn't be integrated into another or dominated or subjected by that other nation or race.

Stormraaf
Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 09:55 PM
I know that it sounds contradictive but I mean it as racial separatism as opposed to racial supremacy. A nation and race shouldn't be integrated into another or dominated or subjected by that other nation or race.

I agree that no form of integration is justifiable, whether the foreign elements are added as lawful equals or as a type of underclass.

It can be argued, though, that Apartheid in SA was in its origins a reaction against the danger of eventually being dominated by a race hostile to Afrikaner and Anglo society, namely the Bantus. I don't doubt many Apartheid-era whites had that same sentiments, but they would have had to weigh dominating against being dominated.

Horagalles
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 08:25 PM
Thread split from Affirmative Action Racist, Says De Klerk (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=120639&page=2)


Define ‘previously advantaged’.
I was from a divorced family and lived middle class etc. etc.

‘Previously disadvantaged’ means BLACK so it is a racist thing no question. Anyone born after 1991 can’t be ‘previously advantaged’ because these were not born but if you or me happen to be white we are seen as the “previously privileged” so victimized.
Sorry that I have to interrupt here. But it was especially Black people that benefited from "Apartheid", while Whites had to bear the tax and developmental burden of it. One only needs to compare the living standards of Blacks in South Africa with Blacks elsewhere in Africa or Haiti, this will easily demonstrate who was disadvantaged and who not.
http://www.praag.org/opstelle15.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.praa g.org%2Fopstelle15.htm)

MacAdder
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 09:00 PM
No, I disagree with your opinion on who you suggest benefited from the "Apartheid" system. This system was enforced to give one group a godlike superiority over another. It made sure that everyone knew their place using strength of tyranny.
This created divisions of victims and the abuse of power. This very one sided affair can be seen today on the other preverbal foot.
This will never end till both agree to “play fair”.

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 09:57 PM
I'm not all that knowledgeable in South Africa History. In order for me to pass judgment, I need to know a few things.

When Europeans arrived and began building a civilization, what was the degree of conflict between natives and colonizers? Were the Europeans just minding their own business, building their homes, farms and schools when Natives voluntarily crossed into the Afrikaner cultural sphere? Or did the Europeans round up Natives and force them into their cultural sphere? Or did the Afrikaner cultural sphere displace the native cultural sphere, dispossessing the natives of a critical piece of real estate in which their survival was dependent? This is a very important point for me.

Horagalles
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 10:33 PM
No, I disagree with your opinion on who you suggest benefited from the "Apartheid" system. Do the socio-economic indicators of Blacks and Whites compared to Blacks and Whites elsewhere contradict my statement? The link I provided gives some good hints.


This system was enforced to give one group a godlike superiority over another. That statement is utter nonsense.



It made sure that everyone knew their place using strength of tyranny.
Meaning what? The state simply enforced the laws of the day. Equally one could call the trafic laws "strength of tyranny".


This created divisions of victims and the abuse of power.
That something you'd have to demonstrate and anecdotal, hearsay evidence will not substitute for this.


This very one sided affair can be seen today on the other preverbal foot.
Whites did rule White South Africa preserving their interest, while Blacks got the opportunity to evolutionary opt out of it. Yet many Blacks came to work for Whites in the White South Africa. It seems it hasn't been that bad as the Marxists did portray it.


This will never end till both agree to “play fair”.Which is of course a phantasy from fairy land, since politics isn't about fair play, but power. That countries tend to have fair play in their societies are White and relatively homgeneous.



I'm not all that knowledgeable in South Africa History. In order for me to pass judgment, I need to know a few things.This is to welcome since most Westerners have the audacity to pass judgement about South Africa, without have even the most basic knowledge.


When Europeans arrived and began building a civilization, what was the degree of conflict between natives and colonizers? Were the Europeans just minding their own business, building their homes, farms and schools when Natives voluntarily crossed into the Afrikaner cultural sphere? Or did the Europeans round up Natives and force them into their cultural sphere? Or did the Afrikaner cultural sphere displace the native cultural sphere, dispossessing the natives of a critical piece of real estate in which their survival was dependent? This is a very important point for me.
.The answer would depend on the era and area you are talking about - And of course the historians that do the reporting. For starters the VOC had the guideline to interact piecefully with any natives (as long as they were peaceful). The first people they met in Cape were Hottentots and Bushmen and the encounters were mainly peaceful. There was however some disputes of cattle that let to conflict. The Cape was also very sparsely populated with them mentioned group being either nomadic or hunter and gatherers roaming the fields. There is also the possibility that they (the natives) in part descended from stranded people.
Also note that Whites were not a monolithical block You've got the VOC, the Burgers and Treckboers as well. The VOC did also import slaves from elsewhere

During the Great Trek, the Boers came to agreements with people like the Barolongs or the Zulus and sometimes stuff had to be fought out like at Bloedrivier or with Mzilikats. The High Veld was however not really inhabitat during the period of the Great Treck, so most of the land the Boers gained, they got via homesteading. Blacks working for Boers did usually do that as migrant labor.

MacAdder
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 10:50 PM
The Europeans established themselves and immediately ran into conflict with the indigenous peoples at the Cape. Small pox was then unintentionally introduced wiping out any further armed conflict but turned the survivors into a fragmented ‘nation’ of beggars.

Later due to the Zulu disturbances in the north caused other tribes to move south in conflict with the Europeans moving north. This started another chapter in our colorful history.

I agree that politicians seldom have the courage to stand up for what is right and truethful but rather look out for themselves. This affirmative action thing is against the Constitution but to challenge it would not be to the advantage of the one exposing this as an unethical act.
For example sport teams have to have a certain number of player with colour or risk being banned from entering competitions etc. It does not matter that the colour replacement is less talented than that of the person being replaced.

Companies have to follow this ‘rule’ and hire people for the colour of their skin rather than their abilities causing the company loss and potential damage.:thumbdown

Horagalles
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 11:14 PM
...
I agree that politicians seldom have the courage to stand up for what is right and truethful but rather look out for themselves. This affirmative action thing is against the Constitution but to challenge it would not be to the advantage of the one exposing this as an unethical act.
That's an important point he's making here. Before 1994 the equivalent for affirmative action would be job reservation, but job reservation applied to a small percentage of jobs/sectors only between 7% and 10% perhaps. Affirmative Action does apply to 100% of the jobs, with the exception of very small companies where it simply isn't enforcable. Also Blacks did have their own homelands, where job reservation was in their advantage. So the "reversed Apartheid" label doesn't stick, because Whites don't have the same advantages in the New South Africa, Blacks were given by the old South Africa.

Also note that South Africa as we know it today was only established in 1910 under very controversial circumstances. It basically was a conglomerate of Brithish Colonies and the occupied Boer Republics including tribal lands in these areas.

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, May 31st, 2009, 11:33 PM
If I went into the wilderness and began building a large cabin and farm. If people voluntarily started showing up at my doorstep. Requesting work in return for some of the food produced in my farm, or a place to sleep in my cabin, how could they ever complain about anything no matter what the terms were (I actually know why they complain, but for the sake of this argument I'm omitting it)? They always have the option of returning from whence they came.

If part of the terms were that none of them could marry my daughter, then those are the terms they accepted by not leaving. I certainly have a natural right to establish that term.

If part of the terms were that none of them could eat at my dinner table, but they are more than welcome to eat at their own without my intrusion. Then those are the terms they accepted by not leaving and nothing about that is cruel or unjust. It's neutral in itself.

Is there anything about the above that in not in accordance as an analogy to the situation in South Africa? Although, I know the situation was much more complex.

Anlef
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 12:37 AM
Infratetraskelion,

Although I'm not sure whether such terms are ethically neutral, I would certainly say that there is a very denigrating aspect to the eventual situation where non-whites are (for example) not allowed to drink a beer in a bar. And denigration invariably leads to strife.

I readily admit that the system of Apartheid had its positive aspects, yet I believe it was inevitable that it would lead to misery, strife and eventual collapse. And what will come next? War? Genocide? I think many would have seen this coming had they contemplated it some more.

The moral I would like to distill from this case: don't allow exotic foreigners to immigrate; even if they are only (t)here to work.

MacAdder
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 12:40 AM
Do the socio-economic indicators of Blacks and Whites compared to Blacks and Whites elsewhere contradict my statement? The link I provided gives some good hints.
That statement is utter nonsense.
Please don’t take offence but if you are stating that a black person was socially and economically benefited living under the White Supremacy dictatorship. I doubt you were old enough to see what was going on at the time or you were living with your eyes and ears closed or abroad. (No offence intended)



Whites did rule White South Africa preserving their interest, while Blacks got the opportunity to evolutionary opt out of it. Yet many Blacks came to work for Whites in the White South Africa.
Blacks had no choose but to work for whites as they were not given equal opportunity in education, social grants or access to bank loans to start their own business. These people were seen as potential labour and nothing more.

I see you believe the old myth that White and Black were happily living together in parallel each being happy the other was happy. This was propaganda trying to say that these people were happy to be uneducated labours and had no aspirations other than to work for a white master.


…politics isn't about fair play, but power.

This is a true statement as it works both ways. Those that have the power quickly show that Power corrupts.



You've got the VOC, the Burgers and Treckboers as well. The VOC did also import slaves from elsewhere
VOC = Dutch East Indian Company / Burger = Citizen / Trekboer = those citizens who refused to live under the British rule during the second British occupation. They packed up and moved north into the interior.


The VOC did also import slaves from elsewhere
The reason for this was that the VOC were under strict instructions not to enslave or interfere with the ingenious peoples at the Cape if at all possible. The Bushman refused to have anything to do with the Europeans so were seen as vermin and shot on sight.
After the smallpox epidemic the Hottentots had disintegrated into starving people without a nation or group so were forced to seek employment from the Europeans to work in the kitchens etc.


The High Veld was however not really inhabitat during the period of the Great Treck
This is true due to the Zulu effect on Central Southern Africa. All non Zulu tribes and settlements were attacked and destroyed creating a population vacuum. The women and children were incorporated into the Zulu nation with the live stock but all males were dispatched. This left large unpopulated areas making it easier for the Trek-farmers to move onto the land and settle.


Blacks working for Boers did usually do that as migrant labor.

The trekkboers were known to employ labour when required. This was sometimes done with a promise that anyone working for the Trekkers fell under their protection.
(This is another story)


Whites were not a monolithical block
I disagree. The early white people at the time were living under a direct rule of the VOC. They had the same or similar customs and spoke the same language and were not born on the land they occupied till much later.





I know the situation was much more complex
What you are stating is valid but not as simple depending on the situation. If you moved into the wilderness you would be an outsider and would have to adapted and learn the culture that already exists before your arrival.

There is an old approach when walking or hiking in the wild. NEVER FEED THE WILDLIFE. If you do it will create a future problem.
Similarly by involving ones self with a people or culture without precaution and knowledge will cause future problems you did not for see.

Stygian Cellarius
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 04:32 AM
Although I'm not sure whether such terms are ethically neutral, I would certainly say that there is a very denigrating aspect to the eventual situation where non-whites are (for example) not allowed to drink a beer in a bar. And denigration invariably leads to strife.

Indeed it would be very denigrating, but there is a significant difference; whites are the ones responsible for the existence of the bar in which they would not be permitted.

In that case strife would be justified, but I don't think it's justified if others are upset just because their base reaction of "want" is not being fulfilled. The infant says "baby want" and that's really what's happening here. What's happening is a group of "people" (using that term in the broadest sense) are attracted to a more successful culture, more efficient in sustaining survival and their survival instincts dictate they obtain it if they can. They see its fruits in contrast to what they produce and are pointing at it and saying "me want". Just as their survival instincts are saying "yes", ours can just as rightfully say "no".
I do realize that denigration is ultimately the response to such a policy, whether its justified or not, and yes it will eventually result in strife. However, just because it is a natural and irrational human response doesn't mean we should submit to it. (I'm not suggesting this your position, I'm just adding this)


I readily admit that the system of Apartheid had its positive aspects, yet I believe it was inevitable that it would lead to misery, strife and eventual collapse. And what will come next? War? Genocide? I think many would have seen this coming had they contemplated it some more.

The moral I would like to distill from this case: don't allow exotic foreigners to immigrate; even if they are only (t)here to work.

Definitely, I think history has taught us that these segregated systems are unsustainable in the long run. The human ego is always struggling for power, earned or not, deserving or not, and it will perpetually struggle to break down obstacles to obtain it. There is no reasoning to convince someone they are undeserving of it or that they must create it them self, they just want it. Their thirst for it is beyond theory and reason, its just human nature. Any cultural defense mechanism used to prevent it will eventually relax itself and when it does, those desiring more power will seize the opportunity and it will all come crumbing down. It's inevitable.

So yes, the moral you propose should be cast in stone and become a pillar of any future European civilization.

Horagalles
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 06:49 AM
Please don’t take offence but if you are stating that a black person was socially and economically benefited living under the White Supremacy dictatorship. I doubt you were old enough to see what was going on at the time or you were living with your eyes and ears closed or abroad. (No offence intended)
I would not have to be old enough. All I need to do is to look at socio-economic indicators and there one can see that they were growing for Black people during the whole era of separate development (apartheid). What I say is btw. also confirmed by opinion surveys, as well.

It's you that seems to have gotten his knowledge from present day schooling or hearsay.


Blacks had no choose but to work for whites as they were not given equal opportunity in education, social grants or access to bank loans to start their own business. These people were seen as potential labour and nothing more.
Nonsense of course they did have choices. And I repeat Blacks were seen as separate entitities that would have to develop separately from White people. There is no moral obligation, neither morally nor legally, to give them the same opportunities then Whites. They were however given subsidies for their own development from the White taxpayers revenues.

So I say it again: Blacks were benefiting during "Apartheid" from "Apartheid" and they still do so. Anyone claiming differently is simply ignorant of the facts.



I see you believe the old myth that White and Black were happily living together in parallel each being happy the other was happy. This was propaganda trying to say that these people were happy to be uneducated labours and had no aspirations other than to work for a white master.
That's not a myth - That's simply a fact. Just that some Blacks did indeed have aspiration of getting what the White boss was having. Altough not via work and entrepreneurship, but via political means.


This is a true statement as it works both ways. Those that have the power quickly show that Power corrupts.
Unfortunately most Whites do not seem to understand it. Hence can be fooled by putting them under force to "play fairly".


VOC = Dutch East Indian Company / Burger = Citizen / Trekboer = those citizens who refused to live under the British rule during the second British occupation. They packed up and moved north into the interior.
There were Trekboers already under VOC rule....


This is true due to the Zulu effect on Central Southern Africa. All non Zulu tribes and settlements were attacked and destroyed creating a population vacuum. The women and children were incorporated into the Zulu nation with the live stock but all males were dispatched. This left large unpopulated areas making it easier for the Trek-farmers to move onto the land and settle.
Yes that applies for the central highlands (Highveld)


The trekkboers were known to employ labour when required. This was sometimes done with a promise that anyone working for the Trekkers fell under their protection.
(This is another story)
Migrant Labour.


I disagree. The early white people at the time were living under a direct rule of the VOC. They had the same or similar customs and spoke the same language and were not born on the land they occupied till much later.
That may apply to many but not all. The VOC was filling up their ranks with German mercenaries as well as French religious refugees....

Stygian Cellarius
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 07:48 AM
Blacks had no choose but to work for whites as they were not given equal opportunity in education, social grants or access to bank loans to start their own business. These people were seen as potential labour and nothing more.

If an Alien race descending from space and established a colony is the vast wilderness of Siberia (pretending Russia had no claim to it). Why would it be so essential for them to teach us all they know? What right do we have to their knowledge? And as Horagalles said, what moral obligation dictates they must do this?
Other than education, this goes for the rest of the opportunities withheld as well.

Sorry for the absurd analogue, but I felt it was somewhat necessary.


What you are stating is valid but not as simple depending on the situation. If you moved into the wilderness you would be an outsider and would have to adapted and learn the culture that already exists before your arrival.

I'm sorry, but I am not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain your meaning another way?


There is an old approach when walking or hiking in the wild. NEVER FEED THE WILDLIFE. If you do it will create a future problem.
Similarly by involving ones self with a people or culture without precaution and knowledge will cause future problems you did not for see.

That is true, but Apartheid was a precaution, an adapted precaution.

MacAdder
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 03:45 PM
…the whole era of separate development (apartheid).
First things first. There was no such thing as “separate development”. This was a phrase used to try explain the reason for a Whites only minority suppression of other cultures simply called apartheid. (Apart hate)


All I need to do is to look at socio-economic indicators and there one can see that they were growing for Black people during… apartheid

Blacks were benefiting during "Apartheid"

O.K lets be realistic and look at the facts. Today (2009) all major business and financial institutions are run and managed by blacks due to the Employment Equality Act = (BEE).
The country is governed by a Political Party that is 95% black who are not ashamed to enforce a Black empowerment programs excluding equal opportunity for all but a selective group based on a chosen pigment couloration.

During the apartheid area whites generally regarded blacks as unskilled, uneducated communists only worthy to do hard physical labour. These people were refused freedom of movement, association and were legally disallowed to purchase property and vote. A black person could also be arrested and held without trial for any length of time if accused of sedition or seen as a potential threat to the ruling white minority etc.

I can go on but I hope you get my point. With these obvious facts in mind you say that blacks during the apartheid years had better opportunities and were socially and economically better off.
I think you may want to readdress your views with historical fact rather than yesterdays closed minded propaganda and myths. (No offence)


They were however given subsidies for their own development from the White taxpayers revenues.
During the apartheid era the white ruling minority had a cheap exploitable work force (Blacks). The revenue you talk about was an income rather than an expenditure per say.

Today (2009) I believe that this statement above is closer to the trueth. White taxpayers know subsidize black development. If the SABC, Telkom and Eskom were able to collect money for there “services” in townships and squatter camps. I doubt that these companies would be in the financial debt they are in today if payment was not only the 'white subside' as you call it.


Just that some Blacks did indeed have aspiration of getting what the White boss was having. Altough not via work and entrepreneurship, but via political means.

Blacks were exploited and had very little legal recourse in the eyes of the legal establishment. The white minority wrote and enforced the law and this was dictated via a political base. The only way to confront this unfair dictator ruler ship without a violent conflict would be a politically compromise. Of course there were those that wanted to aspire and be an equal citizen as a white.
In the end humans are all equal and should be judged on there merits and not pigment and cultural differences.


If an Alien race descending from space and established a colony…
My apologizes but I am not sure what the question is pertaining to your analogue
In what I was tying to say was that the government of a country or state must treat its entire people with dignity and equality. When this becomes selective it will always end in catastrophe.


That is true, but Apartheid was a precaution, an adapted precaution.
The ideology of apartheid was born out of ignorance, fear and the unwillingness to share. So yes it was an adapted precautionary measure in some strange way.

Horagalles
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 04:34 PM
First things first. There was no such thing as “separate development”. This was a phrase used to try explain the reason for a Whites only minority suppression of other cultures simply called apartheid. (Apart hate) You finally disqualified yourself as being knowledgeable on that part of South African history.
* Separate Development is the explanatory name of South Africas project to solve it's racial problems. It's a set of policies and regulations to manage the situation that they inherited from the British (Union of South Africa as a dominion): Goal: Each Nation to govern itself in it's own territory.
* "Apartheid" was a slogan of the National during elections in the 1940s. It means "Separateness". Later the sworn in enemies of South Africa used it as as a slogan, since in English it could made be sound like
* "Apart hate" - In fact that is Tutus pronounciation of it.



O.K lets be realistic and look at the facts. Today (2009) all major business and financial institutions are run and managed by blacks due to the Employment Equality Act = (BEE).
The country is governed by a Political Party that is 95% black who are not ashamed to enforce a Black empowerment programs excluding equal opportunity for all but a selective group based on a chosen pigment couloration. It's rather a means of giving the old comrades a share of the loot. And anyway the majority of major companies are still directed by Whites. They just have a few Blacks as window dressing.


During the apartheid area whites generally regarded blacks as unskilled, uneducated communists only worthy to do hard physical labour. These people were refused freedom of movement, association and were legally disallowed to purchase property and vote. A black person could also be arrested and held without trial for any length of time if accused of sedition or seen as a potential threat to the ruling white minority etc.Well as for unskilled, uneducated Labour I take the educated guess that this applied to more then 90% of the Blacks. And those with a higher education usually went the path of a B.A. which is useless for most private sector occupation. As for restriction of movement that only applied to White urban areas. And the restrictions you mention were part of the state of emergency, which was a response to the real onslaught of South Africa. So the measures taken by the then South African government were by definition an act of self defence.


I can go on but I hope you get my point. With these obvious facts in mind you say that blacks during the apartheid years had better opportunities and were socially and economically better off.
I think you may want to readdress your views with historical fact rather than yesterdays closed minded propaganda and myths. (No offence)Well they did one simply has to compare there indicators with the once to be found in the rest of Africa. And as for facts you have demonstrated pretty well that you have no clue what you are talking about. Guess you are only parroting what you heard at school or in the media.



During the apartheid era the white ruling minority had a cheap exploitable work force (Blacks). The revenue you talk about was an income rather than an expenditure per say.They were cheaper because Black employers were even paying less.


Today (2009) I believe that this statement above is closer to the trueth. White taxpayers know subsidize black development. If the SABC, Telkom and Eskom were able to collect money for there “services” in townships and squatter camps. I doubt that these companies would be in the financial debt they are in today if payment was not only the 'white subside' as you call it.White taxpayers did subsidize black development before 1994, since then they are subsidizing Black mismanagement. The rest you say isn't really clear.

Blacks did agree on the wages they were receiving in the White South Africa. Actually Blacks had it so good in South Africa that they came in the millions from neighbouring countries to work and to live in the Old South Africa "under Apartheid". Or do you want to dispute that. And if they weren't paid for it by South Africas enemies even the ANC/SACP supporters wouldn't have left the country during their "struggle".

MacAdder
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 08:14 PM
You finally disqualified yourself as being knowledgeable on that part of South African history.
Sorry to disappoint but unlike you my knowledge of the time in question was through personal experience and living memory.
Having a clear non brainwashed outlook was also a plus.



racial problems…inherited from the British
To suggest that the British Empire had anything to do with the National Party instituting Apart-Hate would be amusing.



Separate Development is the explanatory name of South Africas project to solve it's racial problems.
Again Separate Development did not exist but was a myth in an attempt to give the Governing dictatorship some kind of imagenary credibility.
These so called racial problems was created by the National Party through inhuman regulations to protect their position of absolute dominance over a majority.


* "Apart hate" - In fact that is Tutus pronounciation of it.
No it is my personal pronunciation because this is what it is. “Apart HATE”


They just have a few Blacks as window dressing.

I sincerely wish this were true. I really do but alas.


So the measures taken by the then South African government were by definition an act of self defence.
No you underestimate the severity of the National Parties paranoia towards being challenged. During State of Emergencies these restrictions and abuse of human rights were extended to military curfews and even more punitive restrictions.


you have demonstrated pretty well that you have no clue what you are talking about. Guess you are only parroting what you heard at school or in the media.
Again you underestimate who you are talking to with another weak attempt to impress yourself with your willful ignorance of history and reality.
Unlike you, I experienced this first hand and certainly not through politically controlled media reports or through the department of educations twisted attempts to indoctrinate the youth.


…millions from neighbouring countries to work and to live in the Old South Africa…
I can’t dispute this as it is nearly true but remember South Africa has natural mineral recourses and mines providing work for multitudes of migrant workers. The government of the day was of little concern to the foreign work force except that work was available. The only good you talk about was that the mines provided this work. Nothing more.
Your suggestion that these migrant foreign workers were risking their lives labouring in dangerous mines because you believed they enjoyed life under a White Government that did not constitute black people as human. Strange sense of humor you have.



And if they weren't paid for it by South Africas enemies even the ANC/SACP supporters wouldn't have left the country during their "struggle".
These enemies you mentioned lived within South Africa so were internal enemies of the government and who ever supported it. These potential combatants would not have moved out of South Africa without good reason but continue their “struggle” internally.

Horagalles
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 09:22 PM
Sorry to disappoint but unlike you my knowledge of the time in question was through personal experience and living memory.

Having a clear non brainwashed outlook was also a plus.
I must say that I doubt that you are any much older then 25, given style, grammar and spelling for an first language English speaker. Everything smells like post 1945 secondary education.

You claiming not to be brainwashed in the light of the performatory evidence you present, is quite a good joke ;).


To suggest that the British Empire had anything to do with the National Party instituting Apart-Hate would be amusing.
Well, again it seems to be a pity that the New South African doesn't teach history very thoroughly. Segregation and many of the so-called "Apartheid" laws were actually instituted by the British:
http://www.globalpolitician.com/2833-south-apartheid (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glob alpolitician.com%2F2833-south-apartheid)



Again Separate Development did not exist but was a myth in an attempt to give the Governing dictatorship some kind of imagenary credibility.
These so called racial problems was created by the National Party through inhuman regulations to protect their position of absolute dominance over a majority.
This collection of utter rubbish is hardly worth commenting on. The link that I provided, contained quite some examples on what separate development meant, about which you are in denial:
http://www.praag.org/opstelle15.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.praa g.org%2Fopstelle15.htm)
Can you show me something that is wrong in that article?
Can you also argue what is actually wrong with defending once vital interest?
(If somebody else wants me to go into details, please ask.)


No it is my personal pronunciation because this is what it is. “Apart HATE”

No, that's a pretty good demonstration of your attitude and mental state:thumbup. Someone who uses that kind of language is disqualifying himself from any serious debate.


These enemies you mentioned lived within South Africa so were internal enemies of the government and who ever supported it. These potential combatants would not have moved out of South Africa without good reason but continue their “struggle” internally.The ANC/SACP did not get the gross of it's money from members, but from the Soviet Union, International finance and even from Churches (without the approval/knowledge of the payed up members/donators).
If freedom was on the mind of the ANC supporters, why didn't they go and develop their traditional homelands? That they did differently shows you that there was another agenda behind it.

Stormraaf
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 10:30 PM
The ideology of apartheid was born out of ignorance, fear and the unwillingness to share. So yes it was an adapted precautionary measure in some strange way.

"Sharing" in this context is equivalent to handing over. Europe is being Islamisized in no small part due to its leftist leaders eager to "share" their countries with the desert people. Would you label Europeans who wish to preserve their ancestral lands for their own kind similarly "unwilling to share"?


Sorry to disappoint but unlike you my knowledge of the time in question was through personal experience and living memory.

[...]

Again you underestimate who you are talking to with another weak attempt to impress yourself with your willful ignorance of history and reality.
Unlike you, I experienced this first hand [...]

Since you claim great age, and you clearly disapprove of the socio-political system during the Apartheid-era, were you one of those people who voted "Yes" for "reformations" and afterwards celebrated how the nine wolves would henceforth be allowed to vote together with the one sheep about what they'll all have for dinner?


These so called racial problems was created by the National Party through inhuman regulations to protect their position of absolute dominance over a majority.

Do you deny that the very presence of that majority and the alternative of a multicultural society (like we suffer now) constituted a racial problem in itself?


Again Separate Development did not exist but was a myth in an attempt to give the Governing dictatorship some kind of imagenary credibility.

The methods of the government of the day may have been flawed, but it was nevertheless a means to stay off cultural decimation. There was no perfect solution. I'm not fond of how the concept was implemented either, but I would rather have my folk survive under what our enemies perceive as a dictatorship than not at all. What would have been your preferred method of safeguarding our 350-year old heritage? Or is this question not applicable to you since you don't identify with either of the two Germanic ethnicities present in SA?


In the end humans are all equal and should be judged on there merits and not pigment and cultural differences.

Twice have I seen you simply using the word pigment when referring to race. Do you honestly believe skin coloration is the extent of racial differences?

Patrioten
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 11:04 PM
The question of South Africa comes down to whose interests you are looking out for, the Europeans' or the Africans'. Apartheid was the only means by which the European settlers could prevent race mixing and maintain a white society on a black continent, tolerance would inevitably have led to the situation we have in Europe today. If you don't mind the racial, cultural and social mischmasch which is multicultural/multiracial Europe then I can see why you would have a problem with white South Africans protecting themselves and the society which they built from being overrun and destroyed by the surrounding negro tribes, but if you do then I don't get why you would find apartheid to be that objectionable. The only objection I have about the apartheid system (or segregation for that matter), and as I have explained in the past is the fact that racial separation, to date, has a history of failure and cannot be expected to be upheld indefinately.

MacAdder
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009, 12:46 AM
I doubt that you are any much older then 25, given style, grammar and spelling for an first language English speaker

If this is an attempt to insult, you haven’t as I never proclaimed myself an English Language master. I apologies if my spelling or grammar have upset you. It was certainly was not my attention.


The link that I provided, contained quite some examples on what separate development meant, about which you are in denial:


Firstly: The link you provided was in a language I can verbally communicate in but do not read.
Secondly: I have no compulsion to read mythical political propaganda not worth my time.
Thirdly: “Separate Development” would be all but impossibility due to logistical, economical and many, many logical undisputable reasons.
In short “Separate Development” was a mere idea and never practiced so not worth the discussion time.


The ANC/SACP did not get the gross of it's money from members, but from the Soviet Union, International finance and even from Churches (without the approval/knowledge of the payed up members/donators).
If freedom was on the mind of the ANC supporters, why didn't they go and develop their traditional homelands? That they did differently shows you that there was another agenda behind it.

I am not disputing that the ANC/SACP acquired finance from who ever. Hey, they even solicited money from musical Pop groups such as ABBA.
Regards the “Homelands”. I don’t dispute there existence either but dispute there “independents” as self-governing countries / homelands. No international recognition etc.
These homelands were only recognized by The National Party.


a pretty good demonstration of your attitude and mental state .
Don’t presume my mental state as it has nothing to do with anything.


Since you claim great age, and you clearly disapprove of the socio-political system during the Apartheid-era, were you one of those people who voted "Yes" for "reformations" and afterwards celebrated how the nine wolves would henceforth be allowed to vote together with the one sheep about what they'll all have for dinner?
I make no claim to a “great” age but have enough experience not to rely on someone’s closed minded publishing’s to have an accurate or ethical opinion.

I apologies but have absolutely no idea regards your analogy of wolves, sheep and dinner. Sorry


Do you deny that the very presence of that majority and the alternative of a multicultural society (like we suffer now) constituted a racial problem in itself?
We have the racial problem today because of the previous system being oppressive to the extreme.


The methods of the government of the day may have been flawed, but it was nevertheless a means to stay off cultural decimation. There was no perfect solution. I'm not fond of how the concept was implemented either, but I would rather have my folk survive under what our enemies perceive as a dictatorship than not at all. What would have been your preferred method of safeguarding our 350-year old heritage? Or is this question not applicable to you since you don't identify with either of the two Germanic ethnicities present in SA?

I sympathize with the people you speak of and have no quick remedy for what should have been done at the time. I am able to comment on what has happened and give praise, recognition or condemnation to what has already occured but no absolute solutions.
I do have my own personal opinions when looking back at the past but don’t claim to have all the answers.


Do you honestly believe skin coloration is the extent of racial differences?

We as humans are social beings that feel comfortable amongst our own ethnic cultural groups. The colour of our skin is a differentiating difference that sets us apart from Orientals, Blacks, and Indians etc. Within that colour group we are divided via cultural, religion etc.
In answer to your post no, but in this country we were divided by colour first.


The question of South Africa comes down to whose interests you are looking out for, the Europeans' or the Africans'
This is the issue right there. This division could have been a social one but as soon as it became a legal document and enforced by a minority it was doomed and will have negative implications as long as we as a country do not identify ourselves as South Africans rather than being Black, White, India, Coloured or Orientals etc.



race mixing…. has a history of failure and cannot be expected to be upheld
This occurred even before the Europeans employed Hottentot women in their kitchens. I try not be condescending or explicitly against marriage of different groups but I personally will not encourage the practice.
I believe that we all have our own choices and prejudices and should not enforce our opinions on others.

Mooi Meisie
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I only recently read about that until the 1930s when the "racial problem" was mentioned, it referred to English speaking South Africans vs. Afrikaners.

gebirgsjager
Thursday, June 24th, 2010, 07:58 PM
Aren't you forgetting that the Israel you seem to hate so much actually helped SA with its nuclear program back in the days? .

Israel betrayed us bad after 1987. The only reason Israel was ever friendly to SA was in order to develop nukes. (i.e. materials they needed)

Rächer
Friday, June 25th, 2010, 01:17 PM
Look, I have no problem with English folk, they are fellow Germanic people -- regardless of what happened in wars. The vast majority of English people had nothing to do with this, so nobody can blame them or blame an entire nation.

The idea of the concentration camps came from Lord Kitchener, in some sort of "final solution" to prevent an embarrassing defeat of the British Empire against a handful of brave Boers. In fact, this was the Second Boer War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War). The first one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War) was actually won by the Boers. Only after 500,000 British soldiers from all over the empire was sent to South Africa to fight the Boers, could they defeat this band of Germanic peasants who numbered less than 100,000 in men strength. They could not conquer the men so they went after the women and children who stayed back on the farms, in what they called a "scorched earth policy".

You seem to be equating this instance with other European colonial endeavours. This one was very different. The Boers were not a native African tribe like the Zulus. They were pioneering families of Dutch and German descent who fought for land to stay on and farm in peace. It was the discovery of gold and diamonds which caused the British to lust after the riches of South Africa, and defeat the Boers at all costs.

This suffering actually became known in Europe at the time, and caused the British government an embarrassment. There was much opposition from the British public, and a kind lady named Emily Hobhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Hobhouse) did much for the Afrikaner people in humanitarian assistance. She is still regarded as a hero in South Africa.



Wow you certainly have a gift of reaching swift, simple conclusions to complex historical questions.


This post by Loki gives a good summary of this matter.

Rächer
Friday, June 25th, 2010, 01:20 PM
Israel betrayed us bad after 1987. The only reason Israel was ever friendly to SA was in order to develop nukes. (i.e. materials they needed)

The only reason the were friendly towards the Boer people is that they stupidly admire Jews and acknowledge them as the "chosen people" as they feel themselves to be a chosen people, just like their Jewish example.

Gerhardt Maritz
Friday, June 25th, 2010, 04:33 PM
Kitcener was the architect of concentration camps in South Africa. Per Capita more Boer people were killed than the Jews in WW11. I was surprised the learn that Kitchener grew up not far from where I reside and I started researching the matter. His father was a quite well off Englishman judging by the old photos of their homesteads. When I tracked down the exact location of the two properties I was shocked to discover that both were completely demolished. What is left of the gardens acts as a faint reminder of the former splendour.
He was and still is not loved in County Kerry, Ireland.

Horagalles
Friday, June 25th, 2010, 09:03 PM
Israel betrayed us bad after 1987. The only reason Israel was ever friendly to SA was in order to develop nukes. (i.e. materials they needed)... And peddle these materials against pretty worthless intel (from the SA perspective). South African scientists did develop their own nuclear devices, far different from what you get elsewhere.
In fact what South Africans did do in Sasolburg or Secunda comes far closer to what the Germans did do in Auschwitz (making liquid fuels and chemical from coal);).

Bittereinder
Wednesday, December 19th, 2018, 04:51 AM
Regrettably, Hendrik Verwoerd lost his life at a time when the political scene in South Africa was on the brink of a total makeover. Perhaps his foresight and aspirations to develop, change and turn South Africa into a first class world country did not undoubtedly match the plans of international and local people.

In his book, Stephen Goodson’s HENDRIK FRENSCH VERWOERD – SOUTH AFRICA’S GREATEST PRIME MINISTER, he details mind-blowing information every South African should know about Apartheid, Rothschild bankers, and Verwoerd who was a man of fairness, dignity, and wanted equality for everyone.

The question is whether Verwoerd is responsible for apartheid, based on the perspective order of events.

• 1809 – The Native Pass Law of the British Government at Cape of Good Hope passed compel black people to carry a passbook.
• 1865 – British-born Sir Theophilus Shepstone prohibited blacks in Natalia from having any voting power.
• 1894 – Cecil John Rhodes prevented a colored man Krom Hendriks from joining the national cricket tour to England.
• 1895 – Cecil John Rhodes compelled schools in the Cape to teach separate for whites in English and Blacks in English. (Verwoerd was not born yet)
• 1901 – 8th September 1901 in Amsterdam.
• 1913 – The British Native Land Act 2 prohibited black people to own land. (Verwoerd 12 years of Age)
• 1915 – National Party of South Africa 2nd July 1915. The ideology of apartheid was never the ideology of the Boers but was a secret agenda propagated by the paid British press and their agents in the “Broederbond” to keep control over South Africa for Britain via the Nationalist Party, which shows a deliberate falsification of history in order to keep control over South Africa by design with conflict. The aforesaid is in addition confirmed by the Nationalist Party secret funds, mostly channeled to home in Britain, in institutions like Barclays Bank or the Bank of England who was affirmed by the “one stream” ideology of Jan Smuts and his predecessors with the land grab and dehumanizing legislation that preceded the Nationalist Party rule who had to content with the gross human right violations and a systemic ruggedness with secret control prevent change.

Away from the Smuts/Brittan ideology JBM Hertzog (Minister of Justice) employed a two stream ideology propagating equal rights towards English and Afrikaner Communities which was reflected in the election where Jan Smut (South Africa) seats were reduced from 67 to 54, Thomas Smartt (Unionist) maintain 39 and JBM Hertzog (National Party) gained 27.

• 1918 – Establishment of the “Afrikaner Broederbond” (Jong Zuid-Afrika) by the British as a secret extension of their influence in the same way it was portrayed in the film of Mel Gibson “The Patriot” (Verwoerd was not a member)
• 1925 – British minister HW Sampson promulgated the Labor Demarcation Act to divide black and white. (Verwoerd 32 years of age and not in politics)
• 1927 – Immorality Act was promulgated in Natal controlled by Britain prohibit intimacy between black and white (Verwoerd 34 years of age and not in politics).
British Union Genl Jan Smuts promulgated • 1936 – Separate representation in parliament. (Verwoerd was 43 and editor of a newspaper)
• 1945 – The Native Urban Area Act prohibited blacks to stay longer than 72 hours in a white urban area (Verwoerd was 52 years of age into politics but without a portfolio)
• 1948 – Nationalist Party took over on 4 June 1948 with the Pass Laws and No Voting rights and other discriminate laws still intact, established by the Britain.
• 1958 – Verwoerd 2 September 1958 in office as prime minister of South Africa. (State President –Charles Roberts Swart)
• 1966 – Verwoerd was murdered because he started to give the land progressively back to the black people who were against the rugged British plan, which was disowned by The British Native Land Act 2 passed in 1913, for which he was killed. He was not killed by a disgruntled black group or activists’ which is eminent from the following factual events;-
o Establishes “Black education” as a national law. Many African countries haven’t achieved that to date
o the inflation rate was 2% or less
o Interest rate was 3%
o there was peace as a result of the transformation and restoration process
o the national growth was 7.9% the second highest in the world.
o the living standards of blacks was rising by 5.4% versus the 3.9 % of whites
o had no needs for foreign loans and/or indebtedness versus the current indebtedness of approximately 50% and overall indebtedness approaching 70%. At present, the repayment to banks by the government is approximately R500 million per day.
o Stafendas worked for Anton Rupert in London prior his appointment as a messenger in the parliament while an illegal immigrant, appointed by Hendrik van der Berg who was promoted ±6 ranks by John Voster as minister of Justice at the time, to put him in control of security of the parliament.
o It is well known that Verwoerd was assassinated by Zionist Banking Cartel arranged through John Voster with specific input from the Rupert’s and the Oppenheimer’s being controlled from London promoting Voster to the prime minister.
• 1970 – Implementation of skimming from policies owners of Old Mutual Via Old Mutual Bank a non-entity and stash money across the globe for relocation and take over.
• 1989 – Implementation of SARB Act, Section 33 clause to suppress all evidence
• 1992 – ANC agree to take Political Power only and sign away all economic survivability of SA (Old Mutual, ABSA, SAB, de Beers, etc.) – MAS 57/08/92 – Pretoria North Case ref, investigation officer – Lt. Col. AE Botha conducted an investigation into the irregularities, but it was never made public or brought to court.
• 1994 – Project Hammer completed, ANC agree for Political Control only.

https://southafricatoday.net/south-africa-news/verwoerd-and-apartheid-what-every-south-african-should-know/