Understanding how the system of racial segregation, termed ‘apartheid’ in 1948, came to be in South Africa. What originally drove people to create racial separatism?
Trigger Warning: this article delves deeply into the roots of racial segregation, white supremacy and white nationalism. This article makes no apologies for what it presents - it merely presents the information for people to understand. I knew none of this, and I’ve come to realize that many others don’t know it either.
Land Reform in South Africa
If you boil it down to simple terms, the issue in South Africa is about wealth and land.
The black politicians spew a constant rhetoric of land distribution, and taking back what was stolen by whites from the black man, and have done so since their first campaign in 1994. 26 years later, however, people are getting restless and are demanding results; so rhetoric has been turned up a notch. And action has finally been taken.
The property in question is not just farmland, but refers to personal properties, personal assets and white-owned businesses. So there is a clear financial incentive to perpetuate the narrative to an increasingly more-bloodthirsty outrage mob.
The process has not been successful so far, however. Bureaucratic delays, caused by inefficient processes, are largely to blame. The finger-pointing politicians however, are quick to fall back onto the old faithful excuse of ‘the whites are to blame’.
As a result, the ANC has declared its intention, within its manifesto, to speed up the process of land expropriation without compensation, by making it a constitutional right, designed to redress the belief that whites stole the land unfairly in the first place. A clear problem resulting from a lack of separation between party and state.
Despite the fact that this will be a mirror image of the Zimbabwe situation, politicians have consoled themselves by saying that the fact that it’s constitutional makes it okay to execute.
According to the government, 72% of the nation’s private farmland is owned by whites, while AfriForum claims that 24% rests with government, and 34,5% is owned by black people.
Alarmingly, most land reform farms show little or no agricultural activity, with landowners working on surrounding commercial farms as labourers instead of farming their own land. Where farming occurs, it is often subsistence farming.
On average, crop production had decreased 79% since conversion to land reform, with job losses soaring to as high as 94%.
Despite warnings from the international community, the ANC led government is pushing ahead with the constitutional change that will allow expropriation of land without compensation, using the COVID19 state of emergency as a way to accelerate their plans, and speed up economic reform.
Read more at https://wikimili.com/en/Land_reform_in_South_Africa
How did we get here? With the Dutch East India Company!
Racial segregation has been a feature of the South African landscape since the arrival of the first settlers in 1652.
As a result of long-held religious views about white spiritual supremacy, hearkening back to before Christ, the Dutch East India Company had a standing rule that no colonists were allowed to trade or interact with local natives of any colony, on pain of the death penalty.
According to the Boer ideology, any attempt to give the same status of equality to Blacks, as the Cape administration did, was tantamount to a violation of God’s law that had predetermined the supremacy of White people over the other races.
Read more about racial segregation and white supremacy at https://lifecoachestoolbox.com/index.php/understanding-institutionalized-racism-the-origins-of-white-supremacy
So, for all intents, this philosophy could have been coded into the Dutch nation since its founding, but for probably at least 700 years by the time they arrived in Cape Town. Not only did the Dutch East India Company enforce this, but many Dutch settlers had probably lived this way for countless generations.
It is fair, in this case, to say that the racial separatism was very institutionalized already.
By the time the British arrive in the Cape then, with their concepts of equality for the black men, Dutch people are looking at nearly a millennium of institutionalized racism. So these early settlers moved up into the interior, and formed countries that allowed them to live according to their doctrine and practices.
The British Influence
Despite their big talk however, the British weren’t so great either. By 1833 they had abolished slavery yes, but the changes didn’t impact the lives of slaves much more favorably.
In fact, if you dig into it just a little bit, what you’ll discover is that the legislation that really shaped apartheid was firmly entrenched by the time the National Party came to power, 296 years after the arrival of the first settlers.
One of the most pivotal pieces of legislation you’ll hear mentioned, is the 1913 Native Land Act. This piece of legislation set the boundaries of the TBVC states, as defined under Grand Apartheid. The legislation allocated only 13% of available land to the population.
However, there is a piece of legislation that was introduced before this - the Glen Grey Act. The Act was named for the geographic area it covered, Glen Grey. Now known as Lady Frere, Glen Grey was named for celebrated British Governor, Sir George Grey.
The Glen Grey Act was introduced by Cecil John Rhodes, as a means of putting an end to infighting between the Dutch and British, and served to create clear areas of racial segregation, reserved for specific racial groups.
The gentleman that it is named for, however, is someone interesting to note.
Sir George Grey
Sir George Grey was a British colonial administrator who was called upon to govern in periods of crisis.
He served tenures in New Zealand, South Australia and South Africa. Official records celebrate Grey, praising his ability to reconcile hostilities between natives and European settlers.
Read more at https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Grey
He was however called a dangerous man, and had to be reprimanded on multiple occasions. Following his career it becomes clear that he had many personal agendas, and would use his distance from the Crown to try and implement them.
While the Europeans praised him, Grey was a Machiavellian character, who used subversive methods to achieve his ends.
Read more at https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/348
Grey was driven by complex, sometimes contradictory motives including personal gain, economic imperatives and political pressures. His policies have had ongoing, often devastating effects, on Māori and on race relations in New Zealand. This thesis brings to light the ideas and attitudes which formed them. Grey understood himself as a Christian governor ordained to civilise Māori and join them with British settlers in accordance with God's divine plan for improving humankind.
As you can see, Grey left damage between the races in multiple places, and his legacy in Cape Town was no different.
Around 1850, George Grey confiscates land from black Africans, leaving them to look for work farms. And despite his policies of racial equality, the practical led to even greater segregation and divide among the races.
The Xhosa National Suicide & the Global Elite Connection
The push back on equality and integration did not come solely from European Settlers however; black Africans had complaints too.
While there were many aspects of the European culture that they took to readily, Xhosa people saw Western and Christian education as an attack on their culture.
This led to the elders and medicine women of the tribe turning to the supernatural for an answer - and they got one. The answer was that if they killed all their cattle and did not sow any crops, then the white man would be driven into the sea.
Read more at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/sir-george-grey
This 'Great Cattle Killing' initiated a devastating famine in 1857 that cost the lives of some 30,000 people and caused about 29,000 destitute Xhosa to seek work in the colony.
Clearly the prophecy was false. Where it links to George Grey however, is in an interview with a Zulu medicine man and traditional healer, who carries the traditional oral lines.
According to Credo Mutwa, the oral history he received says that George Grey was responsible for the trick of the supernatural message. Effectively this means he lied to the Xhosa to decimate the population, and starve them out. A siege tactic.
If you look at the aftermath of devastation that Grey left behind with the Aborigines in Australia, and the Maori in New Zealand, and how all three countries are experiencing long term problems with race relations, it’s not hard to imagine this could be the truth.
For the truthers reading this, Grey is meant to be one of the global elite, with direct links to reptilians. The subterfuge was conducted on a spiritual level, and carried out by reptilians. Reptilians, or Chitauri, feature in the oral history of black African races.
The British Legacy
From the time the British took over from the Dutch, until the National Party stepped up in 1948, much of the legislation that defined apartheid principles was put into place.
Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
As previously mentioned, the abolition of slavery had little impact on the day-to-day reality of black Africans. Despite being called indentured servants, the experience was eerily similar to being a slave, including the need for passes to be able to travel. This was the start of passbooks, and hearkens all the way back to 1797.
By 1892, the first limitations had been placed on the right of Black Africans to vote. By 1894 Indians were denied of suffrage.
The Glen Grey Act, passed in 1894, limit land ownership by black Africans. In 1905, blacks were entirely denied the right to vote, limited to fixed areas, and the formal Pass System was introduced. By 1906, Indians were required to register and carry passes.
By 1910, all whites were given the right to vote, and were given complete political control over other racial groups. The right of blacks to sit in Parliament was also revoked.
In 1913, the Native Land Act limited black Africans to buying land only within the native reserves - the later TBVC states.
In 1918, the Natives in Urban Areas Bill was designed to force blacks into ‘locations’ (commonly used term for black residential areas). By 1923, the Urban Areas Act introduced residential segregation. This led to a large pool of readily available, cheap labour, for use by white-owned business.
In 1926, the Colour Bar Act prevented black mine workers from practising skilled trades, and in 1927, the Native Administration Act took away the right of tribal self governance, and made black Africans subjects of the British Crown.
In 1936, the Native Land and Trust Act furthered the 1913 Native Land Act, and the Representation of Natives Act removed black voters from the Cape voters’ roll, instead allowing them to elect 3 white representatives to parliament.
In 1946, Jan Smuts introduced the Asiatic Land Tenure Bill, banning land sales to Indians.
World War 2
Post World War 2 however, the Union Party wanted to move away from racial segregation.
By this time, not only are we dealing with nearly 1000 years of institutionalized racism, it’s also been the only pattern of life for EVERY single generation that has lived on the soil.
Understandably therefore, the idea of removing the segregation was scary to most South Africans, and when the Sauer Commission concluded that integration would bring about ‘a loss of personality for all racial groups’, the South African public agreed, and the National Party was voted into power.
Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
The United Party government began to move away from the rigid enforcement of segregationist laws during World War II. Amid fears integration would eventually lead to racial assimilation, the National Party established the Sauer Commission to investigate the effects of the United Party's policies. The commission concluded that integration would bring about a "loss of personality" for all racial groups.
South Africa had allowed social custom and law to govern the consideration of multiracial affairs and of the allocation, in racial terms, of access to economic, social, and political status. Most white South Africans, regardless of their own differences, accepted the prevailing pattern.
NP leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, Coloured and Indian. Such groups were split into 13 nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups.
White Nationalism and the National Party
Indoctrinated for as long as their family members had existed, members of the National Party, and the Afrikaaner nation, could see no other way to go on with their lives.
Indoctrination is a funny thing, and you can get used to anything. I’ve watched interviews with young children, talking about violent acts, performed in ritual Satanic abuse ceremonies, as if they were asking for a glass of water.
When you grow up with something, you tend to think of that as the norm. Racial segregation was the norm - it was tradition.
The National Party wanted to take it further however, they wanted to create a homeland for the white South Africans who had nowhere else to go, as evidenced by this speech excerpt.
This brings me to the question of the future. To me there seems to be two possible lines of development in South Africa: Apartheid or Partnership. Partnership means Cooperation of the individual citizens within a single community, regardless of race.... (It) demands that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever in trade and industry, in the professions and the Public Service. Therefore, whether a man is black or a white African must be irrelevant. Obviously, this partnership would mean extending the right to vote to Black Africans. This means that there must one day be black domination, in the sense that power must pass to the immense Black African majority. This policy of Partnership could, in South Africa, only mean the eventual disappearance of the white South African nation. You should not be greatly surprised if I tell you that this white nation is not prepared to commit national suicide.
The only alternative is a policy of apartheid, the policy of separate development. Apartheid is a policy of self preservation. We make no apology for possessing that very natural urge. But it is more than that. It is an attempt at self-preservation in a manner that will allow the Bantu to develop fully as a separate people. We believe that, for a long time to come, political power will have to remain with the whites, also in the interest of our still very immature Bantu.
The immediate aim is, therefore, to keep the races outside the Bantu areas apart as far as possible, to continue the process of improving the conditions and standards of living of the Bantu, and to give them greater responsibility for their own local affairs. At the same time the long term aim is to develop the Bantu areas both agriculturally and industrially, with the object of making these areas in every sense the national home of the Bantu - areas in which their interests are kept in mind, where all professional and other positions are to be occupied by them, and in which they are to receive progressively more and more freedom and self government.
Source: Union of South Africa Government: Information Pamphlet (New York, 1953), reprinted in Ruth E. Gordon and Clive Talbot, eds., From Dias to Vorster: Source Material on South African History 14881975 (Goodwood, S.A.: Nasou, n.d.), pp. 409 410.
In the minds of the Nats, this was the only way to save the white race. And to give the Bantu races a fair chance to govern themselves autonomously. So they did, the TBVC states.
Read more about the TBVC states at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
It wasn’t right, not by any means. But it’s no different to a Muslim Jihad. It’s just the manifestation of an entrenched and extreme belief.
So, who is to blame for Racial Segregation?
While the National Party certainly exacerbated matters, the Afrikaans people certainly can’t be blamed for initiating this. They were born into it, just like everyone else.
If you’re willing to take the Zulu oral traditions into account, then we can definitely point a finger at Sir George Grey. If you discount that piece of knowledge, it’s still a pretty clear call that the British were the real bad guys: the ones who made rules into laws.
However the British aren’t the originators of their own practice in this regard; here, slavery dates back to Roman times.
The 1st century BC Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates that the Roman institution of slavery began with the legendary founder Romulus giving Roman fathers the right to sell their own children into slavery, and kept growing with the expansion of the Roman state.
The Twelve Tables, Rome's oldest legal code, has brief references to slavery, indicating that the institution was of long standing. In the tripartite division of law by the jurist Ulpian (2nd century AD), slavery was an aspect of the ius gentium, the customary international law held in common among all peoples (gentes). The "law of nations" was neither considered natural law, thought to exist in nature and govern animals as well as humans, nor civil law, belonging to the emerging bodies of laws specific to a people in Western societies. All human beings are born free (liberi) under natural law, but slavery was held to be a practice common to all nations, who might then have specific civil laws pertaining to slaves. In ancient warfare, the victor had the right under the ius gentium to enslave a defeated population; however, if a settlement had been reached through diplomatic negotiations or formal surrender, the people were by custom to be spared violence and enslavement. The ius gentium was not a legal code, and any force it had depended on "reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct."
So I suppose we could say Italy is to blame? Germany had to pay reparations for World War 2 atrocities despite having a different government, so why not Italy for the Roman rule?
However, since many Roman & Egyptian slaves became slaves as a result of selling themselves, or parents selling their children into slavery, and subsequent slaves were born of those bloodlines, then perhaps there is no one to blame but your ancestors themselves?
The Dutch East India Company & Religion
If you take it one step further back from the British though, you come to face-to-face with the Dutch East India Company again.
The practice of racial supremacy among the Dutch is based on religious teachings dating back to Christianity in the medieval ages. And here I suppose we could say that the Vatican should be to blame for racial injustice. Which brings us to Italy again. Hmmm... *ponders*
However, the teachings of the Serpent Seed also hearken back to the time before Christ, where it was taught by Rabbis that Eve had born two lines - Abel, the son of Adam, and Cain, the son of the soulless Serpent.
The doctrine dictates that the Canaanites, who are black, are jealous of the Anglo-Saxon Adamites, and will stop at nothing to destroy the Adamite line.
Read more about the Serpent Seed at https://lifecoachestoolbox.com/index.php/understanding-institutionalized-racism-the-origins-of-white-supremacy
Maybe this would have seem far fetched a few months ago, but with everything that is happening in the world now, maybe it doesn’t seem so crazy after all?
Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
And if this does trace back to the Jewish people and Jewish teachings, then maybe the place where we assign blame should be Israel? Maybe Israel should be forced to pay reparations for racial inequality and the devastation it has wrought?
And considering the last century of our world history, wouldn’t that be the most stunning of ironies?
Read more about the author at Am I a crazy white supremacist? (TL;DR: No): https://lifecoachestoolbox.com/index.php/am-i-a-crazy-white-supremacist-tldr-no