When I was in South Africa for a few weeks before coming to Botswana, I built up a lot of mental commentary about race that I had little opportunity to share with anyone. From my friends and relatives remarks, some of which seems incredibly and blatantly racist, as well as a visit to the Apartheid museum, and reading Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa; I have a lot I want to write about! And now that I'm in Botswana I have copious amounts of time for reading, reflecting and writing.
Race and the apartheid are obviously a complicated story deeply rooted in South African history. The apartheid officially ended less than 2 decades ago, and so there has not been a lot of time for the country to recover. Particularly the increase in violent crime has led most of my relations think about the apartheid era as "the good old days". Of course this seems wrong to me, but also makes a certain amount of sense, as with any group that has lost their hold on power and wealth, they are now embittered. Also they are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to affirmative action; and there are now even some poor white people living in previously black townships (though most whites maintain their upper class status, living in isolated white communities with electrical fences, barbed wire, guards and guard dogs). And of course my relations blame this on the black government, and refuse to think of the whole situation as a result of the history of the past 300 years of whites being in power.
Anyway, I feel like I have an interesting perspective on the topic. On one hand, half of my family is Afrikaner, and I hear that side of the story, particularly when I am in South Africa. I also hear the American side of the story, which is very simplified, and basically concludes that it was American economic sanctions that ended the apartheid (and does not mention the revolutionary violence and direct action that was really the key to its end). But I am particularly interested in how and why the system of apartheid started in the first place, and also on how it ended. The middle part is of course interesting too, particularly the petty Apartheid laws that were there just for their own sake and didn't even do much to increase white power, such as banning sex between whites and blacks. Also the story of Stephen Biko, who takes the title of "community organizer" to totally new levels in my mind. So here are a few things that have stood out to me, from the museum and my readings. Sorry if they seem a bit fragmented, but I am not trying to write a history of the entire apartheid; just comment on some aspects about it.
Afrikaner nationalism was partially brought about by British colonial racism. But also, the "voortrekkers" were pioneers in a wild and dangerous land. And I think that when fending for yourselves under harsh circumstances leads to a fierce sense of independence and nationalism--the "pioneer" spirit, or whatever you call it. This strikes a lot of similarities with Americans with (too) much national pride. Also similar is the insularity that typically goes along with this. During the apartheid, white society became increasinly insular and isolated from the views of the rest of the modern world. There was a lot of national propaganda, such as from the national radio network and various films. Television was blocked from the country until the government was sure it could control its content. There were so many censorship laws agains literature and entertainment, and very limited independent press. It is easy to see how most of white society in South Africa at the time had no access to any outside opinions at all, and how people growing up in this climate of conformity and propaganda, turned out, well, how they are today (see my previous posts about traveling through the Free State, and parts of the West Coast). Again, this sort of insularity reminds me of certain areas in America today, and certain phenomena like the Minute Men in Texas. It seems that insularity and national pride such as exist in those regions bring about exactly the kind of xenophobia that caused the apartheid; or exreme right-wing views of immigration.
The apartheid was a system of maintaining white control, and by 1953, it was the most thorough system of racial survelillance ever created. It imposed strict racial classifications on all citizens, relocated millions of people at the convenience of keeping people separated, and outlawed sex and marriage across racial lines. It was created by Afrikaner nationalists, some of whom are still around today. If some of their crimes, only disclosed in the 1990s, seem reminsent of Nazi Germany, it might be because duing WWII, the extreme Afrikaner nationalist factional called the Ossewa Brandway supported and modeled itself after the Nazi Party (though Jan Smuts at the time sided with Britain). Much like in America at the time, public facilities and schools were segregated. However, while in America the civil rights movement was taking place, white South Africans were retreating further and further into their shell and becoming increasingly isolated and indoctrinated.
In 1989, FW de Klerk unbanned the African National Congress (ANC) and relased Nelson Mandela from prison. There are many reasons why he did this, but overall he wanted to protect Afrikaner interests, and realized that the modernised form of the apartheid that he wanted simply would not work. There was too much revolutionary violence which would only continue to increase, and he realized (mostly from Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's example) that the longer he delayed political reform, the weaker the Afrikaner position would become. De Klerk saw Mandela as someone with who the white establishment could work with. Though foreign sactions were costly, they were not very damaging. I think being subjected to international sports boycotts was probably more damaging to the white psyche.
It is hard for me not to mythisize Mandela. I cannot think of a historical figure that just seems so good. Granted I don't know as much about him as I probably should, and I am sure he has some skeletons in his closet. But the more I read about the end of the Apartheid, the more I think that without Nelson Mandela, it would not have happened as soon as it did, and would not have been as peaceful as it was. His attitude of compromise in the extreme, and his own self sacrifice for the good of his country, are truly remarkable. During his presidency he made a special visit to the widow of Hendrik Verwoerd, who was basically the architect of the Apartheid, and who was living in a whites-only colony in the Free State. He also went out to lunch with Percy Yutar, the prosecutor at his trial that argued that he be given the death sentence, and then expressed regret when it didn't happen. I think Mandela and all of black South Africa would have been justified to hold accountable those who committed the atrocities that allowed the Apartheid to happen. The Truth and Reconciliation Commissision (TRC) in the mid 90s unearthed some very damming testimony from a lot of people, but it was all in exchange for amnesty. So while I think many people should have been persecuted, it is just a further example of how Mandela did what was best for the country as a whole--starting the process of healing and reconciliation, rather than take vengeance.
The fact is, according to the TRC, under the governments of Botha and DeKlerk, death squads operated as part of the governmental system of oppression, torture was used systematically and was even condoned as part of official practise, and violence between rival black factions was officially encouraged, supported and even financed. Also, according to an official 1998 survey, 80% of white South Africans deny these facts to this day.
As for the level of violence that the protestors of the apartheid used, I support it. The ANC resorted to violence as a last resort because every legal and non violent means to resist the apartheid were blocked by the government. Of course there are many instances of acts of gratuitous violence (such as "necklace" murders) and violence that wasn't necessary or that ended up harming many innocent people. But to equate the resistence to apartheid with the defence of it is totally wrong.
One of the legacy of the apartheid that is very apparent today is the massive disparity in wealth. In 1994, the average white income was 8 times greater than the average back. Whites held 13% of the population and earned 61% of the total income. When Nelson Mandela took office, South Africa's economy was actually already in very bad shape. Previously, it ranked in the top 25 in the world, with vast mineral reserves. But the previous government had run up a huge deficit, and its domestic debt was also huge. The unemployment figures then, as they are now, were also in extremely bad shape, at around 33%. Furthermore, after Mandela took office, foreign investors, which were badly needed, were reluctant to invest. So, rapid change for South Africa was basically impossible; and mostly because of the whites that were in power before Mandela, and also the heavy toll foreign economic sanctions took on the economy--also the fault of the previous white governments. Though the black middle class benefited after the end of apartheid, the overall gap in prosperithy within the black community only widened. And today, only around 5% of the black population has reached middle class; the rest still struggle in poverty.
So today's picture of South Africa is still very much a result of apartheid policies. Whites tend to be very quick to blame the unemployment and poverty on the black government (and the resulting crime wave), but this is simply not true. And though I find a lot of fault with the general white attitude in South Africa today, my family will be very quick to remind me that similar attrocities were committed pretty much everywhere else in the world (though maybe not as systematically, or as recently). South Africa didn't kill off its native population, as what almost happened in America. And to its credit, the changeover in government is one of the very few in Africa in the past 50 years that did not come at the cost of a civil war. Anyway, who knows. Maybe in the next 100 years there will actually be racial integration in South Africa ;)
.jpg)
