Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 23rd, 2017, 10:46 AM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: UK
Posts: 22
Was there segregation and racism before apartheid in South Africa, did it differ betw


Was there segregation and racism before apartheid in South Africa, did it differ between the different colonies before the union of 1910?
bdanger is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:54 AM   #2

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,147

I don't think Zulus, for example, were particularly benevolent with their neighbours, if that's what you mean
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 16th, 2018, 05:16 AM   #3

Mickeyman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Shangri-La, California, USA
Posts: 1,492

It is necessary to define racism.

English racism is a very different thing from what is called racism on the part of Afrikaners.

English racism is based on class. There is nothing anyone can do about it. the English are polite and will try not to offend people they consider inferior.

Afrikaners are prejudiced against groups of people because they know from experience how they are. They are blunt and honest and do not try to be polite about it. However, if an Afrikaner discovers that a Black man has qualities of character that he admires, he will stand by that man and does not care what anybody has to say about it.

There are 2 kinds of Apartheid. There is petty apartheid and grand apartheid. They are totally different things.

Petty apartheid is segregation and discrimination in personal dealings. For some time this made sense because tribal, uncivilized people did not really fit into modern society.

Blacks had never been physically close to Europeans in South African history. Blacks were never enslaved by the Dutch. It was illegal and they did not need unskilled labor. Dutch slaves were always Muslims from Indonesia with pre-existing work skills.

During the brief period of English rule they did import Black slaves and forced the Dutch farmers to buy them. Then in a few years the British emancipated all the slaves they had just sold and did not refund the money.

Grand apartheid simply means that all the foreign workers in your country who are citizens of other countries do not get to vote in your elections. They are kept apart politically.

Black people have no historical claim on most of South Africa. Black people migrated South and occupied Natal Province about the same time the Dutch were settling the Cape area. the Cape area had been inhabited exclusively by the Hottentot/Bushmen for the the previous 40,000 years. These are a yellow people who are not related to Negro people and who are incompatible with them culturally and tempermentaly.

The Transvaal had been occupied by Black people at one time, but they had disappeared before Dutch Voortrekkers settled there. The only blacks they found were refugees from Shaka's terror who were happy to find potential allies.

I think you will find that the legal structures of formal petty apartheid were crafted by the British, who inherited their racism from India.
Mickeyman is offline  
Old January 17th, 2018, 12:20 PM   #4

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
It is necessary to define racism.

English racism is a very different thing from what is called racism on the part of Afrikaners.

English racism is based on class. There is nothing anyone can do about it. the English are polite and will try not to offend people they consider inferior.

Afrikaners are prejudiced against groups of people because they know from experience how they are. They are blunt and honest and do not try to be polite about it. However, if an Afrikaner discovers that a Black man has qualities of character that he admires, he will stand by that man and does not care what anybody has to say about it.
With all due respect Mickeyman, you clearly have very little, if any, knowledge about this matter... Or you are desperately trying to sugar-coat the reality of what this matter is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
There are 2 kinds of Apartheid. There is petty apartheid and grand apartheid. They are totally different things.
Nope, this is simply not true . Apartheid is the term used to refer to a legislative system of segregation based on skin colour as well as tribal affiliation and that's it. There is no "petty apartheid" nor "grand apartheid".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
Petty apartheid is segregation and discrimination in personal dealings. For some time this made sense because tribal, uncivilized people did not really fit into modern society.
Wait... Are you being serious here ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
Blacks had never been physically close to Europeans in South African history. Blacks were never enslaved by the Dutch. It was illegal and they did not need unskilled labor. Dutch slaves were always Muslims from Indonesia with pre-existing work skills.
The part about there being no slavery, in terms of the Dutch settlers in South Africa specifically, is true. In fact the Dutch settles, who later became know as the Afrikaner people, never really made use of slave labour at all.

However, the part about the native black population and European settlers never being close is absolutely wrong. There is a reason that South Africa has a thriving "mixed race" population known as "coloured". Not to mention that it is pretty hard not to become close to people who work for you.

I will however address this matter in the next reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
During the brief period of English rule they did import Black slaves and forced the Dutch farmers to buy them. Then in a few years the British emancipated all the slaves they had just sold and did not refund the money.
Well, maybe you are referring to some other country but this clearly has nothing to do with South Africa and the Dutch settlers there, because if so this is absolutely false .

The only "forced labourers" who were brought into South Africa by the British were the Indians, from India. They were brought in by the British to work the cotton field in South Africa. As a result of this, South Africa also has a relatively large Indian population along with the multitude of other ethnic groups which it hosts. This is why the country is nicknamed as "The Rainbow nation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
Grand apartheid simply means that all the foreign workers in your country who are citizens of other countries do not get to vote in your elections. They are kept apart politically.
Again, this is completely wrong, as I pointed out above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
Black people have no historical claim on most of South Africa. Black people migrated South and occupied Natal Province about the same time the Dutch were settling the Cape area. the Cape area had been inhabited exclusively by the Hottentot/Bushmen for the the previous 40,000 years. These are a yellow people who are not related to Negro people and who are incompatible with them culturally and tempermentaly.
OMG this is hilarious ! You clearly have no idea what you are even talking about !

I am sorry if I seem rude but your information is extremely misleading.

The Bantu Migration, which is the period of Southwards and Eastwards migration of the Bantu speaking people from Western Africa, is estimated to have began in about 1000 B.C with South Africa eventually beginning in about 300 AD. This was long long long before any Dutch settlers arrived.

My point is that Natal was already settled long ago by the people who eventually became known as the Zulu's, before the Dutch settlers arrived.

The Cape on the other hand, is a completely different story. Yes the Cape was actually occupied by the Khoi and San people (Please do not make use of the terms "Hottentot/Bushmen" to refer to these people, as these are extremely derogatory and offensive terms). This is partly why the initial Dutch settlement of the Cape was never really contested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
The Transvaal had been occupied by Black people at one time, but they had disappeared before Dutch Voortrekkers settled there. The only blacks they found were refugees from Shaka's terror who were happy to find potential allies.
Again this is absolute baloney as I pointed out above!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
I think you will find that the legal structures of formal petty apartheid were crafted by the British, who inherited their racism from India.
So, you really have no idea what Apartheid actually was do you?
The Cell is offline  
Old January 17th, 2018, 12:36 PM   #5

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,532

To answer your question, yes and no. There was a form of segregation of sorts, but it was never a legally binding form of segregation. In fact it is important to remember that the full Apartheid legislation only came into full effect in 1948. Up until then there were various, now famous, multiracial communities such as the old Sophia Town, across the country. Obviously these places were quickly as forcefully dismantled after the full weight of the Apartheid legislation came into effect.

The point being, the form of segregation which existed was kinda like an unspoken agreement which was often broken until Apartheid actually got introduced.

I hope this somewhat answers your question.
The Cell is offline  
Old January 17th, 2018, 12:47 PM   #6

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
I don't think Zulus, for example, were particularly benevolent with their neighbours, if that's what you mean
Not really actually, I think that people sometimes forget that the "Zulus" as they became known, were actually a collection of tribes which were conquered by Shaka Zulu. Thus the term Zulus. And these conquests only happened 1815 to the 1840. Up until then the lifestyle of these tribes was very different and warfare was not really a major thing.

In fact back then it was possible to go to war with a neighbouring tribe and come from a battle having suffered 0 casualties. Because battles back then were not about killing your enemy but rather a ceremonious display of strength.

Obviously this all drastically changed with the introduction of Shaka's tactics. It is also believed that one of the major changes which caused this sudden increase in drastic violence, was actually a major drought in the region.

Anyway, point being that the people who eventually became known as the "Zulu's" were actually a lot nicer before Shaka Zulu and the drought.
The Cell is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 12:42 AM   #7

Mickeyman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Shangri-La, California, USA
Posts: 1,492

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cell View Post
I wandered around South Africa and interviewed a lot of people of all races on this subject. I also devoured a bookcase full of books on the subject, all published in South Africa.

You know a few things, but it would seem you got your education in North Korea.

Perhaps you are English South African. They live in a separate reality.

By the way, "colored" in the South African contest rarely means mixed race except for the San people who intermarried with the Indonesians.

Under the old regime,"White" and Colored" were flexible categories that you might join by going to court and having witnesses testify for you. "Black" was a very exclusive category. You could qualify for that only if you were 100% genetically Black AND you were a member of a tribe.

A lady i knew was half Irish and half Soto (Black). She was Catholic and married a Muslim East Indian businessman and had 5 grown children. A judge asked her if she wanted to be classified as White, but she turned down the offer because she owned property in a "Colored" zone.

By the way, one of her daughters was being courted by an Afrikaner policeman (in 1986). I met him at a family dinner.

Bishop Tutu did not belong to a tribe and was not qualified to be classified as Black, but he was able to pull strings and use his influence

There was a small population of Blacks in the Cape area who had no tribal affiliation They descended from some Black slaves that were found in an enemy ship that the Dutch captured. When the ship arrived in Cape Town the slaves were freed. There was not a significant number of these. I was told that if a person grew up in Cape Town in the 50's and 60's, you would likely have never seen a Black person in your life.

To modify one of my statements, Zulus and English did live close together in Natal Province. I met an English farmer there who said he spoke Zulu better than he spoke English the 3 main regions really have different histories and it is hard to generalize without specifying which region you are talking about.

Last edited by Mickeyman; January 18th, 2018 at 12:48 AM.
Mickeyman is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 06:52 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post

Blacks had never been physically close to Europeans in South African history. Blacks were never enslaved by the Dutch. It was illegal and they did not need unskilled labor. Dutch slaves were always Muslims from Indonesia with pre-existing work skills.

During the brief period of English rule they did import Black slaves and forced the Dutch farmers to buy them. Then in a few years the British emancipated all the slaves they had just sold and did not refund the money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cell View Post
The part about there being no slavery, in terms of the Dutch settlers in South Africa specifically, is true. In fact the Dutch settles, who later became know as the Afrikaner people, never really made use of slave labour at all.
I've read that in fact there were Black Slaves from the early Dutch colonization.

Some quotes:

Quote:
The Cape received their slaves mainly from the Indian Ocean basin, since that was the trading domain of the VOC. The Dutch usually captured slaves, who came from West Africa, on the sea from other slaving nations. The first ship load of slaves arrived 28 March 1658 at the Cape on board the ship Amersfoort, with 174 slaves from Angola. A number of these slaves were sent to Batavia, many died and some ran away. These Angolan slaves' numbers reduced within a few years to 43. The myth that the early Cape only had contact with Bantu when the Boers encountered the Xhosas at the Fish river many years later is false, since the slaves from Angola included the presence of Bantu in the Cape society.

The next shipload of slaves arrived 6 May 1658 with 228 slaves from Guinea on the ship Hasselt. Considering the early arrival of these two boat loads of people and the continual stream of other slaves that was brought to the Cape one should not be surprised at the number of slave 'stamouers'. It has only been in recent years that greater research has been focused on these people. The slaves at the Cape came from many countries and cultures: India, East Indies, Abyssinia, Mozambique, Madagascar, Japan, Guinea, and Angola and many other places.
from here: https://www.stamouers.com/people-of-...f-south-africa

and

Quote:
With its prize of 250 slaves the Amersfoort set sail for the Cape, arriving in Table Bay on 28 March 1658, the day on which the Cape colony became a slave trading colony. As Van Riebeeck tells us, of the 250 slaves captured the number had ‘been reduced by death to 170, of whom many were very ill. The majority of the slaves are young boys and girls, who will be of little use to the next 4 or 5 years. They were also brought ashore to be refreshed and restored to health.
Quote:
Later in the year, on 6 May, the Hasselt, one of the slavers sent by the VOC, finally arrived in Table Bay with its own shipment of slaves. On board the Hasselt were 228 slaves, brought from the coast of Guinea, in particular the Kingdom of Dahomey. Within six months the arrival of these two ships, had brought the number of slaves at the Cape from a tiny group of around 20 slaves to a huge contingent of almost 400 hundred slaves. This huge increase in the number of slaves at the Cape meant that, in the year 1658, the Cape colony moved from being a settler colony to a slave colony.
from here: The Early Cape Slave Trade | South African History Online


Both sites I provided have a list of references.
Pict is offline  
Old Yesterday, 03:25 AM   #9

Mickeyman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Shangri-La, California, USA
Posts: 1,492

I had read that it was illegal under Dutch law to enslave anyone who was not a Muslim, which was the reason they got slaves mainly from their colonies in Java.

Perhaps the law changed over time or it was not always followed.

I am also suspicious of history that comes from a Communist governed country. Communists and Palestinians and Turks are very keen on manufacturing their own version of history and put a great deal of effort into it.

I definitely recall reading of a captured slave ship that was taken to Cape Town under Dutch rule where the slaves were released because there was no legal basis to hold them.
Mickeyman is offline  
Old Yesterday, 03:37 AM   #10

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickeyman View Post
I had read that it was illegal under Dutch law to enslave anyone who was not a Muslim, which was the reason they got slaves mainly from their colonies in Java.

Perhaps the law changed over time or it was not always followed.

I am also suspicious of history that comes from a Communist governed country. Communists and Palestinians and Turks are very keen on manufacturing their own version of history and put a great deal of effort into it.

I definitely recall reading of a captured slave ship that was taken to Cape Town under Dutch rule where the slaves were released because there was no legal basis to hold them.
You do know that the Dutch, as other European powers, also participated in the slave trade, and that many areas of “gathering” weren’t Muslim?

In this estimate, trans-Atlantic (Africa-America), even if we know that the slave trade was more than trans-Atlantic, but just here we have more than 500.000 slaves transported by the Dutch:
Estimates
Tulius is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
africa, apartheid, betw, differ, racism, segregation, south



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
no apartheid (or perhaps even Boer Wars) in South Africa YD-CSL Speculative History 20 April 20th, 2016 06:35 PM
why did it take so long to end apartheid south africa mangatd Middle Eastern and African History 13 September 21st, 2014 01:10 AM
Apartheid in South-Africa, how did it hold? jeroenrottgering General History 24 June 22nd, 2013 03:13 AM
The National Party and the Death of Apartheid in South Africa MonomachmosIV General History 23 July 16th, 2012 04:52 AM
South Africa under apartheid today Chancellor Middle Eastern and African History 6 August 7th, 2011 12:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.