Wrong. I was born in South Africa, and lived there for 35 years of my life, including the time of apartheid, through the transition and after. The documentation is liberal revisionist history at worst, or incomplete at best.
Newt is wrong in many ways, but I have been seeing you comment almost every Mandela thread trying to demonize white South Africa, just like Newt is doing.
Just to be clear, I am no champion or supporter of apartheid, and worked to help change it. I was not on board with what was agreed to in the end, but almost everyone there agreed that things could not continue as it was, hence the change. The ANC and Mandela had almost zero influence, and South Africa could have continued with apartheid for many more years without any major problems. Sanctions were hurting only those it was supposed to help, and military intervention was not an option.
So specifically which rights were denied to blacks under apartheid? I would think these were the most important.
1. They couldn’t own land or lived where they wanted outside of their tribal homelands.
2. They couldn’t vote outside of their tribal homelands.
3. They could not participate in the national government, only their own.
4. They could not use the same facilities as whites.
The idea was to help tribes gain independence in countries located in their traditional and historic tribal areas , not unlike Native American reservations (just bigger), and not unlike the kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland. Economic Development Corporations were set up, some investments made, but that was where it mostly stopped. Even with big infusions of capital the tribal lands were and stayed poor, and the people did not want to live there, as the better infrastructure and jobs were around the major cities.
Some rights they did have:
1. The right to free medical care, anywhere in the country, in hospitals set up for them, and staffed by white and black doctors and nurses.
2. The right to free education, through school and college, in facilities built for them, and again staffed by white and black.
3. The right to work anywhere.
4. Homes were built and utilities provided in some cases, but the demand was really high, and the government could not keep up.
Was it right that they were kept separate? No, but to say they were denied “all rights” is total nonsense.
Now do yourself a favor and go and research the mfecane, which explains what the thinking process was behind keeping the warring tribes apart. Now extrapolate that to the time 1990 to present, and see what has been going on. It explains a lot of the violence.
Furthermore, in all the years of apartheid, around 30,000 “political” prisoners passed through the prisons, where the vast majority were treated like any other prisoners. Yes, regrettably there were some tortured and killed. The total amount of dead at the hand of the South African authorities was just under 600. If the white government wanted to viciously suppress, kill opponents and deny rights, they sure stunk at it, and I can promise you it was not due to lack of ability.
Now, if you want to know more personal stories, I can tell you how my uncle lost our family farm (in our family for more than 100 years, bought legally from the British) under apartheid so that it could be given, free of charge, to the Ndebele people. At the time he was operating a successful fruit juice factory, providing employment, housing and schooling to more than 200 Ndebele, and free medical care, since he was also a medical doctor. After he left, it all went to ruin.
How about the black police officers, soldiers and security guards that stood in the trenches with the white government to fight the ANC? They were subject to the same “abuses” and “oppression” that you and Newt are talking about, yet they saw fit to rather defend that “oppressive” system as opposed to submit to the communist ANC. And for good reason, the non-ANC supporters were, and are, being murdered and intimidated in large numbers.
I freely admit that my opinion is biased because I lived through it, personally. I saw it from the inside, from both perspectives, before and after apartheid. Before 1990 I served in the military. I was an officer, required to study the complete history of the ANC, and had access to all the intelligence that was shared with us, also from the US government.
After 1994 I worked with some high ranking ANC officials (including their chief of intelligence, who sadly died in a car accident later. Even though he had risen to the equivalent of the rank of colonel in the KGB, and we were on opposite ideological ends, he was a gentleman who I respected) on a local project. I heard what their perspective during the negotiations were, and saw their motives and modus operandi first hand. I understand why they did what they did. I disagree with how they went about it. Moderate black leaders, like the Zulu chief minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, had much more of an influence on the decision to end apartheid.
You are welcome to believe what you want, as is Newt. But I do implore you to look for the rest of the story, and not just rely on what liberal scholars propagate. There is a lot more to it.
There is a lot more to it.
Unlike you, I've only viewed South Africa from a million miles away and couldn't possibly have the perspective of someone who was actually there.
Another poster characterized the SA people as nothing but insane racists; my only response is to ask how, then, could they have allied themselves to Dr. Jonas Malheiro Savimbi who was blacker than even me if their motivation was racism rather than self preservation?
Interesting background. In your opinion, how much, and what type of influence might Stephen Biko have had were he not killed?
Thank you for noting that.
One of our presidents, Abraham Lincoln, once said, "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." I think the same can be said about apartheid. All these articles about Mandela all begin, "Apartheid was terrible/horrible but..." You yourself begin by saying how you were opposed to the practice and say you worked to change it, and then you proceed to describe just how great blacks had it under the white regime. Gee, free health care and free education; who wouldn't want that? Full voting rights in their made-up homelands; what could be better? Homes and jobs and the ability to work wherever the white government let them; how can you beat that? If it was such a paradise for them then my first question is what did you possibly see that needed change? And if it was such a great life then would you, yourself, be happy living under the conditions and restrictions blacks lived under when the regime ran things?
I'm no fan of Mandela. He was a communist and he was responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent people through terrorist acts, and was pretty brutal to any blacks who didn't toe the line. But I can't condemn him for opposing the white regime because if I lived under those conditions, despite your attempts to pretty them up, I would have opposed them too. And I'm not sure I wouldn't resort to violence to make my change.
Awesome post. FR is at its best when we get fantastic first-hand reports and insights like yours. Thank you.