'Don't blame apartheid'

[chiskop]

Funny, I must've missed the post where Xarog said "white people are all selfish, racist swine that don't belong here and only voted yes in the referendum to effect change for their own selfish reasons, not because it was the right thing to do."

 

[Bageloo]

There were 2 referendums. 2 Nov 83 and 17 Mar 92. Much the same result if I recall. Certainly in 1983 there was no concern about our lives being "unpleasant", nor about how long we could maintain things by force. We were well in control.

1983:


1992:


From www.sahistory.org.za

The 1983 referendum was a vote for the establishment of the Tricameral parliarment...which is of course not the same thing as the '89 referendum.
BTW it was in 1989 and not 1992 or have they screwed up the dates on sahistory.org ?

 

[rwenzori]

And yet despite the fact that the NP promoted racist policies, the white majority voted for them anyway. Guess they liked having their bread buttered on both sides, or rather, they wanted to see apartheid ended, but they never really felt strongly about it.

Really, the information you bring to light makes it all the more worse. It's like they were voting for which damn washing powder they preferred.

OMO ftw!!!!

You are probably right in your first paragraph. But remember that about 40% or so of the white population did not support the Nats, and many were active both here and overseas in campaigning against apartheid. In one of my "lubberal" phases I remember holding a poster of protest about Biko's death with the cops and a swarm of doggies across the road from us taking photos of us and eventually charging to disperse us.

I think one thing you do discount is that many many whites really wished to remove apartheid. Yes, many could have done more. But there was, and still is I hope, a tremendous amount of goodwill. If we are ever going to fully reconcile with each other, don't stomp on that!

 

[rwenzori]

The 1983 referendum was a vote for the establishment of the Tricameral parliarment...which is of course not the same thing as the '89 referendum.
BTW it was in 1989 and not 1992 or have they screwed up the dates on sahistory.org ?

Sure, but it was a first step in political reform.

It was 1992 - as stamped in my ID book.

 

[chiskop]

Bageloo, referendum was in 1992. There was an election in 1989.

 

[Sneeky]

And yet despite the fact that the NP promoted racist policies, the white majority voted for them anyway. Guess they liked having their bread buttered on both sides, or rather, they wanted to see apartheid ended, but they never really felt strongly about it.

Really, the information you bring to light makes it all the more worse. It's like they were voting for which damn washing powder they preferred.

I preferred the De Klerk washing powder, the one that opened up the path for democracy in this country, rather than the one with the swatstika type insignia with a horse as a company car, but then I am a selfish white person.

 

[Bageloo]

Sure, but it was a first step in political reform.

It was 1992 - as stamped in my ID book.

I must have screwd the dates up...

 

[Xarog]

OMO ftw!!!!

You are probably right in your first paragraph. But remember that about 40% or so of the white population did not support the Nats, and many were active both here and overseas in campaigning against apartheid. In one of my "lubberal" phases I remember holding a poster of protest about Biko's death with the cops and a swarm of doggies across the road from us taking photos of us and eventually charging to disperse us.

I think one thing you do discount is that many many whites really wished to remove apartheid. Yes, many could have done more. But there was, and still is I hope, a tremendous amount of goodwill. If we are ever going to fully reconcile with each other, don't stomp on that!

Hey, my parents were alive during that time and I know for a fact that they were niether racist nor did they support the nats. My dad actually raised the ire of BOSS at one point doing his job as a journalist. (my memory is fuzzy, might not have been BOSS, but it was state police/intelligence/whatever).

But that doesn't change that whites as a whole brought the nats into power and allowed them to continue their racist policies through voting them in for nearly 50 years.

The bitter truth is that none of us under the age of 50 would be alive today were it not for that awful happening (something for both sides to think about, I think - and if you want to disagree with me about this, go start a thread in the philosophy section and I'll be happy to prove my argument; but it's long and I don't want to derail this thread.)

I really do hope that the various races will be able to reconsile the past. But part of that means realising exactly what happened and not trying to sweep the ugly stuff under the carpet just because it makes us feel uncomfortable. Apartheid happened to ALL of us, and it's no use trying to deny that it's our collective legacy that we inhereted from our collective parents (both black and white). In fact it's wholly counter-productive.

 

[chiskop]

I really do hope that the various races will be able to reconsile the past. But part of that means realising exactly what happened and not trying to sweep the ugly stuff under the carpet just because it makes us feel uncomfortable. Apartheid happened to ALL of us, and it's no use trying to deny that it's our collective legacy that we inhereted from our collective parents (both black and white). In fact it's wholly counter-productive.

qtf

 

[kilo39]

As far as i'm concerned, there's no difference there. They were both apartheid parties.

The english vote was never (or seldom) an apartheid/racist vote: their whole reason for existence was anti-racist (no matter any 'agreements' made with "the nats" for want of a better word, over time.)

Leader of the Opposition resigned from Parliament 'cause it was a farce: Frederik van Zyl Slabbert

Just because they voted to end a violent regime when their lives were made unpleasant does not mean that they never supported that regime in the first place.

They may have supported the regime in the first place but people and their attitudes change (otherwise we wouldn't have today.) And no, many stalwarts would have fought to the death (the same could be said of today,) but they didn't 'cause it was the only "human" thing to do.

 

[Bageloo]

Were the majority of white people really guilty of apartheid? Did the white young men of South Africa gladly go the borders year after year to defend the Apartheid government? Did the invasion of Iraq happen because the majority wanted it to be so? Are the people in Zimbabwe hungry because of the way they voted? Methinks we are all just hapless puppets of the Government of the day.

 

[Skeptik]

But that doesn't change that whites as a whole brought the nats into power and allowed them to continue their racist policies through voting them in for nearly 50 years.

That's like saying all black people were terrorists during apartheid and all black people chucked bombs in churches and restaurants. Don't tar everyone with your very broad brush to suit your own agenda will you ...

 

[Gothan]

Were the majority of white people really guilty of apartheid? Did the white young men of South Africa gladly go the borders year after year to defend the Apartheid government? Did the invasion of Iraq happen because the majority wanted it to be so? Are the people in Zimbabwe hungry because of the way they voted? Methinks we are all just hapless puppets of the Government of the day.

Man you deserver a toast for this....I agree with you 100% As long as we feed politicians, they will never learn to stand on their own two feet and fend for themselves, and they would continue to pillage and punish their "supporters"

 

[kilo39]

But that doesn't change that whites as a whole brought the nats into power and allowed them to continue their racist policies through voting them in for nearly 50 years.

No, "the nats" changed the voting system which made them impossible to get rid of.

Malan and his party benefited from the weight given to rural electorates, defeating Smuts and his United Party. Smuts even lost his own seat of Standerton.
South African general election, 1948


As Prime Minister, he opposed a majority of Afrikaners that wished to continue and further the de facto Apartheid of the inter-war years. After the Second World War, he established and supported the Fagan Commission, which advocated the abandonment of all segregation in South Africa. However, Smuts lost the 1948 general election before he could implement the suggestion, and died in 1950, just as de jure Apartheid was being implemented.
Jan Smuts

 

[Bageloo]

Man you deserver a toast for this....I agree with you 100% As long as we feed politicians, they will never learn to stand on their own two feet and fend for themselves, and they would continue to pillage and punish their "supporters"

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.

Charles De Gaulle once said.

 

[Gothan]

Charles De Gaulle once said.

Oh boy, I have to get home, there is a snow storm on the way...I am actually agreeing with you completely.....The END is here...grab your belongings, flee to the hills!!!

 

[kilo39]

But that doesn't change that whites as a whole brought the nats into power and allowed them to continue their racist policies through voting them in for nearly 50 years.

Gee whiz Xarog, that's anc philosophy and what they want you to believe, ie, it was all them and all whites are simply racists. When in fact that is a long way from the truth.

(otherwise we would not be living in a democracy!)

//in fact it isn't even ANC philosophy it is PAC philosophy (and SACP philosophy, hence the hijacking of the anc today, ie, 'these guys' seem as hardcore as the nats!!)

 

[mancombseepgood]

Yikes, you mean those people who's salaries are paid by our sweat are servants? Eish... last time i looked, they were earning above average...

 

[Bageloo]

Yikes, you mean those people who's salaries are paid by our sweat are servants? Eish... last time i looked, they were earning above average...

They are the masters disguised as servants during election time only.
You should see them hugging all the snotty babies just before election.

 

[kilo39]

Let's remember why we are South African

The Herenigde Nasionale Party and its coalition partner, the Afrikaner Party, won seventy-nine seats against the seventy-four of their United and Labour Party opponents, although the Herenigde Nasionale Party had received 140,000 less of the total votes cast than their opponents. The Herenigde Nasionale Party consequently became the government, renamed itself the National Party and ruled South Africa until 1994.
South African general election, 1948

Jan Smuts