Last week I published an article titled ' No, the Afrikaners were NOT "The Heroic White Tribe of Africa" '. I tried to demonstrate that the Afrikaners were, in fact, guilty of dooming themselves, because of their innate racism and refusal to share the wealth of their country with other groups, races and cultures. (The article aroused a fair amount of controversy, if not outright racist replies. I didn't censor any of the latter; you can read them for yourself below the article. I recommend you do, as an insight into the mindset of those who refuse to examine an issue objectively.)
But this idea that the Afrikaners sowed the wind by being mean and nasty to the colored folk is completely incorrect. Rather, their biggest mistake was letting them into the country in the first place.
The Afrikaners settled what is now known as South Africa. They didn’t have to drive out any native population because there was none. But their success was attractive to the African tribes. Another article at American Renaissance which was written as a warning to Anglo nations, gives an indication as to the source of their fate.
. . .
Homogenous nations survive. Diverse nations perish. In layman’s terms this is also referred to as, pick your own damn cotton. The apartheid system to which Grant is so morally outraged was a last ditch attempt to correct the fatal mistake of letting in so many unassimilable outsiders in the first place. It was doomed to failure, not because of its barbarity, but rather because it didn’t go far enough. The Afrikaners sought a balance between controlling the uncontrollable while still benefiting from the vast labor source that the immigrants provided. Their greed was their downfall. Rather than seeking to retain the source of cheap labor, their only possible chance of survival was to expel them.
. . .
But it was another line from Grant’s article that really piqued my interest.If Afrikaners had been willing to create a genuine black middle class, and open the economy to allow everyone to aspire to their fair share of it, earning their way to prosperity by the sweat of their brows, South Africa would be a very different country today.
This sort of nonsense seems to be so prevalent in the Boomer generation, no matter on what side of the political and religious spectrum they lie. This quote is buried up to the neck in the magic dirt theory that if only we treat everyone in a nice way then all of these incompatible blow-ins will magically adopt Western Civilization; after all, it’s just a value system.
This is completely false because everything is downstream from biology and culture, in that order.
The idea of a genuine black middle class is a complete fantasy. There is no native black country on the planet that has a natural middle class. That is because black culture is tribal, and tribal cultures have a few people on the top and everyone else on the bottom. The middle class is a feature of white culture. It cannot be grafted at will onto other races, which goes likewise for all of the other features of Western Civilization. Black middle classes that exist in white countries are parasitical and thus temporal in nature. If the whites disappear then so too will the middle class. One only has to look at countries where this has occurred to see it in action, with Rhodesia being the classic and deliberately forgotten example.
There's more at the link. By all means, please read his response in full. I don't agree with him, of course, but his arguments represent widespread opinions.
I'd like to respond to some of his points.
- The Afrikaners did not settle an empty land. The long, brutal history of clashes between white settlers and black tribes speaks for itself. Black tribes were moving south and west; Afrikaner "trekkers" were moving north and east. They ran headlong into each other. The situation was complicated by the so-called "Mfecane", the widespread (but temporary) depopulation of parts of the interior by clashes between black tribes (partly over land and resources, partly fueled by white commercial pressures such as the slave and ivory trades). The so-called "Kaffir Wars"; wars during and after the Great Trek; conflicts between various groups (including white-on-white, white-on-black, black-on white, black-on-black, etc.) between 1879 and 1915; all demonstrate conclusively that the Afrikaner was anything but alone in an otherwise empty, deserted land. (If they were alone, who were they fighting?) Suffice it to say that they didn't "let anybody in" - they were already there. Afrikaners tried hard to portray "empty land" as an historical fact, but they ignored, twisted or actively undermined real historical facts to do so. Sadly, the myth they established lives on in certain quarters, despite its falsity.
- The "other article at American Renaissance" to which Mr. Piggott refers is a piece of what I can only describe as racist propaganda. The author remains anonymous, but confesses: "Many of us knew that the dream of a non-racial democracy would end up as a black dictatorship. Many of us fought desperately to stop the takeover, but the West had a bizarre need to see black rule in this part of the world, whatever the consequences. Being right doesn’t mean you win. Giving 'democracy' a chance here was a death sentence for our country." Uh-huh. I talked about that some years ago, having witnessed at first hand the violent assault on a democratic solution in South Africa mounted by "conservative" (IOW, racist) whites. You'll find an interesting video on the subject in an earlier article in these pages. I highly recommend you watch it. It's eye-opening.
- "Homogenous nations survive. Diverse nations perish." That's a nice sound-bite . . . but how many homogenous nations have also perished, ground down beneath history's inexorable onward march, or absorbed into a more powerful homogeneity that overwhelmed them and subsumed their culture into its own? A hell of a lot of them have died like that. Just look at most European nations today. Besides, homogeneity can be measured in many ways. Race is only one of them, and it's of minimal importance compared to culture. I think South Africa is, indeed, an example of a multicultural society that failed. However, I also believe that if there had been a real, serious attempt over decades to promote a common South African culture, rather than "divide and rule" on the basis of race, tribe, ethnicity and culture, that might have been avoided. It was the all-out effort to prevent the establishment of a common culture, one that could unite diverse groups in at least some ways and lead to joint efforts to preserve the country rather than every group and individual fighting for its/their own benefit first, that doomed apartheid South Africa to what we see there today. (See President Theodore Roosevelt's comments about "hyphenated Americans". There were too many hyphenated South Africans, made so deliberately and forced to be so by the policies of apartheid. Q.E.D.)
- "The idea of a genuine black middle class is a complete fantasy. There is no native black country on the planet that has a natural middle class. That is because black culture is tribal, and tribal cultures have a few people on the top and everyone else on the bottom." Uh . . . sorry, Mr. Piggott, but you're wrong. Apply your statement to every European nation prior to the Industrial Revolution. It fits all of them - and there wasn't an African tribe in sight. It took the Industrial Revolution to gradually devolve power to the people and undermine the all-powerful aristocracy - that, and the wars that accompanied it. The French Revolution started it, and many other revolutions, peaceful and violent, continued the process through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There was effectively no widespread middle class until economic reality forced those in power to allow it to develop - just as would have happened in tribal society, had economic pressures been allowed to do their inevitable work. You can equate aristocracy with tribal chiefs and leaders, if you wish - I think the similarities outweigh the differences. By legally enforcing the dominance of old, outdated tribal systems and culture, which stymied the development of a black middle class, the Afrikaners effectively condemned themselves to oblivion when the inevitable backlash arose - just as the aristocracy was effectively removed from power in most of Europe when it lost control.
- "Everything is downstream from biology and culture, in that order." Culture? Yes, I'll agree with that. Biology? Not so much. The biological distinction between races is so tiny as to be infinitesimal. The cultural differences matter far more, IMHO, and in the opinion of many who've studied the field in depth. Race is only skin deep. Culture is soul deep. If we leave primitive cultures in place, and fail to provide education, example and opportunity for them to evolve, we end up with crippled countries. How many colonial powers actually tried to educate the inhabitants of their colonies? Almost none. They wanted to exploit them, not develop them. How might Islam be different today if the various nations that colonized Muslim lands had provided real education, real economic opportunity, real separation of church and state? Because they did none of these things, we're stuck with an Islam that has yet to experience even a cultural Renaissance, let alone a Reformation. The result is the widespread violence and terrorism that plagues the Islamic world and our own societies to this day.
I'm a Christian pastor, so my responses are shaped and formed by my faith. From that perspective, I have to say that the situation in South Africa today seems to me to be a perfect illustration of the reality of the Biblical Golden Rule and its corollary passages in the New Testament.
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
"And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 6:31)
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." (Galatians 6:7)
"Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." (Luke 6:38)
Isn't that exactly what the Afrikaners did in South Africa? They "did unto others"; and, in due course, what they did was "done unto them" in turn. They sowed division, greed, oppression, injustice. What are they reaping today, if not the harvest they sowed for themselves? As they gave, so they are receiving, in "good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over".
May God grant that we avoid the same mistake. I hope and pray that Mr. Piggott, and the authors of the two articles in American Renaissance that have been referenced, will find food for thought in that.
EDITED TO ADD: Just to demonstrate how racist attitudes dominated the Afrikaner 'tribe': There are four dominant racial groups in South Africa: whites, blacks, indians (dot, not feather) and so-called "coloreds", meaning those of mixed race. The Afrikaner right-wingers were always hot under the collar about the latter, insisting that no, their existence didn't prove that Afrikaners had sexual relations with their slaves, or any other black people for that matter. They blamed the British. In fact, in the 1970's, an Afrikaner academic proclaimed loudly that the colored people were the result of "relations" between blacks and "visiting British seamen". A Cape Town newspaper retorted that, given the millions of colored people, "they must have been very Able Seamen!" Hilarity ensued.
It was around that time that another Afrikaner academic, this time of a liberal persuasion, calculated that almost every prominent Afrikaner family had between 6% and 9% of black ancestry, thanks to miscegenation over the years. He was (literally) tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail by outraged, rather less liberal Afrikaners.