GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

Insofarasany ideologycanbeconceivedofashome-grown, the ideologyofApartheidwas a home-grown response byAfrikaner intellectuals and elites to racial tensions inSouthAfrica.InthisessayIarguethatideologicalcomparisonsbetweenJimCrowintheAmericanSouthandNazismarefalsebecauseApartheidhadahome-grownideologicalbasis,whichtooktheformofthreefundamentalnovelideologicalprinciples.Theseare:the idea of Afrikaners as an ‘elect people’ due to shared Afrikaner semi-mythologicalhistoricalexperience, the ‘culturalessentialism’ (Dubow,1995:246)of theAfrikaner’sperceived necessity to identify with the ‘Volk’ for the Volk’s survival, and that theculturaldifferencesbetweenthepseudo-tribesofAfricashouldbefullyinstitutionalised.However, although the ideological basis of Apartheidwas home-grown, the real-wordimplementationofApartheidideologyrepresentedby‘practicalApartheid’,didnotformintotal‘isolationfromtherestoftheworld’(Guelke,2004:40).JimCrowand,toalesserextent, Nazism had a modest tangible impact on how ‘practical Apartheid’ wasimplemented in the real world. The legislation of Jim Crow provided worthwhileguidelinesasanexistingcasestudyofcertaintypesofraciallegislation,similarformsofwhichwerelateremulatedandimplementedaspartof‘practicalApartheid’.Inaddition,the failure of Nazism in attempting to implement extreme and therefore unfeasibleracial policies, such as genocide, provided a valuable cautionary tale forAfrikaners indemonstrablyproving theneed to consider the actual chanceof real-world successofApartheidracialpolicies.Before I proceed to interrogate the extent towhichApartheidwas a genuinelyhome-grown response byAfrikaner intellectuals and elites to racial tensions, it is critical toclarifymydefinitionofApartheidforthepurposesofthisessay.InthisessayImaketheconcerted effort to distinguish between ‘ideal Apartheid’ and ‘practical Apartheid’. Idefine ‘ideal Apartheid’ as Apartheid in its existence as an abstract ideologicalconception.Idefine‘practicalApartheid’asthewaythattheabstractideologycontainedwithin ‘ideal Apartheid’ was materially manifested in the real world throughgovernmentpolicy.Thedistinctionbetween‘idealApartheid’and‘practicalApartheid’isimportantforthepurposesofthisessaybecauseImaketheassertionthattheideologyof ‘ideal Apartheid’was home-grown but that ‘practical Apartheid’was influenced by‘imports’.Inordertomakethisassertioninthisessay,IfocusprimarilyontheoriginsofApartheid as an abstract ideological conception (or ‘ideal Apartheid’). This is becausethe three fundamental novel ideological principles of ‘ideal Apartheid’ formed theoverarchingframeworkthatguidedAfrikanerintellectualsandelites’grandstrategyinresponse to racial tensions and ultimately dictated howApartheid as a responsewasmanifestedinthereal-worldcompromisesof‘practicalApartheid’.

Onarelatednote,Ialsoarguethatitwouldbereductionisttoassertthattheideologicalbasis of Apartheid ‘as monolithic … [ideal] Apartheid was a complex phenomenon’(Maylam, 2001: 201). Therefore for the purposes of interrogating the ideology ofApartheidwithinrealisticparameters,inthisessay,IrefertotheideologyofApartheidinitsformasconciselyconveyedbyVerwoerdinhistimeasprimeministerfrom1958to 1966 (Beinart, 1994: 140). This is because before Verwoerd’s ideologicalcrystallisation of Apartheid, it was not well-defined how Apartheid ideology was arevolution from segregation ideology and ‘various forces of Afrikaner nationalism…[still] had different interpretations’ (Guelke, 2004: 86) of the ideological basis forApartheid, such as the differences in interpretation between northern conservativeAfrikanersandmoreliberalAfrikanersintheCapeDutchSociety(Dubow,1992:212).

Discussionof the three fundamentalhome-grown ideologicalprinciplesof ‘idealApartheid’:Thefirst fundamentalhome-grownideologicalprincipleof ‘idealApartheid’ isthe ideaofAfrikanersasan ‘electpeople’,duetosharedAfrikanersemi-mythologicalhistorical

GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

experience. Apartheid ideology was founded on the premise that Afrikaners were a‘chosenpeople’(or‘Volk’).ThiscameaboutbecausesuccessiveAfrikanerorganisationsperpetuated a semi-mythological view of Afrikaner history whereby Afrikaners weresaidtohavesurvivedagainstalmostimpossibleoddsandthroughgreatadversitywiththe specific assistance of God. The Society of True Afrikaners perpetuated this semi-mythological history in 1875 with the publication of their own historical manuscriptdetailingtheheroicstrugglesoftheAfrikanerasGod’schosenpeople (Worden,2000:97). This semi-mythological history was authentically home-grown and based onseminalAfrikanereventsthatwerehighlyspecifictoAfrikanerssuchas;theGreatTrek,theBoers’heroicvictoryagainst theZulus in thebattleofBloodRiver, and theBoers’staunch resistance to the expansion of British imperialism in the Boerwars (Dubow,1992:224).ThisAfrikanerbelief that theywere ‘anelectpeople’ (BeinartandDubow,1995:198)cameaboutasa resultof these specific traumas thatAfrikaners sharedorwhat has also been called their ‘sacred history’, which has manifested itself in whatMoodie (1992)called theAfrikaner’s ‘civil religion’.This ‘civil religion’ordeep-rootedbelief embedded in semi-mythological history ‘provided the vital stimulus for thedevelopment of Afrikaner nationalism as amassmovement’ (Dubow, 1992: 210) andsubsequentlyconstitutedaprincipleoftheideologicalbasisofApartheid.Afrikanerself-belief in their elect status formed a key principle in Apartheid ideology and gaveAfrikanersasenseofmoralauthority,asenseofduty,andjustificationasgod’schosenraceinAfrica,toenact‘practicalApartheid’asaresponsetoracialtensions.The second fundamental home-grown ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ is the‘cultural essentialism’ (Dubow, 1995: 246) of the Afrikaner’s perceived necessity toidentify with the Volk for the Volk’s survival. The core notion of this ‘culturalessentialism’was‘thenotionthattherealizationofthefullhumanpotentialcomesnotfrom individual self-assertion but through identificationwith and service of the Volk’(Adam and Giliomee, 1979: 116). Afrikaner intellectuals and elites applied thisideological imperative integral to ‘ideal Apartheid’, to the hands-on initiatives of‘practicalApartheid’thatconcentratedontheVolk’skeyaimof‘upliftingitself’’(Dubow,2014: 6). This principle of cultural essentialism occurred as an organically withinAfrikanercultureasconsequenceof the fact thatAfrikanersneverhadtheprivilegeof‘safety in numbers’ (Giliomee, 2003[A]: 470) this was because the numericalvulnerabilityoftheVolk,giverisetosubstantialfearthattheVolkmightceasetoexistculturally, if it was not consolidated politically. This cultural essentialism is in starkcontrasttothecrudescientificracismdrawnfromthevocabularyofSocialDarwinism’(Dubow, 1995: 246) and associatedwithNazism and SouthAfrican ‘segregation’. Thelanguageofculturalessentialismonlyinferred‘biologicaltheoriesofracialsuperiority…ratherthantoasserttheseopenly’(Dubow,1995:246)andbiologicalracistargumentscommon in most foreign racial movements were therefore ‘eschewed in favour ofcultural essentialism’ (Fredrickson, 2003: 135). What undergirded Afrikaner culturalessentialism, rather than racism outcomes (like many foreign racial ideologies), waspoliticalandculturalsurvival,ashasbeenputforwardbyGiliomee(2003[A]:470).Cillie(1954:45-47)argued that the ideologicalmotiveofApartheidwas ‘notdetractionbutdefence’oftheVolkandthatAfrikaners'survivalinstinctwasstrongerthananysenseofraceprejudice.Moodie(1992)hasarguedtothecontrarytomyassertionthatthiscoreprincipleofApartheidorganic.Heinfactarguesthatculturalessentialism,andthereforethe response to racial tensions by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites, was highlyinfluenced by the imported ‘neo-fichtean’ ‘idealized view of the nation or Volk as acollective organism’ (Dubow, 1995: 261). However, I argue that because Afrikaner‘culturalessentialist’thoughtwassogroundedintheAfrikaner’sownfearsasaresultofnumerical vulnerability and of course also influenced their own unique semi-mythological experience, the principle of cultural essentialism that undergirdedApartheidwasnotapre-formulated‘neo-fichtean’import.

GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

The third fundamental home-grown ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ is thatcultural differences between the pseudo-tribes of South Africa should be fullyinstitutionalised.This fundamentalprincipleof ‘idealApartheid’, in its fully-developedform as conveyed by Verwoerd, was heavily influenced by Afrikaner intellectual andelite,WernerEiselen,whoassertedthat‘hereditaryandculturalcharacteristics’amongthepseudo-tribesofSouthAfrica‘functionedasasocialbarrier’andshouldthereforebe‘reflected institutionally’ (Dubow, 1992: 232). This emphasis that cultural differencesbetweenthepseudo-tribesofSouthAfricashouldbefullyinstitutionalisedthatformedakey ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ led to the proposal of ‘project of socialengineering the like of which the world had never seen’ (Harrison, 1981: 169). ThisprojectwasthecreationoftheBantusans,agrandreal-worldattempttoresolvetheso-called ‘Veelvolkigge’ (multi-ethnic situation) in South Africa and thus prevent racialtension as a component of ‘practical Apartheid’. This creation of the Bantusansrepresented a significant ideological shift in relation to the well-established racialsupremacist principles that had formed the basis of justifications the ideology ofsegregation. This prior segregationist ideology consisted of the Afrikaners as the‘Herrenvolk’(masterrace)inaroleas‘Baas’(Overseerofotherraces)throughoutSouthAfrica.ThisunapologeticallywhitesupremacistideawascommunicatedbyJGStrydomeven in the early 1950s,wherehe argued that Europeans should ‘stand their ground’againstotherraces,inordertoremainBaas(Fredrickson,2003:134).In sharp contrast to thewhite supremacist values of segregation, the fully developedideological impetus of ‘ideal Apartheid’, as conveyed by Verwoerd, that put stress oninstitutionalising cultural difference did so on the basis that ‘biological differencesamongthebigracegroups’areinconsequentialindeterminingraces’abilitytodeveloptoreacha‘highersocialcivilization’(Miller,1993:650).Thestressoninstitutionalisingcultural difference was instead for the purpose of eliminating inevitable points of‘frictionbetweentheraces’aretotallyeliminated(Harrison,1981:170).Thisideologicalaimbehindinstitutionalisingculturaldifferencesbetweenpseudo-tribesofSouthAfricawasvirtuallyutopianin itspurestconception, itwaspostulatedthatseparationwouldallow ‘survivaland fulldevelopment,politicallyandeconomically, toeachof theotherracial groups as well’ as Afrikaners (Giliomee, 2003[A]: 521). Theoretically, self-containedBantusanswould‘granttootherethnicgroupswhatAfrikanersdemandedforthemselves’(O’Meara,1996:65-66),althoughthesadrealityof‘practicalApartheid’wasthatbecauseofa lackofdeterminedstate investment into theBantusans, ‘virtuallynodevelopmentatsecondarylevel’actuallytookplace(Harrison,1981:179).Thespecificdecisionsmade regarding the creation of the Bantusanswere deeply rooted in tribalcustom(DavenportandSaunders,2000:337)andwasdrawnalongcarefullyconsideredpseudo-tribal lines. This is because the Bantusan system had to rely ‘on someacceptance and collaboration’ if it was realistically going to be successful from itsbeginning (Cell, 1982: 252). Thus as part of the implementation of this aspect of‘practical Apartheid’, Chiefs such as Chief Buthelezi of KwaZulu ‘were elevated topositions of unprecedented authority’ (Beinart and Dubow, 1995: 16). Although theimplementation of theBantusanswas top-down, ‘several studies suggest’ the pseudo-tribal distinctions that were drawn were vindicated because to some extent theyresonated‘withstrandsinAfricanpolitics’(BeinartandDubow,1995:17).However, it is asserted by Dubow (Dubow, 2014: 20), amongst others, that thissomewhat utopian vision of the Bantusans within ‘ideal Apartheid’ is an ‘imported’variation of Kuyperian theology. Kuyerperian theology centred on the notion that‘societywas an organicwhole, albeit one thatwas divided into separate spheres’ andthat separation should exist between social institutions, to reflect these separatespheres.However, IarguebecausetheBantusansweredividedinaccordancewiththe

GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

SouthAfricanpseudo-scientificsetting,thisgrandresponsetoracialtensionswashome-grown.InadditiontotheBantusansbeingformulatedwiththisspecificattention,JDDuToit formulated a religious basis for the Bantusans that differed from KuyperiantheologyandwasthatwasintegratedintoApartheid,asconveyedbyVerwoerd.DuToit‘emphasizedgod’sroleas‘Hamabdil’(thegreatdivider)andarguedthattheBoers’trek‘away from the liberal Cape to create their own nation’ (Dubow, 1992: 217-218)exemplified God’s will in establishing national distinction along Volk lines, and theBantusansshouldbejustifiedforthesamereasonsAddressing the contention that Nazism was imported as part of Afrikaners’responsetoracialtensions:The Afrikaner’s obsession, grounded in their own semi-mythological history, of beinggod’s‘chosenpeople’hasledtocontentionsthatNazismideologyinfluencedApartheidideology.Most of these claims are however of little analytical value because they aremainlybasedonimpreciseobservationsofsemanticsimilaritiesbetweenApartheidandNazism. Such a semantic observations is that the ideologies ‘are of the same genre…driven by the same sense of cultural despair, the same group hatreds and personalresentments’(Sparks,1991:162–163).NazismisthestarkestexampleofaracialpolicygroundedinsocialDarwinismandeugenicsinthemoderneraandIconcurwithAdam(1971: 47) in arguing that ‘comparisons between National Socialism and the southAfrican race system tend to cloud rather than clarify the specific circumstances’.Observationsofsuchvaguesemanticthemessuchasthe‘genre’of‘culturaldespair’donotconstituteevidencefortheinspirationofoneideologybyanother.Others,whocontendthatApartheidideologywasbasedonthe‘import’ofNazism,arguethat Afrikaner support for Nazis in the Second World War such as evident in thefoundation of ‘Ossewabrandwag’, signified that Nazi racial supremacist ideology waspopular amongst Afrikaners and therefore naturally formed a part of Apartheidideology. However, I argue in line with Guelke (2004: 78) that Hitler, and the Nazis,wereempathisedwithbytheAfrikanersinsamewaythatsomeAfrikanersempathisedwith the ‘Irish nationalists’ due to Afrikaners’ own negative experiences of Britishimperialism,becausetheyfeltasthoughEnglandactedimperialisticallytowardsIrelandand ‘radical Irish nationalists’. The reason some Afrikaners supported the Nazis isbecausetheysawanyenemyoftheirBritishadversaries,assomewhatofafriend.ThisexplanationrehabilitatesthefacttheVerwoerdformulatedtheApartheidideologythatdidn’t even include the basic Nazi premise of social Darwinism, didn’t agree witharguments ‘for the importance of physical or psychological traits of race or Volk areunsubstantiated’ (Miller, 1993: 651), and yet was proven to have produced Nazipropagandainthelate1930sandearly1940s(Guelke,2004:32).However, whilst I have argued that contentions that Apartheid ideology andconsequentlyAfrikaner intellectuals and elites’ response to racial tensions,wasbasedonthe‘import’ofNazism,therewereminorpragmaticlessonsthatwastakenfromthefailureofNazism to succeed in its initial aims, affectinghow ‘practicalApartheid’wasdeployed in South Africa. From Nazism, Afrikaner intellectuals and elites learned theimportant lessons that they needed to reign-in the utopian ambitions of their racialphilosophy and make sure that, unlike Nazism, the realistic chance of success ofApartheidpolicieswasproperlyconsidered.Addressing the contention that Jim Crow was imported as part of Afrikaners’responsetoracialtensions:TheneedforAfrikaner’stoimplementlegislationtopreservetheVolkalongraciallinesin linewith theprescriptionsof cultural essentialismhas led to comparisonsbetweenApartheidideologyandaforeignideology,theideologybehindtheJimCrowLawsinthe

GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

AmericanSouth.Manyhaveerroneouslyarguedthatracial lawsinSouthAfrica,whichundoubtedlybearsignificantresemblanceintheirformulationtotheJimCrowLaws,areevidence that Apartheid intellectuals and elites imported ideological ideas from theAmericanSouthtointegrateintoApartheidideology.Suchcomparisonsmadebetweenthe Jim Crow Laws and South Africa’s Immorality Amendment Act of 1950 andProhibitionofMixedMarriagesBillof1949,thelatterofwhichwasinfactjustifiedinitsdraftingbyEbenDonges‘byreferencetotheexistenceofasimilarlawin30statesintheUnited States’ (Giliomee, 2003[B]: 377), are misguided. Although in term pragmaticstepsJimCrowand‘practicalApartheid’took,JimCrowwasmuchmorealignedtoSouthAfrica than Nazi Germany (Giliomee, 2003[B]: 377), the guidance that Jim Crowprovided for Apartheid was not ideological. Afrikaner intellectuals and elites onlyderived legislative guidance from the case study of Jim Crow legislation so that theycoulddraftthemostsensiblyformulatedlegislationpossibleaspartoftheresponsetoracialtensionsthatwas‘practicalApartheid’.AstheideologicalarchitectofApartheiditis significant that ‘there isnoevidence thatVerwoerd showedany interest inor evenhadanyknowledgeofsocialengineeringasitwasdiscussedintheUnitedStates’(Miller,1993:656).Conclusions:Afrikaner intellectuals and elites’ intellectual response to racial tensions, whollyencompassed within their conception ‘ideal Apartheid’, was organically authored bynovel Afrikaner thought. The three fundamental ideological principles of Apartheidwere: the idea of Afrikaners as an ‘elect people’ due to shared Afrikaner semi-mythologicalhistoricalexperience,theculturalessentialismoftheAfrikaner’sperceivednecessity to identifywith theVolk for theVolk’ssurvival,andthatculturaldifferencesbetweenthepseudo-tribesofAfricashouldbefullyinstitutionalised.Thus,contentionsthat the ideology of Apartheid as a response to racial tension, directly influenced byNazismorJimCrowsideology,inevitablyfail.InthecaseofNazism,theuseofobservedvague semantic themes such as the existence of pockets of Afrikaner Nazi supportduring the SecondWorldWar as evidence for import of ideological ideas, fails. In thecase of Jim Crow, highlighting similarities within the drafting of both regimes’ raciallegislationasevidence,alsofails.However,JimCrowandtoalesserextentNazismhadtangible impact on how ‘practical Apartheid’was implemented in the realworld as aresponsetoracialtensionsinSouthAfrica.Bothprovidedusefullessonsascasestudies.JimCrowofferedguidancefortheformulationofcertainpiecesofApartheidlegislationandNazism highlighted the need to curb real-world ambitions of ‘ideal Apartheid’ sothat‘practicalApartheid’wasrealisticinitsscope.

Bibliography:

Books-

GilesThompson-TowhatextentwasApartheidagenuinely‘homegrown’responsebyAfrikanerintellectualsandelitestoracialtensions?

• Adam,H.(1971),‘Modernizingracialdomination:DynamicsofSouthAfricanpolitics’.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

• Adam,H. andGiliomee,H. (1979), ‘EthnicPowerMobilized:CanSouthAfricaChange?’.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

• Beinart,W.(1994),‘Twentieth-centurySouthAfrica’.Oxford:OxfordPaperbacks.• Beinart, W. and Dubow, S. (1995), ‘Segregation and apartheid in twentieth-century South

Africa’.NewYork:Taylor&Francis.• Cell,J.W.(1982),‘Higheststageofwhitesupremacy:TheoriginsofsegregationinSouthAfrica

andtheAmericansouth’.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.• Davenport,T.R.H.andSaunders,C.(2000),‘SouthAfrica:Amodernhistory’.Basingstoke:

PalgraveMacmillan.• Dubow,S.(1995)ScientificracisminmodernSouthAfrica.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.• Dubow,S.(2014),‘Apartheid,1948-1994’.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.• Fredrickson,G.M.(2003),‘Racism:Ashorthistory’.NewYork:PrincetonUniversityPress.• Giliomee,H.B.(2003[A]),‘TheAfrikaners,the:Biographyofapeople’.London:CHurst&Co

Publishers.• Guelke,A. (2004), ‘Rethinkingtheriseandfallofapartheid:SouthAfricaandworldpolitics’.

NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.• Harrison,D.(1981),‘WhitetribeofAfrica:SouthAfricainperspective’.London:BBC.• Maylam, P. (2001), ‘South Africa’s racial past: The history and historiography of racism,

segregation, and apartheid (research in migration and ethnic relations)’. London: AshgatePublishing.

• Moodie, D. (1992), ‘Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid and Afrikaner Civil Religion’.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

• O’Meara, D. (1996), ‘Forty Lost Years: The Apartheid State and the Politics of the NationalParty,1948–1994.Randburg:RavanPress.

• Sparks, A. (1991), ‘The Mind of South Africa: The Story of the Rise and Fall of Apartheid’.London:Mandarin.

• Worden,N.(2000),‘ThemakingofmodernSouthAfrica:Conquest,segregationandapartheid’.Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers.

JournalArticles-

• Giliomee,H.(2003[B]),‘Themakingoftheapartheidplan,1929-1948’.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies,29(2),pp.373–392.

• Cillie,P.(1954),‘RepublishededitorialfromDieTransvaler’.JournalofRacialAffairs,1(6),pp.45-47.

• Dubow,S.(1992),‘Afrikanernationalism,apartheidandtheconceptualizationof“race”’.TheJournalofAfricanHistory,33(2),pp.209–237.

• Miller,R.B.(1993),‘ScienceandsocietyintheearlycareerofH.F.Verwoerd’.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies,19(4),pp.634–661.