[Quite a time back, an unknown reader calling himself a “Jewish Conservative” sent me this rather interesting commentary on Apartheid history. I’m not sure whether the poster is also the same as this Konrad Kruger guy on YouTube, but there is a link to a profile on YouTube that is interesting and which praises Dr Verwoed. Apartheid has been thoroughly demonised. There was some serious thinking that went into it, but as with everything to do with the blacks – all things relating to them fail. Beautifully, they will fail on an even grander scale themselves! The blacks *WILL* be even worse off under black rule, and I am thoroughly going to enjoy watching that! It will serve them right for being completely stupid enough to vote for the ANC in the first place. Jan]

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=KonradKruger

Dr. Verwoerd’s policy of ‘separate development’ was implemented and is regrettably commonly confused with Gen. Smuts’ apartheid. Separate Development sought to pre-empt the need for large scale migration of people to the towns and cities, by developing the economies of the homelands instead.

Verwoerd argued that a policy of economic decentralization would make for a peaceful multicultural society, with each community exercising its right of political self-determination, the political catch phrase after World War 2. Industrialists were encouraged with all sorts of tax incentives and labour benefits to establish industries on the homeland borders, resulting in a symbionic relationship between labour and capital within a common economic system. During the sixty’s and seventy’s, the country experienced an unprecedented economic growth. Unemployment was at its lowest in history. Each homeland had its own Development Corporation. Large communal estates were established, which provided jobs for thousands of peasant workers and which injected millions of dollars into the communal coffers. Tea estates, coffee plantations, citrus and dissiduous fruit estates with their own canning and processing faclities earned valuable foreign exchange for homelands and the region as a whole. Universities and Technikons were established for each language group, decentralised in line with the overall policy and turning out thousands or literate black professionals.

New capital cities were built, each with its own parliament and administration complexes. South Africa’ taxpayers gladly paid for “…these excesses of apartheid…” as they are being called nowadays. Mother tongue education was the philosophy for primary, as well as high schools where practicable. Ironically, these intitutions became the training ground for South Africa’s black rulers of the New South Africa.

Seen also against the Cold War that existed during the seventy’s and eighty’s, Africa’s role in that conflict, as well as the United States’ problems with its own emancipated black community, it is easy to understand why the policy of separate development, which maliciously was intertwined with racial segregation at socal level, could not be supported by the international community. In short, it was never understood that social apartheid was a distorted product of the country’s colonial history, whereas separate development is the application of the modern concept of self-determination for ethnic groups to preserve their identities and to foster peaceful co-existence with others without competing for the same resources.

There is no comparison between the economic development of the South African black homelands and the development of the independent neighbouring black states outside our borders. Tragically, those ‘apartheid’ training grounds that served today’s black leaders so well, have become relics of an apartheid past. The development corporations have been disbanded. The estates have been allowed to go to ruin. Millions of jobless and roofless people are flocking to the cities and towns and live in abject poverty conditions in tin shacks, posing serious health and security problems in breeding grounds for crime.

Is that not perhaps too high a price to be paid for a simplistic democratic system, now recognized by those familiar with the situation as a majoritarian tyranny? Is the untennable social engineering process of nation building sustainable in a country with its deep historical ethnic fault lines? I have often wondered how one could convince the authorities to stop believing their own lies about the appropriateness of the liberal dream of a unified nation perpetually served by the same political clique and to recognize the crucial role Afrikaners could play in the development this country and the African continent. All they ask for is to be accepted and respected as white Africans with their own peculiar cultural needs, which they want to transfer to their children without interference and be allowed to participate freely in the economy.