Is the dissolution of the Afrikaner tribe only a century away? Part 2: Historical determinants and role players in the establishment and maintenance of racial discrimination in the mindsets of Afrikaners

Gabriel Louw
Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Arts,
Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa
Corresponding Author:
Prof Dr GP Louw
Focus Area Social Transformation
Faculty of Arts
Potchefstroom Campus
North-West University
South Africa
Apartheid, Afrikaanse, Afrikaner, ANC regime, assimilation, Boer, Burgher, Calvinistic, Cape Dutch, civilisation, conflict, discrimination, dissolution, ethnicity, genocide, Herodotus curse, doctrine, internalize, miscegenation, non-White, parent stock, proto-Afrikaner, Protestantism, race, racism, violence, White
Ensovoort volume 37(2017), number 9:2
Separation on the basis of ethnicity and race in South Africa during apartheid to benefit the Whites and to suppress the Black majority was not only a very controversial move, but also a devastating political dispensation driven by Whites up to 1994. It was not a voluntary process, but one that Whites one-sidedly forced on Blacks, Asians, Coloureds, and other races from 1671 onwards. The pertinent question is: What motivated the Afrikaner to practice statutory racial and ethnic discrimination up to 1994? Was it an erroneous belief in White supremacy; a selfish appropriation of prosperity at the cost of others; a doctrine implemented by leaders with masked intentions to abuse their mandate to obtain benefits for themselves at costs of the other Afrikaners and Black population? Was it an outcome that resulted from the Afrikaner’s negative personal and collective experiences over many years, resulting in revenge, and compensatory behaviour? Or did they learn and internalize deviant behaviour from bad examples during their historical development?1-5
Present-day research on racial discrimination is mainly focused on the negative consequences for the victims of apartheid. The emphasis is on the situations and environments that developed from apartheid, like the implications of the financial burdens and poverty it created for and the psychological hurt and scars left on the victims. Many of efforts are aimed at finding ways to correct the wrong-doing with strategies like affirmative action to create equal work opportunities and to restore the civil and personal rights of the victims of apartheid. The focus on political correctness that developed after 1994 has hampered balanced research on the structure and dynamics of apartheid. This trend led to a very one-sided, emotional, and superficial focus on apartheid victims and their fate in the new South Africa. The outcome is that apartheid has not been researched as an entity in itself. Research with a focus on the victims and the culprits of apartheid, the Afrikaners specifically, is rare in South Africa. There has been very little reflection on possible historical determinants and role players that inspired apartheid, caused it to be internalized, and drove, and maintained it in the mindset of Afrikaners. Critics of apartheid have generally ignored the context surrounding the origin and practice of apartheid in research since 1994 in their efforts to blame Afrikaners as solely responsible for all South Africa’s present-day political, social, and economic ills. Worldwide, Afrikaners are successfully portrayed as selfish White racists without any pity, mercy, or empathy for other racial groups or their interests. The true reasons for the development of apartheid and the way in which Afrikaners were born into this controversy are blindly ignored by political opportunists and human rights critics. As Afrikaner numbers and their political impact diminish, they are dropping below the radar for “Apartheid crimes” and revenge for the past. Balanced research on the possible historical determinants and role players in the establishment, maintenance, and practice of racial and ethnic discrimination in the mindsets of Afrikaners is of critical importance. Only once these factors have been fore grounded can apartheid be understood in its full complexity and a sound judgement been made.1-8
Spence8, p. 13 writes that the phrase ‘white civilisation’ is often dismissed contemptuously as euphemism for ‘white supremacy’, but he states that is the oversimplifying of a complex set of attitudes and beliefs unique to the Afrikaners: the Afrikaners were rightly the first nationalists in Africa as Harold Macmillan already remarked in 1960.This nationalism included a complexity that can not easily defined. Should the Afrikaners bowed already in the 1960s to pressures, it would be more than a system of privilege that will crumble, more than deep-rooted prejudices that would suffered, a nation would be lose its identity (as reflected well in 2017). Spence argued so far back as in the 1960s that the Afrikaners’ ideological inflexibility in the face of internal and external criticisms of their racial policy had given Afrikaner-politics a rigidity far removed from the tradition of compromise and adaptation to changing circumstances which animates political activity in Western societies.8He writes8, p. 19:
Apartheid is no subject for mockery or facile comment. It is very grim, very important, very difficult. Of the men in South Africa who support it some are uninformed and deeply prejudiced; still others are angry or frightened: many feel helpless or bewildered; selfishness and indifference are common. These attitudes are easily discernible amongst both English and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population. There is, however, a gross and dangerous error in not recognizing that the best of the advocates of apartheid are men of personal worthiness, with genuinely conscientious and moral spirits. This concession is not in conflict with the opposite admission that there exists in the present government an ugly and sinister self-righteousness which seems prepared to sacrifice the liberty and comity of a democratic society in order to attain the harsh ends of an imperious racial nationalism. Yet it is still wrong to believe that a body of ungenerous and selfish motives is all that sustains the doctrine of apartheid.
The racial discrimination perpetrated by Afrikaners against other races because the blood of these races is contaminated by Black blood, is clearly unjustifiable when using the genetic heritage of Afrikaners as a measuring stick. What is more, White Afrikaners cannot claim to be the sole owners of the name “Afrikaner” and the Afrikaans language. Their use of racial discrimination to fight off challenges to their name and language is without any basis. The fact is that the Afrikaner is bio-physically part of the multiracial South African community. Afrikaner discrimination against other races could not always have been driven by sound thinking and reasoning. This lack of insight is inexplicable. Various agents, determinants, and role players, sometimes outside the constitution of the Afrikaner, could have activated these deviating behaviours and could have played masked and unspoken roles in its development.
Various negative and conflicting Afrikaner experiences over generations made them conform and adapt to specific behaviours to survive in a system where they felt threatened. Certain experiences can result in psychological predispositions in the human mind about the behaviour and intentions of other persons. Such predispositions could have dominated and steered the Afrikaner’s actions and reactions over a long time. Their ideas may have included assumed and real cognitions on negative Black racial inclinations and actions. In the Afrikaner, this ended specifically in discriminatory and opportunistic behaviour towards other races. The racially discriminatory examples set by government authorities and other Afrikaner institutions and groups, set the stage for discrimination as an approved and acceptable, even a prescribed, lifestyle for the Afrikaner.2-5
In this regard is it important to note that negative experiences with the current Black majority government can still stimulate or strengthening established racial attitudes or reignite racist behaviours. This is the action-reaction syndrome.8-12
Belief systems that had been inculcated over generations and which had become firmly established in individuals and groups remain part of these individuals and groups long after the initial stimuli have disappeared. It has a momentum of its own. This also goes for certain negative past experiences losses versus positive experiences gains. This learned predisposition, awakened, and maintained by conditioning, overrides even the soundest cognitive thinking.11,13
The Afrikaner propensity for racial and ethnic discrimination and their disregard for sound thinking and reasoning seem to be anchored in their own history as individuals and ad a tribe in South Africa on the one hand, and the history of the South African peoples on the other. The relationships between these peoples as historical entities, sometimes intertwined, and sometimes oppositional, show many similarities with that of the privileged and racially subjective Whites of the Old and New Europe. Peoples in the Old and New Europe are also inclined to ethnic violence and genocide. There is also the masked racial domination of the Whites of the United States of America up to the 1960s and the current racial conflict and discrimination in Europe in reaction to migrants from Syria, Iraq, and Libya. On the other hand, history reflects a Black propensity for serious racial and ethnic violence and genocide in Africa, especially in early South Africa, comparable to the events that marked the worldwide de-placement and elimination of racial and ethnic minorities from the late 1800s up to the present.4,14-18
It is important to note that not all Afrikaners agreed with the National Party’s (NP) racial policy or were ever members of the NP and nationalist Afrikaner organizations like the Afrikaner Bond (AB) and the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC). They were not all racists in their lifestyles, even though they had been exposed to bad examples. There is often a clear political and cultural difference between nationalist Afrikaners and ordinary Afrikaners. There is evidence of this in the strong support many Afrikaners had for the South African Party (SAP) of general JC Smuts up to the late 1950s, and their membership of the later Progressive Party and its successor, the Democratic Alliance. Many Afrikaners belong to cultural organizations like the Freemasons, an international British-orientated organization that is quite the opposite of the AB, which solely underwrites Afrikaner nationalism. This division is also reflected by the Afrikaans membership of English churches, which early on opposed apartheid and the political ideologies of the nationalist Afrikaners. The political division among Afrikaners on racism was so prominent that descriptions for this phenomenon emerged as Afrikaner liberals were referred to as “Afrikaner Sappe” while nationalists were referred to as “Afrikaner Natte.”3,4,17-21, 23
This highlights the enormous differences in the political, racial and cultural thinking of the earlier racially driven Northern Afrikaners (the Transvaal’s and Free State Boers and Burghers) and the earlier liberal Southern Afrikaners (Cape Dutch). This division became more overt after the 1980s, especially as Afrikaners started publishing anti-apartheid content or started making anti-apartheid statements. Many started joining political parties that opposed the NP and the AB.19-21
Notwithstanding these differences among different Afrikaner groups, most Afrikaners are stereotyped as racists. After 1994 the incoming ANC regime and prominent Blacks have been discriminating against Afrikaners for their own political profits. The initial strong opposition against the NP Broederbonder-Afrikaners’ thinking from the side of liberal (dissident) Afrikaners, the English, and Portuguese-speaking White South African minorities, religious dominations outside the domain of the Dutch Reform Church families, like the Charismatic and Roman Catholic churches and the Islamic and Buddhist religions, dramatically declined from the 1970s onwards. This made the regime of the NP-Broederbonder-Afrikaners politically untouchable and uncontrollable. On the other hand, these opposing liberal Afrikaners never stepped away from the benefits of apartheid under the NP regime. In practice, many Afrikaners outside the NP-DRC-AB regime were involved in the practice and maintenance of apartheid. The system generated many benefits, directly, or indirectly. They embraced these benefits while at the same time publically criticizing and opposing apartheid. It was only in the 1980s that true political liberalism emerged again and that liberal Afrikaner resistance to apartheid resurfaced more openly. However, this new level of opposition did not mean that liberal Afrikaners, despite their more open hostile orientation against apartheid and the NP-Broederbonder-Afrikaners, stopped participating in apartheid, or stopped benefitting broadly from the system. It was still with them, but only well masked.2,3,5-7
There is an enormous difference between objecting Apartheid and opposing Apartheid because you don’t like it and automatically being a beneficiary of Apartheid because you are White, an insight even the “liberal” Afrikaners seem to miss or are not honest enough to recognize publically. These long-term exclusive benefits and enrichment that apartheid brought for most Afrikaners, notwithstanding their political orientation, is reflected in the current call of Black politicians for the “second revolution” of the 1994 dispensation. This would entail radical economic transformation (RET) through White capital capture. Apartheid is seen, in the eyes of Blacks, as a collective guilt shared by every Afrikaner, young, and old, past, and present.19-21, 25-29
What motivated proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners to accept, underwrite, and practice racial discrimination?
The aim of the study is to analyse and describe the historical determinants and role players in the establishment and maintenance of racial discrimination in the minds of Afrikaners.

  • This article is the second in a series of seven. The seven articles address the following research topics: 1) who is the Afrikaner?; 2) historical determinants and role players in the establishment and maintenance of racial discrimination in the minds of Afrikaners; 3) present and past negative determinant and role players in the establishment and maintenance of injustices in the minds of Afrikaners; 4) the Afrikaners’ failure to understand, accept and intertwine the indigenous realities of South Africa; 5) the vicious cycle of revenge and contra revenge around apartheid; 6) preparedness of Afrikaners to deal with the realities and challenges of new South Africa; 7) 2017 is the time for thinking, planning, and action.


  • The overarching intention of the total study is to determine the position of the Afrikaner in the year 2117.


  • Method

The research was done by means of a literature review. This method has the aim of building a view from the evidence as the research develops. This approach is used in modern historical research where there is a lack of an established library, like the Afrikaner’s present and future position in South Africa. EBSCOHost and Sabinet online were used to source articles from 2016 and 2017, books for the period 1944 to 2017, newspapers for 2016, and 2017 to reflect on the Afrikaners and to put thinking trends, views, and opinions on the Afrikaners in perspective. 30-32
The research findings are presented in narrative format.

  • Results

3.1 The Afrikaner’s propensity for racial and ethnic discrimination
In-depth reflection on the Afrikaner’s interactions and experiences with other races in South Africa is paramount for insight and understanding of the Afrikaner’s racially discriminatory psycho-social, historical, and political set-up. At the moment, the devastating impacts of certain historical events are completely ignored. Many Black leaders, politicians, and opinion makers, when confronted with it, even reject it as untrue, in step with the post 1994 policy of political correctness. The impact of these negative events and their internalization in the minds of the proto-Afrikaner and later Afrikaner is intentionally side-lined by proponents of Black empowerment in the new South Africa. These events influenced the design and maintenance of discrimination, and this is the case even today. The spirit of political correctness that grew out of an honest attempt to bring reconciliation after 1994, does not allow the people of South Africa to confront untruths and myths with truths and facts.4,33
In order to put the roles that Jan van Riebeeck, the proto-Afrikaners (often described with names like Cape Dutch, Voortrekkers, Grens-Boers, Boers, and Burghers, etc) and the Afrikaner of today played in the racial and ethnic colonial wrong-doings in South Africa into clear perspective – away from the current emotional and political rhetoric – it is necessary to also put possible Black colonial wrong-doings in South Africa into perspective. Only through such an attempt can the Afrikaner’s role in racial and ethnic discrimination be understood and evaluated in context, although still limited. Such an approach offers the opportunity to use the Herodotus rules on proper government as a yardstick to measure if the many current discriminative racial, ethnic and political accusations against the Afrikaner as an individual and as a group are full truths, and if the overwhelming national and international prejudices against the Afrikaner are fully justified. Are the labels racism, political power abuse, and genocide not applicable to all the peoples of South Africa to a certain extent?2,3,5,25,34-39
Intertwined conflicts, suffering and exploitation formed central determinants in the development, appropriation, strengthening and execution of the Afrikaner’s racial and ethnic discrimination. The following learned behaviours, all with a political, psychological, racial, and social under-build and clearly unique to the Afrikaner’s past and present context, need further discussion:

  • Negative ethnic and racial influences of early Cape authorities
  • Black-on-Black violence and genocide in South Africa
  • White-on-White violence and genocide in South Africa
  • Negative modern-day European and Western influences
  • Afrikaner institutions of racial and ethnic discrimination

3.1.1 Negative ethnic and racial influences by early Cape authorities
Some of the external influences to which the Afrikaners were exposed were clearly not good social and political standards and principles. Some of these influences were accepted, but influences were also sometimes forced on the Afrikaners by the various early Cape and South African authorities. These influences became their leadership examples and were internalized in their mindset. This internalization of examples and values contributed to the Afrikaner’s improper and inhuman actions later on with respect to other racial groups. The early Cape authorities’ views and laws on the human and personal rights of other racial groups led to the internalization of racial discrimination as correct and normal. This propensity for racial discrimination was further enhanced by the compensations that racial discrimination and exploitation had for the proto-Afrikaner right from the start of the Cape settlement. The inclination to discriminate against other races was further strengthened by the slave ownership by Whites at the Cape. Slavery nullified the personal rights and dignity of other racial groups. The abnormal became the normal.3-5, 23
Various determinants and role players in the Afrikaner’s negative learned behaviour can be identified: The Goske instruction of 1671 and the other internalizations of racial discrimination in the thinking of the early Cape Settlers and Colonists
The years immediately following the Dutch settlement led by Van Riebeeck and the arrival of various other Europeans at the Cape of Good Hope were marked by intimate social association and miscegenation between the different races, including the slaves (Indian-Malaysians and Blacks from Madagascar). In 1958 slaves started to arrive from Malaysia and other places, and indigenous people like the Hottentots and sometimes the Boesmans (KhoiSan) entered slavery as well. With the introduction of the system of free burghers at the Cape in 1657 the social- and workforce changed from strictly controlled VOC officials and employees (and the accompanying European lifestyles) to private entrepreneurs like free fishermen, bakers, hunters, masons, wagon builders, woodcutters, gardeners, etc., characterized by a much less rigid behaviour code. These newcomers not only made their own living, but also started to live a lifestyle away from the VOC’s moral restrictions. Restrictions included prohibitions on social association and intermixing with other races. The shortage of female citizens stimulated social interaction and miscegenation between White free burghers and other racial groups. The authorities did not intend for the further growth of the settlement’s population, which numbered 144 persons by 1659. This plan was fast undone by the miscegenation between the races because of the shortage of incoming women from Europe and the subsequent increase in mixed offspring. Racial mingling progressed so fast that 75% of all the children born to slave women between 1650 and 1670 had White fathers.18,40-42
This interracial interaction, however, was quickly restricted by the narrow-minded Calvinistic bureaucracy of the autocratic local ruler of the Cape, the Dutch East India Company (better known as the “Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie” or VOC). An official instruction in 1671 from the executive manager of the VOC, Commissioner Isbrand Goske, prohibited sexual intercourse between Whites and slaves, while the Political Council of the VOC also forbade extramarital sexual intercourse between White men and young slave women in 1678. This was followed by a prohibition on marriages and extramarital sexual relations between Whites and freed slaves in 1685. The focus of racial discrimination was initially on foreign peoples (slaves of Indian-Malaysian origin and Blacks from Madagascar) and other indigenous people like the Hottentots. It seems as if indigenous Blacks, like the Xhosas, were not initially included in the South African racial discrimination that started in 1671. Indigenous Black assimilation only started by 1730 with the first contact between the proto-Afrikaners and the Xhosas on the borders of the colony.17,18,40,41
The racial discrimination described above, exclusively based on skin colour and officially recorded in 1671 with the Goske instruction, can be regarded as the first apartheid law of South Africa. Goske was the first White proponent of organized racial discrimination, eventually against all people of colour. However, this discrimination seemed to adhere to a view where ethnicity is seen in terms of class, meaning that the poor, and therefore to a certain extent the underdeveloped non-Whites at the Cape, were regarded as having a lower socio-economical standing and as “untouchables.” The slaves especially were stripped from their human rights and dignity and their financial and personal independence. They were impoverished. Also, the initial problems with the behaviour of the first slaves in 1658 and the Hottentots in terms of work and social habits and aggressiveness already manifested from 1652. This contributed further to levels of social differentiation and discrimination between certain sectors of the White community and other racial groups in general (specifically guided and practiced officially by the Cape authority). It is in this context that the VOC implemented a strict policy of separation between Whites and the other races like the slaves, Hottentots and Blacks from 1671. Later the Xhosas, with whom the Whites started to make contact in 1730, were included. This was extended to all Blacks and to all other races in South Africa from the 1850s onwards, especially in the republics of Transvaal and the Free State. The year 1671 can therefore be considered the beginning of socio-controlled racial manipulation and engineering in South Africa, specifically with the aim of Whites limiting and managing the personal and group rights of all other racial groups in some way.17,18
This means that discrimination based on skin colour was legally established in South Africa in 1671 by the VOC. It was managed from the Netherlands, and not initially by the White incumbents. Notwithstanding this early legal discrimination, illegal clandestine relationships and illegitimate relations between the different races still continued in South Africa, even up to 1994 when the Immorality Act that legally prohibited sexual relations and miscegenation between White and non-Whites was struck off the law books.5,18
The majority of the early Cape Whites, mostly of whom became the proto-Afrikaners, were not only introduced to statutory racial discrimination and domination by the authorities from 1652 onwards, but also became acclimatized to racial discrimination due to the formal human and political wrong-doings of the authorities towards other races. Formal discrimination became internalized in the thinking of the proto-Afrikaners as “normal and correct” and this was strengthened by the many benefits the system brought them. The immediate result was that they started to practice discrimination themselves on a continuous and extreme basis.4,17,18 Discrimination policies of the Dutch and British authorities
Discrimination against other races was not only impressed on the Whites at the Cape by the racial policies of the VOC, but also later by the Dutch and British rulers. The tendency of the British authorities to position Blacks and Whites against each other was another contributor to the later negative racial inclinations of the proto-Afrikaners. It strengthened of their established discriminatory inclinations. Prominent here were the liberal British authorities at the Cape’s equalization of Blacks and Whites in 1828 with Ordinance 50, as well as the negative political and financial impact that the emancipation of the slaves in 1834 had on the proto-Afrikaner, the liberal Cape Constitution of 1835 with its non-distinction between races, together with the negative political and social influences of the liberal English missionaries on the political and personal rights of the proto-Afrikaner. Afrikaners saw these liberal British outcomes as endangering their immediate livelihoods and positions as citizens. The other races were not only directly responsible for this situation, but also became future competitors in a new liberal-political society that not did not favour Afrikaners.17,18,43
These official liberal political outcomes undoubtedly further increased and hardened the already established racism of the proto-Afrikaner. This official British race-linearism, together with the British denial of the proto-Afrikaner’s political rights and the Afrikaner’s own developing proto-Afrikaner nationalism led to the Great Trek and the establishment of the two independent republics, the Free State and Transvaal. The republics were both racially defined (although free from slavery) from the beginning and were outright anti-British establishments.3,17,18,44
The liberal British politics of the 1830s at the Cape also affected the proto-Afrikaner churches’ racial inclinations and practices negatively. From the 1850s, the three main Afrikaans churches [the DRC and the two other Reformed Churches (RCs) established in the two Boer republics] also developed a racist slant and reflected a dramatically hardened racial and ethnic discrimination. This growing discriminative and hard core racial attitude of the church managements was successful transferred to the members of the three Reformed churches in the Cape, Free State, and Transvaal after 1902, especially through cooperation with the NP and the AB.17,18 The racially discriminatory policy of the Union of South Africa
The rigid racial discrimination that started to emerge in the 1850s was not eradicated with the annexation of the republics of Transvaal and Free State and the formation of the Union of South Africa. Just like the Civil War between the North and the South in America failed to erase immediate racial discrimination (even up to today), the Anglo Boer War also failed to erase racial discrimination in the new Union of South Africa after 1910. The new government structure brought a new, more rigorous, even ruthless, racially defined lifestyle to benefit exclusively the Whites of South Africa.3,4,15,18,23,44,45
The racial and ethnic, cultural, political, and social attitudes of the Boers that started to develop and to manifest before and after the Great Trek, not only led to the development of various proto-Afrikaner subgroups in the Cape Colony, but also in the republics of Transvaal and the Free State. Each group had their own learned and institutionalized racial foundations. The existence of such  segmentation in cultural and racial thinking was ignored, or at best not noticed by the British government and most of the Cape Dutch of the Union of South Africa as they compiled the Constitution of the Union. There were at least six proto-Afrikaner subgroups, although not always clearly separated: the Transvaal Afrikaners (Transvaal Boers), the Orange Free State Afrikaners (Orange Free State Boers), the Natal Afrikaners, the South-western Cape Afrikaners, Eastern Cape Afrikaners and Northern Cape Afrikaners (Northern Cape Boers). The differences were noticeable in lifestyles and the groups were sometimes very different from each other in political and socio-cultural orientation and thinking. Racial discrimination was very similar between the various subgroups. They showed a general (a fact that seems to be true to a certain extent even today) inclination to steer away from liberal and unity thinking. Unity was impossible in the Union and even the later Republic of South Africa. Racial discrimination seems to be the only unifying factor.3,5,19,21,44-46
This tendency to discriminate against certain racial groups was also evident among the White political leaders during the formation of the Union of South Africa. Smuts’ memorandum of proposals for the formation of a Union reflected no trace of concern for the fate of the Black man in South Africa. In reaction to the “Black question”, the Cape politician Merriman for instance wrote to J C Smuts3, p. 18: “… I do not like Natives at all and I wish we had no Black man in South Africa. But there they are, our lot is cast with them by an overruling Providence and the only question is how to shape our course so as to maintain the supremacy of our race and at the same time do our duty.” Smuts answered in a very similar tone3, p. 19: “…I sympathise profoundly with the Native races of South Africa whose land it was long before we came here to force a policy of dispossession on them… But I don’t believe in politics for them. Perhaps at the bottom I do not believe in politics at all as a means for the attainment of the highest ends, but certainly so far as the Natives are concerned politics will to my mind only have an unsettling influence.”
General Hertzog showed a liberal insight with respect the Coloureds in 1925, persons directly related to the Afrikaners44, p. 194: “They came into being and today still live in the midst of the Whites, they know no other form of civilisation than that of the White man; however much they may on occasions fail in this connection their ideal of life is that of the White man and not that of the native and they employ the language of the White man as their mother tongue. Their can thus in their case be no question of segregation.” Hertzog clearly differentiated between the general coloured people of the country versus the Cape Coloureds, which he favoured. This emphasizes his racist attitude towards Blacks and his ethnic differentiation between “different” kinds of Coloureds. At the same time he makes it clear that the social mingling of the Cape Coloureds with the Whites is not desired.44
Hertzog showed further preference for a liberal programme of separate development with the division of territories between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. He wanted to give Blacks their own political rights, but clearly wanted to keep political rights from Blacks in White territories based on his “test of civilisation.” The politician Pirow in this regard writes about Hertzog’s viewpoint44, p. 195: “He often said that the time would come when a black skin was no longer such a test. He felt that at such a stage direct political rights could no longer be withheld from the black man. If, however such rights had to be given in the white man’s country the time would come when the latter would be swamped politically and thereafter it would be only a question of time until white civilisation would disappear completely.”
Hertzog’s ideas became the blue print for the NP’s later rigid and discriminative apartheid (and the homelands / Bantustans). Apartheid kept the Blacks out of the political domain of the Whites completely, but they were received with open arms into the Whites’ economical sphere to benefit the Whites only. He introduced these ideas as an influential leader at a time when Afrikaners were insecure and he projected it as correct and applicable political, social, and personal behaviour.3,5,44
The to and fro on the political rights of other races in South Africa, especially the Blacks, together with naive political thinking of the 1910s to the 1930s, served as early manifestations of what became a permanent feature of White thinking on the “Black question.” This thinking was internalized among Afrikaners and it was what nationalist Afrikaner leaders thought was right and just for the Blacks. It is the counter-reaction to this political manipulation and the erroneous thinking that is Afrikaner nationalism that has been rattling the Afrikaners back to reality from 1994. They are now learning what the concept humanity means. Friedman wrote about these early double standards in political thinking and the activation, establishment and promotion of hard core racial discrimination in the 1930s by Afrikaner nationalist leaders in the mindsets of Afrikaners3, p. 19: “Liberal principles, it seems, could be successfully invoked in the case of the Boers, but they somehow lost their efficacy where the Natives were concerned. In principle liberalism is a fine doctrine, but in practice it is for Whites only.”
Smut’s conclusion best described the fates of Blacks and other races and the racist indoctrination of the Afrikaner masses up to 1994 when he says3, p. 19:” When I consider the political future of the Natives in South Africa I must say that I look into shadows and darkness; and then I feel inclined to shift the intolerable burden of solving the sphinx problem to the ampler shoulders and stronger brains of the future.” That this “darkness” was indeed a nightmare in an “exceptional” darkness for the Afrikaner and the Whites in Africa, is illustrated by the fact that in 1950 that there was only 4 million Whites in the whole of Africa out of a total population of 170 million.16 This denial of the political realities and dangers became a confident bluff with which the NP-Broederbond-leadership approached the South African racial predicament. They concealed long-term political disaster for the common Afrikaner through “a policy of living the present politics and awaiting the political future.”4
The above context forms the unstable political heritage of other races, especially Blacks. This combined with a rigid, racist doctrine internalized in the thinking of the nationalist Afrikaners that Dr. DF Malan, Adv. JG Strydom and Dr. HF Verwoerd of the NP inherited since 1948. These three NP leaders (seen today by many as Nazi sympathizers) were just too willing and too eager to expand racial and ethnic discrimination and domination so that it became extensive and legalized. They were, with great pride, the “Fathers of Grand Apartheid.”3,4,47,48
The political and socio-cultural conflicts and flawed thinking that made racial discrimination the dominant feature of certain of the nationalist Afrikaner subgroups (especially the Transvaal and the Free State nationalist Afrikaners, the Northern Afrikaners), was obvious from day one of the Union.3,5,44
Although it is sometimes alleged that it was the “Cape Dutch” Afrikaner who dominated the Afrikaner’s political future from 1910 and who forced the name “Afrikaner” onto the Transvaal and Free State Boers, the opposite happened with political thinking, sentiment, and governance. The early appropriation of hard core thinking on discrimination and the racist influences of the nationalist Boers from the Transvaal and Free State influenced the Union. All the prime ministers of the Union and the presidents of the old South Africa since DF Malan (himself living in the North after his studies) came from the Northern part of the Union. Racist Afrikaner attitudes greatly influence the political, social and cultural thinking of some of these Northern subgroups even today. In the past this has led to deep divides, even violence, mistrust and dysfunction between the various groups of Afrikaners. This split was one of the main reasons for the de-internalization and unlearning of the doctrine of racism. This led to the failure of the nationalist Afrikaner attempts to morally and politically justify apartheid and to establish an exclusive independent Boer state in South Africa since the 1960s.3-5,19,21,46,49
The result in 1910 was that the more liberal political rights available in the Cape Colony were not extended northwards after the founding of the Union. To the contrary: the extreme racial discrimination that was internalized in the minds of proto-Afrikaners and later nationalist Afrikaners moved south-wards from 1902 onwards. It quickly spread all over South Africa, overwhelming the liberal human rights from the Cape. This negative outcome and the constant indoctrination with ideas of White supremacy led to growing numbers of nationalist Afrikaners and later the NP-Broederbonder Afrikaners all over South Africa since 1910. There is evidence of as much as ten grand apartheid laws that were promulgated before 1948 to control and to limit the personal lives and political rights of the other races.3,5, 23,47,48 Grand apartheid from 1948 to 1994
The leadership and members of the NP, a group of staunch White supremacists, inherited an established racist political system in 1948. As indicated, it originated from the Dutch authorities in 1671 and was already 277 years old when the NP took office in 1948. The racially discriminatory system of 1671 was constantly developed and intensified after the late 1890s by several White racial-political dispensations (the Cape and Natal colonies, the republics of Transvaal and Free State and the later Union of South Africa) before the NP took office.
Since 1948 this engrained racism against Blacks was further developed and steered by the NP and its nationalist Afrikaners into a comprehensive ethnic-racial system. The NP’s discrimination also showed traces of ethnic discrimination, imported especially by BJM Hertzog against the English-speaking Whites. It took hold as early as 1912 and escalated from 1930 to 1939 due to Afrikaner nationalist anti-Jewish actions, propaganda and legislations guided by NP-Broederbond-Afrikaner leaders such as DF Malan, JG Strydom and HF Verwoerd. They wanted to stop the immigration of Jews to South Africa out of sympathy for the Nazis. As in Greater Europe, lower classes of nationalist Afrikaners had a jealousy and fear of the successes of the immigrant Jews in business and professional life. Nationalist Afrikaner politics since the early 1930s to 1946 reflected the kind of racial and ethnic ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. After 1946, the ghost of Hitler and his racist ideology remained, only disguised as something more refined. The well-planned policy of discrimination and the constant inculcation of the ideas on which it was founded led to the successful establishment of an ethnic and racial despotism in South Africa within half a century. The NP, supported by the AB and Afrikaner churches, ostracized dissident Afrikaners and shamed them for deviating political anti-Afrikaner behaviour and compensated approved pro-Afrikaner behaviour. This political and racial milieu was not challenged or questioned by the grassroots nationalist Afrikaner at any time. It was instilled into the new generation of nationalist Afrikaners as appropriate and correct behaviour.3-5,18,23,44,48,50
Within this undemocratic political set-up with its indoctrination, most of broader population of nationalist Afrikaners grew up and partook freely in a lifestyle guided by the bombastic and arrogant leaders of the NP-AB leadership. These leaders took away the average Afrikaner’s independent thought and decision making. They were caught in a frame of reference where discrimination against non-Whites and negative ethnic behaviours towards other non-Afrikaners were morally justified, underwritten fully in the opinions, advice, views, and integrity of the leaders of the NP-AB. Independent thought was of secondary importance. For the most nationalist Afrikaners, apartheid became a permanent way of life dredged with benefits that could only improve with time.4,23,51
3.1.2 Black-on-Black violence and genocide in South Africa
Notwithstanding the constant reference to the Afrikaner as an “alien, murderous colonist” in South Africa by Black politicians, is it undeniable that the current Black population are also foreign to South Africa and is indeed in the same boat as the Afrikaners, “alien murderous colonists.” The Black migration downwards over Africa was accompanied by extreme Black-on-Black violence and genocide, stretching over more than 30 years (1810–1840). It was nothing less than one group forcing a Black ethnic, racist and undemocratic political system on other Blacks. It was equally, if not more extreme than the Afrikaner’s apartheid regime later on.14
Just before the official occupation by Van Riebeeck in 1652, the ancestors of the current Black population moved to South Africa from Central Africa and became settlers here. These Southern regions, which were traditionally Khoi and San territory, were illegally possessed by incoming Black groups. Today objective historians see these migrations from Central Africa and the subsequent establishment of a permanent stronghold in a new homeland by these Black settlers, as the first true colonization (and thus the first Black colonization) of South Africa.14,17
After this first Black colonization, ownership and peace did not last long for many of the Black colonists (conquerors) in South Africa. There was infighting over land, livestock, water resources and group political rights. This quickly resulted in conflict, and led to wars in the newly occupied areas. Driving each other off territories soon became the order of the day. This series of expulsions from territory and evictions are regarded as the second Black colonization (or Black-re-colonization or re-conquering) of South Africa. The period 1810 to 1840 (known as the Mfecane in the coastal areas and the Difaqane in the inland) especially led to widespread Black-on-Black chaos and bloodshed in the North of South Africa. This process took place more or less simultaneously with the Afrikaner Trek Boers and Voortrekkers’ move northwards from the Cape Colony.14
King Shaka, the king of the powerful newly formed Zulu kingdom and his murderous behaviour around 1819 is prominent in this tragic political, social and economic chaos. He was the main instigator of Black colonial wrongdoings and Black colonialism between 1810 and 1840.14
The eradication and re-colonization of other Black tribes (and the remnants of these broken and fleeing tribes wherever they settled away from the Zulus and other occupying tribes), led to the depopulation of large parts of South Africa. Intense food shortage followed and more than 28 independent Black tribes were completely wiped out. The total death toll of the above Mfecane and the Difaqane has never been satisfactorily determined, but it is estimated to be between one and two million. Many displaced Black tribes like the Batlokwa, amaHlubi, amaNgwane, Mfengu, Makololo and many others turned into colonial villains themselves. While fleeing from Shaka and the murderous rage of other tribes, they would themselves occupy other tribal territory and resources. Black tribes like the Tembus and Xhosa enslaved tribes such as the Bhaca, stripping them of personal rights and their tribe’s jurisdiction.14
Mzilikazi, the king of the Matabele in Transvaal between 1826 and 1836, also played a prominent and murderous role in this genocide. He ordered widespread killings and devastation to remove all opposition to his new Ndebele order.14
Even the Griqua tribes and other Coloured groups committed inhuman wrongdoings in the former Northern Cape and Free State to oust Sotho and Tswana neighbouring tribes to seize their land. The latter, in turn, searching for new territory, again perpetrated inhuman violations of other Blacks.14
During this second Black colonization only the Khoi and the San were not guilty of significant wrongdoings like xenophobia and genocide. In fact, they were the only victims to ever fall victim to cannibalism under Black tribes like the Bafokeng.14
In other words, regarding Van Riebeeck’s (and thus the Whites) arrival as the start of colonialism and racial and ethnic discrimination in South Africa is a fallacy. It is more correct to say that South Africa’s racial and ethnic troubles actually started with the migration of Black tribes into South Africa from Central Africa and the first Black colonization, together with their re-colonisation between 1810 and 1840 of each other’s territory. These first and second colonisations also represent South Africa’s first genocide.14
Today, Black South Africans seem to refuse to accept personal blame and responsibility for their ancestors’ colonial atrocities and wrongdoings; behaviours that included genocide and invoked the Herodotus Rules of Revenge by the other suppressed Black tribes, a revenged in waiting up to today.52 The only difference between this early racial and ethnic discrimination of Black-on-Black and that of the nationalist Afrikaner’s White-on-Black, is that when the Black-on-Black political aggression stopped during the 1840s, the ethnic and racial aggression of the nationalist Afrikaners had only just begun, ending in 1994. In 1994 the third Black colonisation of South Africa began to awaken.14
All Blacks and Whites are therefore collectively guilty and responsible for past atrocities as settlers in South Africa, not only the Afrikaner. Most importantly, the Afrikaner is not naive about what had happened during this 1810 to 1840 Black-on-Black violence and genocide in the Greater South Africa. They are aware of the potential that such extreme violence and genocide can happen to them in a collapsed political system. Nationalist Afrikaners used the potential danger of unpredictable and all-encompassing Black hostility and aggression, the so-called “Black Danger,” as a way to rule Afrikaners with fear. This fear has become internalized in Afrikaners. They stereotype Blacks as a lower social, ethnic and racial class, beset with aggression, making apartheid necessary for survival in South Africa.53-55
On the one hand, knowledge of the early extreme Black aggression and the negative experiences of the Boer settlers from the 1730s onwards with other races, as well as the proto-Afrikaners’ direct physical encounters with the Blacks in their early days in Natal, Transvaal, and Free State, aggravated their negative view of Blacks. It strengthened racist views and attitudes, and clearly not without reason. The contact that the Natal, Transvaal and Free State Boer settlers and burghers had from the middle-1830s created further a negative view of Blacks as murderous people and their leaders as incapable, untrustworthy and ruthless rulers.14,17
On the other hand, it seems that Black-on-Black ethnic violence, reaching a climax between 1810 and 1840 and to a great extent occurring far away from the Whites, played a role in the current Black tribalism and the origins of the constant conflict between Whites and Blacks. Whites were initially unaware of the Black-on-Black violence in the interior. Some of these early tribes and their leaders, like the Zulus, Xhosas and Tswana, are still dominant role players against the Afrikaners in the ANC regime more than 170 years later. The 1810 to1840 Black genocide is ignored and shielded from the public eye in the present context of the ANC’s post-1994 policy on guarding Black politics, empowerment and unity. Some of these events and their early impact on the Afrikaners on the later racial dispositions are unknown to a great contingent of the current Afrikaners. Currently, the sole, unchallenged focus is on blaming all Afrikaners and bashing apartheid as the only and culprit responsible for South Africa’s present manifold problems. Black require a constant guilty plea and petition for forgiveness from the Afrikaner for their apartheid mistakes as part of this permanent blame game, even from Afrikaner school children. Requests for forgiveness for their own Black-on-Black genocide and murderous actions against the Afrikaner Boers on the Eastern Border and in Natal, Transvaal, and the Free State is totally absent. Blacks are currently portrayed as “uncontaminated angels.”14,33,45,57-61
The Black-on-Black ethnic violence described above and the lingering ethnocentricity has made Afrikaners cautious about the behaviours and inclinations of Blacks. It is still regarded as a stern warning for the future. The present rise in xenophobia in South Africa is a cruel reminder. For many Afrikaners the golden rule for South Africa and Africa and its people is that they are not European or North-American, they are unpredictable entities in terms of political, racial and ethnic behaviours: changes in these domains are seldom obtained in Africa through pacification. This view strengthens the inherently negative mental dispositions that guide the racial discrimination of the Afrikaners against Blacks. One implication of the earlier Black-on-Black violence is that these groups all harbours the potential for new and future ethnic discrimination, revenge and flare-ups between Black groups, as the Afrikaners fade from the scene as the sole scapegoat (and the former peacekeeper between Blacks). There is the possibility that the focus may in future moves to one Black tribe seeking total dominance of other Black tribes as in the period 1810 to 1840, carrying the disempowered and destroying Afrikaners with their stream of destruction.14,39,45,57,62,63
The political power games and face-offs between the Zulus and Xhosas since 1994 are obviously disconcerting. Hate that springs from the past and revenge for Zulu, Xhosa or other tribes’ serious wrongs may well emerges among the Black tribes of the country. With it come a need and an urge to settle vendettas of 200 years ago and more. Up to the1990s, these dynamics were suppressed by the Afrikaner’s apartheid. Evidence of lingering ethnic and racial feelings of revenge and murder are evident from events like those in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Syria, Iraqi and Algeria. These are all countries with unresolved past racial and ethnic disputes like in South Africa. These old disputes can be activated very suddenly. In such an eruption the Afrikaners as Whites and as members of a minority group of “colonists” (and therefore subject to xenophobia), will surely unwillingly become victims to this battle and be gobbled up.14,34,39,45,51,64
Not only old, but also new racial and ethnic Black conflicts are a responsibility. Consider the rising xenophobia. There are new role players from among the various existing South African Black tribes. Constant public talk of war and murder aimed at Whites and cases of unrest and damage to property like in Coligny and Lichtenburg in 2017 result in massive financial losses for Whites and a constant fear for attacks on their lives. The Afrikaners as a lone White tribe may be in the firing line as a new victim and a subject for revenge. The story of Bloedriver (Blood river) is also etched in the memory of the nationalist Afrikaners.27,37,39,55,,64-67
It is clear that the Afrikaner’s experiences with South African Blacks over the course of the country’s history were at times terrible and disastrous, leaving emotional scares. These experiences fed the racial attitude they learned in the Cape and caused it to be transferred from groups like the Coloureds to the Blacks. Negative stereotypes and fear of the unpredictable behaviour of some South African Black tribes fed into their learned racial attitudes and discriminatory lifestyle in the form of statutory apartheid up to 1994. Emotional reactions and infringements against Whites by some Blacks rekindle these feelings.3,5,14,18,23,44,50,55,65
3.1.3 Early White-on-White violence and genocide in South Africa
Violence in terms of racial, ethnic and war crimes in South Africa is not limited to the above Black-on-Black behaviour, but is part of the wrongdoings of White races from 1652 up to 1902. Learned bad behaviour has been internalized by Afrikaners, not only due to the example and their exposure to deviant and discriminative White behaviour against other Whites, but also due to the ethnic discrimination they experienced at the hand of the British.3,17,18,23,48
The war crimes of the British military and politicians against the Boers and their immediate families during the Second Anglo Boer War (1899-1902) are excellent examples of White-on-White violence and genocide. The mighty British Empire invaded the small republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State purely for sake of the enrichment of the British people and for future British political manipulation and power-play in Southern Africa. However, these events are seldom acknowledged as such. The impoverishment of the Boers of the Transvaal and Orange Free State republics after the Anglo Boer War, their loss of independence and their voice in the international world, the well-oiled propaganda system of the British Empire and the Afrikaners’ desire for reconciliation with their new masters, all contributed to the true events and genocide of Afrikaner women and their children by the British government and military management remaining to the outside world. The consequence is that it has never been a topic for public discussion as war crimes against humanity or for comprehensive war compensation for emotional suffering. It was much easier for the British press and government to portray the Afrikaners as racists and obstructers to peace. The Afrikaners were the true and only victims of the Second Anglo Boer War. This false portrayal denied the Afrikaners their humanity, economical development and “genuine” British interests; they were war losers who in the eyes of the British deserved the war outcome. Lord Alfred Milner’s outright dislike for the Afrikaners, the treatment he sanctioned between 1899 and 1906 and his lack of acknowledgement of their suffering after the war from 1899 to 1902 war, bares evidence of this. 3,17,18,23,48
The true impact of the British war effort was much greater than what history reflects. It taught that political and social abuse of one human by another is acceptable and correct in the eyes of the world. These actions go without any punishment of the aggressor (if that party is the winner). The genocide of the proto-Afrikaners by the British between1899 to 1902, and the continuation of British aggression after 1902, entrench racial and ethnic prejudice in the Afrikaners’ collective psyche as good and acceptable by world standards. They saw it as the way to survival as a group in a complex racial society. The Afrikaners were already trapped in a racially discriminatory mindset that developed over hundreds of years. The effect of the war between 1899 to 1902 was catastrophic: it laid the foundation for grand apartheid with the other experiences that fill the history of the Afrikaner.4,48
Today the war methods of Lord Kitchener, the British commander, and Lord Milner in South Africa would be seen as harsh and extreme war crimes. They acted with the full approval of the British government. They did not attack them on the battlefield, but instead drove their already overburdened wives and children from their farms, burning their homesteads and killing their livestock. Many were taken to concentration camps where the conditions were atrocious, leading to the death of one in three inmates as result of poor sanitation, disease, and lack of food. According to modern standards, this was nothing less than crimes against humanity and the genocide of the Transvaal and Free State Boers and their families. A total of 34 116 Afrikaner lives were lost between 1899 and 1902 in Transvaal and the Free State. About 3 990 burghers died on the battlefield and a further 1 081 died during commando from illnesses or in accidents, bringing the total to 5 071 burghers. Of the remaining 29 045, 1 118 burghers died as prisoners of war, while 27 927 Boers died in concentration camps. Only 1 676 of these were men older than 16 years, 4 177 were women older than 16 years and the remaining 22 074 were children under 16 years who died as a result of malnourishment and illness. The impact of these deaths becomes clearer when analysed in terms of the 100-comparison: 12 died in battle, 6 died in indirect action, 16 women died in concentration camps and 65 children died in concentration camps. This collective trauma of the Northern Afrikaners as a result of the British genocide not only limited their immediate personal and group functioning after the war, but also steered future ethnic and racial relations in the direction of a focus on survival, with Afrikaner interests as a first priority.3,4,18,44
Milner himself admitted to the British government in London in 1901 that the war effort was a black stain and that he saw it as a mistake. If Milner himself saw it as a tragedy  more  the experience of it by the Boers as the suffering victims and lone survivors. This retrospective British apology meant nothing to the Afrikaners: it only shaped their existing ethnic and racial hatred into a political orientation.3,18
The intense abuse of the Boers and their families stirred immense negativism in their collective psyche on the financial, emotional, psychological and religious consequences by the actions of other groups. It created a blueprint for how they would react in the future if their existence in South Africa is endangered. The constant abuse by specific culprits became prominent in their thinking. They had two enemies and dangers that had caused negative learned dispositions over many years: the Blacks and the British. Not only was their general hate against the British intensified after the war, but the denial of their political and personal rights evoked mass efforts to obtain independence within South Africa. The most immediate obstructions to this independence were the British and the growing “Black question.” The most vulnerable and closest of the two were the Blacks: the “Black question” became the main point of focus from the Union onwards. From 1910, the leadership of the nationalist Afrikaners shamelessly promoted the doctrine of White supremacy and the Blacks’ human inferiority. They were regarded as a racial danger for the Afrikaners’ future. This doctrine not only fitted well with the already established propensity of proto-Afrikaner for racial discrimination, but strengthened it enormously. The pathway to formal apartheid in 1948 and grand apartheid in the 1960s was successful laid in the 1910s.3-5,17,18,44,48
3.1.4 Negative modern European and Western influences
Racial and ethnic discrimination and domination (apartheid) up to 1994 were not unique to South Africa, but a worldwide phenomenon. Although there was initially great support from authorities and governments for early settlers in North and South America, Madagascar and Senegal to intermingle with the indigenous people there, a worldwide revulsion in it started to develop after the 1600s. British settlers in North America found themselves facing laws designed to discourage miscegenation in the 1600s. Interracial marriages were punishable offences in the Virginia colony as early as 1630 and was formally prohibited by legislation in Maryland in 1661 and in Virginia in 1662.15
In the century after the founding of the USA as many as 38 states banned interracial marriages. By 1915 a total of 28 states of the USA still had such statutes, while ten states went as far as to prohibit racial miscegenation. Even definitions of “whiteness” and “blackness” became more prominent, precise, and discriminative. Some states simply declared interracial unions null and void, while other conferred penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for such offences. Although slavery was abolished after the American Civil War, the Southern states still successfully introduced a system of segregation that prohibited intermarriage and intercourse between Whites and Blacks.15
In the 1940s the African Americans who fought as part of the USA forces in World War II (WW2), representing 11% of the total USA forces, were segregated from their White counterparts into separate units. In the1940s segregation was still practiced in the Southern States of the USA. It was only in the 1960s, after bitter fights between Whites and Blacks that formal “American apartheid” fell away, although it seems to still be present informally in the USA as evident from protests, unrests and riots activated by the “Black lives matter” movement. Deep-seated racial and ethnic hate in the American society became quite apparent in the recent Trump presidential election.15,68,69,71-74
Ethnicity has also played a dominant role in differentiation and discrimination between different White immigrants in the USA. Intermarriage between Irish and Americans, Italians and Americans, Protestants and Catholics, and Jews and Christians have only become more acceptable in recent years.51
South Africa was a close business partner of the USA for a long time. Up to the1980s, the political relations between the two states were excellent. South African received much support, although hidden, for its racist politics. The influence of American support and the many similarities in the racial attitudes of White Americans and nationalist Afrikaners strengthened and guided the Afrikaner’s racial discrimination at a time when the world started to condemn and to fight it.3,4,15,17,44,68,69,71
The USA has a history of supporting governments with poor human and political records and radical leaders as long as they benefit. The African continent is dotted with such examples. South African was not an exception, specifically because of its ruling pro-Western White regime, its military empowerment and stand against the communist military actions of Russia and China in Africa, and certain strategic minerals. American cooperation and support for the NP regime strengthened and influenced the apartheid ideology. It was only during the office of President Ronald Reagan that the relationship started to sour and apartheid was identified as inhuman and unacceptable.47,68,69
The British and other European colonial powers also practiced racial discrimination in their territories all over the globe. In 1808, Eurasians were excluded from the East Indian Company Forces, while in 1835 intermarriage was formally banned in British India. From 1857, interracial sex was frowned upon when a general process of segregation was introduced there. In 1919, the Crewe Circular expressively banned officials throughout the British Empire from even taking native mistresses. Today, Black activists are protesting in the UK under the banner of “Black lives matter” about racial discrimination and wrongdoings.15
Whites in South Africa were exposed to British influences and their ideas on race for many years, notwithstanding British liberalism on racial relations and status. South Africa’s partnership with the British Empire, followed by membership of the Commonwealth after 1910, brought them direct and indirect support for racism and confirmed the racist ideas of the Afrikaners up to the 1940s, especially due to the British hypocritical policy on racism. The British gave the nationalist Afrikaners free reign to introduce racist political ideologies after 1910 in the Union and helped to establish racially discriminatory policies and belief systems.3,18,44
There is no doubt about the fact that racism and ethnocentricity were directly or indirectly instilled in proto-Afrikaners by the British during their various occupations of South Africa. After 1910 this was strengthened by their hypocritical management of racial issues to please the various White factions’ political ambitions and needs and to reach reconciliation between these factions. They also wanted reconciliation between the proto-Afrikaners and the British Empire with the founding of the Union. This free-reign British on South African politics freed the British government from any further South African political headaches. This political outcome gave the incoming nationalist Afrikaner leaders strong support for the practice of apartheid and a free hand to establish a new, more rigid and suppressive racial policy than ever. The ideas underlying this policy was transferred very effectively to the insecure proto-Afrikaners as a way to gain their freedom and to handle the growing “Black question” in a new political dispensation.3,4,47,68,69
For a long time (up to the 1980s), British Conservative Party governments and American administrations fully and publicly supported the NP and the racist policies of the nationalist Afrikaners. Various other European as well as African and Asian countries like the Netherlands, France, Israel, Switzerland, Zaire and Belgium, which were themselves cradles of racism from an early time at home or in their colonies, supported and influenced the racial orientation of the Afrikaners up to the 1980s and the government of President PW Botha.4,47,68,69
International support for and approval of apartheid over many years led to Afrikaners regarding apartheid as good, acceptable, and correct. The racial policy became more and more extreme from 1948, until it became virtually untouchable by both insiders and outsiders by the 1970s. In the end external role players like the Dutch, British and Americans who all in some way introduced, instilled, supported and compensated South Africa for apartheid for many years, turned on the Afrikaners, leaving them confused in new South Africa with a set of unacceptable and conflicting international and local racial attitudes, values and beliefs.
3.1.5 Afrikaner institutions of racial and ethnic discrimination
Political parties like the NP and civil bodies like the AB and the Afrikaner churches were initially established and steered by nationalist proto-Afrikaners and later on by nationalist Afrikaners with the main aim of promoting the interests of Afrikaners over a broad spectrum, from the cultural to the political spheres. This was done very successfully through racial and ethnic discrimination.5,44 The National Party and the Afrikaner Broederbond
The NP and AB quickly became independent safe havens for and guardians of the nationalist Afrikaners and their comprehensive political and cultural interests. Their interlinked functioning and accompanying political and military empowerment as part of the Afrikaner government during the period 1948 to 1994 made them mighty and unchallengeable political machines in the form of opinion-forming and politically radical executive bodies. This position offered them the opportunity of forcing the racial-political opinions of a small group of super-nationalist Afrikaners on their fellow Afrikaners, other Whites and the Black majority. The corrupt and nepotistic end result was that more or less 20 000 AB members, supplemented by as many members of its “Junior ABs” (the groups “Ruiterwagte” and “Rapportryers”), enjoyed many work, financial, and other benefits and privileges that the non-member Afrikaners were denied. In addition, there was open discrimination against dissident Afrikaners. They were basically in the same situation as the oppressed Blacks.18,48,75,76
Dissident Afrikaners and other non-conformers were labelled “communists” by means of well-planned propaganda and stigmatization. These Afrikaners have good reason to say that they have only ever experienced discrimination. They most often grew up in the liberal Southern part of the country, studied at various Afrikaner universities and worked in the Northern or Southern parts of South Africa. They were first outcasts under the NP-AB alliance from 1948 to 1994, and then under the ANC and its partners from 1994. This inclination to discriminate against this group of Whites certainly contributed to a slow turning away of English-speaking Whites and liberal Afrikaners and other races from the Afrikaner nationalist establishment after 1948. For these dissidents the NP and ABs political views and vision resembled Nazism too much. The doctrine of the nationalist Afrikaner leaders and their programme of indoctrination were so effective and overpowering that the arguments and opinions of these political opponents of the NP-AB never made any impact on ordinary nationalist Afrikaners. Much of the resistance was scandalously silent. The tragic fate of dissidents like Abraham Fischer and Beyers Naude are well known. The NP regime had secret agents and co-operators of political opponents like Ruth First, Jeanette Schoon and Dulcie September murdered. This behaviour was approved and sanctioned by ordinary nationalist Afrikaners6,18,48,53,54,75-77
The NP-AB alliance of political mischief was already very active during the 1930s in efforts to indoctrinate the common Afrikaner, especially the poor. This alliance and its negative impact on social society with regard to instilling political contamination in nationalist Afrikaner members with time was aptly described when general JBM Hertzog declared in 1935 that the secret AB is nothing less than the NP operating secretly underground and the public NP is nothing less than the secret AB operating in public. These were wise and prophetic words about what was to come with regard to racism and racial disharmony, steered by the NP-AB. It is still raging South Africa today. The degree to which the AB became intricately intertwined with nationalist Afrikaner thinking and the nationalist Afrikaner’s doctrine of racism, could be foretold by looking at reverend SJ du Toit intent to establish the AB in 1879 with the main aim of incorporating all the Afrikaans-speaking Whites in Southern Africa into one state. It is therefore no surprise that the AB later entered active politics to form the Cape SAP. The top management of the NP-AB alliance quickly became the sole thinkers and decision-makers for the common nationalist Afrikaner – and thus the inspiration behind the view that racism is appropriate and correct. The Afrikaner youth especially became their main target.4,5,18,44,47,48,54,78,79
This godfather syndrome among Afrikaners of dependence on spiritual-political-cultural leaders and mentors resulted in the growing political and personal disorientation within the NP as a group after the1970s, a process that started with the deaths of their dominant leaders DF Malan, JG Strydom and HF Verwoerd. It ended in the total collapse of the NP following the chaos brought about by Vorster, Botha, De Klerk and Van Schalkwyk. The mighty “Afrikaner company” of the 1960s faded fast to became the insecure “Afrikaner incorporated” in the 1980s. By 1994 they started splitting into small, less rigid, and less extreme Afrikaner cultural, political and financial bodies. However, this disintegration does not mean that the beliefs and values on race and the intentions to act on it, phased out. These views were instilled, learned and strengthened constantly over many years. To the contrary, these inclinations have become fixed, and many Afrikaners are still guided by these views today.4,5,18,44,47,48,54,78,79
Since the late 1990s, nationalist Afrikaners have been leaderless and politically disorientated. Many have gradually become reactive about their well-being and they pursue survival individually. They seem to seek more and more individual economical and social empowerment, outside the growing corrupted NP and AB-family tree and its extreme racial policy. The engrained beliefs are being abandoned more and more in view of the lack of compensations to support it. Once an unstoppable and mighty political, cultural, economical and emotional bullying giant under the NP and AB, the nationalist Afrikaners are now orphaned and frail, with the NP vanishing and the AB scaling down. In 20 years Afrikaner nationalism has gone from a hyper to an irreparable hypo-state.
The nationalist Afrikaners’ daily frustration with and objections to the doings of new South Africa are now confined to court cases, appeals to the Constitutional Court and complaints in the few struggling Afrikaans newspapers still publishing. These are all stumped and dishearten actions that were previously unknown to Afrikaners in their heyday of power. It seems as if these growing numbers of unhappy and deserted Afrikaners are putting their last hope, trust and money into various Afrikaner organisations and other mainstream institutions as their true saviours to repair their lost political, economical, social and civil rights. They have even founded their own universities to accommodate 100 000 and more Afrikaner students. In all honesty, these organizations do not have real political power, know-how and the finances to restore the Afrikaner’s dignity and rights. They do not even have the stamina to live the Afrikaners’ growing problems with them.8,80-92
It seems as if the most modern Afrikaners (less than 3 million, of whom many are already politically and culturally differently minded than their parents of 40–60 years ago) are driven in their daily lives and future planning by their own life needs, decisions and planning. About 2 million plus Afrikaners are outright ignoring the various exclusive “Afrikaner bodies” like the Freedom Front Plus Party (VF Plus with approximately 166 000 supporters) and Solidarity (with approximately 350 000 members). These two Afrikaner bodies, however humble and honest their intentions may be, have been struggling to attract more than between 5% and 13% of the total Afrikaner population respectively. The VF Plus’s support went 600 000 votes in 1994 to only 166 000 in 2014, reflecting a decline of nearly 70% in 20 years. The AWB, the prominent nationalist Afrikaner right-wing organization that promised to free the Afrikaner physically, just collapsed.80,81,92-95
Apart from the above organizations various other less significant organizations and initiatives surface from time to time to represent the interests of today’s “lost” Afrikaners, like the AfriForum, the Institute of Race Relations, the FW de Klerk foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights, the National Dialogue (Nasionale Stigting-dialoog Inisiatief or NSDI), the Organization for Unrepresented Nations and Groups (UNPO) and the Africa-European Indaba. There are also efforts of religious groups to almost mesmerize the directionless Afrikaners. They overrule rational thinking with emotional and unsound religious ideologies and this finds favour with some Afrikaners in their political confusion and uncertainty. However much these organizations, initiatives, leaders and prophets would like to present themselves as saviours, the lifespan of these groups is at most ten years, very superficial, directionless, nor viable or sustainable in the new South Africa. Secondly, it seems as if these “saviours” are intentionally (seeing that some of the leaders themselves raise the alarm that the Afrikaners are in a process of becoming distinct) not informing their oblivious followers that in 30 to 60 year there will only be between 300 000 and 1 million Afrikaners left in South Africa. This makes the “pure” Afrikaners as a dynamic and profitable entity that can generate income through membership and donations for all these initiatives, insignificant. Their rescue efforts are already in vain. A change of heart that would inspire positive Afrikaners to accept the new South Africa unconditionally, to completely discard apartheid and racial discrimination, to accept and internalize the South African indigenous realities, is the only solution to becoming “adjusted” South Africans. Such sentiments are absent from these initiatives’ intentions and modus operandi. All these “saviour” initiatives do is to give false hope of a new Afrikaner South Africa. They strengthen outdated apartheid ideas and racial discrimination in the minds of the confused and directionless Afrikaners with talk about the “injustices” done to them the denial of their Afrikaner “rights and privileges,” making their adjustment to a non-racial society basically impossible. 80,85,89,94-101
For the upkeep and supporting of right-wing dogmas and socio-political misled and doctrines of the NP-AB-alliance, well-planned internalized in the mindsets of Afrikaners over more or less 50 years and cleverly adapted and steered since 1994 for new South Africa, are there clearly not much place left in the political and cognitive reasoning of most of the Afrikaners of today: the new independent Afrikaners have drawn a line between themselves and the slow outgoing nationalist Afrikaners. The de-internalization of wrong believes on racism and the dissociation from false “saviours” has become essential for the Afrikaners survival. 80,85,89,93-101
Above can be an indication of an already unsaid written-off by a large group of Afrikaners of the internalized cognitions on racial policies of the NP and AB which the majority nationalist Afrikaners had blindly endorsed and promoted for many years, as well as a gradually positive adjustment of their racial cognitions to fit them successfully as individuals into the political lifestyles of the new South Africa. The question becomes prominent if this majority Afrikaners are not regretting that they had foolishly and unquestioned believed in the manipulated- and untrue-stories of the NP and AB about the “Black-Danger” (Swart-Gevaar”) and the “Communist-Danger” (Kommunis-Gevaar”), and if it would not be better if they had instead put their loyalties and votes on the side of the ANC in 1994.
To reach the ideal outcome of non-racism is not so easy, as fixed mindsets are not very much changeable. This fact is well reflected today by many Afrikaners still today under-writing negative racial attitudes and –behaviour against non-Afrikaners, although mostly not openly reflected.
. The DRC
All that is left in some strength of the Afrikaner’s previous bullying institutions, still to guide, to support, and to a certain extent, to doctrine him with Afrikaner-ideologies in his present-day of political disorientation and insecurity, are the three main Afrikaner churches, with the DRC as the dominant role-player.
The historical-roles of the DRC in the establishment and the upkeep of racial discrimination are prominent and well-known. Even today is it, in the absence of the NP and AB, still the most strong conditioner and booster of the Afrikaner’s racial attitudes, although most of the nationalist Afrikaners had moved from hyper- into hypo-nationalism.
Racial discrimination was apparent in the Cape Church from an early time, as reflected by certain church-customs like the separate baptizing of slave-children and other rituals excluding non-Whites, although not prominent. It must also remember that the church-reverends were initially in the service of the VOC. Also the church was under the control of the VOC. In the time of De Mist’s reforming of the Cape Church in the1806s, the existing church-apartheid was not approved as his church-order described that public religious services could only be practiced on Sundays in the church and that the doors must be open to allowed all persons, Christian, or heathen, White, or Coloured, slave or freeman, entrance to the service.18
Clear racial discrimination by the church started in 1817 when the Holland’s (Netherland) Church, the most prominent church-entity at that time at the Cape, declared officially itself against mixed marriages of Whites and Blacks (names referring to this early church at that time are Nederduits Hervormd, Nederduits Gereformeerd, Gereformeerd, and Hervorm).18
The DRC obstinacy with apartheid itself is deep- and well masked in a church-political foundation where racial diversity and racial purity are prominent church-doctrines from the 1850s. Here, in particular, it is a White-Christianity versus a Brown-Christianity and a Black-Christianity, as well as seemly a White-Afrikaner versus a Brown-Afrikaner in church-life.17,18
This race-based doctrine, based on “human goodness” and “human badness” between races, is unique to the character and history of the DRC, how hard the hierarchy of the church is trying to make-believe outsiders that it is untrue or by denying it outright. To understand this dogma in all its complexities and consequences in the DRC’s current functioning and intermixing with the Afrikaner’s upkeep as a tribe and of Afrikaner-racism, the DRC century-old history of the doctrine of racism as cognitions into the mindsets of Afrikaners must be fully known and understood. A short trip into its past is thus needed.
This history shows that the DRC’s formal racial diversity began in 1857 when its Cape Synod introduced segregated congregations. That was a policy that was consistent with the already racially discriminatory church-policies of the DRC itself and the two other RCs that were founded and very active in the Transvaal and Free State Republics.3,5,44
This decision of the DRC in 1857 is seen by many today as one of the main instigators of the later 1948-1994 NP-Apartheid. What is clear is that it fuelled a unique church-political life and way of thinking under most of the DRC-members and was internalized gradually in the members’ mindsets across the country. This is a church-culture that has becomes gradually embedded in a contaminating alliance and interaction between the hierarchy of the DRC and the nationalist Afrikaner-politicians, as well as the leaderships of the NP and that of the AB. In particular, after 1948 this interaction became acute and was internalized in-depth in the thinking and behaviours of its members.3,5,44
Immediately after 1948, the DRC gave its unconditional support and approval to the NP’s newly established policy of apartheid and started to forcefully build the DRC’s political authority within this church-political Alliance. For this purpose the hierarchy of the DRC unashamedly used official church-literature to advocate and to justify apartheid (which they claimed not to be discrimination but “godlike-diversity”). Several influential and leading DRC -ministers, -academics and -writers intensively produced early written propaganda to promote and to establish apartheid in general in the church-live, to justify Scriptural apartheid in the DRC and thus for the DRC-members to accept it unquestioned in their mindsets and religious, social, and personal lives apartheid as absolute correct.3,5,44
For this they reformulated and misrepresented texts from the Bible. This post-1948 DRC propaganda-campaign among DRC-members were so successful embedded in their members religious, political, and cognitive mindsets that in 1950, at a joint-congress in Bloemfontein of the three Afrikaner churches and the Dutch Reformed Mission Church [the Brown- or Coloured-DRC at that time, now known as the United Reformed Church (URC)], the four sister-Churches decided overwhelmingly in favour of total racial-separation in their church-life. This declared DRC apartheid’s policy was reaffirmed at several successive General Synods of the DRC and was official introduced to and internalized into the mindsets of its members as religious correct. This officially authorized socio-economic and political racial discrimination by various Afrikaner institutions was quickly embraced, internalized and promoted in their daily lifestyles by many opportunistic nationalist Afrikaner-DRC-members because apartheid-legislation led to the expropriation of the land and properties of non-Whites in created White Areas. Financial it benefited them enormously by the cheap obtain of ownership of these properties, while it also favoured them in their new exclusive scope of work rights above non-Whites. Additionally, it also seems to serve as an external force to protect themselves and their fellow Afrikaner DRC-members against the temptation of miscegenation with non-Whites.3,5,44
The DRC’s racial diversity and policies evoked criticism by some of his liberal theologians, such as the outright rejection by the Cottesloe Declaration in 1960 and the Open Letter by 123 DRC-theologians that church and political racial discrimination were unscriptural, but impact was minimal, and was promptly suppressed by the hierarchy of the DRC. Also the expulsions of dissident DRC -ministers and -thinkers were strictly adhered too to demolish criticism and thus the possible de-internalization of established faulty racial cognitions and dispositions in the minds of DRC-members. Even the DRC’s General Synod decision of 1974 that the Church of Christ (and hence the DRC) had to be opened to all races, peoples, and nations, were entirely ignored by the nationalist-Broederbonder-Afrikaner- hierarchy of the DRC and the managerial boards of the various DRC-congregations.3,5,44
The DRC-NP-affiliation became more and more contaminated by racism. Their in-forcing of racial discrimination – theological, juridical, economic, and social – into the South Africa religious and social life, were intensively internalized since 1948 until the fall of the NP in 1994. This church-political- interaction was very powerfully and had extremely influenced the DRC as an equal partner to the NP. To such extent that it’s stated principle of Afrikaner Christian-nationalism has changed quickly in practice to Afrikaner nationalism-Christianity with hyper-Afrikaner nationalism in the first place. In this system racial discrimination, despite its devastating negative psychological and financial consequences for the Brown- Afrikaners and the Blacks, was extreme practiced by its already well racial doctrine DRC-members. This comprehensive church-state affiliation between the DRC and the NP (together with its intimate political and social management partner, the AB), in all areas of the South African society from 1948 to 1994, is confirmed by the entry of several DRC-theologians into active NP-politics. One of them, Dr DF Malan, even became prime minister of the Union and had thoroughly ensured that legalized apartheid was introduced in 1948. The exclusive and super-powerful AB’s direct influence and control in DRC’s decision-making are also strongly confirmed by the great support and membership of DRC -ministers and DRC-members of it. 3,5,44
Racial discrimination was and is still indisputable intensively indoctrinated and internalized into the mindsets of DRC-members for almost one and a half century, starting in 1857. These established value- ​​and belief systems of nationalism-Christianity were not dispelled by the DRC in 1994 with the incoming of new South Africa. Today it is still conveyed subtly to DRC-members and inculcated by its hierarchy, just well enough disguised to can operate within the provisions of the South African Constitution and the Human Rights Commission.
Since 1994, the DRC -members’ (especially the elderly) negative racial values were unfortunately, by a multitude of destructive events in the country, strengthened rather than mitigated: examples of these events are the lost of their “Afrikaner-state,” the post-1994 political, social, and economic chaos that was created by the ANC-government, White poverty, unprecedented violence, crime, corruption, and murder. The worst was most certainly the miserable way their long-time partner and patron, the NP, left them lurched, and alone. The AB also starts to fade as an emotional and political guider These events left them totally disillusioned and politically more radical, with just one notable Afrikaner-fortress left that still seek to protect their church-, personal -and cultural-rights, namely the DRC in its current, rigid racial form.3-5,44,48
The fact that DRC-members (especially its youth) left the church in droves the last decade for the less racial rigid charismatic churches (an outflow that will increase dramatically in the next decade), together with a lack of inflow of active, young members, as well as the rise in death of its elderly members, predicts that the DRC, as a significant church-group and a driver to internalize and to strengthen in future racial discrimination in the mindsets of its members, will disappear in the near future. This will mean a further decrease in political empowerment and support for the already belittled Afrikaner in his racial prejudice. But to think at this stage that racial discrimination will disappear from the DRC is wishful thinking – their elder members were for to long indoctrinate about the racial differences between Whites and non-Whites and the right of Afrikaners to can discriminate against non-Whites. This negative cognitive contamination will stay with the DRC till it disbands or all its elderly members has passed away.

  • Discussion

Psychological and emotional malfunctioning of individuals forms most times the bases of serious social, even criminal, behaviour. A psychopathic foundation, making the individual insensitive, exploiting, and cold-bloodedly to others, is many times detected in these cases. In practice the presence of official psychopathic malfunctioning in the greater society as a whole in terms of the traditional mental classifications, is minimal. On the other side is it from studies on the behaviour of people from old times till modern-day clear that the mass behaviour of the greater society can reflect behaviour bordering to or can be associated as psychopathic. The stories from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible describing in-depth the Jews outright and totally murdering of innocent non-Jews communities that they conquered in their entrance into Israel from Egypt, instigated, and instructed mostly by their religious leaders in the name of the “God of the Jewry”. The Nazis leadership’s successfully mesmerizing of Germans to commit the genocide of Jews as well as other non-Germans confirms this internalising of doctrine further. Basic to the outcomes of these behaviours stand mass discrimination; In the Jewish and Germanic cases more ethnic orientated against people of the same race as the Afrikaners’ discrimination against people of another race. To be coerced into such mal-behaviour requires a tendency and latent disposition in the mindset of culprits to be acceptable for these doctrines of misbehave and to commit it. To argue subjective that these culprits also as nations were permanent evil or psychologically genetically malfunctioning, is wrong, and inapplicable. The fact that the Jews during their stay in Egypt were not involved in this type of behaviour against the Egyptians, and the Germans before the arriving of Hitler and his Nazis also were free from genocide against Jews, contradicted these kinds of assumption and generalization on mal-behaviour. Other activating and contaminating powers are also involved to activate and upkeep mal-behaviour in the mindsets of ordinary people and nations as a whole. 11,15,102-105
It is clear that a manifold of negative external influences, examples, circumstances, and environments, happening over a short period or coming over centuries, can be used by cunning, manipulated and mentally malfunctioning leaders as drivers and powers to establish deviated doctrine and ideologies in the mindsets of large groups and to activate and internalize mal-behaviour like the practice of discrimination. In the case of the Jews as well as the Germans these external causes were seemingly manifold, making common people acceptable of leaders to “lead and defend on their behalf their rights, property, cultural and religious lifestyles and nationhood” against any non-Jew or non-German by discrimination, even murder. On the one side had specific mal-behaviours, in up keeping this discrimination, became internationalized via constant and supported learning as a mental disposition in the mindsets of Jews and Germans as normal and acceptable behaviour; not only as a planned and well-thought through method of survival in the start-up of it, but at the end to obtain and safeguard extraordinary rights, richness, and land for the discriminating Jews and Germans at the cost and suffering of non-Jews and non-Germans. On the other side can mal-behaviour not be activated in the individual’s mind without his cognitive reasoning and permission, understanding, acceptance, and a free-willingness to participate in it. This indicates the presence of a latent cognition in his mindset, waiting and ready to be activated by external stimuli, ending in various forms of abnormal behaviour. It seems as if the Jews and Germans (and the Afrikaners in their apartheid-dogma) fall prey to this faulty cognition.11,15,102-105
In the case of the creation and practice of the Afrikaner’s Apartheid there seems, as with the Jews, and the Germans, also to be clear and specific historical causes which had led over centuries to the learning and internalizing of discrimination against non-Whites particular in the Afrikaners mindset as a mental disposition that is correct, acceptable, and normal. This learning and internalizing dimension does not acquits the Afrikaners as individuals or as a group from mental malfunctioning in their racial discrimination (as this article is also not try to do), but the aim of the study was primary focused to give insight to what extent negative external influences can contribute to mal-behaviour inside or outside mental malfunctioning. (In this concern it must be noted the fact that the majority of ordinary nationalist Afrikaners gave through the ballot-box freely and unquestioning an absolute mandate to their leader-corps to can act on their behalf and on their own discretion to drive and manage apartheid, knowing well that this had included the cold-blooded murder of political opponents and dissidents and never tried through elections to make a turn-around, make them party to these crimes and bring their cognitive judgement and thus general mental health under suspicion).11,75,76,102,103,106-109
The “Afrikaner-problem of Apartheid” is to complex to simplify it solely in terms of a “mental mal-functioning syndrome” founded on an internal congenital-inborn or racial cause only. Many other, unrelated negative external determinants and role players are also primarily involved and must be study and be enlightened to can offer a total view on apartheid. This article traces, describes and analyses specific the impact of various negative external causes on the mindsets of Afrikaners activating them to commit and upheld extreme racial discrimination over many years.11,75,76,102,103,106-109
Social- and class-discrimination at the Cape began to take root after 1671 due to several unfavourable predisposing factors associated with the non-Whites. This differentiation and discrimination were indeed initially economically and culturally and not ethnic and racial factors. These determinants – like social and economical differences and unique lifestyles that created unfair discrimination as well as other political discriminative rulings by the European authorities – were mostly totally outside the non-Whites own wrong-doings, wishes, and choice. Discrimination was forced down with negative consequences specific on the non-Whites of the Cape, exclusively because they were as a group defenceless and extreme vulnerable to the over-powering Whites discriminative actions. Inclusive ethnic, economically, and social differences, also reflected by some Whites at the early Cape and thus totally unrelated to race-exclusiveness, was with time faulty identified with specific races, namely the non-Whites. The basis for and the formal start-up of racial discrimination between Whites and non-Whites were laid, with the non-Whites as the unwilling and harmed victim. These distorted-thinking and belief-set-up about non-Whites, solely on the basis of colour, eventually becomes internalized in the mindsets of the early Dutch and other European settlers (and the later proto-Afrikaners and today’s Afrikaners). This race inclination and the later accompanying hyper-nationalism in the mindset of the Afrikaner were later both promoted, strengthened, and rewarded, especially by various nationalist Afrikaner institutions, like the NP, the AB, and the three main Afrikaner churches.5,18,23,44,48
Black-on-Black violence and genocide of the past had penetrated the mindset of the Afrikaner to become negative and fixed cognitions about the Blacks as unsuitable equal citizens in a peaceful country, strengthening the Afrikaner’s racial discrimination. For the present-day Afrikaner the earlier-day Black-behaviours and governmental-scenarios, together with the present-day political instability and openly hostility by certain Black-sectors against Whites on the other side, are clear warnings of happenings that can again awaits him in new South Africa and which can play dominant and clear roles in his dissolution. The fact is that live conditions for the Afrikaner can be good and even improve further in South Africa, but it can also change, sometimes gradually or very fast, from good to bad and from bad to worse. These negative observations only serve to strengthen the already negative dispositions of the Afrikaner’s mindset on racial discrimination.14,17,18,45
The history of proto-Afrikaners and the later Afrikaners shows that the Afrikaners were not strangers to incidents of genocide. Afrikaners know the tragic consequences of genocide and racial discrimination and exploitation very well. They learned about the Black-on-Black violence and genocide in South Africa from 1810 to 1840 through folk stories and later experienced genocide at the hands of the British between 1899 and 1902. They observed the Greater European genocide of 1938 to 1948 from a distance. As in many cases of abuse and maltreatment, the personal, emotional, psychological, political and financial ill treatment of Afrikaners desensitized them psychologically and emotional so that they had no regard for the well-being of any political, racial or ethnic competitor. The result, as with Hitler’s German nationalism later on, was the activation of the hyper-Afrikaner nationalism and outright racial discrimination that culminated in the grand apartheid of 1948–1994.2,5,18,44,50
Afrikaner institutions like the NP, AB and DRC genuinely did initially serve Afrikaner interests, like with the “Problem of Poor Whites” (Armblanke Vraagstuk). However, these institutions had ability to keep the nationalist Afrikaners united by means of manipulation, indoctrination and corrupt and nepotistic benefits for loyalists. After a contingent of “Super Afrikaners” essentially high jacked these organizations, they started to use these bodies solely to serve and to promote their own personal, economical and racial-political orientations and ambitions. The NP-AB-DRC alliance started to instil in nationalist Afrikaners the idea that there is a need “to fight the Black danger” and that Afrikaners have “God-given rights” over and above other races, effectively inspiring thoughts of “untouchable White supremacy.” The Afrikaners who belonged to the AB, numbering more or less 20 000 “super-Afrikaners,” successfully misused and misled more or less 3 million ordinary Afrikaners for their selfish aim to strengthen the doctrine of apartheid among nationalist Afrikaners, solely for the AB members’ own political, social, economical and juridical benefits.4,5,18,23,44,47,48
The changes in the South African political scene from the 1980s onwards quickly spelled the end of the doctrine of racial discrimination and White supremacy of the NP and the AB. It ultimately resulted in the end of the NP and the attenuation of the AB. But to assume that the NP and the ABs promotion, maintenance and strengthening of the nationalist Afrikaner’s racial discrimination stopped completely in 1994 is wrong. Their influences are still there: their inputs are just indirect and hidden. However, the AB and the DRC are losing their credibility with the younger generation of Afrikaners, making them ineffective role players in any continuation of a mindset of racial discrimination in the Afrikaners.4,5,18,23,44,47,48
Behavioural psychology shows that traditions, habits, customs, values and beliefs that have been established over generations (in the case of DRC members over nearly two centuries and six generations and in the case of the AB and NP more than one century and three generations) become part of the group members’ characters and personalities. These elements are unchangeable as long as the group survives as a unit. It also shows that such cultural, religious and political thinking gain a momentum of their own and persist long after the initial creator and purpose disappeared [like for instance the former NP and the AB and the DRC, each with its own apartheid doctrines and objectives].11,102,103

  • Conclusion

The proto-Afrikaners and the Afrikaners learned that certain actions and behaviours are crucial for survival as individuals and as a group. They learned this from their own hardships, unhappiness and political experiences, and from broader negative South African events. They also had governments who set a bad example. As a result they embraced negative behaviours despite the injustice it does to other persons outside the Afrikaner group. Over the years they came to see these behaviours as essential to their survival (especially during the era of the nationalist Afrikaners after 1948). Discrimination and ethnic domination of persons from mixed races, Blacks, and even Whites from other ethnic groups, however inhuman and morally wrong, became a learned survival strategy. As result of the successes, satisfaction and compensation it brought, it became entrenched as the most applicable and correct approach to other groups. The outcome for the Afrikaner has been and is to a certain extent still that there is only a single golden rule for their political, economical, social and personal lives: “you are ruling” versus “you are being ruled” and “if you are the minority you must be the ruler as long as possible, notwithstanding the consequences.” For the nationalist Afrikaners meant that to safe-guard their future, they must stay in power at all times, even if this entails domination and discrimination against the other races in South Africa. They saw the full-blown discrimination of grand apartheid as the only choice and ultimate solution for the nationalist Afrikaners. It became a normal lifestyle for the Afrikaners.
The practice of discrimination as means of survival, fully justified in the eyes of the Afrikaners and rationalized as correct, is an entrenched flaw in Afrikaner thinking. It grew out of the indoctrination by the NP-AB-DRC leadership. It did not matter how selfish and morally wrong it was, possibly even bordering on psycho-pathology. It was continuously driven and strengthened by the unstable political, economical and social milieu of South Africa and the Afrikaner’s constant experience of and exposure to this in their struggle to survive. On the formal termination of apartheid in 1994, the Afrikaner tragically became a victim of himself of his own history. 2-5,18,44,75,76,110,111
Negative thought patterns like racial discrimination, forged by years of exposure, examples and compensation, will not easily be erased from the thinking of most Afrikaners, especially if they are not rational. The lost privileges, rights, benefits and empowerments are seldom reclaimable. Most Afrikaners find themselves in an unbearable dilemma today.2-5,18,44,75,76,110,111
“Man creates his own future, but not under conditions of his choice, nor with the consequences he intends,” writes Giddens.112To many Afrikaners, apartheid was their first choice, but the current backlash of Black hostilities and revenge against Afrikaners were consequences they did not foresee. They naively thought that it could not happen because Blacks lack the ability to rule. They never thought that the Blacks would act precisely as the Afrikaners themselves acted in the heyday of apartheid. This reminds one of Karl Marx’s words of warning: History repeats itself.

  1. Barratt CJ. South Africa and the International Community. In: M Albeldas, A Fischer. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg; Jonathan Ball: 1988.
  2. Blake A. Boereverraaier. Cape Town: Tafelberg; 2010, Friedman, B. Smuts. A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  3. Friedman B.Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  4. Giliomee H. Afrikaner nationalism, 1870-2001. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  5. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: A.P. Boekhandel; 1944.
  6. Schlemmer L. South Africa’s National Party Government. In: L Berger, B Godsell. (eds.). A Future South Africa: Visions, Strategies, and Realities. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, Tafelberg; 1988.
  7. Biko H. Narrow racist stereotyping threatens SA. Mail and Guardian. 2017 Apr. 21; p. 17.
  8. Spence J E. Republic under Pressure. A study of South African Foreign Policy. London: Oxford University Press; 1965.
  9. Barnard-Naudé JJ. Tyd om Grondwet se brug te bou. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Feb. 12; p. 11.
  10. Eybers J. Gesin met eie pistool vermoor. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Feb. 19; p. 3.
  11. Möller, AT. (ed.). Perspectives on Personality. Durban: Butterworth; 1995.
  12. Savides M. Ex-cop snubs racist ‘save Whites’ rage. Sunday Times (News). 2017 Feb, 12; p. 10.
  13. Van Zyl O. Ons durf nie kwaad saad saai. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 5; p. 7.
  14. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  15. Ferguson N. The War of the World. London: Penguin Books; 2007.
  16. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika en Wêreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers; 1954.
  17. South Africa. Kommissie vir die Sosio-ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika (Tomlinson Commission – U.G. 61/1955). Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  18. Van der Walt AJ. Die Eeu van die Veeboer-pionier. In: Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika. Cape Town: NASOU; Anon.
  19. Boer. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Apr. 8]. Available from
  20. “Boer” or “Afrikaner”- The choice really simple. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Apr. 10]. Available from
  21. Who are the Boers? Wêreldwye Internet Radio vir toekoms van die Boerevolk. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Nov. 11]. Available from
  22. Ginsberg A. South Africa’s future. From crisis to prosperity. London: Pan MacMillan; 1990.
  23. Steyn R. Jan Smuts: Afrikaner sonder grense. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2017.
  24. Hartley R. Ragged glory. The rainbow nation in Black and White. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2014.
  25. Du Plessis T. Die radikale ommekeer soos 80’s nodig. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 5; p. 6.
  26. Joubert JJ. The Colouring in sketchy outline of ‘radical economic transformation.’ Sunday Times (News). 2017 Feb.13; p. 15.
  27. Malikane C. Our choice to complete the revolution. Sunday Times (News). 2017 Apr. 16; p. 9.
  28. Rooi J. Groei is al hoe ons ekonomie transformer. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 5; p. 7.
  29. Zille H. ANC draai ons ‘n rat voor die oë. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Apr. 2; pp. 4-5.
  30. Bless C, Higson-Smith C, Fundamentals of Social Research Methods: An African Perspective. (2nd ed). Kenwyn: Juta; 1995.
  31. Louw, GP. A guideline for the preparation, writing, and assessment of article-format dissertations and doctoral theses. Mafeking: North-West University; 2013.
  32. Maree K, Van der Westhuizen C. Head start in designing research proposals in social sciences. Cape Town: Juta; 2009.
  33. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr. 30; p. 18.
  34. Cliff G. Dark Days. Sunday Times (Insight). 2016 Nov. 27; pp. 13-14.
  35. Cwaile M. Class traitors cleave to an unjust status quo. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Feb. 17; p. 18.
  36. Maarman J. Hou op om haat se vure te stook. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 Nov. 21; p. 16.
  37. Mpofu D. Niks so ergs as skoen nie pas. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 3.
  38. Pelser W. Wees tog beskaafd op asosiale media. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 6.
  39. Tshaka R. Hating the African ‘other’ is rooted in history of slavery. Sunday Times. 2016 Nov. 27; p. 21.
  40. Afrikaners are Black. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 July 8]. Available from http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  41. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of Human Genetics, 2007:71(5); 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  42. Kahn R. The ancestry of one Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Apr. 27]. Available from
  43. Great Trek. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Jan. 8]. Available from
  44. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
  45. Cronjé F. Etniese verskille kan SA pad van Brexit laat loop. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 July 3; p. 6.
  46. The noted distinction of Boers from Afrikaners. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Nov. 12]. Available from
  47. Welsh D. The different options facing South Africa. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  48. Giliomee H. Hermann Giliomee: Historian – an Autobiography. Cape Town: Tafelberg; 2016.
  49. Welcome to Kleinfontein, lingering outpost of Apartheid South Africa. Aspiring Afrikaner-only enclave highlight how race still shapes the nation’s landscape. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Sep. 12]. Available from
  50. Hitler, A. Mein Kampf. London: Pimloco; 2010.
  51. D’Souza D. What’s so great about America. Washington: Regnery Publishing; 2002.
  52. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodoyus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  53. Shattuck J. I loved my granny…but she was a Nazi. Saturday Star. 2017 Apr. 1; p. 16.
  54. Norman K. Into the Laager. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  55. Hancke H, Sejake E. Die pot kook oor in Coligny. Rapport (Nuus), 2017 Apr. 30; p. 3.
  56. Buys E. Tien redes waarom wit mense moeg is vir verskoning vra. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Apr. 23; p. 11.
  57. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  58. Croucamp P. So, wat gaan in jou kop aan? Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 12; pp. 4-5.
  59. De Wet C, Hattingh L, Visagie J. Die VOC aan die Kaap: 1652 – 1795. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2017.
  60. Joubert JJ. Advice in many shades from Helen Zille. Sunday Times (Politics). 2017 Apr. 22; p.4.
  61. Swanepoel E. ‘Party skole wil nie praat oor die verlede.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 6.
  62. Khumalo A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  63. Retief H. ‘Mense moet onthou dis Afrika dié.’ Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 May 19; p. 3.
  64. Wa Afrika M. ‘Stop xenophobia or students warn.’ Sunday Times (News). 2017 Feb. 26; p. 4.
  65. Hancke H, Sejake E. Coligny-drama se pyn en puin. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 7.
  66. Muofhe MS. Xenophobia. This violence is not SA way. Sunday Times. 2017 Mar. 5; p. 18.
  67. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  68. Barratt CJ. South Africa and the International Community. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  69. Marcum J, Kitchen H, Spicer M. The United States and the world. In: PL Berger, B Godsell. (eds). A Future South Africa. Cape Town: Human and Rousseau; 1988.
  70. Msomi S. Mmusi Maimane: Prophet or Puppet? Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  71. Mabandla, O. How Obama’s enemies set the stage for Trump. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 July 1; p. 18.
  72. Killings a political test for Clinton, Trump. Sunday Times. 2016 July 10; p.11.
  73. Msomi, S. Handling the curve of a long walk to freedom. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2014 Dec. 2; p. 15.
  74. Racist legacy casts shadow of hate in US. Sunday Times. 2016 July 10; p. 11.
  75. Ancer J. ‘Spy; Uncovering Craig Williamson.’ Johannesburg: Jacana Media; 2017.
  76. Van Vuuren H. Die dood van Dulcie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 May 28, pp. 8-9.
  77. Van Vuuren H. Who killed Dulcie September. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 May 14; p. 15.
  78. Berger PL, Godsell B. South Africa in comparative context. In: PL Berger, B Godsell. (eds.). A Future South Africa. Cape Town: Human and Rousseau; 1988.
  79. Body-Evans A. What was the Afrikaners Broederbond. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Sep. 18]. Available from
  80. Eybers J. Dis danksy ledegeld, nie ‘wit kapitaal.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Feb. 17; p. 4.
  81. Eybers J. Kwaad en keelvol: Toe bel hy die Bulhond. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Feb. 17; p.4.
  82. George L. SA voor VN ’in die skande gesteek.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Aug. 14; p. 6.
  83. Furlonger D. ‘African Harvard’ a sad lesson for SA universities. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2016 Nov. 6; p. 4.
  84. Hancke H. Regstappe begin teen sport kwotas. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Oct. 23; p. 4.
  85. George L. Bewapen julleself, sê AfriForum en Kie. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 7; p. 6.
  86. Kriel K. Prosecutor will act where state has failed. Sunday Times. 2017 Feb. 19; p. 18.
  87. Moolman K. Die goeie, die slegte en die Grondwet. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Feb. 12; pp. 4-5.
  88. October A. ANC-LP vra oor AfriForum se nuwe eenheid. Beeld. 2017 Mar. 30; p. 5.
  89. Solidariteit/Solidarity. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 May 22; pp. 6 -7.
  90. Steinberg JN. Eerste houe in geveg om Grondwet. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Aug. 14; p. 7.
  91. Strydom J. Sê nou al dankie aan Bulhond, AfriForum. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Feb. 19; p. 10.
  92. Swanepoel E. Oud-onnie se skooltjie ná 20 jaar ‘n reus. Rapport (Sake). 2017 Apr. 9; p. 2.
  93. Kok M. Waar’s Viljoen se stemme heen? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 July 3; p.10.
  94. Swanepoel E. Nog ‘n hou in hof teen regstel-aksie. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Dec. 4; p. 2.
  95. Burger A. ‘Boerehater’ takel Mulder se rol by VN-organisasie. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 7; p. 11.
  96. Bernstein A, Godsel B. The incrementalists. In: PL Berger, B Godsell. (eds.). A Future South Africa. Cape Town: Human and Rousseau; 1988.
  97. Nel J. Buchan: ‘God gaan dinge hier regmaak.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Apr. 23; p. 3.
  98. Eloff T. Nuwe nasionale dialoog kom oor SA. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Apr. 30; pp. 4-5.
  99. Gumede V. Up to all of us to leave next generations a land of peace. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 May 7; p. 8.
  100. R3.5 billion plan to make it safer for Afrikaners in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Nov. 13]. Available from
  101. Van der Walt S. ‘Afrikaner kan’ dekoloniseer. Beeld 2017 Apr. 26; p. 16.
  102. Barlow DH, Durant VM. Abnormal Psychology. Belmont, USA: Thomson; 2005.
  103. Berger KS, (ed.). (3rd ed.). The developing Person through the Lifespan. New York; Worth; 1994.
  104. Die Bybel. Nuwe Vertaling. Cape Town; Bybelgenootskap van Suid-Afrika; Anon.
  105. Gavron D. The Other Side of Despair. Jews and Arabs in the Promised Land. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers; 2004.
  106. Duncan N, Stevens G, Bowman B. South African psychology and racism: Historical determinants and future prospects. In: D Hook. (ed.). Critical Psychology. Lansdowne: UCT Press; 2004.
  107. Gibson K, Swartz L. Community psychology: Emotional processes in political subjects. In: D Hook. (ed.). Critical Psychology. Lansdowne: UCT Press; 2004.
  108. Hook D. Governmentality and technologies of subjectivity. In: D Hook. (ed.). Critical Psychology. Lansdowne: UCT Press; 2004.
  109. Mkhize N. Sociocultural approaches to psychology: Dialogism and Africa concepts of the self. In: D Hook. (ed.). Critical Psychology. Lansdowne: UCT Press; 2004.
  110. Afrikaners. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Aug 7]. Available from
  111. Afrikaners. [Internet]. [Cited 2015 Aug 27]. Available from
  112. Giddens A. Central problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: MacMillan; 1979.

Not commissioned. Externally peer-reviewed.
The author declares that he has no competing interest.
The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Arts, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.