How many of the other leaders of the ANC were committed to reconciliation? I am asking genuinely; I don’t know, and I value your insight on this topic.
Winning at Stamford Bridge. He lost at Hastings because he had to fight two wars of succession in less than a month, not because the Norman conquest of England was inevitable or something.
There was white flight. To Australia, IIRC (English-speaking country, similar climate, dark-skinned natives too few to be very troublesome). But SA still has plenty of white people.
Most of the men who aided him were mercenaries he raised himself. It’s not at all evident anyone else was out there ready to do the same thing. He primarily recruited them by promising them land once they won (and that wasn’t the easiest sell in an era where mercenaries were frequently paid in actual money for signing on, not on promises.) Most continental European leaders never would have done what William did because it was considered a foolhardy Viking style conquest, and would have been atypical for a continental leader. It was very typical of a Scandinavian leader of the time (and was precisely what Hardrada was doing), but we had reached a point where those sort of invasions were frequently unsuccessful.
But no one said William conquered England by himself, that’s stupid. But there was no ‘trend’ of continental leaders raising armies to conquer England and in fact it bucked how a continental leader typically behaved. Further, you talk about England like it was a defenseless apple waiting to be plucked. Harold had just vanquished a powerful force from Norway, and came within a hair’s breadth of beating William on the field. In fact, if Harold and his brothers hadn’t actually died at Hastings it’s almost a certainty he would have withdrew, raised a far larger army than William, and driven the invasion back over a prolonged campaign. It was basically balls and pure luck William won. In fact the odds were heavily against it.
Considering the ANC, SACP and Cosatu as one entity, which you’d have to at the time: Sisulu, Cyril Ramaphosa, Joe Slovo, Oliver Tambo, Thabo Mbeki. Definitely NOT Chris Hani.
That’s my point, though - two succession battles in 3 days. We can’t say who else would have lined up after that - it *was *quite a contentious succession. If William attacked first, and then Hardrada…?
Hardrada wasn’t just there for a Viking raid. He was there for the same reason William was. I think e.g. his treaties with various Northerners and the support of Tostig shows that he intended to take the throne and keep it.
2 in 3 days isn’t a trend to you?
I didn’t say it was defenceless, just rich pickings. The Norse already knew this, of course - they had the lovely example of the Danelaw to show for it.
That’s kind of the point - circumstances and luck, not William’s personal qualities, are what carried the day. You make my point for me. If the Great Man theory were true, William’s conquest would have been a foregone conclusion.
Mbeki? I have difficulty believing he was genuinely committed to reconciliation in the sense the others named above were, given his stance on racial issues during presidency. I’m going to have to ask you to expand on that.
The main bone of contention will undoubtedly be economic, wealth redistribution and the contention of land distribution.
Despite the phrase “packing for Perth” , white South Africans were far more likely to end up in the UK then any other country, given the historical ties between the two countries.
Why not the Netherlands, then? Older ties still.
The Afrikaaners, by and large, didn’t go anywhere. It was the Britishish who left, mostly.
I don’t see either of these as potentially giving rise to white separatist movements, not without major shifts in policy, which simply aren’t on the horizon.
Economic - white South Africans remain better off as a group then any other race group in South Africa. The super rich and middle class are increasingly mixed but the poor remain predominantly black.
Wealth redistribution - not sure what this means; if you are referring to policies such as affirmative action and black economic empowerment, you will find plenty of white people who do not like them; indeed it will take you all of a minute to find a white South African who will decry the idea - not just the dubious implementation - as “racist”. Until white South Africans as a group are not predominantly middle class or above - and that won’t happen anytime soon - their actions wont go beyond letters to the editor.
Land distribution -or more accurately, land “redistribution” is an emotive issue but not that important. This only affects farmers, who make up a sliver of the white population. Most land is redistributed under the “willing seller, willing buyer” principle, which goes beyond the property rights protections afforded by the Constitution.
Last but not least, the overwhelming majority of white (and black) South Africans regard themselves as South Africans and are not interested in living in an enclave. If they were, Orania Orania - Wikipedia would be a city.
Of far greater concern is the poverty all too many black South Africans still live in. The ANC has made strides in reducing poverty, but not nearly enough, and the gross inadequacy of the educational system means that this cycle is set to continue. This provides fertile ground for proto-fascistic demagogues such as Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters to gain ground, with their simple solutions to almost overwhelming socio-economic problems. This is far greater threat to South African stability then the AWB, Boeremag and all other white supremacist groups combined.
The British ties are far more recent. South Africa became a British dominion in 1910 and became independent in 1962.
Dutch rule was terminated by the British in 1806.
Anecdote alert a small, but significant number of my classmates, friends colleagues and even family were able to enter and gain residency in the UK on an ancestral visa. There is no such option for the Netherlands.*
The UK has the advantage of a shared language.
Afrikaans is similar to and descended from Dutch, but is regarded as a separate language. I can understand the gist of written Dutch, if I have a vague idea of what is being written about -such as the copywrite notice on a DVD - but cannot follow when spoken. I don’t believe I am unusual.
What exactly do you mean by “his stance on racial issues”? He did make some strongly pro-BC statements in exile, but I do know that he was also responsible for the first non-racial segment of the ANC, and he and Mandela were at the forefront of the negotiations with the Apartheid regime. Hardly a hardliner.
Not really. The Cape may have been a Dutch colony first, but the VOC didn’t really have close colonial ties with it, the way the British did. As for the first settlers, while they spoke a Dutch offshoot, the Boers were actually quite a mixed bunch, nearly as German as they were Dutch.
It sounds like are you are assuming that a white English speaking South African - such as myself - is British and can simply return to the “motherland”. This is false. A significant percentage are British passport holders for historical reasons, but most are not.
You misunderstand. I just meant that the majority of whites who left SA post-apartheid were of British descent. I am not saying the majority of South Africans of British descent left or anything like that.
I am referring to his many utterances as president. His views on race also coloured (no pun intended) his perceptions on other issues such as Zimbabwe and Aids. This is not a man who could be a Mandela.
Unlike Sisulu, Tambo, et al, we do not have to imagine what he would be like as President. The best thing that can be said about his tenure is that he is not as bad as the incumbent.
Maybe it is verbied to discuss the impact a white man had but it really was F.W. de Klerk that had the greatest impact on ending apartheid so without Mandela apartheid would have still been over. Mandela’s impact was more of a figure of hope during imprisionment and as a very adroit diplomat in running the first post-apartheid government.
It’s not “verbied”. It’s just wrong. You think there would have been the same political pressure on de Klerk (from within and without) absent Mandela? You might as well say that LBJ was the most important figure of the Civil Rights era in the US.
Would any of those be most likely to succeed Mandela as the leader of the ANC/movement? I’m guessing Mbeki, considering he did succeed Mandela, but maybe not since he was younger at the time.
Understood. Sadly, it is an assumption that is often made.
Before I jump to another assumption, I’ll ask a question this time: do you think white English speaking South African = person of British descent?
I couldn’t find anything online that broke down South African immigration patterns by “ethnicity” (for want of a better term.) Seeing as this is Great Debates I’m going to have to ask for a cite for your claim that fewer Afrikaners immigrated then other white ethnicity or ethnicities.
Note I said “Viking style conquest” not raid. The other Viking Kings/rulers other than Hardrada were in no condition to invade England in 1066. Hardrada had the best shot, and failed. The King of Denmark, Sweyn Estridsson was the only notable Viking ruler after Hardrada at the time (King of Denmark) and he was much the weaker military leader and military power versus Hardrada. There was no real threat of him invading. After him, that is it. Unless you posit that sans William some European ruler, against all historical norms and evidence, would suddenly try a daring conquest across the channel.
The barely functional King of France certainly wouldn’t, and the Emperor and the various other major European rulers were far too embroiled in their own affairs to have any hope of success. William was it. And if William had died and one of his relatives were Duke of Normandy it’s unlikely they would attempt what he did, none of them ever showed any inclination for such ventures.
No, quite the opposite. The concept of a “great man of history” is someone who can change the course of history through their actions. If the conquest was a foregone conclusion then it would be something we had already been trending toward in any case and thus no singular man would have been responsible. This would have been akin to the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, which was coming one day or another regardless of the leader going after the Byzantines.
We’re probably not as far apart on this issue as you would think. I believe most of history is explainable by large trends, in which even prominent individuals are only minor actors mostly wrapped up in their own circumstances. However I also believe there are rarely men who do actually cause history to go in new and unexpected directions, against those trends and circumstances. William I was one of those, but there are others–William is just one of the most unambiguous.
I actually agree with you on Mandela, though. I don’t believe de Klerk let Mandela out of prison and agreed to end apartheid because of Mandela’s personal will. I think it had been a long time coming, the work of lots of people in South Africa and also the result of significant and ongoing international pressure. if Mandela wasn’t there de Klerk would have worked with another ANC leader, and if the ANC had become reactionary and hyper-violent I think the powers that be could have probably nipped that in the bud early on, and I suspect that ANC leaders other than Mandela knew that. I mean, it wasn’t like violence had never before been attempted to solve the problems. Mandela was good at speechifying to people why it wasn’t the answer but I think most informed people close to the situation knew it to be true without Mandela’s h elp.