This picture below is supposedly of Olympic Park, Melbourne, in 1971, a violent protest against Verwoerd’s policy of apartheid. Links from Chuckles before we begin:
And different background –
I did not attend that match for reasons of expected leftwing violence, we were warned, and I was a bit young.
Everywhere you look on this topic, there is bias and plain lying, people with agendas wanting the facts only their way. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current blatantly leftwing Wiki write-up of Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen [not really an Anglo name] and his reaction:
The Springboks’ matches in southern states had already been disrupted by anti-apartheid demonstrations and a match in Brisbane was scheduled for 24 July 1971, the date of two Queensland by-elections.
On 14 July Bjelke-Petersen declared a month-long state of emergency covering the entire state, giving the government almost unlimited power to quell what the government said was expected to be “a climax of violent demonstrations”. Six hundred police were transported to Brisbane from elsewhere in the state.
In the week before the match, 40 trade unions staged a 24-hour strike, protesting against the proclamation.
I say blatantly leftwing because Wiki tries to make out that the protests were ‘peaceful’ and that the police used heavyhanded tactics. Bollox – those bearded loons were as violent as this lot are today in America and the ordinary person was quite scared of the nutters.
An eyewitness account by one of the players on the pitch at the time:
“They kept trying to get on the pitch, they were throwing smoke bombs — it was bloody mayhem.”
And this is precisely the issue today – they feel that because they consider a Narrative aspect to be a justified grievance, then lawlessness is fine and they can damage as much property and as many people as they like, completely unaware that they are the problem in themselves. It’s the same philosophy as bringing morning and evening commuter transport to a halt because their own pay isn’t as high as they’d like.
I can tell you now – those protesters were violent and it had the effect of turning the waverers and uncommitted against them and pro the rugby team. Incidentally, South Africa won the series 3-0.
It wasn’t the principle which my friends and I had issue with at the time but we were taken in by the egregious press, which played up every little incident, and it did seem to us, a continent away, that the blacks were getting the short end of the stick, that the places they were given to live were sub-standard, that they couldn’t sit on “white” seats and all that. That’s how it seemed in 1971.
An interesting article came through two days ago on Verwoerd and that has me now digging around for a snippet I saw yesterday from an English speaking South African:
It’s probably important to mention that most of these Afrikaner politicians were NOT stupid men, and almost without exception they were deeply religious, and lived their lives strictly according to the lights of the Dutch Reformed Church.
But, somewhat understandably, those of us who were not Afrikaans and not members of the DRC, were sometimes less than enchanted with some of their ideas, or with having to live our lives by the edicts of their religion.
This is something perhaps many outside the country forget – that the Nationalists were not only not the same lot as the English-speaking South Africans, but the latter were different again from the outsider British, who could get all sides feeling defiance.
Reference is made in the article to McMillan’s speech. Haiku adds:
Macmillan – as I remember him –was (at best) a scurvy knave, especially when it came to his treatment of Ian Smith & the Rhodesians.
We were discussing whether to bring in comparisons in this post now, e.g. with America, with the Australian aborigines, with the Inuit, but I felt it best not to run comparisons – Haiku begged to differ:
IMHO you infer guilt by leaving out the comparisons. There probably wouldn’t be a problem if South Africa had handled the issue as did the Americans, Australians or Stalin.
That’s fair but readers know enough of those other issues to be able to draw what comparisons they wish.
This from the article raises the issue of the actual treatment – was it fair, was it not:
Verwoerd … two methods, “separateness” and “development.” First, he imposed tighter restrictions on the movement of Bantu to the cities, and took steps to ensure that the Bantu already present were housed in clean, safe neighborhoods as far as possible from white homes and workplaces. Needless to say, these steps were greeted with howls of outrage by both the labor-hungry capitalists and the liberal media, churches, and opposition parties.
But the second set of measures, despite being just as critical to Verwoerd’s long-term project, has been largely ignored by his detractors. In order to stop black immigration into white areas, Verwoerd saw that it was imperative to provide blacks with opportunities in their traditional homelands. The development of Bantu areas into self-governing, economically self-sufficient communities was an indispensable safeguard for the white homeland, too.
What the issue revolves around is:
… saw that it was imperative to provide blacks with opportunities in their traditional homeland …
Having not lived there during those years, I can’t say one way or the other and given what we know about fake leftist news today, then I really would like to know how much was true and how much was not.
The nationalists mistake was to be honest about what they were doing
Were the Europeans really fighting for their survival against the murdering Mandelas or was it something else? How far did diamonds and wealth come into it?
Verwoerd was serious about what he was doing, and he was not acting through any hatred, or desire for genocide or any such stuff. They were implementing God’s work, and the blacks could live in their land over there, and we’ll live in ours, over here.
The article, though of course Afrikaner biased, does give far more detail than the simplistic ideas we had encompassed.
The comments section to the article is instructive.
One more thing:
Also important to remember you’re talking about a huge, and very sparsely populated country. Current population density of England is about 413 people per sq. km. Current South African population density is about 46. In 1970 it was about 15…