I'll rephrase my question. How would South Africa have looked today without the introduction of apartheid, /his/?
>>300121
And the Vela incident was totes SA and Israel blowing up a nuke in the desert, right?
>>300121
That's a better question. Good work.
Given equivalent Anglophone countries that went through less formal apartheid, like Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, or Victoria much of the happenstance of the era still would have gone on with a nod and a wink from a blind bat. Probably a greater "anti-communist" angle too with everyone knowing exactly what communism meant.
Of course this wouldn't happen. Had the Crown or the Crown's representative illegally blocked apartheid or a vote by parliament / referenda for a republic you'd see the Rhodesian solution of a parliamentary coup, and then an apartheid in law or fact anyway.
>>300220
Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, or Victoria were majority white
>>300252
Sorry, wrong pic, btw. I didn't see the 'my disgust' bit when posted and didn't mean to infer anything on your argument,
>>300252
By the 1870s, 1850s, 19somethings and 1850s again, yes. And only when counting the metropolises, not the country. In the country aboriginal labour was invaluable particularly beyond the lines of closer settlement, and in the country towns.
But by 1810 the state had claimed formal protectorship in general and by the Myall Creek massacre had claimed the exclusive right to police raciality. Counter state movements amongst the mass of the population kept colour lines working. One obvious difference is that the colour line in Australia tends to be about culture, not about skin pigment.
On the other hand I'm sure that Queensland Police and WA police would have fit right in to South African policing of colour.
>>300290
There used to be a license to shoot Aborginals, funnily enough. my grandad saw one. it was issued to his Mate's Dad.
Really though, comparing Australian/Canadian/American natives to African Colony natives is really a different question considering the varying white/black ratios.
Also, if you're still awake, please enlighten my ignorance. What do you mean exactly by:
>One obvious difference is that the colour line in Australia tends to be about culture, not about skin pigment
>>300335
>>One obvious difference is that the colour line in Australia tends to be about culture, not about skin pigment
There are towns in North Queensland where everybody has the same biological heritage, and where branches of the same family identify as "black" or "white" based on whether their branch is raised in "black" or "white" culture. These lines run down the centre of town. One of the big elements of "white" culture has involved bashing aboriginals. Skin colours and facial features aren't predictive symbols of race in Australia, cultural features like use of Aboriginal Australian Englishes versus Australian Englishes, dress, or who you run around town with quite often says more.
>>300359
Uh, source? That just sounds like stereotyping from either side.
>where branches of the same family identify as "black" or "white" based on whether their branch is raised in "black" or "white" culture
It's very underreported, but half-castes (part whites) in an aboriginal family are quite often looked down upon (source: I used to live in NQ. Ingham and Cairns).
part-aboriginals/part-whites in raised in a white community? Nobody gives a shit, they're treating as equals.
>>300359
Isnt that sort of a common theme over all Anglo countries? Its the same thing in the US at least. "Whiteness" and "blackness" is not so much about actual physical features but more about specific cultures.
ie:Non-anglo
>>300423
Perhaps he means classed within ethnic groups? Ie, we have different distinctions for natives, indian/asian immigrants, etc even though there are different racial groups within those groupings.
>>300121
This would require a very different ethnic and political climate, since the Afrikaners were very much on the side of segregation, while the Anglos, with a few significant exceptions, were on the side of granting civil rights for all, at least eventually. Heavier Anglo immigration would be the key to this.
>>300700
>Heavier Anglo immigration would be the key to this
Which started the 1st Boer War?
>>300886
What does that have to do with anything?
