Commonwealth Historians Richard Dowden & Jack Sen Explain How the Afrikaner is Unfairly Vilified Some 20 Years After the End of Apartheid – Why Britain Shouldn’t Turn its Back on the Commonwealth
The following article is compiled from interviews political activist & UKIP parliamentary candidate for Western Lancashire, Jack Sen, gave South African Guardian LV reporter Laura Oneale.
“The ludicrous Leftist notion that non-indigenous people have the right to be in the West because borders are a social construct, but not in South Africa, is utterly farcical and an egregious example of Leftist hypocrisy. How can you be for one and against the other? Only a true racist could be so obtuse. I’m merely speaking objectively and as someone that loathes the hypocrisy of reverse racism.
Besides-when it comes to Africa, not only does it run contrary to natural order, but counter to how the indigenous have been divvying up their land since time immemorial. The tribes inhabiting southern Africa have lived by the spear for millennia-and I mean that with no disrespect, as Europeans have lived in a similar manner. Land has typically been held by the tribe wielding the biggest spear. Why should the European tribe that settled, conquered and developed that land not be afforded that same privilege?
On liberal Yank and Zionist hypocrisy when it comes to South Africa, Sen made the following brilliant point:
“Progressive white Americans and Canadians descended from people that exterminated an entire race of people (native Americans) and Israelis that have all but stripped the indigenous Palestinians of their homeland aren’t being told they have to go home; why should Saffas? “
Regarding South Africans being denied Visas to Britain, Sen told Oneale:
“There’s so much we Brits and you (South Africans) share as people. We fought alongside one another in both World Wars and most minority South Africans do in fact have British ancestry, even family still living here. I could go on and on…..And it is not just counterproductive to the British national interests (to reject South African Visa applicants), but immoral in light of what’s happening to minority South Africans. The systematic annihilation of the people that built South Africa from a parched plot of sod to one of the most beautiful nations on earth is wrong and something I am passionate about exposing.”
Again, Jack Sen, is now on Twitter (FINALLY). Before leaving us today, please be sure to follow him on https://twitter.com/jacksenukip as well as sign up for our EKP newsletter at the top right hand corner of this page.
Spot on, Mr Sen.
I don’t know much about this fella, other than what I read in the two Laura Oneale interviews, but what can I say other than dankie!! No wonder the man’s writing and activism is reaching hundreds of thousands of people and is being so well received in Britain as has been here in SA.
Sen, who describes himself as an “anti political correctness crusader of British, Irish, and Afrikaner origin with a skosh of East Indian spice mixed in for good measure”, genuinely cares about people first and foremost and that’s apparent in his words, actions and honesty.
“It just makes me furious knowing that people are dying, while the international media is silent. And people are certainly perishing as a result of racial violence across South Africa.
It reminds me an awful lot of Rotherham, where literally thousands of vulnerable English girls (white and Sikh) were raped by Muslim grooming gangs and the media and Labour reps running the council did nothing to stop it. Twas downright shameful! The Rotherham tragedy, along with my love for Britain, is in fact a large part of why I decided to run for parliament….”
Imagine a politician running for office because he cares! There’s a first!!
“Although Rotherham and non-black genocide in SA are quite different, both tragedies share one commonality: they’re being ignored by the Western media.”
Wow, I hardly expected those astute words to come out of the mouth of an Englishman. Most Brits I know are whiny, liberal and full of misguided guilt. Seems Sen is cut from a more courageous bit of cloth.
Well he did in fact spend a few years in SA it appears – and I am guessing had the opportunity to have a few braai with some good Saffa Afrikaner gents so…why wouldn’t he want to do right by us?
Sen explained why he is so passionate about exposing hypocrisy:
“At the end of the day it is about doing right by people, speaking my mind and telling the establishment to eff themselves when their actions result in abject misery, pain and suffering for innocent people.”
God bless you Jack Sen!
If the people of Lancs continue to vote for Lib/Lab/Con traitors instead of this courageous, honest and honourable bloke, they deserve to see their region in ruin.
Although we aren’t fans of UKIP, we have done our part to see that Farage’s party does well at the General Election. From directly promoting UKIP Lincs (my homebase), to running a story on Sikh rebel Sergi Singh, our features on clowns (in a nice way) Godfrey Bloom and Winston McKenzie, dismantling of Natasha Bolter and support of Roger Bird (prior to the Daily Mail using our story), to the support and coverage we have given BOSS Nigel Farage; even this story we’ve run on Jack Sen, we have certainly been supportive of their efforts.
So Who Really Built Apartheid?
by the London Telegraph’s, Richard Dowden
IN THE days leading up to the South African election we will be told by journalists and commentators that democracy has finally arrived in South Africa and that black South Africans will be voting for the first time. Neither statement is quite true.
Democracy has a long, if contorted, history in South Africa. For nearly 100 years there was a non-racial franchise and the electoral role did not become exclusively white until 1956. The Coloured Vote Bill in that year was the final blow to a non-racial democracy which had been whittled away over the decades. Like many apartheid laws passed by the National Party government in the Fifties, it was not a radical departure from the past. The legislation which created apartheid was based on existing laws and in many cases simply tightened or tidied them.
The myth that there has never been democracy in South Africa is linked to a second myth. Most people think they know that apartheid was an invention of the Afrikaners and their belief that South Africa should be ruled exclusively by whites. Conversely, it is usually thought that the English tradition in South Africa was non-racial and democratic. In fact, the British tradition, as purveyed by both English-speaking South Africans and the parliament at Westminster, has played a less than glorious role in establishing democracy.
As Jack Sen pointed out in an academic/university paper I found online, it was two renowned Englishmen, Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill, who at crucial moments in South Africa’s history, created the policies which deprived black people of democratic rights in South Africa.
Let’s take Rhodes first, the Bishop’s Stortford boy who wanted to build an African empire from Cairo to the Cape, who invented Rhodesia and left us with the De Beers diamond monopoly and 160 Rhodes scholarships at Oxford. A millionaire from diamonds and gold before the age of 30, Rhodes became Prime Minister of the Cape in 1890. For more than 40 years the Cape had had a non-racial franchise which allowed anyone, irrespective of race, with property worth pounds 25 or wages of pounds 50 a year to vote for representatives in an Assembly which made laws for the colony.
Rhodes believed that the world should be ruled by the Anglo Saxon and Teutonic races: one of his dreams was to force the United States of America back into the British Empire. Although Africans represented a minority of voters and did not vote as a block, Rhodes passed two laws simultaneously which caused large numbers of them to be struck off the electoral role. One, the Glen Grey Act, limited the amount of land Africans could hold; the other tripled the property qualification for the vote. Many Africans now had insufficient property to qualify and would find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold.
The next blow to democracy came after the Boer war. Elsewhere in the world the imperial government in London exercised a veto over its colonialists to protect the interests of the native people of the colony from the settlers. In Kenya, for example, London blocked several attempts by colonists to make Kenya a ‘white man’s country’. Ultimately, in Rhodesia, Britain imposed sanctions to reverse Ian Smith’s Declaration of Independence. In South Africa, however, the veto was abandoned when the Union of South Africa Act was passed in 1910 and the man who played a vital role in its abandonment was Churchill.
If you read the debates that led up to the Act of Union, the most striking thing is that the words ‘racial conflict’ referred to the Anglo- Boer war. What we would call the racial issue was then ‘the native problem’. The British had fought the war partly, it was said, to protect the interests of the natives from the Boers, the Afrikaners.
During the war the British had encouraged Africans to work for British victory, which they did in large numbers. With victory, Britain might have been expected to extend the Cape non-racial franchise to the conquered territories of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony so that blacks would be represented in the whole territory the way they had been in the British colony. But not only did they not do so, they also limited the ‘native’ vote to the Cape. Africans were to have no say in the election of a national parliament, although they retained their voting rights to the Cape parliament.
The young Churchill, then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, had covered the South African war as a journalist and had been captured by – and escaped from – the Boers. His knowledge and influence in making the agreement after peace was signed was crucial. In a debate in July 1906 he called the peace treaty ‘the first real step taken to withdraw South African affairs from the arena of British party politics’. He argued passionately that the Afrikaners should be allowed self-rule, a self-rule which he admitted would mean that black Africans would be excluded from the vote.
In parliament he told those who pointed out that the treaty had enshrined the rights of Africans that the Afrikaners interpreted the peace treaty differently. He said: ‘We must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white.’
When South Africa was discussed four years later, Churchill’s successor tried to reassure parliament that the Afrikaners would come round to the view that it was wiser to include Africans in the franchise. A delegations of Africans from the South African Native Congress, the forerunner of the ANC, came to lobby parliament at Westminster, but to no avail.
Because of Churchill and his policy the British parliament had already washed its hands of responsibility for the rights of its black citizens in South Africa. When the new parliament in South Africa passed the Land Act, making it illegal for Africans to purchase land from Europeans anywhere outside the reserves, a delegation of Africans who came to London to protest were told that it was a matter for the South African parliament.
The deputy leader of the party which passed the Land Act was Jan Smuts. He had fought against the British and his troops had been responsible for massacres of unarmed Africans acting as drivers and porters for the British army. After the war he played a crucial role in striking the deal between Britain and the Afrikaners and is usually regarded as the man who represented liberal democratic values in South Africa. In fact, Smuts believed that South Africa should be a ‘white man’s country’ and he believed in ‘segregation’ – which is simply English for apartheid.
He passed the first piece of legislation which separated white and black areas and in 1920 the Native (Urban Areas) Act which laid down the principle of residential segregation in urban areas, keeping blacks away from white residential areas. He also initiated the principle of reserving jobs for whites in the Mines and Work Act. In the 1929 ‘Black Peril’ election, when fear of being dominated by Africans became the major issue, Smuts demanded that the rate of black integration into white society must be curtailed. He also called for South African influence to be extended north and east in the creation of a British Confederation of African States.
Smuts lost that election to J B Hertzog’s National Party, but five years later they formed a coalition and democracy took another blow. The Native Representation Act of 1936 took away the franchise from Africans in the Cape. Instead, Africans in the whole country were to be able to elect four white men to represent them on a council, with eight other appointed members. Although ‘coloureds’ remained on the Cape electoral role until 1956, the 1936 act was the final stage in a long retreat from democracy in South Africa.
When the National Party won the 1948 election on the platform of apartheid, it did not have radically to rewrite South Africa’s laws. The foundations of apartheid were already in place. Sex outside marriage between races was already banned, but it was carried to its logical conclusion in the 1949 Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act of the following year which banned any sex between races.
The Native Laws Amendment Act, built on Smuts’ Native (Urban Areas) Act, redefined which Africans were allowed into urban areas. The laws affecting the various pass laws that were already in existence were amalgamated into the Abolition of Passes and Consolidation of Documents Act and forced all Africans to carry a single pass. It was made a criminal offence not to produce the pass book when required by the police.
Various laws relating to urban affairs which prescribed segregation were gathered into the Group Areas Act which made separation absolute and gave the government powers to define an area as White, Black, Indian or Coloured. The Industrial Conciliation Act built on the foundations of Smuts’ Mines and Work Act to restrict further black rights at work. On the crucial issue of land, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act gave the government power to move African tenants from privately or publicly owned land and tidy up the land into segregated areas. This was the completion of legislation which began with Cecil Rhodes’ Glen Grey Act, nearly 50 years before.
The arrival – or rather rearrival – of non-racial democracy in South Africa is clearly cause for celebration, but it should not be an occasion for British self-satisfaction that Western-style democracy and the Mother of Parliaments have won another convert. Perhaps, though, there should be half a cheer for Churchill’s colleague, Lord Elgin, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who in 1906 expressed the fervent wish that the Afrikaners would, ‘in some time to come’, see the good sense of granting ‘reasonable representation to the natives’. I suppose you could say his wish has come true – at last.
Notes – Richard Dowden writes on African news and politics, for The Independent, The Times and The Economist.
Jack Sen is an accomplished historian, British Commonwealth advocate and from what I have uncovered during my treks around the net, involved with British politics. Not a supporter of UKIP as I think they are too pommy libertarian for my tastes but still, their politics is refreshing nevertheless.