Wogs of South Africa, a horror story.

[Sam R.]

Gidday Mates[1],

Australia was [and was until the 20 year rule, which currently looks like the Sydney Olympics rule: we sent all the homeless to camps and still kept fucking stealing children] a racist hell hole. Australia, however, has managed to get away with it in public.

South Africa Didn't.

Australia managed to change its definition of "whiteness" to include Southern and Central and Eastern Europeans in "Who is white" leading to a bleeding edge structure of Australian whiteness where if your parents moved here 40 years ago you're white, but if your great…parents moved here 40000 years ago we're stealing your children. Australians proceeded to call Europeans Other Than UKBritish "Wogs". 40 years later "Wogs" took the word back and proudly declared themselves the originators of edible food in white Australia and drinkable coffee. The propaganda in the industrial toilet about fucking dogs would have "Wogs" and "Aussies" crossed out in turn all the way down the stall door, with nobody ever changing "fucks dogs." Australia, for how it works, has made Wogs Australian. The second largest greek city is Melbourne etc.

In 1946 South Africa also had a racial problem. It also had a problem between Catholics and Calvinists. In South Africa this was less Irish and English (/Scots), and more English ("Pseudo Catholic") and Dutch. Maybe importing more nominally white people could solve this.

So what if South Africa admitted Italians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Balts and Finns as "provisionally white" in the 1946-1970 period? Would South African racist capitalist been as boistered as Australian racist capitalist was? How would this have changed conflict where state-identified recent migrants opposed changes to majority non-rule?

Could people in South Africa as awful as the people in charge of Australia have gotten away with it just by admitting more europeans to be shitwits to the majority population?

And, yet, at another level: How the fuck did Australia get away with it? Complete with sports boycotts of South Africa despite having the same government policies? And this is even before we talk about the Papuan / Rhodesian situation.

yours,
Sam R.

[1] Excuse the language, non-Australians don't understand CMC CCM. If you do speak bantz please assume I referred to you as genitals.

 

[PrinceofApathy]

Gidday Mates[1],

Australia was [and was until the 20 year rule, which currently looks like the Sydney Olympics rule: we sent all the homeless to camps and still kept fucking stealing children] a racist hell hole. Australia, however, has managed to get away with it in public.

South Africa Didn't.

Australia managed to change its definition of "whiteness" to include Southern and Central and Eastern Europeans in "Who is white" leading to a bleeding edge structure of Australian whiteness where if your parents moved here 40 years ago you're white, but if your great…parents moved here 40000 years ago we're stealing your children. Australians proceeded to call Europeans Other Than UKBritish "Wogs". 40 years later "Wogs" took the word back and proudly declared themselves the originators of edible food in white Australia and drinkable coffee. The propaganda in the industrial toilet about fucking dogs would have "Wogs" and "Aussies" crossed out in turn all the way down the stall door, with nobody ever changing "fucks dogs." Australia, for how it works, has made Wogs Australian. The second largest greek city is Melbourne etc.

In 1946 South Africa also had a racial problem. It also had a problem between Catholics and Calvinists. In South Africa this was less Irish and English (/Scots), and more English ("Pseudo Catholic") and Dutch. Maybe importing more nominally white people could solve this.

So what if South Africa admitted Italians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Balts and Finns as "provisionally white" in the 1946-1970 period? Would South African racist capitalist been as boistered as Australian racist capitalist was? How would this have changed conflict where state-identified recent migrants opposed changes to majority non-rule?

Could people in South Africa as awful as the people in charge of Australia have gotten away with it just by admitting more europeans to be shitwits to the majority population?

And, yet, at another level: How the fuck did Australia get away with it? Complete with sports boycotts of South Africa despite having the same government policies? And this is even before we talk about the Papuan / Rhodesian situation.

yours,
Sam R.

[1] Excuse the language, non-Australians don't understand CMC CCM. If you do speak bantz please assume I referred to you as genitals.

Australia "got away with it" because the English settlers committed genocide on the Aboriginal peoples. There were never as many White South Africans as there were White Australians. Even at it's height, the population of White South Africans was what....like 10%? Probably even less than that. Unless the Boers and later British attempted to wipe out the Africans, there would never be a settler state there. I think Apartheid would have fallen at the same time if South Africa boosted the white population through these means, but it would be a hell of a lot bloodier.

 

[Fred the Great]

Australia "got away with it" because the English settlers committed genocide on the Aboriginal peoples. There were never as many White South Africans as there were White Australians. Even at it's height, the population of White South Africans was what....like 10%? Probably even less than that. Unless the Boers and later British attempted to wipe out the Africans, there would never be a settler state there. I think Apartheid would have fallen at the same time if South Africa boosted the white population through these means, but it would be a hell of a lot bloodier.

Add to this that in spite of the cloudy perspective of the OP, Australia had, for a long time, been making incremental improvements in how Aboriginal people and non-whites generally were treated when Apartheid was very much in force. That's an ongoing work, of course, with more to be done, but the two countries wouldn't compare if we looked at, say, the '80s. It's questionable whether Australia abandoning the White Australia Policy and becoming more "welcoming" to those from non-British "white" countries played a role in the politics surrounding Aboriginal Australia.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

As a South African I think I need to give my input here;

There's a common misconception about the Nationalist regime during their early reigns and how what's their approach to "white people" (which is a fluid category that truly represented the r*etardness of the whole racial segregation thing; My mom's family is Coloured and yet some of our extended families has been categorised as white, Asian or black during those years)

The Nationalist regime in 1948 was not interested at all in importing European immigrants aside from Calvinist Dutch speakers which would be presumably easier to be subsumed under the Afrikaner community

Why?
1) The NP has just won the election through gerrymandering and selling "rooi gevaar" (red menace) as an issue during that year; of which many of your proposed immigrant groups came from places that has just reorganised their country under the aegis of communism during that time period. Inviting people from communist countries while declaring yourself as the most opposed political party to communism is rather counterproductive for your propaganda. Yes most of the people that came might not be communists or even avowedly anti-communist (as in the case for the immigrants from Poland and Yugoslavia during the 80s) but that's not the picture for the general public.

2) The NP at that time has not moved to embrace the English speaking community and ever since we were a dominion most of our white immigrants more often than not identified themselves more with the Anglos (English) than the Afrikaners. Why would they invite potential opposition voters that could harm their rule?

3) The religious comparison is just crude and rather ignorant of the situation in SA I must say; yes the Drie Susterskerke (the three largest white Reformed Churches) does not hold the "Roomse gevaar (Roman [Catholic] menace)"in high regard but Catholics are just a minority and sectarian differences has never been too pronounced over there. Naturally it's even more counterproductive for the NPers to invite other Christians or even non-Christians but that was not the biggest point; the Afrikaner nationalism during that time was fed upon the propaganda that they were the "verkiesde mense in hul beloofde land" that rejected other people that might represent a threat to an Afrikaner-led South Africa, be they fellow "whites" (English South Africans), shared the same faith and language (the overwhelming majority of the Coloureds) and even other white Afrikaners that professes "die rooi gevaar" as their political orientation.

The thing with the NP is that they don't see that racial segregation and minority rule is simply untenable after WWII, up to the 50's-60's where "White Australia" was still also a policy? Yes sure. But after that it's simply not possible and rather than negotiation the NP OTL prefers to hunker down and oppressed its own non-white citizens (including my family).

Australia "got away with it" because the English settlers committed genocide on the Aboriginal peoples. There were never as many White South Africans as there were White Australians. Even at it's height, the population of White South Africans was what....like 10%? Probably even less than that. Unless the Boers and later British attempted to wipe out the Africans, there would never be a settler state there. I think Apartheid would have fallen at the same time if South Africa boosted the white population through these means, but it would be a hell of a lot bloodier.

Pretty much but whites were at least between 15%-20% of the population during the 40s-60s; however the census during that time also undercounted many blacks in the rural areas.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

2) The NP at that time has not moved to embrace the English speaking community and ever since we were a dominion most of our white immigrants more often than not identified themselves more with the Anglos (English) than the Afrikaners. Why would they invite potential opposition voters that could harm their rule?

Your mention of the Afrikaner-Anglo divide reminds me of a comment I read on YT a while back - guy commented that when he was in the Army in SA the Afrikaner NCO called him a soutpiel, so he asked if that made Afrikaners ‘peperpoes’. Apparently the NCO Was Not Happy.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

Your mention of the Afrikaner-Anglo divide reminds me of a comment I read on YT a while back - guy commented that when he was in the Army in SA the Afrikaner NCO called him a soutpiel, so he asked if that made Afrikaners ‘peperpoes’. Apparently the NCO Was Not Happy.

Such divide also used to exist between us Afrikaans speaking Coloureds in the Cape and the English speaking ones in KwaZulu-Natal during apartheid; the English speaking KZN coloureds are mostly of white English/Asian (Indian)/Black (Zulu&Xhosa) heritage and could "blend" easier to the Black/Asian community than my mom's family for example. An example of this is that during apartheid the schools for ethnic Asians were better funded than the coloured ones (and in general schools for Coloured children were already better funded and equipped compared to schools for black children) so they would often try to get their children enrolled there to the chagrin of some conservative Asian parents who would demand the children to describe where does their Indian heritage came from and their surname/homestead (caste is not a big barrier for the SA Asian community unlike in South Asia).

In any case the Afrikaner-English divide on the political field was quite high during those years as many of the Afrikaners wanted a republic while the majority of the English speaking whites (including the immigrants) were in favour for continued "dominion status and a rapprochement with the Commonwealth (which is naught to impossible considering that the newly independent countries in Asia and Africa were vehemently opposed to SA's racial segregation)

 

[Purrangzeb]

Australia "got away with it" because the English settlers committed genocide on the Aboriginal peoples. There were never as many White South Africans as there were White Australians. Even at it's height, the population of White South Africans was what....like 10%? Probably even less than that. Unless the Boers and later British attempted to wipe out the Africans, there would never be a settler state there. I think Apartheid would have fallen at the same time if South Africa boosted the white population through these means, but it would be a hell of a lot bloodier.

The white south African population peaked at around 26% or so.
How many people do you think would move there? In Australia around 3.5 million people immigrated during the 'White Australia' policy. Add a million Europeans to South Africa and suddenly the country is 30% white, with the majority of those NOT being Afrikaners.
That's why the NP never sought out European immigrants. They did not need them, and the Uitlanders historically voted for more liberal policies.

 

[PrinceofApathy]

The white south African population peaked at around 26% or so.
How many people do you think would move there? In Australia around 3.5 million people immigrated during the 'White Australia' policy. Add a million Europeans to South Africa and suddenly the country is 30% white, with the majority of those NOT being Afrikaners.
That's why the NP never sought out European immigrants. They did not need them, and the Uitlanders historically voted for more liberal policies.

I stand corrected.

That being said, I doubt most souties or uitlanders in pre-apartheid SA thought that the Black population deserved the same rights as them. Perhaps the NP would employ their own version of the Southern (African) Strategy.

 

[marktaha]

Far Right HNP breakaway in 1969 called for restricting immigration to esdsentially Dutch Protestants and similar-referred to Ports,Greeks et al as "sea kaffirs."

 

[Quintuplicate]

The propaganda in the industrial toilet about fucking dogs would have "Wogs" and "Aussies" crossed out in turn all the way down the stall door, with nobody ever changing "fucks dogs."

When did "Aussie" stop meaning "Anglo"?

 

[Sam R.]

When did "Aussie" stop meaning "Anglo"?

Sometime between 1975 and 2005, later eras preferred. Wogs became Aussies sometime between 1975 and 1990 earliest. This is in part because of Australia's assimilationist concept of whiteness "oh yeah he's white, he's a yugo," and in part due to the restructuration of "skip" in the long term. "Irish" are never considered not white, not anglo, or not skip for example. In 1965 you could get bashed for being irish.

"Anglo" is used for skip, but skip being the preferred vernacular and this being a vernacular issue, rather than a state issue, I've preferred the vernacular. "Did you see that fucken skip cunt in the audi waving her hands like she wa''n't on the wrong side ''' road?" Versus "Did you see that white bitch in the audi giving a hand up me like she could drive but didn't?"

Australia's particularities aren't nice, not nice at all, but consider "Bing Lee" prior to his death was functionally skip, and when I have to talk racially about people from chinese background there's a differention between skip's like Bing Lee, versus "australian chinese" who are actually here to live, versus "mainland students" who aren't here for good and are tourists at a capital city university. I know this doesn't make it nice, it doesn't make me nice, it doesn't make them nice either (a shit load of intending to be non-permanent resident temporary residents have been utter cunts to me in service industry), but it does describe how it is.

I figure if someone gets two bites of the cherry to be not a shit cunt, and if I'm slow and accurate in standard australian, especially the important bits, they've had a good serve. Even if they're a shit cunt they get slow and hearable, "come down now, you have to be here yourself to collect, or on monday you're going to have to collect elsewhere."

But the core business is everyone who moved here is in on the deal: the people who genuinely grew here over 40,000 years are for murdering by the police, courts, prisons and hospitals.

That's the ugly fucking line in the sand. And young men and children die every year on that line. Everyone else, eventually, can become white. Even the irish.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Sometime between 1975 and 2005, later eras preferred. Wogs became Aussies sometime between 1975 and 1990 earliest. This is in part because of Australia's assimilationist concept of whiteness "oh yeah he's white, he's a yugo," and in part due to the restructuration of "skip" in the long term. "Irish" are never considered not white, not anglo, or not skip for example. In 1965 you could get bashed for being irish.

"Anglo" is used for skip, but skip being the preferred vernacular and this being a vernacular issue, rather than a state issue, I've preferred the vernacular. "Did you see that fucken skip cunt in the audi waving her hands like she wa''n't on the wrong side ''' road?" Versus "Did you see that white bitch in the audi giving a hand up me like she could drive but didn't?"

Australia's particularities aren't nice, not nice at all, but consider "Bing Lee" prior to his death was functionally skip, and when I have to talk racially about people from chinese background there's a differention between skip's like Bing Lee, versus "australian chinese" who are actually here to live, versus "mainland students" who aren't here for good and are tourists at a capital city university. I know this doesn't make it nice, it doesn't make me nice, it doesn't make them nice either (a shit load of intending to be non-permanent resident temporary residents have been utter cunts to me in service industry), but it does describe how it is.

I figure if someone gets two bites of the cherry to be not a shit cunt, and if I'm slow and accurate in standard australian, especially the important bits, they've had a good serve. Even if they're a shit cunt they get slow and hearable, "come down now, you have to be here yourself to collect, or on monday you're going to have to collect elsewhere."

But the core business is everyone who moved here is in on the deal: the people who genuinely grew here over 40,000 years are for murdering by the police, courts, prisons and hospitals.

That's the ugly fucking line in the sand. And young men and children die every year on that line. Everyone else, eventually, can become white. Even the irish.

yours,
Sam R.

What was the definition of "Aussie" in, say, 1969?

 

[Sam R.]

What was the definition of "Aussie" in, say, 1969?

In 1969 an Aussie is an Australian born child of Australian born white people (UKGBNI, France NW, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norwary, less so the last five) all of whom are "non-Aboriginal" who aren't Italian Heritage, Jewish Heritage, or Chinese Heritage. Chinese Heritage australians in 1969 would be chinese. Jewish heritage people in 1969 would have a special place depending on their integration into political parties. Italian Heritage people would be reinterpreted as wogs despite having potentially been in Australian since the 1880s. Aboriginal people would not be considered human beings in practice, including subject to arbitrary arrest, police murder, etc., despite recent legal changes.

Recent Italian, Greek, Yugoslav people would be considered Wogs.

The structure is about recentness, assimilation to the state, and non-(publicly acknowledged)-aboriginality.

 

[Quintuplicate]

As a South African I think I need to give my input here;

There's a common misconception about the Nationalist regime during their early reigns and how what's their approach to "white people" (which is a fluid category that truly represented the r*etardness of the whole racial segregation thing; My mom's family is Coloured and yet some of our extended families has been categorised as white, Asian or black during those years)

The Nationalist regime in 1948 was not interested at all in importing European immigrants aside from Calvinist Dutch speakers which would be presumably easier to be subsumed under the Afrikaner community

Why?
1) The NP has just won the election through gerrymandering and selling "rooi gevaar" (red menace) as an issue during that year; of which many of your proposed immigrant groups came from places that has just reorganised their country under the aegis of communism during that time period. Inviting people from communist countries while declaring yourself as the most opposed political party to communism is rather counterproductive for your propaganda. Yes most of the people that came might not be communists or even avowedly anti-communist (as in the case for the immigrants from Poland and Yugoslavia during the 80s) but that's not the picture for the general public.

2) The NP at that time has not moved to embrace the English speaking community and ever since we were a dominion most of our white immigrants more often than not identified themselves more with the Anglos (English) than the Afrikaners. Why would they invite potential opposition voters that could harm their rule?

3) The religious comparison is just crude and rather ignorant of the situation in SA I must say; yes the Drie Susterskerke (the three largest white Reformed Churches) does not hold the "Roomse gevaar (Roman [Catholic] menace)"in high regard but Catholics are just a minority and sectarian differences has never been too pronounced over there. Naturally it's even more counterproductive for the NPers to invite other Christians or even non-Christians but that was not the biggest point; the Afrikaner nationalism during that time was fed upon the propaganda that they were the "verkiesde mense in hul beloofde land" that rejected other people that might represent a threat to an Afrikaner-led South Africa, be they fellow "whites" (English South Africans), shared the same faith and language (the overwhelming majority of the Coloureds) and even other white Afrikaners that professes "die rooi gevaar" as their political orientation.

The thing with the NP is that they don't see that racial segregation and minority rule is simply untenable after WWII, up to the 50's-60's where "White Australia" was still also a policy? Yes sure. But after that it's simply not possible and rather than negotiation the NP OTL prefers to hunker down and oppressed its own non-white citizens (including my family).



Pretty much but whites were at least between 15%-20% of the population during the 40s-60s; however the census during that time also undercounted many blacks in the rural areas.

If the United Party won this situation might be plausible.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

OP with all due respect but I don't really understand where this thread is heading to;

Are you looking for a potential scenario of admittance for non-Commonwealth/Germanic white immigrants during our OTL 1946-1970 where the NP took charge?
Because that would be super hard to do and NP only started to admit significant amount of "other" white immigrants (particularly Greeks from Greece/Cypriot and Portuguese from Portugal/Angola/Moz) well after 1970 when it started to realise that to preserve the "baasskap" it needed to induct more whites because of the falling white birth rate compared to non-whites and its continuous isolation. At that point it's pretty much a fait accompli that whites would be well perpetually under 15% of the population.

Or you're looking for a change during those years starting from the 46?
Yes you could do that by postulating an UP victory in the 48' election (the watershed moment) but UP would not vote for apartheid as the one that we've known like banning people from different "race" to intermarry as in OTL and UP would not be as "selective" as the NP in vetting for potential white immigrants.

Like it or not South African whites in general were always more conservative than their Australian/NZ counterparts due to the way the economy was structured and the makeup of the population regardless of their political party. OTL the most progressive white party that advocated for non-white rights (including for my own family) was the SACP and it would never gets into power in the 40's.

I stand corrected.

That being said, I doubt most souties or uitlanders in pre-apartheid SA thought that the Black population deserved the same rights as them. Perhaps the NP would employ their own version of the Southern (African) Strategy.

No they're not but SA is not all black and white (pun intended); the Labour and to some extent the UP were more welcoming toward the coloureds (including my own great-grandfather) and Asians to some extent when it comes to rights for education and healthcare. UP members (both whites and coloureds) vehemently opposed the removal of Coloured people from the voting rolls during the constitutional crisis of the 50's. My own grandmother remembered that the wife of her UP MP would help them in getting passes for coloured women in her constituency and even for a black woman in need for help alongside still sending Christmas greetings to those that used to vote for her husband (including my great-grandfather). Now the last one seems superficial but I can assure you no wife of a National Party MP would be caught dead sending Christmas cards to a Coloured home in the 50's.

UP is not a progressive party but it's more open to change and I can't see the NP of the 40's to change its own stance to "other" white immigrants (aside from Dutch/German speaking Calvinists that drastically. The decision of the NP to "embrace" Mediterranean immigrants in the 70's and on later immigrants from the communist countries is brought by a gradual realisation and a change of situation and that even provoked condemnation from the more reactionary elements.

 

[Fred the Great]

the people who genuinely grew here over 40,000 years are for murdering by the police, courts, prisons and hospitals.

We all know this is verging into current politics, which is not allowed in this forum, but just for others reading, this is a rather emotional and not fact-driven comment.

Aboriginal Australians are more likely to be in custody than non-Aboriginals on average, but this is largely because they are more likely to be of lower socio-welfare status, and that has always been a determinant for any groups of people in terms of engagement with criminal justice.

In terms of deaths in custody or at the hands of police, Aboriginal inmates deaths are actually lower than the overall average, and they are more likely to be due to health conditions.

Murder? No. Systemically disadvantaged? Yes.

 

[Sam R.]

As of 1982, which is a good forty years, police activity was malicious, the private religious social services were run by paedophiles, and for same SES life outcomes were different. The first two had begun to change at the 20 year rule, I haven’t looked into the last.

Sustained reckless indifference is a form of culpability, particularly where there’s explicit duty of care.

 

[Indicus]

Jan Smuts wanted the immigration of Eastern Europeans to increase the white minority. I’m not sure if it was a general United Party policy or anything like that, but it might have been indicative of a viewpoint - if it was, I suppose some sort of scenario including a United Party victory in 1948 and some sort of National Party collapse to keep it from winning in 1953 or later might do it.

On the other hand, a United Party led South Africa would be quite a different place. Smuts believed in segregation but thought that going as far as apartheid would diminish white living standards, and the United Party was in general white supremacist, but not as white supremacist as the National Party. It would, in truth, be an extremely different South Africa for reasons different to just the immigration.

 

[JohnBull]

But South Africans did admit Whites from every corner of Europe. Portuguese alone make up some 200,000 and they integrated into the mainstream White community much more smoothly than it happened in Australia precisely because Whites were a minority there and the regime and society overall was always obsessed by the "swart gevaar" and trapped in this siege mentality.

About the question, nothing would change. South Africans did admit Southern and Eastern Europeans and even if their outmatch Australia attracting them, Whites would still be a minority.

 

[Die Oulike Bloutongskink]

But South Africans did admit Whites from every corner of Europe. Portuguese alone make up some 200,000 and they integrated into the mainstream White community much more smoothly than it happened in Australia precisely because Whites were a minority there and the regime and society overall was always obsessed by the "swart gevaar" and trapped in this siege mentality.

About the question, nothing would change. South Africans did admit Southern and Eastern Europeans and even if their outmatch Australia attracting them, Whites would still be a minority.

To say that they were integrated more smoothly is incorrect until the 80's; during the 40's - 70's most of them were derided and discriminated, particularly amongst the conservative Afrikaners. The "siege mentality" and subsequently the attempt of the NP to cajole more European immigrants (of all kinds) from Europe only took place during the end of the 60's due to the political isolation and its own stubbornness to maintain apartheid even when their own voters, particularly the conservative Afrikaners that would later on voted for the KP (Conservative Party).

..like Greeks and Portuguese South Africans…were labelled “see-kaffirs” (“oceanniggers”) by some Afrikaners – politically unreliable; culturally alien; preferred soccer to rugby (that being, in the apartheid imagination, a “black” game over a “white” game)...
- Pereira,JL (2017)

About the second point; it remains to be seen whether a larger "white" immigration toward SA early enough before the plummeting of fertility rate amongst white South Africans would change our history, particularly if the UP was at the helm instead of the NP and our kind of "white" immigrants were not "selected" as vigorously as OTL. Whites would still be a minority is already a fait accompli by the 40's but apartheid's social engineering is not given. At worst we'll see a Rhodesian style "limited" enfranchisement and at best a gradual transformation to democracy for all South Africans with probably a "canton" or "minority-quota" (and by minority, also coloureds and Asians) in the parliament/public service as the one that was suggested by the NP in the 90's.
---
That being said; "white" is an arbitrary category during apartheid that is based more on appearance and social acceptance of one's look as "white". Turks for example are whites according to the NP and similarly Arabs/Berbers that could pass as "white" would be accepted as whites, particularly if they're Christian like Maronites but not necessarily so. Lebanese and Syrians of all background were categorised as whites and it was partly due to their support that some of the mosques in the "white" designated urban areas in the Cape were preserved even when the overwhelming majority of Muslims are coloureds/Asians as by closing the mosques the NP is depriving their own (white) citizens of their personal rights.