[foldr]

The motivations behind people’s votes rather obviously do matter if your are attempting to use these votes as evidence of a particular attitude towards the apartheid system.

The best that can be said is that once the imminent collapse of apartheid became obvious to almost everyone, a clear (but not overwhelming) majority of white people voted to get rid of it.

To me these facts are obviously inconsistent with the narrative that apartheid was an unpopular policy that persisted only because of gerrymandering and other electoral shenanigans. One can also look at polling and surveys to reach the same conclusion.

[mdpm]

I was a child of that transition, and part of a family that worked and fought for that transition. Don't decry the efforts that led to it having the broad support it did. Did some people want to remain in the past they'd been conditioned to? Sure. Some East Germans did too. They're victims alike, but not in proportion. Wanting to consider the nature of the people as evil, we end up applying the fundamental attribution error, but on a group, which is far worse.

[foldr]

The point is not that no progress had been made by the 90s. The point is simply that we must acknowledge the complicity of large numbers of white South Africans in the apartheid system, and acknowledge that many crucial components of apartheid (such as a the ban on interracial marriage) were popular policies. Outside of revisionist historical circles, this isn't a remotely controversial point.

Ultimately I defer to the comprehensive TRC report. Here is an apt quote from the introduction to volume 4:

>An important debate with which the Commission had to wrestle was, as has been fully discussed in the chapter on The Mandate, how to paint the backdrop against which such human rights violations occurred. Without some sense of the “antecedents, circumstances, factors and context” within which gross violations of human rights occurred, it is almost impossible to understand how, over the years, people who considered themselves ordinary, decent and God-fearing found themselves turning a blind eye to a system which impoverished, oppressed and violated the lives and very existence of so many of their fellow citizens.

>It is an old question: one that is asked of any country that undertakes acts so foul that the world openly condemns it. It is a question that has been answered in different ways, for such is the nature of historical debate. However, what is clear is that apartheid could only have happened if large numbers of enfranchised, relatively privileged South Africans either condoned or simply allowed it to continue.

[mdpm]

White people are a minority in the country. Given an opportunity to change the story, the overwhelming majority of them supported that, and were willing to hand over power. [1] It was obvious that would mean a black majority government, and they still did it.

The government lied to everyone, and some believed it. You'd seemingly like to make a villain out of all white South Africans, but that's not helpful in any way - many, like myself, were born into apartheid and struggled against it. So were my parents - they had no part in making those laws, and yet were born before the Union was established. It's easy to miss what it's like to try to counteract a regime - you and your loved ones will suffer. The populace did not wield the power of transformation itself, it was international intervention that allowed it to happen.

Were some complicit? Yes, obviously. Did many know? Probably. Was it the majority that supported a status quo for some time? Yes, but not without being manipulated. It was standard education that there were 'grades' of people for most of the 19 and early 20th centuries, and in South Africa this was redoubled. Narratives like 'black people are the result of the snake and eve' were common. I've spoken to many older people who are horrified at what they believed. It's incredibly hard to escape a bubble when it's all you hear. State TV, state sanctioned news, international sanctions mean you didn't ever hear how SA was seen internationally. The TRC was asking people to recognise what it saw, and what many others saw - that evil is banal, and within us. It deliberately did not pursue further actions against those that were not directly involved in harm, or who ordered it.

You have taken 'large numbers' and seem to have interpreted it quite liberally to mean 'the majority', and then further concluded that there is then some obvious flaw in their moral character. I could say the same of the US forever wars and destabilisation, but would it help? To accuse and paint with that shame every citizen?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_South_African_apartheid_r...

[foldr]

>Was it the majority that supported a status quo for some time? Yes, but not without being manipulated

It seems we are in agreement on the basic point. Bear in mind that at the beginning of this thread, throwaway210222 appeared to disagree with this point, and this is what I was responding to.

> You'd seemingly like to make a villain out of all white South Africans

> ... and then further concluded that there is then some obvious flaw in their moral character.

You're persistently reading things into my posts that I just haven't said. I haven't made any comment on the moral character of white South Africans as it's irrelevant to my point.

I really think that if you read through my posts again without the preconception that I'm trying to paint all white South Africans as inherently evil, you might find that you don't actually disagree substantially with any of what I'm saying.

As another poster put it, we must avoid the comforting fantasy that a system with millions of victims could have involved only a handful of perpetrators. The perpetrators were no doubt morally complex human beings like the rest of us, not evil caricatures. However, that does not mean that the fact of their participation in the system can simply be swept under the rug. Nor can the referendum vote – indeed an indicator of enormous progress – be used to show that the apartheid system did not enjoy wide support among whites in the preceding decades.

[mdpm]

I'm not looking for a comforting fantasy, I'd just like to not phrase things in a way that implies that a group identity perpetuated something that clearly many or most didn't agree with, vocally, and with their ballots. I've just noted that your comments seem quite insistent on trying to find that a group holds fault, but that's the very thing I'm stating is not logically valid. Did every German want what happened over the middle of the 20th century? No-one thinks that it wasn't 'the Germans' who did things - but thinking that's 'German nature', or that we should 'remember that was Germans!' is massively offensive to those who tried to resist, and I believe, just a leaky abstraction. Sometimes trying to cast your net around an abstraction, your definitions can lose more utility than you gain with the abstraction. Instead of 'white' - I could point at colonial descendents[1], the Boer, or Christians being the most racist group and racially motivated in that period - in the aggregate, it would be mostly correct, but in the application, it misleads and misinforms. What does "Remember the WHITE perpetrators did this!" achieve when we're a generation past when we proved that wasn't true? I'm after a more refined viewpoint that doesn't play with identity politics, but instead realises that power and disinformation are capable of growing in any soil. The banality of evil is the lesson, not attempting to racially classify people.

[1] Not all white people here are 'colonial' like you'd imagine - see the Highland clearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

[foldr]

I think at this point you are responding based on your perception of the motivation behind my comments, and not actually disagreeing with the substance of what I’m saying. I have already stated that I’m not trying to blame all white people or all white South Africans as a group, or say that they are inherently evil.