1. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
Insofar as any ideology can be conceived of as home-grown, the ideology of Apartheid
was a home-grown response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to racial tensions in
South Africa. In this essay I argue that ideological comparisons between Jim Crow in the
American South and Nazism are false because Apartheid had a home-grown ideological
basis, which took the form of three fundamental novel ideological principles. These are:
the idea of Afrikaners as an ‘elect people’ due to shared Afrikaner semi-mythological
historical experience, the ‘cultural essentialism’ (Dubow, 1995: 246) of the Afrikaner’s
perceived necessity to identify with the ‘Volk’ for the Volk’s survival, and that the
cultural differences between the pseudo-tribes of Africa should be fully institutionalised.
However, although the ideological basis of Apartheid was home-grown, the real-word
implementation of Apartheid ideology represented by ‘practical Apartheid’, did not form
in total ‘isolation from the rest of the world’ (Guelke, 2004: 40). Jim Crow and, to a lesser
extent, Nazism had a modest tangible impact on how ‘practical Apartheid’ was
implemented in the real world. The legislation of Jim Crow provided worthwhile
guidelines as an existing case study of certain types of racial legislation, similar forms of
which were later emulated and implemented as part of ‘practical Apartheid’. In addition,
the failure of Nazism in attempting to implement extreme and therefore unfeasible
racial policies, such as genocide, provided a valuable cautionary tale for Afrikaners in
demonstrably proving the need to consider the actual chance of real-world success of
Apartheid racial policies.
Before I proceed to interrogate the extent to which Apartheid was a genuinely home-
grown response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to racial tensions, it is critical to
clarify my definition of Apartheid for the purposes of this essay. In this essay I make the
concerted effort to distinguish between ‘ideal Apartheid’ and ‘practical Apartheid’. I
define ‘ideal Apartheid’ as Apartheid in its existence as an abstract ideological
conception. I define ‘practical Apartheid’ as the way that the abstract ideology contained
within ‘ideal Apartheid’ was materially manifested in the real world through
government policy. The distinction between ‘ideal Apartheid’ and ‘practical Apartheid’ is
important for the purposes of this essay because I make the assertion that the ideology
of ‘ideal Apartheid’ was home-grown but that ‘practical Apartheid’ was influenced by
‘imports’. In order to make this assertion in this essay, I focus primarily on the origins of
Apartheid as an abstract ideological conception (or ‘ideal Apartheid’). This is because
the three fundamental novel ideological principles of ‘ideal Apartheid’ formed the
overarching framework that guided Afrikaner intellectuals and elites’ grand strategy in
response to racial tensions and ultimately dictated how Apartheid as a response was
manifested in the real-world compromises of ‘practical Apartheid’.
On a related note, I also argue that it would be reductionist to assert that the ideological
basis of Apartheid ‘as monolithic … [ideal] Apartheid was a complex phenomenon’
(Maylam, 2001: 201). Therefore for the purposes of interrogating the ideology of
Apartheid within realistic parameters, in this essay, I refer to the ideology of Apartheid
in its form as concisely conveyed by Verwoerd in his time as prime minister from 1958
to 1966 (Beinart, 1994: 140). This is because before Verwoerd’s ideological
crystallisation of Apartheid, it was not well-defined how Apartheid ideology was a
revolution from segregation ideology and ‘various forces of Afrikaner nationalism …
[still] had different interpretations’ (Guelke, 2004: 86) of the ideological basis for
Apartheid, such as the differences in interpretation between northern conservative
Afrikaners and more liberal Afrikaners in the Cape Dutch Society (Dubow, 1992: 212).
Discussion of the three fundamental home-grown ideological principles of ‘ideal
Apartheid’:
The first fundamental home-grown ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ is the idea
of Afrikaners as an ‘elect people’, due to shared Afrikaner semi-mythological historical

2. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
experience. Apartheid ideology was founded on the premise that Afrikaners were a
‘chosen people’ (or ‘Volk’). This came about because successive Afrikaner organisations
perpetuated a semi-mythological view of Afrikaner history whereby Afrikaners were
said to have survived against almost impossible odds and through great adversity with
the specific assistance of God. The Society of True Afrikaners perpetuated this semi-
mythological history in 1875 with the publication of their own historical manuscript
detailing the heroic struggles of the Afrikaner as God’s chosen people (Worden, 2000:
97). This semi-mythological history was authentically home-grown and based on
seminal Afrikaner events that were highly specific to Afrikaners such as; the Great Trek,
the Boers’ heroic victory against the Zulus in the battle of Blood River, and the Boers’
staunch resistance to the expansion of British imperialism in the Boer wars (Dubow,
1992: 224). This Afrikaner belief that they were ‘an elect people’ (Beinart and Dubow,
1995: 198) came about as a result of these specific traumas that Afrikaners shared or
what has also been called their ‘sacred history’, which has manifested itself in what
Moodie (1992) called the Afrikaner’s ‘civil religion’. This ‘civil religion’ or deep-rooted
belief embedded in semi-mythological history ‘provided the vital stimulus for the
development of Afrikaner nationalism as a mass movement’ (Dubow, 1992: 210) and
subsequently constituted a principle of the ideological basis of Apartheid. Afrikaner self-
belief in their elect status formed a key principle in Apartheid ideology and gave
Afrikaners a sense of moral authority, a sense of duty, and justification as god’s chosen
race in Africa, to enact ‘practical Apartheid’ as a response to racial tensions.
The second fundamental home-grown ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ is the
‘cultural essentialism’ (Dubow, 1995: 246) of the Afrikaner’s perceived necessity to
identify with the Volk for the Volk’s survival. The core notion of this ‘cultural
essentialism’ was ‘the notion that the realization of the full human potential comes not
from individual self-assertion but through identification with and service of the Volk’
(Adam and Giliomee, 1979: 116). Afrikaner intellectuals and elites applied this
ideological imperative integral to ‘ideal Apartheid’, to the hands-on initiatives of
‘practical Apartheid’ that concentrated on the Volk’s key aim of ‘uplifting itself’’ (Dubow,
2014: 6). This principle of cultural essentialism occurred as an organically within
Afrikaner culture as consequence of the fact that Afrikaners never had the privilege of
‘safety in numbers’ (Giliomee, 2003[A]: 470) this was because the numerical
vulnerability of the Volk, give rise to substantial fear that the Volk might cease to exist
culturally, if it was not consolidated politically. This cultural essentialism is in stark
contrast to the crude scientific racism drawn from the vocabulary of Social Darwinism’
(Dubow, 1995: 246) and associated with Nazism and South African ‘segregation’. The
language of cultural essentialism only inferred ‘biological theories of racial superiority …
rather than to assert these openly’ (Dubow, 1995: 246) and biological racist arguments
common in most foreign racial movements were therefore ‘eschewed in favour of
cultural essentialism’ (Fredrickson, 2003: 135). What undergirded Afrikaner cultural
essentialism, rather than racism outcomes (like many foreign racial ideologies), was
political and cultural survival, as has been put forward by Giliomee (2003[A]: 470). Cillie
(1954: 45-47) argued that the ideological motive of Apartheid was ‘not detraction but
defence’ of the Volk and that Afrikaners' survival instinct was stronger than any sense of
race prejudice. Moodie (1992) has argued to the contrary to my assertion that this core
principle of Apartheid organic. He in fact argues that cultural essentialism, and therefore
the response to racial tensions by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites, was highly
influenced by the imported ‘neo-fichtean’ ‘idealized view of the nation or Volk as a
collective organism’ (Dubow, 1995: 261). However, I argue that because Afrikaner
‘cultural essentialist’ thought was so grounded in the Afrikaner’s own fears as a result of
numerical vulnerability and of course also influenced their own unique semi-
mythological experience, the principle of cultural essentialism that undergirded
Apartheid was not a pre-formulated ‘neo-fichtean’ import.

3. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
The third fundamental home-grown ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ is that
cultural differences between the pseudo-tribes of South Africa should be fully
institutionalised. This fundamental principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’, in its fully-developed
form as conveyed by Verwoerd, was heavily influenced by Afrikaner intellectual and
elite, Werner Eiselen, who asserted that ‘hereditary and cultural characteristics’ among
the pseudo-tribes of South Africa ‘functioned as a social barrier’ and should therefore be
‘reflected institutionally’ (Dubow, 1992: 232). This emphasis that cultural differences
between the pseudo-tribes of South Africa should be fully institutionalised that formed a
key ideological principle of ‘ideal Apartheid’ led to the proposal of ‘project of social
engineering the like of which the world had never seen’ (Harrison, 1981: 169). This
project was the creation of the Bantusans, a grand real-world attempt to resolve the so-
called ‘Veelvolkigge’ (multi-ethnic situation) in South Africa and thus prevent racial
tension as a component of ‘practical Apartheid’. This creation of the Bantusans
represented a significant ideological shift in relation to the well-established racial
supremacist principles that had formed the basis of justifications the ideology of
segregation. This prior segregationist ideology consisted of the Afrikaners as the
‘Herrenvolk’ (master race) in a role as ‘Baas’ (Overseer of other races) throughout South
Africa. This unapologetically white supremacist idea was communicated by J G Strydom
even in the early 1950s, where he argued that Europeans should ‘stand their ground’
against other races, in order to remain Baas (Fredrickson, 2003: 134).
In sharp contrast to the white supremacist values of segregation, the fully developed
ideological impetus of ‘ideal Apartheid’, as conveyed by Verwoerd, that put stress on
institutionalising cultural difference did so on the basis that ‘biological differences
among the big race groups’ are inconsequential in determining races’ ability to develop
to reach a ‘higher social civilization’ (Miller, 1993: 650). The stress on institutionalising
cultural difference was instead for the purpose of eliminating inevitable points of
‘friction between the races’ are totally eliminated (Harrison, 1981: 170). This ideological
aim behind institutionalising cultural differences between pseudo-tribes of South Africa
was virtually utopian in its purest conception, it was postulated that separation would
allow ‘survival and full development, politically and economically, to each of the other
racial groups as well’ as Afrikaners (Giliomee, 2003[A]: 521). Theoretically, self-
contained Bantusans would ‘grant to other ethnic groups what Afrikaners demanded for
themselves’ (O’Meara, 1996: 65-66), although the sad reality of ‘practical Apartheid’ was
that because of a lack of determined state investment into the Bantusans, ‘virtually no
development at secondary level’ actually took place (Harrison, 1981: 179). The specific
decisions made regarding the creation of the Bantusans were deeply rooted in tribal
custom (Davenport and Saunders, 2000: 337) and was drawn along carefully considered
pseudo-tribal lines. This is because the Bantusan system had to rely ‘on some
acceptance and collaboration’ if it was realistically going to be successful from its
beginning (Cell, 1982: 252). Thus as part of the implementation of this aspect of
‘practical Apartheid’, Chiefs such as Chief Buthelezi of KwaZulu ‘were elevated to
positions of unprecedented authority’ (Beinart and Dubow, 1995: 16). Although the
implementation of the Bantusans was top-down, ‘several studies suggest’ the pseudo-
tribal distinctions that were drawn were vindicated because to some extent they
resonated ‘with strands in African politics’ (Beinart and Dubow, 1995: 17).
However, it is asserted by Dubow (Dubow, 2014: 20), amongst others, that this
somewhat utopian vision of the Bantusans within ‘ideal Apartheid’ is an ‘imported’
variation of Kuyperian theology. Kuyerperian theology centred on the notion that
‘society was an organic whole, albeit one that was divided into separate spheres’ and
that separation should exist between social institutions, to reflect these separate
spheres. However, I argue because the Bantusans were divided in accordance with the

4. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
South African pseudo-scientific setting, this grand response to racial tensions was home-
grown. In addition to the Bantusans being formulated with this specific attention, J D Du
Toit formulated a religious basis for the Bantusans that differed from Kuyperian
theology and was that was integrated into Apartheid, as conveyed by Verwoerd. Du Toit
‘emphasized god’s role as ‘Hamabdil’ (the great divider) and argued that the Boers’ trek
‘away from the liberal Cape to create their own nation’ (Dubow, 1992: 217-218)
exemplified God’s will in establishing national distinction along Volk lines, and the
Bantusans should be justified for the same reasons
Addressing the contention that Nazism was imported as part of Afrikaners’
response to racial tensions:
The Afrikaner’s obsession, grounded in their own semi-mythological history, of being
god’s ‘chosen people’ has led to contentions that Nazism ideology influenced Apartheid
ideology. Most of these claims are however of little analytical value because they are
mainly based on imprecise observations of semantic similarities between Apartheid and
Nazism. Such a semantic observations is that the ideologies ‘are of the same genre …
driven by the same sense of cultural despair, the same group hatreds and personal
resentments’ (Sparks, 1991: 162–163). Nazism is the starkest example of a racial policy
grounded in social Darwinism and eugenics in the modern era and I concur with Adam
(1971: 47) in arguing that ‘comparisons between National Socialism and the south
African race system tend to cloud rather than clarify the specific circumstances’.
Observations of such vague semantic themes such as the ‘genre’ of ‘cultural despair’ do
not constitute evidence for the inspiration of one ideology by another.
Others, who contend that Apartheid ideology was based on the ‘import’ of Nazism, argue
that Afrikaner support for Nazis in the Second World War such as evident in the
foundation of ‘Ossewabrandwag’, signified that Nazi racial supremacist ideology was
popular amongst Afrikaners and therefore naturally formed a part of Apartheid
ideology. However, I argue in line with Guelke (2004: 78) that Hitler, and the Nazis,
were empathised with by the Afrikaners in same way that some Afrikaners empathised
with the ‘Irish nationalists’ due to Afrikaners’ own negative experiences of British
imperialism, because they felt as though England acted imperialistically towards Ireland
and ‘radical Irish nationalists’. The reason some Afrikaners supported the Nazis is
because they saw any enemy of their British adversaries, as somewhat of a friend. This
explanation rehabilitates the fact the Verwoerd formulated the Apartheid ideology that
didn’t even include the basic Nazi premise of social Darwinism, didn’t agree with
arguments ‘for the importance of physical or psychological traits of race or Volk are
unsubstantiated’ (Miller, 1993: 651), and yet was proven to have produced Nazi
propaganda in the late 1930s and early 1940s (Guelke, 2004: 32).
However, whilst I have argued that contentions that Apartheid ideology and
consequently Afrikaner intellectuals and elites’ response to racial tensions, was based
on the ‘import’ of Nazism, there were minor pragmatic lessons that was taken from the
failure of Nazism to succeed in its initial aims, affecting how ‘practical Apartheid’ was
deployed in South Africa. From Nazism, Afrikaner intellectuals and elites learned the
important lessons that they needed to reign-in the utopian ambitions of their racial
philosophy and make sure that, unlike Nazism, the realistic chance of success of
Apartheid policies was properly considered.
Addressing the contention that Jim Crow was imported as part of Afrikaners’
response to racial tensions:
The need for Afrikaner’s to implement legislation to preserve the Volk along racial lines
in line with the prescriptions of cultural essentialism has led to comparisons between
Apartheid ideology and a foreign ideology, the ideology behind the Jim Crow Laws in the

5. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
American South. Many have erroneously argued that racial laws in South Africa, which
undoubtedly bear significant resemblance in their formulation to the Jim Crow Laws, are
evidence that Apartheid intellectuals and elites imported ideological ideas from the
American South to integrate into Apartheid ideology. Such comparisons made between
the Jim Crow Laws and South Africa’s Immorality Amendment Act of 1950 and
Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Bill of 1949, the latter of which was in fact justified in its
drafting by Eben Donges ‘by reference to the existence of a similar law in 30 states in the
United States’ (Giliomee, 2003[B]: 377), are misguided. Although in term pragmatic
steps Jim Crow and ‘practical Apartheid’ took, Jim Crow was much more aligned to South
Africa than Nazi Germany (Giliomee, 2003[B]: 377), the guidance that Jim Crow
provided for Apartheid was not ideological. Afrikaner intellectuals and elites only
derived legislative guidance from the case study of Jim Crow legislation so that they
could draft the most sensibly formulated legislation possible as part of the response to
racial tensions that was ‘practical Apartheid’. As the ideological architect of Apartheid it
is significant that ‘there is no evidence that Verwoerd showed any interest in or even
had any knowledge of social engineering as it was discussed in the United States’ (Miller,
1993: 656).
Conclusions:
Afrikaner intellectuals and elites’ intellectual response to racial tensions, wholly
encompassed within their conception ‘ideal Apartheid’, was organically authored by
novel Afrikaner thought. The three fundamental ideological principles of Apartheid
were: the idea of Afrikaners as an ‘elect people’ due to shared Afrikaner semi-
mythological historical experience, the cultural essentialism of the Afrikaner’s perceived
necessity to identify with the Volk for the Volk’s survival, and that cultural differences
between the pseudo-tribes of Africa should be fully institutionalised. Thus, contentions
that the ideology of Apartheid as a response to racial tension, directly influenced by
Nazism or Jim Crows ideology, inevitably fail. In the case of Nazism, the use of observed
vague semantic themes such as the existence of pockets of Afrikaner Nazi support
during the Second World War as evidence for import of ideological ideas, fails. In the
case of Jim Crow, highlighting similarities within the drafting of both regimes’ racial
legislation as evidence, also fails. However, Jim Crow and to a lesser extent Nazism had
tangible impact on how ‘practical Apartheid’ was implemented in the real world as a
response to racial tensions in South Africa. Both provided useful lessons as case studies.
Jim Crow offered guidance for the formulation of certain pieces of Apartheid legislation
and Nazism highlighted the need to curb real-world ambitions of ‘ideal Apartheid’ so
that ‘practical Apartheid’ was realistic in its scope.
Bibliography:
Books -

6. Giles Thompson - To what extent was Apartheid a genuinely ‘home grown’ response by Afrikaner intellectuals and elites to
racial tensions?
• Adam, H. (1971), ‘Modernizing racial domination: Dynamics of South African politics’. Berkley:
University of California Press.
• Adam, H. and Giliomee, H. (1979), ‘Ethnic Power Mobilized: Can South Africa Change?’. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
• Beinart, W. (1994), ‘Twentieth-century South Africa’. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.
• Beinart, W. and Dubow, S. (1995), ‘Segregation and apartheid in twentieth-century South
Africa’. New York: Taylor & Francis.
• Cell, J. W. (1982), ‘Highest stage of white supremacy: The origins of segregation in South Africa
and the American south’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Davenport, T. R. H. and Saunders, C. (2000), ‘South Africa: A modern history’. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dubow, S. (1995) Scientific racism in modern South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Dubow, S. (2014), ‘Apartheid, 1948-1994’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fredrickson, G. M. (2003), ‘Racism: A short history’. New York: Princeton University Press.
• Giliomee, H. B. (2003 [A]), ‘The Afrikaners, the: Biography of a people’. London: C Hurst & Co
Publishers.
• Guelke, A. (2004), ‘Rethinking the rise and fall of apartheid: South Africa and world politics’.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Harrison, D. (1981), ‘White tribe of Africa: South Africa in perspective’. London: BBC.
• Maylam, P. (2001), ‘South Africa’s racial past: The history and historiography of racism,
segregation, and apartheid (research in migration and ethnic relations)’. London: Ashgate
Publishing.
• Moodie, D. (1992), ‘Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid and Afrikaner Civil Religion’.
Berkley: University of California Press.
• O’Meara, D. (1996), ‘Forty Lost Years: The Apartheid State and the Politics of the National
Party, 1948–1994. Randburg: Ravan Press.
• Sparks, A. (1991), ‘The Mind of South Africa: The Story of the Rise and Fall of Apartheid’.
London: Mandarin.
• Worden, N. (2000), ‘The making of modern South Africa: Conquest, segregation and apartheid’.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Journal Articles -
• Giliomee, H. (2003[B]), ‘The making of the apartheid plan, 1929-1948’. Journal of Southern
African Studies, 29(2), pp. 373–392.
• Cillie, P. (1954), ‘Republished editorial from Die Transvaler’. Journal of Racial Affairs, 1(6), pp.
45-47.
• Dubow, S. (1992), ‘Afrikaner nationalism, apartheid and the conceptualization of “race”’. The
Journal of African History, 33(2), pp. 209–237.
• Miller, R. B. (1993), ‘Science and society in the early career of H. F. Verwoerd’. Journal of
Southern African Studies, 19(4), pp. 634–661.