WHAT
SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT THE OLD SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID SYSTEM?
by
J. Parnell McCarter
In its address of the old South African Apartheid
system, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS) noted the following characteristics
in a 1962 synodical “Declaration on Apartheid” (see http://www.puritans.net/articles/1962FPapartheid.pdf
) :
1. Migratory
labor laws that undermined Biblical moral family life.
2. Marriage
laws, forbidding the inter-mingling of the races
3. Educational
laws, which fix a color bar throughout the whole range of education
4. Religious
laws, which interfere with the duty of the Church to proclaim the Gospel to
all, etc.
5. Voting
laws, by which the natives effectively have no “real power to determine their
own future”
Let’s consider each of these characteristics:
First, the website http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/land-labour-and-apartheid describes the nature of the labor laws thus:
“The
government needed to make sure that people did come to the towns, and for this
reason they introduced taxes that needed to be paid. This meant that young men
left their families for a while to come to the cities to earn some money. This
money was then given over to the chief to pay taxes. This became known as the
system of migrant labour - people moved across the
country, often far from home, to work for a short while and then return to
their families. There were few job opportunities in the black areas, so they
had to go to the cities to get cash to pay the government taxes. The
system of migrant labour led to some problems
developing in black society:
The government also introduced laws
to protect white labour - reserving certain jobs for
white people only, and other jobs were kept for black people only. The jobs
that white people did were normally better paid, although there were also some
poor whites.”
The above government labor policies were wrong,
including the unequal treatment within the nation of government job preference
for whites. As noted at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
: “We also reject what has historically been called “segregationism”,
which advocates an absolute segregation of the races or ethnicities. There simply was not such absolute segregationism in ancient Israel, nor should there be in
Christian commonwealths today. While
Biblical ethnic nationalism advocates ethnic homelands, it rejects absolute
segregationist models.”
Second, the FPCS “Declaration on Apartheid” properly
notes that there is “no clear support from the Word of God” for marriage laws
forbidding the inter-mingling of the races. This is the same point I have made
at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
. The FPCS Declaration goes on to point
out that “the removal of this prohibition will not, we believe, encourage the
dreaded miscegenation of the races, as other factors and influences will
effectively counteract this danger.” In
other words, just because the FPCS disagreed with apartheid marriage laws,
should not be construed as an endorsement of inappropriate “inter-mingling of
the races”, creating an erasure of the distinct races. The Declaration does not go on to elaborate
the “other factors and influences” that “will effectively counteract this
danger”, but I would submit that ethnic homeland nations as I have defined such
at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
is one legitimate way such can be prevented.
It is clearly important that a new worldwide Babel not be created, as
the Declaration itself implies.
Third, the FPCS “Declaration on Apartheid” properly
condemns inequitable treatment of citizens in education. This is inequitable and wrong,
Fourth, the FPCS Declaration condemns religious laws
which discriminate by race. So do I, as
I state at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/:
“It goes against the grain of
scriptural principles to mark one congregation for one ethnicity and another
congregation for another ethnicity.” and as I stated when a
matter on this topic came up before the Reformation Party. I am the person described in the News Blog
at http://reformationpartynews.blogspot.com/2013/09/attacks-against-reformation.html
:
“Attacks
Against the Reformation Party/Response
It has come to the attention of the
Council of Officers that a particular individual who is no longer a Reformation
Party member is issuing attacks against the Reformation Party that it is the
party of kinism because this former member asserts a
specific current member of the Reformation Party is a kinist.
The particular current member in question is a white American married to an
Asian wife. In this current member's own words
he says: "I am happily and unrepentantly married to an Asian wife, and I
believe it is morally permissible for anyone else likewise to marry outside his
race and ethnicity, so long as it is in the Lord. I am extremely opposed
to the absolute separation of the races and ethnicities, and I believe each
church congregation has a moral duty to welcome people of all races and
ethnicities into its membership, just as the Reformation Party welcomes people
of all races and ethnicities into its membership. It should be
self-evident I am against the absolute separation of races and ethnicities
because the human closest to me in this world is a member of another race and
ethnicity." If there are any doubts or questions of Reformation
Party members or the public as to this matter, we would encourage you to
contact the Council of Officers as a whole or individually.”
I would go on to add to the above that I believe no
race should be barred from holding office in any congregation either.
Fifth, regarding voting laws, I do not believe the
vote should be withheld from any citizens of a nation merely on account of
race. (However, this is distinct from
the question of whether national citizenship and boundaries should be
determined by ethnicity.)
In summary, the old South African Apartheid system was
a system that did not properly take into account the civil rights of all people
based upon the “fundamental unity of the human family”, all people being
descended from our one father Adam, and the gospel offer of salvation open to
those of all races through the God-man Jesus Christ.
As I have noted at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
, the old South African apartheid system was an improper structure for national
organization, and should not be confused with the model I personally advocate,
Christian ethnic homeland nations. In
the same “Declaration on Apartheid”, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
pointed out:
1. Inappropriate
“inter-mingling of the races” (which I have already addressed above)
2. The
moral propriety of “nationalistic feeling”, described in the FPCS Declaration
this way: “the tide of Nationalistic feeling, flowing at present so strongly
through the African continent, has affected South Africa as well, and the
refusal to meet the natural aspirations and wishes of the non-white peoples can
only lead to frustration and unrest.” It
should be kept in mind that in 1962 many of the various African peoples (the
Nigerian people, the Algerian people, etc.) were attaining independence from
the British and French empires. The FPCS Declaration rightly regards these
ethnic nationalist feelings and aspirations as legitimate, in which each people
has a homeland nation where they are the ruling
majority, provided it is also Protestant Christian in character. What is true
of the black peoples of the world is surely also true of the white peoples of
the world.
3. The
moral impropriety of imperialism: “there can be little prospect of peace among
the peoples of the Union, while the under-privileged masses are under the
complete domination of a small white minority”.
As I have noted at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/ , imperialism is counter to a Biblical form
of ethnic nationalism. Imperialism
asserts the right of one ethnic people to rule over, and often to lord it over,
other ethnic peoples. In contrast, the
ethnic nationalism advocated at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
asserts the moral right of each ethnic people to its own independent homeland
nation, free from the abuse of another people.
Much has happened in South Africa since the 1962 FPCS
“Declaration on Apartheid”. In many
respects, the tables have totally turned.
In today’s South Africa, it is the white Afrikaners who are being discriminated
against in employment and education by various “affirmative action” laws. It is white Boers in South Africa that are
being subjected to genocide by perpetrators overwhelmingly black. Surely the current state of affairs is not
where things should be headed.
Consequently, I have proposed that Afrikaners be allowed their own
independent homeland nation where they are the ruling majority and where they
can be better protected from the abuse they are experiencing. It is not fair or Biblical to deprive white
peoples of the world ethnic homeland nations, but reserve such for African and
other non-white peoples (like the Nigerian people, Algerian people, etc.). Primary descent from Japheth should not be a
bar to Nationalistic feeling.
But we should close this article by answering this
question: is there a Biblical form of apartheid?
While there are aspects
of Apartheid South Africa I certainly disagree with, the idea of distinct
nations for the different peoples I agree with (second definition of 'apartheid'
below) provided it is a system which allows for exceptions like Old Testament
Ruth, Rahab, and Uriah:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apartheid -
... 2. any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.
The
principle of “lawful war”, as referenced in Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 136
and such prooftexts as Deuteronomy 20:1 (which speaks of the right of defense
of Jewish national property rights by Jews), is predicated on such (ethnic)
national property rights. In the absence of such national property
rights, there is little chance that individual property rights of the members
of that (ethnic) nation will be maintained either. Concretely,
remove the right of the Jewish nation and its defense as the state of Israel to
exist, or remove the right of the Afrikaner nation and its defense to exist,
then in all likelihood the neighboring Arabs and black Africans will take away
much or all of their individual property. One sense of “apartheid”
simply means separation of people according to ethnicity. If there
is no Biblical form of apartheid, but instead all separations of people
according to ethnicity are immoral, then there can be no ethnic nations, which
means there can be no morally valid (ethnic) national property
rights. Concretely, if Jews (or similarly Afrikaners) cannot separate
themselves from other peoples and have a nation which they rule, then there
will be no Jewish (or Afrikaner) nation.
So while I agree and
applaud FPCS defense of individual property rights, if it is accompanied by a
rejection of any Biblical form of apartheid (which can allow exceptions such as
we find in Old Testament Israel with Ruth, Rahab, and Uriah), then I see it as
having very limited practical value in really protecting even individual
property rights, much less ethnic national property rights. The Pope's
globalist agenda then prevails.
There was good reason
during the Reformation that the Reformers (Wyckliffe,
Huss, Luther, Zwingli, William of Orange, etc.) were Protestant nationalists,
in defense respectively of England, Bohemia, Germany, Zurich, the Netherlands,
etc.