A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Ethnic Harmony

Ethnic Harmony

Thomas Allen

    In The Natural Law of Race Relations (1993), Laszlo Thomay presents his natural law of race relations. Based on ethnical relations in various multinational countries, he derives this law. (He uses race in the biological and national sense. Except when quoting from his book, “race” in this article refers to a biological race, such as the Negro race or Turanian race. “Nationality” means race in the national sense, such as Slovene, Basque, Sioux, or Zulu; all people of the same nationality are of the same biological race. “Ethnic” is used in a broad sense to include both race and nationality.) He states the law as follows:

People of different races, nationalities, languages or cultures can not live peacefully and harmoniously within the confines of the same state if the minority exceeds a certain proportion of the total population. Exceptions may occur by virtue of reducing the effective size of the minority when the minority lives in a geographically separate area with full autonomy, and/or the minority is willing to be, and capable of being absorbed into the majority, and/or the minority is very small and avoids any action deemed to be provocative to the majority.

A shorter, but less exact, stating of this law is, “The larger and more noticeably different a minority is, the more relations between majority and minority deteriorate.”

    Maintaining good racial and ethnic relationships requires maintaining the minority below a certain percentage of the country’s population. The percentage varies, but it usually is below one to five percent. The more noticeable the minority, the more it threatens the majority; the lower the percentage is, the less it threatens the majority.

    The noticeability can be visual or audible. People of different races are visually different. They cannot overcome this difference. People who speak different languages are audibly different. If they are of the same race, they can overcome this difference, at least by the following generation, by the minority learning to speak fluently the language of the majority.

    The United States offer an example of where audible differences are overcome, but not visual differences. People from the many national groups of Europe have come to the United States. They are of the same primary race, so any visual differences are cultural, which they can change, and not biological, which they cannot change. Most of them learn to speak English. English becomes the primary language of most of their children. By the second or third generation, they are part of the majority.

    However, Blacks have been unable to fit in. Although most of the majority will deny it, the majority perceives Blacks as a threat. Audibly they are indistinguishable from the majority. Except for some recent immigrants, Blacks have spoken English for generations. However, their visual differences are highly noticeable. Being biological, these differences cannot be overcome.

    The recent onslaught of Mexican Indian and mestizo immigrants shows even more striking differences from the majority. They display not only visual differences that are biological; they also display audible differences. Spanish is their primary, and for many only, language. Most have no desire to replace Spanish with English as their primary language.

    A few multiracial (or perhaps more correctly multiethnical or multinational) countries with good relationships do exist. The primary example is Switzerland. The four different nationalities are of the same race. They segregate themselves geographically. Whenever a person of one nationality moves to an area dominated by a different nationality, he is expected to adopt, and he usually does, the language of the area into which he moves.

    However, strife exists in most multiethnical countries even when the people are of the same race and segregate themselves geographically, essentially, according to their nationality. Examples of these countries are Canada, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and India.

    The way to reduce ethnic strife is to reduce the effective size of the minority. This reduction can be achieved by territorial separation, assimilation, or a cooperative attitude by the minority.

    Territorial separation within a country would require segregating minorities into definite geographical areas with definable political boundaries. Such areas should have full autonomy over domestic matters. Territorial separation explains in part the success of Switzerland. However, that the unusual conditions that account for Switzerland’s success exist elsewhere is doubtful.

    The United States have tried internal territorial separation. The result, however, has been a failure. Indians were segregated into reservations. Instead of giving them independence on their reservations, the United States government reduced them to wards. Blacks have, in the North at least, been largely segregated to the inner parts of the large cities. They have been denied domestic autonomy. As it did the Indians, the United States government has made them wards. Furthermore, they are forced on the majority via various integrationist programs, thereby defeating the purpose of geographical separation.

    Assimilation can only work if the minority is biologically the same as the majority, i.e., of the same race unless the majority wants to destroy itself. Assimilation has worked in the United States as far as European immigrants are concerned. Europeans are of the same race as the majority. Moreover, they are of the same basic Christian culture of Western Civilization. These immigrants desired to adopt the language and the way of life of the majority. However, the Negro differs biologically from the majority and has not been assimilated. Unless the majority, as well as the minority, are willing to destroy themselves, assimilation of different races cannot occur.

    A cooperative attitude by the minority can go a long way toward creating ethnical harmony. The minority must make no special demands. It must not complain or seek a dominating role. So, the less noticeable the minority, the better the relationship. A cooperative attitude by the minority seldom occurs unless the minority is extremely small. Nearly all minorities in the United States abhor a cooperative attitude.

    Several actions can be taken to improve ethnical harmony not only in the United States but also globally. These actions are territorial separation and independence (the break up of empires) with border adjustment where appropriate, repatriation, and restrictions on immigration. The objective is to reduce the size of the minority until it no longer matters and the majority no longer considers the minority a threat to its existence.

    Where practical each nationality should have its own independent nation-state. (About 170 countries would be required to provide each nationality of the Aryan race of any significance to its own country.) The division of empires into nation-states has recently occurred with Czechoslovakia, which divided into a state for Czechs and one for Slovaks. It has occurred to a limited degree with the break up of the old Soviet Union. (To finish this process, many more nationalities in Russia will have to receive independence, and many Russians will have to be repatriated to Russia from the new nation-states of the old Soviet Union.) This solution would eliminate strife in Canada between French Quebec and English Canada, South Africa among the Afrikaans, Zulus, Xhosas, etc., Belgium between the Flemish and Walloons, the multinational countries of Europe, and just about every country in Africa where political borders were drawn for the benefit of the imperial powers with little regard for the various African nationalities. Independence is the best solution and the solution that should be used whenever possible. (The major difficulty with creating independent nation-states will be overcoming the lust for power and empire of the governing bodies of the empires of the world. An empire is a country containing more than one significant nationality.)

    In the United States, Indian reservations should be granted complete independence — at least on domestic and economic issues, if not in foreign relations. Furthermore, the United States empire should be divided into several independent federations.

    A possible solution to the Negro problem would be to create independent states similar to Indian reservations for Blacks. Political boundaries could be drawn around areas inhabited predominately by Blacks. These areas would include a large fraction of the major cities and parts of the rural South.

    Once nation-states have been created for each nationality, some border adjustments may be necessary. Such adjustments are likely to be needed in Europe and Asia where historical provincial and regional boundaries often encompass minorities who are the majority in the adjacent state. The map of Africa would have to be completely redrawn. The objective is to create a separate, homogenous state for each nationality without any minority.

    Once each nationality has its own independent nation-state, it would have to take steps to prevent future minority problems. Severe restrictions would have to be placed on immigration. Immigration should be limited to nationalities that the receiving country can assimilate. The number of immigrants should be restricted so that they can be assimilated.

    Recent arrivals (any post-World War II immigrants and their descendants) who have not been assimilated should be repatriated. Repatriation could be used on older unassimilated minorities who have identifiable homelands to which to return. Since World War II, several countries have resorted to repatriation to protect their majority. These include Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania expelling Asian Indians. In North America, some Indian tribes have expelled from their reservations non-Indians who have been living there for years.

    Liberals, neo-conservatives, libertarians, shallow thinkers, and far too many theologians would object to restricting immigration. They would argue that people have a right to move to any country to which they desire, to retain their religion, language, and special culture, and to transmit these values to their offspring. Their objection to immigration restriction rests on a false premise that people have a right to go wherever they please. People have no such right. No one has the right to enter and occupy someone else’s territory unless he is invited and accepted. This principle is as true of a collective national domicile as it is of an individual private domicile. The people of the receiving country have the right to decide whom they will invite
.
    When immigration is not controlled, the majority risks losing its territory to a minority, who supplant them as the new majority. A classic example is the United States and Canada where Europeans supplanted the Indians. Albanians have replaced the Serbs as the majority in the former Serbian region of Kosova. Fijians are on the verge of losing their country to Asian Indians, who are now the majority. (Fiji presents an interesting situation where the minority would have to repatriate the majority to regain its country.) Uncontrolled immigration can destroy a people.

    When a minority race or nationality exceeds a certain fraction of the population of a country, ethnic strife erupts. Ethnic strife can be lessened by internal geographical separation, assimilation, and a cooperative attitude by the minority. Assimilation is not practical or possible when the majority and minority are of different races. Geographically separation does not work in countries that promote integration. Minorities abandon their cooperative attitudes once they exceed a certain fraction of the population. The only long-term solution to ethnical strife is for each nationality to have its own independent nation-state. To prevent future ethnic strife, these nation-states need to restrict immigration to those nationalities that they can assimilate and to such numbers as can be assimilated. Keeping minorities to a very small number will eliminate ethnic strife.

Copyright © 1996, 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.