201 CHRONICLESnAnglo-South Africans were now expected to show loyalty tona mainly Afrikaans-speaking republic without ties to thencrown. They found themselves in a minority, in a democracy,nand did not like it one whit.nThe difficulties encountered by the Republic of SouthnAfrica were and still are a consolation to many Anglo-SouthnAfricans. The mood in the English-speaking communitynbecame characterized by an “I-told-you-so” attitude. Was itnnot evident that these primitive Afrikaners, these little,nprovincial, racist, reactionary, and ridiculous farmers,npreachers, doctors, teachers, and lawyers speaking an impossiblenidiom, could not cope with the racial problem and hadnturned the country into an odious anachronism condemnednby the entire “civilized” world? To all this must be addednthe direct ideological influence of England’s and America’snpseudo-liberal left which is strongly felt among the youngerngeneration (above all the university students) eager to ben”enlightened,” “objective,” “internationally accepted,”n”unprejudiced,” “liberated” but unwittingly playing thenrole of Moscow’s “useful idiots.” They are the delight ofnforeign correspondents and reporters. The Afrikaansspeakingnmajority among the Whites is culturally rathernisolated and has no such global connection. This is anhandicap, but it is also an advantage because it enables themnto view the specific local problems from a genuine localnviewpoint without being confused by truly farfetched ideasnand ideologies. I am afraid that if the British element hadnhad a free hand since 1948, South Africa might havenbecome another Zimbabwe or Zambia.nAnd America? Three factors determined the policy ofnthe American Congress towards South Africa: Americanncultural imperialism (the time-honored tendency of Americansnto induce other nations to mirror their own image), thenguilt felt for having practiced racism in the past (and somenin the present as well), and—above all!—the simple factnthat black votes count just as much as the white and might innmany cases be decisive. I have known the American Southnfrom the 30’s and have studied the situation in regard toncolor from coast to coast and from border to border. I wasnhorrified in 1944 by a rather minor incident. In a dining carnof the Southern Railroad I watched a very cultured “Black”nman and his daughter (who had discussed baroque musicnwith me) being placed in a corner where a little curtain wasnpulled out of the car’s wall to mark their “separation” fromnthe rest of the guests. It was the purely symbolic character ofnthis small fabric which disgusted me more than far grossernforms of humiliation. Slavery in the Cape was abolishednmuch earlier than in America, and it never existed in then”Boer republics.” Lynchings never characterized the SouthnAfrican scene. There exists a convert fervor in the UnitednStates which prompts people to the silliest excesses such asn”busing” and “affirmative action” and, last but not least, toneconomic sanctions against an ally. Nobody demandednsanctions against such a “nonaligned” country as India withnits effective caste system. (Of course, the Indian governmentnalso insists on “affirmative action” so that sometimes youngnBrahmins who want to study medicine are refused with thenexplanation: “No problem if you were an Untouchable.nTheir quota is far from filled.”)nAt the same time it must be remembered that there arenreally no “Blacks” in the United States. (The translation ofnnnthe Spanish word negro into English is just another instancenof infantilism, but it has also been adopted by the Anglo-nSouth Africans.) Only a very small minority of the Americann”Blacks” are genuine Negroes. Romantic Americann”Blacks” who emigrate to Africa are usually ridiculed by thenlocal population and laughingly told that “the White Mannlooks out of your face.” In more than 80 percent of all cases,nI can distinguish an American “Black” from an African —nAmerican blacks are of mixed ancestry: they are BASPS,ni.e., Brown Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In South Africa theynwould figure as Kleurde, as “Colored,” who already haventheir own Chamber and are represented in the government.nYet since the American “Colored” (in Brazilian parlancenmorenos and not pretos) have been literally maneuveredninto considering themselves “Blacks,” they in this capacitynaffect the American political scene and thereby Americannforeign policy. There simply seem to be no limits to ournWestern confusions.nHowever, to understand the South African situationnmore perfectly, it is necessary to look at the countrynhistorically. The first Europeans who landed on its shoresnwere the Portuguese. Later, when Portugal was undernSpanish domination, the Dutch took advantage of thisnand occupied the dark continent’s southernmost sectionnwhere the population was not Black (not Bantu) butnPaleo-African — small, yellowish people with whom thenDutch mixed a great deal. The results are the “Colored,”nwho by now have also some Negro and Malay blood. Whennthe Netherlands came under French occupation, the Britishnwrested the “Cape” from the Dutch and kept it even afternthe Congress of Vienna. The Dutch farmers (boeren) didnnot like the British rule and emigrated northeast; they wentnon a trek with their covered wagons. In the course of thisnmass emigration (which, however, never became total) theynclashed with Bantus migrating southwards. Pitched battlesntook place which ended mostly in the defeat of the Blackntribes of which the toughest and most warlike were thenZulus. They later also troubled the British. In the sanguinarynZulu Wars Prince Napoleon Eugene, the only son ofnNapoleon III, was killed fighting for the British as anvolunteer. The big Zulu riots near Durban in 1986 werennot at all directed against the Whites or the Indians, butnagainst a hated Nguni-tribe, the Pondos. In other words.nBlacks as well as Whites are the invaders of a large part ofnSouth Africa where neither have a historic priority as thenIndians have in America.nThe emigrating Boers (who called themselves Afrikaners)nfounded various republics: first Natal (which soon theynhad to give up to the British), then the Orange Free Statenand Transvaal. The British were temporarily successful innannexing the latter two, but they successfully revolted.nHowever, when gold and diamonds were found in Transvaal,nthe British tried again and defeated the Boers in a cruelnwar lasting nearly three years. In that war the Britishninvented the “concentration camp” to brutally “house” thenwives, children, and parents of the Afrikaners who werenfinally driven to guerrilla warfare. In that war about 3,000nAfrikaners and 7,000 British were killed, while 30,000ncivilians,’overwhelmingly under the age of 16, died mostlynin concentration camps. World public opinion was entirelynon the Boers’ side, and enthusiastic volunteers from Europen