“The trouble with people is not their ignorance.
It is the number of things they know that ain’t so.”
—Mark Twain

During 1986, the fury of the left’s outrage with human rights in Chile abated globally and was redirected against South Africa. The reasons given were the vestiges of the apartheid system and an alleged absence of democracy. In this confrontation the United States, for reasons of its internal politics, played a major role: the improbable Washington-Moscow axis went into full gear. Thanks to American idealism, a most altruistic subservience to Soviet strategic global aims was effected.

Yet to understand the South African problem it is necessary to realize through what channels information is fed to Americans and West Europeans and what subtle but not always conscious motives are coloring the “facts.” There is not only the ever-present leftist pseudo-religion, but also a linguistic and, at the same time, historic component in the anti-South African witch-hunt. The misinformation, if not disinformation, is spread in English, and it is mainly manufactured by the South African “Anglos” who represent one third of the White population. This is most evident if we read their papers, which (with the exception of one daily) are fanatically and viciously anti-South African, even more so than the American and British press. The exception is the rarely quoted The Citizen. What foreign correspondent or self-appointed specialist on South Africa knows Afrikaans? To think and write seriously about South Africa without a knowledge of Afrikaans is as impossible as covering Belgium without knowing Flemish, the language of the majority.

This opposition of the Anglos is not accidental. After the annexation of the Cape Province and, especially, after the conquest of Natal, Transvaal, and the Orange Free State, the British in South Africa were happy to see the various colonies melting, in 1910, into the Union of South Africa, a Dominion of the British Empire. The British, then as perhaps now, felt vastly superior to the Boers (“Boors”), whom they saw as simpleminded country yokels. That the Afrikaner would willingly follow the British lead was not for a moment open to doubt. A number of Afrikaner leaders did completely accept the leadership of the British—the Union of South Africa followed the call of Westminster in World War I as in World War II. Afrikaners died for George V and George VI.

It was the British-led trade unionists who laid the foundation of apartheid-legislation and apartheidism came to be accepted by the majority of Afrikaners. But in 1948, a bolt out of the blue struck the British of South Africa: the Nationalist Afrikaner Party gained a clear majority. Suddenly, the British discovered that segregationism is a major problem now seemingly entrenched forever, and their Commonwealth-orchestrated protests against it led to the declaration of an independent republic in 1960. The Anglo-South Africans were now expected to show loyalty to a mainly Afrikaans-speaking republic without ties to the crown. They found themselves in a minority, in a democracy, and did not like it one whit.

The difficulties encountered by the Republic of South Africa were and still are a consolation to many Anglo-South Africans. The mood in the English-speaking community became characterized by an “I-told-you-so” attitude. Was it not evident that these primitive Afrikaners, these little, provincial, racist, reactionary, and ridiculous farmers, preachers, doctors, teachers, and lawyers speaking an impossible idiom, could not cope with the racial problem and had turned the country into an odious anachronism condemned by the entire “civilized” world? To all this must be added the direct ideological influence of England’s and America’s pseudo-liberal left which is strongly felt among the younger generation (above all the university students) eager to be “enlightened,” “objective,” “internationally accepted,” “unprejudiced,” “liberated” but unwittingly playing the role of Moscow’s “useful idiots.” They are the delight of foreign correspondents and reporters. The Afrikaans-speaking majority among the Whites is culturally rather isolated and has no such global connection. This is a handicap, but it is also an advantage because it enables them to view the specific local problems from a genuine local viewpoint without being confused by truly farfetched ideas and ideologies. I am afraid that if the British element had had a free hand since 1948, South Africa might have become another Zimbabwe or Zambia.

And America? Three factors determined the policy of the American Congress towards South Africa: American cultural imperialism (the time-honored tendency of Americans to induce other nations to mirror their own image), the guilt felt for having practiced racism in the past (and some in the present as well), and—above all!—the simple fact that black votes count just as much as the white and might in many cases be decisive. I have known the American South from the 30’s and have studied the situation in regard to color from coast to coast and from border to border. I was horrified in 1944 by a rather minor incident. In a dining car of the Southern Railroad I watched a very cultured “Black” man and his daughter (who had discussed baroque music with me) being placed in a corner where a little curtain was pulled out of the car’s wall to mark their “separation” from the rest of the guests. It was the purely symbolic character of this small fabric which disgusted me more than far grosser forms of humiliation. Slavery in the Cape was abolished much earlier than in America, and it never existed in the “Boer republics.” Lynchings never characterized the South African scene. There exists a convert fervor in the United States which prompts people to the silliest excesses such as “busing” and “affirmative action” and, last but not least, to economic sanctions against an ally. Nobody demanded sanctions against such a “nonaligned” country as India with its effective caste system. (Of course, the Indian government also insists on “affirmative action” so that sometimes young Brahmins who want to study medicine are refused with the explanation: “No problem if you were an Untouchable. Their quota is far from filled.”)

At the same time it must be remembered that there are really no “Blacks” in the United States. (The translation of the Spanish word negro into English is just another instance of infantilism, but it has also been adopted by the Anglo-South Africans.) Only a very small minority of the American “Blacks” are genuine Negroes. Romantic American “Blacks” who emigrate to Africa are usually ridiculed by the local population and laughingly told that “the White Man looks out of your face.” In more than 80 percent of all cases, I can distinguish an American “Black” from an African—American blacks are of mixed ancestry: they are BASPS, i.e., Brown Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In South Africa they would figure as Kleurde, as “Colored,” who already have their own Chamber and are represented in the government. Yet since the American “Colored” (in Brazilian parlance morenos and not pretos) have been literally maneuvered into considering themselves “Blacks,” they in this capacity affect the American political scene and thereby American foreign policy. There simply seem to be no limits to our Western confusions.

However, to understand the South African situation more perfectly, it is necessary to look at the country historically. The first Europeans who landed on its shores were the Portuguese. Later, when Portugal was under Spanish domination, the Dutch took advantage of this and occupied the dark continent’s southernmost section where the population was not Black (not Bantu) but Paleo-African—small, yellowish people with whom the Dutch mixed a great deal. The results are the “Colored,” who by now have also some Negro and Malay blood. When the Netherlands came under French occupation, the British wrested the “Cape” from the Dutch and kept it even after the Congress of Vienna. The Dutch farmers (boeren) did not like the British rule and emigrated northeast; they went on a trek with their covered wagons. In the course of this mass emigration (which, however, never became total) they clashed with Bantus migrating southwards. Pitched battles took place which ended mostly in the defeat of the Black tribes of which the toughest and most warlike were the Zulus. They later also troubled the British. In the sanguinary Zulu Wars Prince Napoleon Eugene, the only son of Napoleon III, was killed fighting for the British as a volunteer. The big Zulu riots near Durban in 1986 were not at all directed against the Whites or the Indians, but against a hated Nguni-tribe, the Pondos. In other words. Blacks as well as Whites are the invaders of a large part of South Africa where neither have a historic priority as the Indians have in America.

The emigrating Boers (who called themselves Afrikaners) founded various republics: first Natal (which soon they had to give up to the British), then the Orange Free State and Transvaal. The British were temporarily successful in annexing the latter two, but they successfully revolted. However, when gold and diamonds were found in Transvaal, the British tried again and defeated the Boers in a cruel war lasting nearly three years. In that war the British invented the “concentration camp” to brutally “house” the wives, children, and parents of the Afrikaners who were finally driven to guerrilla warfare. In that war about 3,000 Afrikaners and 7,000 British were killed, while 30,000 civilians,’overwhelmingly under the age of 16, died mostly in concentration camps. World public opinion was entirely on the Boers’ side, and enthusiastic volunteers from Europe came to their aid.

In 1910 Britain created a dominion, the “Union of South Africa,” from the Cape, Natal Provinces, and the two former republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In this new, almost independent state, the British and the Anglophile Afrikaner minority collaborated for 38 years and formed a parliamentary majority, the Union Party, which was eventually defeated by the National Party of the Afrikaners (who form more than 60 percent of the White population). This led not only to increased segregationism but also created the first British trauma in South Africa.

Still, the driving force for apartheid, the segregation of the races, came not from the Afrikaners but from the predominantly “English” trade unions who feared the competition of Black labor. The leading role in this move for separation was played by “Bill” Andrews, a real “identitarian.” Racism, like ethnicism, is often a leftist tendency. It should not be so surprising that Mr. Andrews finally became Comrade Andrews and ended his career as General Secretary of the CPSA, the Communist Party of South Africa. “Classism,” in the end, appeared to him more important than racism, but he admirably combined both concepts. To the White miners he argued quite convincingly that “cheap” and “dirty, ill-smelling Kaffirs” in the mines were the evil work of “capitalism” and that Whites must be protected against them. He organized major demonstrations in Johannesburg where the protesters carried banners with the words: “Workers of the World fight and unite for a White South Africa!” The result of Andrews’ activities was a programmatic apartheidism in the South Africa labor movement.

This tendency found a place in the legislation which enacted a most meticulous segregationism. This strict segregationism I encountered at my first visit in South Africa, back in 1959. After lengthy studies I returned in 1970 and changed my mind about the country and its government. My most recent visit, in spring 1987, resulted in over 100 interviews and countless contacts. A country has to be visited and revisited to see in what direction it is moving. A quarter of a century should be sufficient, I suppose. The segregationism also found its way into the teaching of the two (Calvinistic) “Low German” (Nederuitse) Churches, the Reformed and the Rereformed Church. This stand, however, was solemnly abrogated in 1986.

It must also be admitted that the Whites of South Africa have always made concerted efforts to improve the living standards of the “Non-Whites” (Nie Blankes) and to provide them with more and better schools as well as with a rapidly improving medical service. They had, in the past, done a great deal of slum clearance whose character has been willfully distorted abroad. Just like the population of the Brazilian favelas, the Blacks loved their squatters quarters which in everybody’s interest had to be torn down and replaced with sanitary, superior buildings. A place like Soweto (“South Western Township”), outside of Johannesburg, still has two illegal squatters quarters, but otherwise all modern amenities. There is a car in front of every third building, television antennae on practically every home, electricity, and elegant neighborhoods with expensive villas like those of Bishop Tutu (“His name,” a Black minister and professor told me, “is to me a four letter word”) and Mrs. Mandela. Compared to poor Indian neighborhoods, Black African bidonvilles, South American villa miserias, or favelas, Soweto is palatial. No wonder that Black people from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique desperately try to get into South Africa to enjoy the fruits of White “management” and higher living standards. In spite of much unemployment and foreign sanctions, these standards get higher and higher, above all for the Blacks, the Coloreds, and the Indians.

But to what extent do the Blacks really resent White rule? The masses, especially the rural masses, are indifferent, but naturally the resentment against the existing order mounts with the educational level. A Black who has gone through a secondary school and a university is convinced (perhaps against his own inclinations) of Western cultural superiority, and therefore he rebels against his social exclusion. He sees in the few remnants of apartheid a genuine, personal insult. This is not true of the masses. There is no racial, but only tribal hatred in South Africa. Blacks show no subservience (or arrogance) to White people, but it must be noted that a “Colored” will resent to be viewed as a Black, a Zulu as a Xhosa, and Indians will protest against a Colored settlement in their midst (or, as in a recent case in Durban, vice versa). The masses of the Blacks do not hate or even admire the White Man—they rather view him with some sort of amused pity, as a typical member of an acquisitive society, a man who toils ceaselessly, worries about everything, is sexually underprivileged, enjoys life very little, and is generally a poor human specimen. In the eyes of the Black Man, the White Man has only his technology, but if his car gets stalled in the Kalahari and he has to walk 30 miles to the next tank station, he will collapse. On the other hand, the Black Man is not pressed for time; he is strong, so he just starts walking. Moreover, the White Man knows nothing about witchcraft or the forces of the supranatural. (Being a truly modern man and not a product of the 19th century, I certainly do believe in these demonic forces.)

“White” South Africa, through a number of agencies, made great efforts to raise the Black living standards and create a Black middle class. Here we have to bear in mind that apartheid today, except for the Croup Area Act, will soon be modified radically. (The ruling National Party will certainly modify it strongly, but could not say so prior to the elections, not to lose votes to racist groups.) Actually, the abolition of the Croup Area Act itself would create very little (if any) change. Such a legislation does not exist in the United States, and yet we see the black ghettos. Also to fall is the segregation in South Africa’s public schools. There are no segregation laws for private schools, which, as elsewhere, are superior to public schools, and they are actually racially mixed. A majority of them have a denominational character. And the South African universities are without exception open to all races! Even the Rand Afrikan University (teaching in Afrikaans) has a fair number of Black students. There are some “uniracial” universities for Blacks, like Unizulu and Medunsa (Medical University of South Africa), but their charters also oblige them to take White, Indian, or Colored students (and a few of them do attend). I visited the highly impressive Medunsa and gave a well-attended lecture at Unizulu, which was followed by a debate. Segregation on the college-university level has practically disappeared. (To all intents and purposes, though not yet legally and politically, the Blacks in social matters enjoy the same status as the “Colored” in the United States.) Any Black who has the necessary gray matter and the will to work hard can “make it,” and many of them do. In 1987 a new law provided equal pay for equal work. In Johannesburg, Durban, or Capetown there are five-star hotels where you can see a Black (and not just a Colored or Indian) clientele eating sumptuous dinners attended by white waiters. There is a South African Indian ambassador at the European Community, a Colored ambassador from South Africa at the Hague, and Black hostesses in the South African Airline.

The creation of a Black middle (if not upper) class irks the Communist dominated African National Congres (ANC) extraordinarily; they call affluent, literate, intelligent Blacks “props of a White bourgeoisie” because the ANC’s aim is, after all, a race-class revolution—a collectivist revolt of the “masses” driven by hate-nurtured envies. The Black who has property and hope for a materially secure future, who, in addition, realizes that he has a genuine stake in free enterprise (which the Bolsheviks of the ANC would destroy) naturally does not follow the call for an upheaval that would deprive him of everything he has built up. It is heartening to see how, with the vanishing of the purely tribal spirit, the Blacks in the urban areas show a surprising aptitude for small business. The same is true of the Colored. (During my last stay in South Africa, I had lunch with the Colored boss of an architectural firm with 18 employees, three of them White).

Segregationism did, however, inspire the creation of “Bantu Homelands.” (Recently, the ethnologically correct term “Bantu” has been dropped in favor of “Black.”) But the yellowish Paleo-Africans are not Black and have no semi-autonomous “homelands,” which some journalists named “Bantustans” as if they were Iranian provinces. In 1970 I visited two of them. The self-government of these homelands does not always work to the satisfaction of everybody concerned (although they have cost an immense amount of tax money since the original White and Indian owners of land had to be bought off for considerable sums.) Yet the “homelands” were never by any means barren stretches (like so many Indian reservations in the USA) but mainly fertile areas.

We have to distinguish between homelands like the rather successful Kwazulu (“Land of the Zulu”) or Qwaqwa, and independent states like Ciskei, Transkei, Venda, and Bophuthatswana. Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulus (a warrior tribe emphatically free of inferiority complexes) and also of the predominantiy Zulu “Inkatha Party” (“Inkatha” is Zulu for the contraption that women use to carry burdens on their heads) is engaged in the “Indaba” (Dialogue) movement with the leaders of the Province of Natal. All sides of the “Indaba” are looking for a special political and economic arrangement to bring the four races (and several languages) of Natal and Kwazulu together. New constitutional forms are discussed, removed from all minority-majority thinking which often so fatefully colors democracy. A frightening example which I know well is Northern Ireland. There the Catholics cannot achieve political power because they are a minority. Their answer is terrorism which provokes an equally brutal counterterrorism. A one-man, one-vote South Africa would become a multicolored and much more murderous Northern Ireland. Ciskei and Transkei, for their part, are not Zulu homelands but independent Xhosa states that had to be created separately since the inhabitants, two different Xhosa tribes with few mutual sympathies, could not be brought under a common roof (A narrow “white” strip separates them.)

Ciskei and Transkei, therefore, have different laws, governments, and traditions. A French university lecturer, Antonini, became involved in a terrorist conspiracy with Transkei connections. He refused to testify before the court because this would lead to ostracism by his friends in France. As a result he received a four-year prison term. Thereupon a mob devastated the South African embassy in Paris since France (as a loyal UN member) does not recognize Ciskei, and no Ciskei representation can be found on the Seine. The French government therefore had to pay damages to South Africa. Idiocy rules the world.

Bophuthatswana (peoples by the Tswana) is probably the most successful of these new nations. It is a highly streamlined country with a super-modern capital, Mmabatho. There, as in the other new nations, no racial barriers and no remnants of apartheid exist whatsoever. I had a wonderful time in Mmabatho with elegant hotels and racially mixed swimming pools. Unfortunately, it should also be mentioned that the four new states are not recognized by the UN and its hapless members—out of sheer spite and venom. According to the “majority” UN view of these Southern African free states, their freedom and independence have been “donated” to them by the Republic of South Africa, which, as we are ceaselessly told, is the Devil’s den.

At present, there are no additional plans for either more homelands or independent states. Rather, the idea is to keep South Africa together—above all as an economic giant. (Chief Buthelezi and the king of Kwazulu rejected the idea of total independence!) There is a king of Zululand with the nice name of Goodwill Zwelitini. He is highly revered by the Zulus. Chief Buthelezi is something like his prime minister.

Swaziland and Lesotho, both entirely independent, also have kings. Although these new states, former British colonies, provide the Blacks with an opportunity of learning to govern themselves, within the Republic of South Africa itself they have to make efforts to become increasingly Westernized. This, indeed, is most often also their own aim.

What is the basic South African problem? Not so surprisingly, its root lies in the still continuing worldwide mental fixation with democracy—seen as political equality and majority rule. Let us imagine South Africa as a hereditary, absolute monarchy like Brazil in 1830, with a large black and brown minority, but no real race problem. I would not maintain, however, having visited Brazil six times, that in Brazil color meant or means nothing at all. When the Austrian Consul in Bahia invited me to a dinner in the Yacht Club and I asked him whether it had black members, he denied it very much. But at the club there were a large number of dark gentlemen and ladies, and I expressed my astonishment. “They are not members,” he explained, “but friends of members.”

Yet in Brazil color does not have the significance it has in North America, South Africa, or (theoretically at least) in China. (Before the Red takeover in China, Eurasian students often suffered agonies, as Bishop Hsii of Hong Kong explained to me.) In an absolute monarchy, just as in a totally free market economy, not race but primarily merit counts: intelligence, the inclination to hard work, reliability, and loyalty. Independent monarchs and independent entrepreneurs have always looked for such qualities. South African industrial leadership is as “color blind” as once the Brazilian monarchy was. A director of ISKOR, the big iron and steel enterprise, told me about the difficulties the management has with the White unions once it comes to the promotion of Black workers. Sir Harry Oppenheimer, perhaps the richest industrialist in South Africa, has always promoted Black causes and has done much for Black education. (So also does the Christian-inspired OAU, the Organization for Advancement and Upgrading, which has a Black leadership.)

But today, with an ideologically conditioned, thoroughly irrational, and hence pseudo-religious belief in human equality and majority rule, the exceedingly few remainders of the apartheid system can and do cause a “worldwide” condemnation of South Africa. In this boycott the USSR and the USA are the ringleaders. Since attacks against the slave-based empire of the Soviet Union entail certain risks. South Africa serves as an ideal whipping boy, moreover a very pleasing one for the various heirs of “Uncle Joe” in the Kremlin.

Who, we might ask, called Switzerland to task when it practiced biological discrimination and excluded women from the polls in national elections? In certain Swiss cantons with direct democracy, women still have no voting rights. I once met the leader of a Swiss women’s league which is against female suffrage. She was a university professor and termed the female vote simply as “un-Swiss.”

Or who castigated the USSR when it discriminated against “bourgeois,” monks, kulaks, or modern painters? Or criticized the United States when it discriminated against racial minorities? Or Rumania, which still discriminates against Hungarians? Or the Spanish Democracy, when it slaughtered masses of priests, friars, and nuns? (In that last case very much to the contrary happened: volunteers from all sides rushed to the aid of the slaughterers!)

What are the moralizing countries of the Free West now doing to lead South Africa into the “path of virtue”? Since many of them have a predominantly commercial outlook and ponder on what would hurt the grocer next door, they apply economic sanctions against the republic. This, they think, is the most appropriate way to change the mind of the wicked Afrikaners, but unfortunately (or fortunately) the Afrikaners do not have the mind of the grocer next door. They have conquered and defended the country in bitter wars and have behind them a history of heroism and suffering. Moreover they are staunch Calvinists. They are also a traumatized people since they have seen the victims of the Congo and Rhodesia, and they remember the nun and medical assistant Elsie Quinlan who, on November 9, 1952, was attacked in East London by ANC youngsters, knifed to death, burned in her car, and partly subjected to “gastronomic democracy.” (In the trial of “Emperor Bokassa” of the Central African Republic, it became virtually certain that he too had practiced cannibalism.)

Sanctions, therefore, will harm not the breakfast table of “Pik” Botha, but the livelihood of the poorest of the Blacks, who might lose their jobs or even starve. If, in their desperation, they resort to violence and open rebellion (which would delight our sadistic leftists to no end), they would be shot down like rabbits, and the guilt would lie with the hopelessly provincially minded and immensely selfish harebrained American and Western European politicians who only think of their mandates. As in the case of Poland, sanctions merely foster “anti-Americanism,” and their imposition highlights the inanity of “democratic” foreign policy. At long last Washington discovered the futility of economic sanctions against Poland. The veiled origin of all such policies is the Marxist belief that history, after all, is nothing but economics. This view is held by numerous Americans who would violently protest if anyone would call them Marxists. And what about democratic diplomacy? Well, the comportment of the American ambassador in Pretoria, answering to American mass-media constituencies and disregarding the well-being of South Africa, is exactly what it was expected to be.

Intelligent Blacks of South Africa and even its economically not highly versed Catholic hierarchy (representing the largest single religious body) protested at long last against the sanctions which either won’t work or, if they eventually do, will have the opposite, if not a truly fatal, effect. These sanctions might also force Pretoria, if unemployment rises significantly, to get rid of all the foreign Black workers (estimated to be between one and two million). This in turn would create the collapse of such dear, leftist neighbors of South Africa as Zambia and Zimbabwe.

South Africa needs a solution to its problems outside the present Western pattern. A central government with a parliament based on strict majority rule would destroy the country almost instantly. We have to bear in mind that South Africa is not only a country of four races but also of over a dozen languages and, to top it all off, 23 official parties and party organizations. There exist genuine tribal and subtribal animosities which could easily lead to open warfare (as they already have in other African states).

The efforts of Mugabe in Zimbabwe to “reduce” the number of the Ndebele, the cruel fights between Watussis and Bahutus, the slaughters between Ibos and Yorubas, between North and South Sudanese are what a Marxist liberal-induced future for South Africa would entail. True, these ethnic and racial enmities are not confined to South Africa, and they can only be overcome in old established monarchies with a crowned, impartial center or in countries where patriotism eliminates ethnieism (such as Switzerland, where parties cross language lines). Yet already John Stuart Mill has told us that “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” It is easy to imagine that the ANC and other leftist organizations want a majoritarian democracy in South Africa as a preliminary step to the Red revolution, faithfully following the advice of Engels.

The victims of violence at the present time are not all whites (though Mrs. Mandela has emphasized that since Black women very often take care of white children, they have all sorts of chances). No, the victims are either Blacks killed by the predominantly Black police quelling organized riots or (mostly) Blacks killed by other, hostile Blacks. Nelson Mandela’s wife has repeatedly menaced political opponents of her jailed husband with the “necklace” treatment (a tire tube filled with gasoline, put around the neck of the victim and set ablaze). The “necklace” is practiced widely and even praised and advocated by Sechaba, the periodical of the ANC, which is printed in Neubrandenburg, East Germany.

As can easily be imagined, the USSR has a vested strategic and economic interest in becoming established on the Cape of such global importance. The ANC has a ruling board of 30 members, 21 of whom are members of the Communist Party of South Africa. Its leader. Nelson Mandela, is in jail for murder. Despite this, the government would release him if he would only promise not to use or advocate violence.

Yet to our leftists he is a real martyr. I encountered many Afrikaners who would be in favor of Mandela’s “illegal” release because then he would cease being a martyr. When the SWAPO’s leader, Toivo Jatoivo, was in Namibian jail he was a martyr. After his discharge he became useless to SWAPO and even ceased being their leader. But Mandela is a convicted murderer. In this progressive century, however, we have become used to countless murderers running around.

The leaders of the moderate Blacks are mostly unknown in the West and are largely bypassed by our visiting politicians. As might be expected, all the radical Black organizations are pledged in varying degrees to socialism and to large-scale expropriations—after all, nationalism, racism, and socialism easily go together and attract fools. Nevertheless, a free market economy immediately attracts simple, unpropagandized Blacks. Even in the illegal squatting areas near Johannesburg or Capetown little businesses spring up almost automatically.