Talk:Hendrik Verwoerd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We should start a talk page, as there are various major mistakes on the Verwoerd page.

Architect of apartheid

The article stated that Verwoerd was the principle architect of apartheid. This does not tie in with the main article on Apartheid which states the introduction of pass laws by Great Britain as the colonial power, as the start of Apartheid. The pass laws were passed in 1809 which restricted movements of blacks to white areas and they significantly predate the birth of Verwoerd. I therefore brought the article in line with historical fact. -Gemsbok1 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then both articles need to be changed, vervoed was clearly the principle architect of the system that became known as 'apartheid' the british just put into place a predecessor system --Aliwalla 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Apartheid" is propaganda language. The correct name is separate development, which is also less loaded and far more descriptive.

Apartheid is the better and more widely used name. Separate development was a euphemistic name used to describe the racist and discriminatory policies of the white South African government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.107.131 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraphs say he is "often incorrectly considered to be the primary architect of apartheid". I don't think these paragraphs are the place for disputed statements. Can we change this to say that he "greatly expanded the apartheid system"? Wwhyte 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That Verwoerd was the "Architect of Apartheid" is hardly a disputed statement. It was he who - as Minister of Native Affairs during the early years of the apartheid regime - largely crafted and gave ideological and intellectual substance to the legislation and policies that comprised the heart of the apartheid program. The objection that there were 19th and early-20th century precedents for many of the apartheid policies really isn't compelling - Yes, there were earlier racially discriminatory and segregationist laws in South Africa, but these did not constitute apartheid (or even the start of apartheid), and apartheid was not merely a continuation of them. Smg9y 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Privy Councillor

I don't think Verwoerd was a member of the Privy Council, or he would have been the Right Honourable Hendrik Verwoerd. South Africa ended its links with the Privy Council in London in the 1950s, and didn't have one of its own, unlike Canada. Quiensabe (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti Semitism

I see that Verwoerd is listed under the category of Anti Semitic people. Do we have a source that indicate this as a fact, as I think the categorisation is wrong? -196.13.131.3 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He was probably added since his actions or words were deemed to be anti-semitic? This might be true, but we need SOURCES calling/labeling him an anti-semite, not just peoples/editors determination as such. I don't see much in the article about this. Again, I don't know this guy from Adam and just learned of him today. If sources can be provided labeling him as such fine. This seems to be an ongoing problem with a number of categories and lists on Wiki. People will say "well its obvious that this guy belongs based on x,y and z." so in he goes...Anyways...--Tom 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich4.html - it may be worthwhile updating the article to incorporate this information and not just adding the category.

What a highly unbiased and credible source you did give us there (41.208.204.69 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

buntings book IS a very good (and credible) source (for things you dont want to hear and read). --Severino (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Furlong's Between Crown and Swastika may have been a better choice in that respect, but the historical facts recounted in Bunting's book aren't really as "un-credible" as the title and tone might lead one to suspect. In any case, there's ample evidence of Verwoerd's explicit participation in the general tide of anti-Semitism that was prevalent among Afrikaner nationalists during the 1930s and pre-apartheid/pre-Israel (the developments were nearly concurrent) 1940s, perhaps the most noteworthy bits of which were his leading role in securing passage of the 1936 Alien Act, which sharply limited Jewish immigration to South Africa for the next decade, and his editorship of Die Transvaler, a National Party newspaper that was highly outspoken in its opposition to Jewish immigration and allegations of Jewish collusion in British imperialism in South Africa. Of course, whether this means that Verwoerd was an anti-Semite in essence or just a good toe-the-party-line nationalist is another question entirely. Smg9y 02:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a credible source for a lot of questions about Verwoerd is: The Afrikaners (Hermann Giliomee, 2003). Verwoerd wasn't a angel, but he was certainly not a monster. He also didn't have any ties with the Nazi's. He was more patronizing than genocidal in his relationship to the indigenous people of different races. Afrikaners are not anti-semetic. There may have been a time when they were xenophobic, but they never had harmful intent to specifically Jewish people. But I suggest looking at Giliomee's book as a crdible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.73.120 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because he didn't commit genocide or wasn't a member of Hitler's Nazis doesn't mean he wasn't a monster. He implemented a system which destroyed millions of lives, the after-effects of which are still ruining lives, and which routinely used torture and murder to get its way. In the rush to assert that he (and others in the aparthied era) weren't literal Nazis, there seems to have emerged some bizzare belief that only actual Nazis were capable of being monsters, and that everyone else must have been a reasonable human being. Well, they weren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.103.232 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

it's very dubious to say, this people (as a hole) are not antisemitic. and even if, that wouldn't say anything about "the afrikaners" attitude/politics towards the zulus, xhosas, sothos, etc. yes, there were a lot of ties between the apartheid-regime and israel (see for example beit-hallahmi, the israeli connection). after they came to power, there was no open antisemitism in the NP. --Severino (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

npov

the article reads like an apology for apartheid. according to the article, verwoerd (and apartheid in general) were just misunderstood and indeed a mercy for the black population. just take the interpretation of the apartheid-laws passed under him! --Severino (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful, if the article could assist in putting the policy of separate development into a historical context so that people can understand it better. That certainly wouldn't make it NPOV. The polemics "against Apartheid" and the distortions of the historical facts are however definetly NPOV. --41.244.8.14 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC).

the "acquittal" of his nazi-admirations and -connections is not proved by sources. evidence for his racism like his refusal to accept black ambassadors from commonwealth countries are concealed as well as the laws passed in his time as minister for "native affairs" like the population registration act and the group areas act (which ordered the removal of africans out of the big cities into segregated townships). also the fact that he was editor of the "transvaler" during world war II is concealed (probably because it would be embarassing which articles he wrote in this time)--Severino (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they've been "concealed", just that they haven't been added yet. Certainly, the article can and should stand for substantial expansion and improvement on all fronts. If you can find sources for the information you seek to include, by all means do so. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned his editorship of die Transvaler in an earlier comment on this page with no objection from anyone - I think the problem is lack of knowledge (as the discussion up-page of whether and why Verwoerd was the "architect of apartheid" should suggest) rather than a deliberate effort to mask the facts or apologize for apartheid. That, and things like the "if you can find sources" qualifier in the comment just above this one. Some things are "common knowledge" enough to the people who know them that there is no straightforward or meaningful way to pin down their sources. Smg9y (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

if the interpretations of the apartheid-laws passed in his time as prime minister are changed and those which were passed when he was minister of native affairs are mentioned, the pov-tag can be removed, i'd say. --Severino (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even with the changes suggested above I would still consider phrases like 'he declared that' in reference to claimed parallels between apartheid and the reservation system in the US not NOPV 'claimed' would be better. Attention should also be drawn to the effects on the Black population, loss of homes as areas were re-classified as White-only for example. Wilmot1 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

@41.244.8.14: new contributions on the bottom. furthermore, this is not a forum for the apology of apartheid but for discussion of improvements of the verwoerd article.--Severino (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the article.

There are certain sentences (refer to the section regarding his assassination) that are taken verbatim from "Famous South African Crimes" (1991) without any bibliographic citation or reference to said book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thysdry (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Millar?

"Millar, who did an in-depth study on the early career of Verwoerd, concluded that there is no evidence that Verwoerd studied racial ideology of the National Socialists in Germany ..."

Who's Millar? I see no reference to this anywhere else on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.4.4 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I have removed the Trivia section. Some info (H. F. Verwoerd Drive) belongs elsewhere in the article; some (His name has become synonymous in South Africa with "apartheid", "oppression", "racism" etc) doesn't belong in the article at all. I incline to the view that genuine trivia - by definition - has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Humansdorpie 11:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

rephrase that and you are righr: "His name has been MADE synonymous with "apartheid", "oppression", "racism" etc." - Actually to many he is the last great statesmen South Africa ever head...

for how many south africans is he "the last great statesmen South Africa ever head"? --Severino (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a white South African who was around when Verwoerd was assasinated. Although I was in high school at the time, I was heartily ashamed of the apartheid laws he helped promulgate. He was probably the worst statesman SA ever had and did incalculable harm to the image of SA at the time! -- Frankwm1 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What was his Religion?

It states in the Afrikaner Calvinism article in the Afrikaner Broederbond section that Verwoerd led the anti-Calvinists nationalists, so, if he was an anti-Calvinist Ditch-born Afrikaner, what specifically was his religious affiliation, and could that please be included in his info box? Invmog (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a decent source that he was Dutch Reformed Church, which would make him a Calvinist in 1961. Is there more to this than meets the eye? --John (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Article on Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd

There appears to be a group of individuals who consistently impede any constructive additions to the article in question. Undoing and blocking all editions pertaining to users outside their nest of selections.

The editing recently done to this article has been referenced to credible sources, some already available on other related articles, regardless of the fact of the neutrality displayed in the additions manifested in the facts and phraseology in use.

It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if a consensus is not reached on this question pertaining to all articles not only this one. If the material being added is not significant it would be understandable, yet where the facts could be correct and the community interested in the subject at hand are in conflict with the manner of its publication, the rational and professional solution would be to offer an alternative to the edition being proposed. Simply deleting and blocking any attempt to contribute to this and any other article in a constructive manner can only be viewed as autocratic in the least and a hypocrisy of what Wikipedia is globally renowned for.Wsa1 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

your additions are nothing but an apology of apartheid, NOT based on credible sources. just take this one sentence: "The policy of apartheid drew upon many existing laws, established by the British Government, that recognised the distinctive difference of the various Black tribes and initiated their path to independence, thereby establishing the nations of Basutoland, Swaziland & Bechuanaland." beside the detail that "&" should not be used in such a text, the term "black tribes" is pretty pejorative (8 mio. zulus are a "tribe" according to this school of thought, < 4 mio. afrikaaner are a"nation"). furthermore, the independence of lesotho, swaziland and botswana had nothing to do with verwoerd and apartheid but with british policy while the (internationally not recognized) "independence" of homelands like transkei and bophuthatswana was an attempt of the apartheid governments to make south africa a "white" nation by excluding and evacuating the black nations of ZA. a major part of the edit is a try to blame the UK for apartheid. IF such an edit is advisable (which is with regard to contents false), then in the article about apartheid, not here. and so forth..--Severino (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tribe equates to Nation, The British Empire established the policy of Separate Development along racial & cultural lines throughout its sphere of influence long before South African independence, be that between Black & White or between British & Boer as is the case in South Africa. These legitimate facts are supported and may be verified at any South African Historical Institution. The British Government granted independence to the Tswana tribe in the nation of Bechuanaland, the Sotho tribe in Basutoland & Swazi tribe in Swaziland. The South African Government under Hendrik Verwoerd's Premiership expanded and continued that progression of Nation Building through the policy of Separate Development (in Afrikaans translated to Apartheid), by granting the various black tribes their own path to Self Determination, such as the Zulu & Xhosa. These aforesaid policies followed the global trend of independence movements and dismantling of Colonial Empires. The examples of the Yugoslavian and Soviet Union partitioning or the proposed two state solution for the Palestinian territory between Jew & Arab may be drawn on.Wsa1 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah.--Severino (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This article MUST be expanded with a quote from Verwoerd made in Parliament, irrecoverably showing that he was a racist at heart, and should go down in history as one of the greatest ever racists. From International Socialist Review, Vol.27 No.4, Fall 1966, pp.153-156. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.

"Here is how Verwoerd described it in a speech in parliament in 1953:

“There is no place for [the native] in the European community,” Verwoerd explained, “above the level of certain forms of labor ... Until now he has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his own community and misled him by showing him the green pastures of European society in which he was not allowed to graze.”

In picturing the blacks as animals grazing in fields, Verwoerd is only using the accepted language of the master race. In Bantu Education, Policy for the Immediate Future“ (1954), Verwoerd wrote,

“[Bantu] education should stand with both feet in the reserves and have its roots in the spirit and being of Bantu society ... Their education should not clash with Government policy ... If the native in South Africa today ... is being taught to expect that he will live his adult life under a policy of equal rights, he is making a big mistake.”

J.G. Strijdom, who succeeded Malan as prime minister, described baasskap as follows:

“Our policy is that the Europeans must stand their ground and must remain Baas [overlord] in South Africa. If we reject the Herrenvolk [master race] idea and the principle that the white man can remain Baas, if the franchise is to be extended to the non-Europeans, and if the non-Europeans are given representation and the vote and the non-Europeans are developed on the same basis as the Europeans, how can the Europeans remain Baas? Our view is that in every sphere the European must retain the right to rule the country and to keep it white man’s country.” (Quoted from African Nationalism by N. Sithole, 1961.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.120.231 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sharpville incident

I deem the following a gross misrepresentation, since the demonstrators did encircle the police station and shouted threatening slogans at the police. The shooting was hardly a response to "invitations to arrest". The term "Massacre" is NPOV as well.

"... Finally, on 21 March 1960, there was a large demonstration of members of the Pan Africanist Congress, led by Mike Nyakane Tsolo, at Sharpeville Township. The demonstrators invited the police to arrest them but after initial arrests the police responded with heavy force killing 69 people in the Sharpeville Massacre..."

It still did not give the police to start shooting unarmed people, same as the shots fired at school children in '76. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.234.233 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

"Apartheid" was not an official term. I think they called it "separate development" on official papers. It is also not correct to say that "Blacks were deprived from political rights" - They were just not included into the political life of White society. Bear in mind that the NP worked with the assumption that the different communities were different political entities. Furthermore I think it is a very good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.241.147.73 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Apartheid is a globally accepted term for the official policies of the South Africa government that resulted in black South Africans being deprived of their political right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.107.131 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Being (ab)used and popularized later by the soviet-sponosored ANC and it's allies doesn't make it an official term. --41.244.8.14 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Apartheid" certainly was an "official term" - it figured prominently in the National Party's 1948 election manifesto and policy statements, for example, as well as in Prime Minister Malan's March 1953 speech, which stood as the party's official manifesto for the general election of that year. Similarly, the term appears on the books in various pieces of legislation and parliamentary debates throughout the entire apartheid era. "Separate development" was one aspect of the apartheid program; it was not synonymous with apartheid itself.

Being used on a poster or pamflet or even in a speech doesn't make it the official name of a government program. The parliamentary debates don't count either, but the legislation surely would. You need to show us the text of legislation or act you are referring to! I'd rather say that some of the associations "Apartheid" did invoke were part of the program of Separate Development. --41.244.8.14 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for blacks not being deprived of political rights - regardless of apartheid's separatist ideology, you surely can't deny that the 1950s legislation to remove remaining non-whites from the Cape voter rolls and the removal of existing (albeit limited) avenues for black political representation amounted to deprivations of existing political rights. Smg9y 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Those priviledged non-Whites were removed from the Cape voter rolls to create solely White political institutions. And it was the aim of separate development to create political institutions of their for Non-Whites. This actually comes down to giving them "political rights". --41.244.8.14 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Coloured peoples (primarily in the Cape Province) were removed from the voter rolls to strengthen the National Party's grip on SA politics. Although the Coloureds had no Coloured representatives, it was well known that they voted for the United Party's (a more liberal party than the Nats) representatives. By excluding the Coloureds from voting, the National Party decreased the pro United Party voting block. This was a blatently transparent ploy at the time, but since the National Party was in full power, there was little opposition to stop them implementing any Apartheid measures they chose to. Your lame attempts to defend the racist Afrikaners are futile and transparent. I spent the better part of my school years growing up in Afrikaner country. You can't bullshit me, I was there through it all!-- Frankwm1 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"They were just not included into the political life of White society." of course. those who ruled the country, didn't include about two thirds of the population in "their" political life and regarded them as third class citizens. nothing wrong about that...--Severino (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice. They were supposed to become first class citizens of their own countries. --41.244.8.14 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the Cape Coloured and Cape Malay peoples were never given "their own country", nor did they ever have "their own country". Towards the end of the white regime in SA, they grudgingly gave them limited, but powerless representation, in hopes that they could quell the rising tide of non-white dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. -- Frankwm1 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The term Apartheid is POV and should therfore be avoided--Scottykira (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Afrikaner people

Verwoerd was Dutch, not an Afrikaner. Josh (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Yes, he was born in Holland, but his parents emigrated to South Africa when he was 2 years old. By the time he became Prime Minister, he was most certainly regarded as a "fully fledged" Afrikaner and a South African. Frankwm1 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)