The U.S. corporate media is suspiciously uninterested in South Africa’s shocking unrest, although President Cyril Ramaphosa has had to send in troops and give three televised addresses in six days, actually invoking the Biden Regime’s favorite term “insurrection” …
In in his book Ethnic Conflicts, the late Tatu Vanhanen, whose work we discussed here, here and here, found a correlation of 0.66 between ethnic diversity and ethnic conflict, developing this hypothesis from other literature. Diverse societies fail, was the general conclusion.
Hence the cynical summary, “diversity + proximity = war”. Successful multiracial societies are color blind and meritocratic, not tribal and not focused on the inevitable inequalities of group outcomes.
The tribes of South Africa view each other as different races. They look different, and there is group solidarity.
South Africa was waiting to riot and loot; all it needed was a spark. That spark: inter-tribal hatred within the black population. On July 7th, South Africa’s former president, Jacob Zuma, was arrested for contempt of court. The result: the worst rioting since the end of Apartheid in 1994.
It is astonishing how little the Western media has explored this ethnic angle, beyond occasionally commenting on the fact that Zuma is a Zulu and the center of the rioting is in Zululand, also known as KwaZulu-Natal. …
The loathing between different South African tribes, each of whom retain their own language and culture, runs very deep. Under white rule, apartheid theorists worked to develop different “Bantustan” — effectively, ethnostates for each tribe, under overall South African control — with other areas reserved for Coloreds, Whites and Indians.
The unfashionable fact is that there was a good reason for this.
During the transition to black-majority rule in 1994, it has been argued, leading Zulus worked with the Whites to promote the interests of their own tribe over that of their “Black brothers” … Specifically, the Zulu-leadership did not want to be part of a majority-rule South Africa that was run by Nelson Mandela, who belonged to the Xhosa tribe. This is despite the fact that the Xhosa, like the Zulu, are part of a broader super-ethnic group — the Nguni — that composes two thirds of the black population.
The Zulus wanted an autonomous Zulu state within the new South Africa, campaigning for this through the Inkatha Freedom Party… The ANC wouldn’t grant Inkatha their wish, fearing that Whites might also demand an autonomous state. Inkatha initially boycotted the 1994 election, which swept Mandela to power, and was followed by violent rioting by Zulus. …
In the assorted townships where blacks from different tribes are forced to rub along, reporters find that there is constant low-level conflict, with the ever-present potential for violence. Anti-Apartheid militants, such as Steve Biko, also attempted to create a sense of “black consciousness” in South Africa, but the country’s intense tribalism meant that they only ever had limited success
The western media and ruling class invested heavily in the moral imperative of overthrowing the apartheid regime in the 1990s. Their expectation was that South Africa would then continue to be a prosperous first world nation, but run by its black majority instead. With a socialist government to boot. Rainbows. A lesson to the world in “diversity” and left-wing magic.
Events have of course contradicted that belief. It was so obviously wrong, and foreseeably so. There is no way (yet?) to spin it to the advantage of the left, so the western media ignore it as best they can.
In the US, black people have become sacred cows in the cultural and political struggle for control. The left does not want to mention black behavior in South Africa, and the right is too afraid to.