Talk:Hendrik Verwoerd

Canadian Human Rights abuses

I see that Diefenbaker's opposition to South Africa's readmission to the Commonwealth is accompanied by a comment about violation of Canadian Aboriginal People's human rights. Was that still in progress at the time? --Slashme 12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Diefenbaker ended in 1960 the laws forbidding status Indians from voting, which finally gave all of the First Nations peoples the right to vote, and notably that was an initiative from above rather than a response from pressure from below-apparently Diefenbaker asked one day in 1959 if the Indians could vote and was told that non-status Indians could, but status Indians could not, which inspired him to change that as he did not think that was right. The Inuit were given the right to vote in 1952, but that only existed in theory as Ottawa was too cheap to set up voting stations in the Arctic, and it was only in the 1962 election that voting stations were set up in the Arctic, which happened under Diefenbaker. There was not much in the way of Indian rights activism during the time that Diefenbaker was prime minister, and most Canadians were fairly indifferent to the subject. Generally the birth of Indian rights movement in Canada is considered to have began in 1969 with opposition to the Trudeau government's White Paper, which inspired the Cree activist Harold Cardinal to write his best-selling book The Unjust Society, which is regarded as the manifesto that inspired the modern First Nations rights movement. So that almost a decade after Verwoerd and Diefenbaker clashed at the 1961 conference in London. Diefenbaker tried to avoid the subject of South Africa at the 1960 Commonwealth summit and it was during the interval between the 1960 and 1961 conferences that he came around to the idea of a color-blind and multiracial Commonwealth. Most notably at the 1961 conference that Diefenbaker was much more confrontational towards Verwoerd than he been before.

There's an element of the tu quoque fallacy here, since it implies that Diefenbaker did not have the moral right to criticize South Africa because of Canada's record on First Nations peoples. I already mentioned that Diefenbaker gave the voting franchise to First Nations peoples, which for first time allowed all Canadians to vote and run for office, which is something that did not extend to the majority of South Africans living under Verwoerd's rule, so I don't think the charge of hypocrisy against Diefenbaker really applies here as suggested. Likewise, there is a world of difference between the Canadian policy of encouraging First Nations people to live on reservations vs. the South African policy of forcing black people to live in reservations, and nor was Diefenbaker interned in World War II for opposing war with Nazi Germany as Verwoerd was. I don't mean to demonize Afrikaans as a people because one must judge individuals, not peoples, but there is a strain of Afrikaans nationalism that is really anti-British, antisemitic and anti-black and holds that the wrong side won World War II, which Verwoerd definitely fits into. Gerhard Weinberg in his two volume book The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany is as it title suggests a book about German foreign policy under Hitler, where Weinberg tells you everything you wanted to know about the subject and then some more, so I don't know if is the best source for this article. But Weinberg does talk a bit about the contacts between those radical right Afrikaans nationalists and Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and he mentions that some of these people went on to serve as ministers in the Verwoerd government. I don't have Weinberg's books in front of me right now, but he does cite some statements from ministers in the Verwoerd cabinet in the early 1960s where they rather casually state their belief that the wrong side won World War II. To be fair, these are ministers in the Verwoerd cabinet, not Verwoerd himself, but it is striking that these were the kind of men who made it into his cabinet.

One may contrast Verwoerd's wartime activities with Diefenbaker's stance in 1942 when he was one of the few MPs who criticized Mackenzie King for interning the Japanese-Canadians, saying the government did not the right to intern an entire ethnic group. Diefenbaker has been often criticized for insensitivity towards French-Canadians, but this stemmed more from his ignorance of Quebec and his inability to speak French rather than malice on his part. There are obviously differences between the South African situation where the whites are a minority and the blacks are the majority vs. the Canadian situation where whites are the majority and everybody else are the minorities, which meant different policies were pursued. By no means is the Canadian record perfect as I already noted that status Indians together with Inuit and Asian-Canadians were all deprived of the voting franchise with Asian-Canadians given the right to vote in 1942, Inuit in 1952 and status Indians in 1960. Of course, Canada has justly criticized for its policies towards First Nations peoples and for the Third World living conditions on the reservations, which still continue to this day, but it is questionable to say there is no difference between this vs. apartheid, where the majority of the population were deprived of right to vote and were treated as second-class citizens. One may contrast Cardinal in his 1969 book The Unjust Society where he calls for non-violent activism, using as his examples Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi vs. what Nelson Mandela had to say at his trial in 1963-64. Mandela said at this trial that the ANC tried non-violence for decades, but things just kept getting worse as more and more apartheid laws were being passed as people like Verwoerd were all white supremacists who didn't respect non-violence, and he turned towards violence out of desperation. Cardinal rejected violence in his 1969 book but by the early 1960s Mandela felt there was no alternative to violence, which says much about the differences between Canada and South Africa in the 1960s. If I may make suggestion for this article, the focus should be on Verwoerd, but the article should say something about his policies impacted on ordinary South Africans. What Mandela said at his trial summarized what many black South Africans felt at the time-they have tried non-violence to challenge apartheid, but under Verwoerd, things kept getting worse and worse, and there was now no alternative to violence --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You write:

"...nor was Diefenbaker interned in World War II for opposing war with Nazi Germany as Verwoerd was"

I think you are confusing Verwoerd with BJ Vorster. AFAIK, Verwoerd was never interned during World War II. 2001:8003:3E08:A001:4819:E4:E128:6B53 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie!

"Under Verwoerd opposition to apartheid was heavily repressed, with tens of thousands of people being detained and imprisoned, thousands exiled and assaulted, and hundreds tortured and killed."

Where did they get this "FACT"? "thousands exiled and assaulted, and hundreds tortured and killed".

I challenge them to provide the proof! No references given! If you write:

"Under Verwoerd opposition to apartheid was heavily repressed, with THE RESULT THAT tens of thousands of people WERE detained and imprisoned, thousands exiled and assaulted, and hundreds tortured and killed in the streets."

That would make more sense, but the word play is he killed thousands or ordered the killing of thousands. Which is a blatant lie!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.220.171.92 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Economy under Verwoerd

This article focuses too much on Apartheid and it does not mention his administration. I remember reading somewhere that under him South Africa had the highest economic growth rate in history, and R1 (the currency) was worth more than $1. If I can find it I will update. (User talk:Johnmars3)

Sections should be moved

Given that the first assasination attempt took place in april, and the creation of the republic in may, the first assasination attempt section should appear first DParkinson1 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

How did he die

and wh 41.150.226.101 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please redact

What is that "Nazi"-stuff doing in the description. This encyclopedia is getting ridiculous. 105.4.1.255 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)