Thanks for your comment, Christian. My issue with Andrews's take is that a lot of what she asserts about South Africa's solidity under apartheid and its deterioration afterward isn't factually true. For instance, this: "Under apartheid, electricity was unreliable in black townships; after 30 years of ANC rule, electricity is unreliable everywhere." Electricity was not "unreliable" for black South Africans under apartheid; it was nonexistent. In 1992, only 48% of South African households had access to electricity at all. Now, something like 98% of households are connected to electricity, which has become fairly reliable since a major maintenance project commenced two years ago.
Andrews writes that South Africa "is becom[ing] less and less able to feed itself due to misguided agricultural policy" and that its agricultural sector has experienced "deterioration." This is just false. South Africa's agricultural sector is booming, having "more than doubled in value and volume terms since 1994" and clocked record exports in 2024; see here: https://wandilesihlobo.com/2025/04/27/how-south-africas-agriculture-has-changed-31-years-after-apartheid/
Andrews also writes that under apartheid, "South Africa was better situated than any other post-colonial nation in Africa to achieve stability and prosperity." That's also not true: in the '80s, the country was going bankrupt and faced a sovereign debt default in 1985.
Andrews writes that apartheid-era norms better rewarded hard work and punished corruption, while "punishment for corruption is rare" in black-run South Africa. But apartheid South Africa was rife with corruption--the Afrikaner (and in no way woke) academic Hennie van Vuuren's "Apartheid, Guns, and Money" lays this out in immense detail. Democratic South Africa, unlike either apartheid-era South Africa or the United States, has ejected, prosecuted, and imprisoned a corrupt president, Jacob Zuma.
In a way, it's hard to critique Andrews's take, because describing it as a "racist" interpretation of history automatically makes the person who uses that word seem "woke" or like they have some race-based agenda of their own. But I do believe that viewing South Africa's era run by a white minority as "function[ing] smoothly," "vastly wealthy," "successful," and captained by "idealistic government officials" who directed "lavish" resources toward uplifting "stubborn" blacks--and the majority black-run era as one of crime, AIDS, "vandals," "delinquency," "rampant theft," and misery--is so reductive and at odds with the complex historical reality that it simply is informed by racism. It also feels like a view that Andrews is striving to hold because it would inform U.S. policy in some way.
Otherwise, why present such a warped depiction and nostalgic picture that elides both the obvious indignities and practical failures of apartheid? Why did South Africa's own most successful white businesspeople, in 1987, desperately lobby en masse for apartheid's end, if it was such a success and so unfairly maligned? Their interest was in their bottom line (and fairly so), not really morality, and the truth was that the apartheid system was not working economically for them, either. The greatest beneficiaries, economically speaking, from apartheid's end have been white South Africans, whose wealth has increased more than that of black South Africans.
Finally, Andrews dwells the most on crime in South Africa as proof of the country's deterioration since apartheid's end. South Africa's crime rate peaked between 1989-1992--during apartheid--and has fallen dramatically and steadily since. Apartheid South Africa was not a place of law and order.
The "rainbow nation" has not lived up to inhabitants' sky-high expectations, which is a source of great sadness and confusion, but by the numbers, it is a better place to live for almost everybody than it was in the 1980s. You actually don't have to make any kind of moral argument about it. It is telling that so few white South Africans are taking Trump up on his offer to fast-track U.S. citizenship, an offer many millions of people in many other countries would kill for.
P.S. Andrews also says that because I'm an American, I "never had to raise a child or operate a business [in South Africa]. Those activities would have made it harder for her to believe that crumbling infrastructure was all in the mind." That's not really true either--for ten years I've been partnered and then married to a South African who operates his own business in downtown Johannesburg, so I think all the time about how the country's realities affect our family.
I found this interview after reading Ms. Andrews’ review of “The Inheritors.” Her command of facts and logic made for a deeply persuasive argument, so I listened to this conversation knowing I would be on her side. That said, the conventional wisdom about South Africa’s apartheid era is so rarely challenged that it feels dangerous, even subversive, to humanize Afrikaners and properly contextualize their attitudes and actions. Yet, that is what Ms. Andrews does so well (when most of us are dissuaded from trying by what seems like disproportionate downsides). This not only takes courage but represents a careful balancing act scrubbed of any and all vulnerabilities. My hat is off to her.
I appreciate the challenge, though I won’t do nearly as good a job explaining what motivated the construct of apartheid as Helen Andrews did in her remarkable review (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/look-back-in-anger/).
Explaining it is different from excusing it, mind you, and here you have one of many disclaimers that must, in our age, precede an honest discussion of South Africa’s history if one is to make it alive to the other side of the minefield, a treacherous stretch of land full of “Go to Jail” spring traps.
As a starting point, I consider the current state of South Africa and ask myself whether any aspect of its dysfunction was predictable, and whether in fact some Afrikaners had predicted it.
I also remind myself of the country’s racial composition for much of its history: “In 1948 [the start of apartheid], South Africa’s population was divided into four main racial groups: Black Africans (about 70%), Whites (roughly 20%), Asians (mainly Indians, about 2%), and Coloreds (of mixed race, around 8%)” (Wikipedia). For the white minority to enfranchise its neighbors would necessarily mean, for better or for worse, surrendering control of an economy – Africa’s strongest – largely of its own making.
Anticipating some push-back (along the lines of “But who provided the cheap labor?” and “Afrikaners simply helped themselves to the riches of someone else’s land!”), I should add that I am referring to the indispensable educational and physical infrastructure associated with Western-style capitalism and developed on the heels of the industrial revolution.
Lastly, I keep in mind that Afrikaners were ethnically and culturally homogenous to an unusual degree. Unlike the United States, an obvious point of reference, where a mix of different cultures and ethnicities had lowered the threshold for integration, this tight cohesion among SA’s white minority heightened its desire for “being apart” from other groups, arguably even the British.
These considerations loomed large at a time when the world had no successful model for integrating native populations in colonized lands to offer. To this day, a fragile consensus exists only with respect to the perceived failures of ALL related efforts, which in and by itself should compel a reasonable person to contemplate the challenges inherent in such an undertaking.
Thanks for your comment, Christian. My issue with Andrews's take is that a lot of what she asserts about South Africa's solidity under apartheid and its deterioration afterward isn't factually true. For instance, this: "Under apartheid, electricity was unreliable in black townships; after 30 years of ANC rule, electricity is unreliable everywhere." Electricity was not "unreliable" for black South Africans under apartheid; it was nonexistent. In 1992, only 48% of South African households had access to electricity at all. Now, something like 98% of households are connected to electricity, which has become fairly reliable since a major maintenance project commenced two years ago.
Andrews writes that South Africa "is becom[ing] less and less able to feed itself due to misguided agricultural policy" and that its agricultural sector has experienced "deterioration." This is just false. South Africa's agricultural sector is booming, having "more than doubled in value and volume terms since 1994" and clocked record exports in 2024; see here: https://wandilesihlobo.com/2025/04/27/how-south-africas-agriculture-has-changed-31-years-after-apartheid/
Andrews also writes that under apartheid, "South Africa was better situated than any other post-colonial nation in Africa to achieve stability and prosperity." That's also not true: in the '80s, the country was going bankrupt and faced a sovereign debt default in 1985.
Andrews writes that apartheid-era norms better rewarded hard work and punished corruption, while "punishment for corruption is rare" in black-run South Africa. But apartheid South Africa was rife with corruption--the Afrikaner (and in no way woke) academic Hennie van Vuuren's "Apartheid, Guns, and Money" lays this out in immense detail. Democratic South Africa, unlike either apartheid-era South Africa or the United States, has ejected, prosecuted, and imprisoned a corrupt president, Jacob Zuma.
In a way, it's hard to critique Andrews's take, because describing it as a "racist" interpretation of history automatically makes the person who uses that word seem "woke" or like they have some race-based agenda of their own. But I do believe that viewing South Africa's era run by a white minority as "function[ing] smoothly," "vastly wealthy," "successful," and captained by "idealistic government officials" who directed "lavish" resources toward uplifting "stubborn" blacks--and the majority black-run era as one of crime, AIDS, "vandals," "delinquency," "rampant theft," and misery--is so reductive and at odds with the complex historical reality that it simply is informed by racism. It also feels like a view that Andrews is striving to hold because it would inform U.S. policy in some way.
Otherwise, why present such a warped depiction and nostalgic picture that elides both the obvious indignities and practical failures of apartheid? Why did South Africa's own most successful white businesspeople, in 1987, desperately lobby en masse for apartheid's end, if it was such a success and so unfairly maligned? Their interest was in their bottom line (and fairly so), not really morality, and the truth was that the apartheid system was not working economically for them, either. The greatest beneficiaries, economically speaking, from apartheid's end have been white South Africans, whose wealth has increased more than that of black South Africans.
Finally, Andrews dwells the most on crime in South Africa as proof of the country's deterioration since apartheid's end. South Africa's crime rate peaked between 1989-1992--during apartheid--and has fallen dramatically and steadily since. Apartheid South Africa was not a place of law and order.
The "rainbow nation" has not lived up to inhabitants' sky-high expectations, which is a source of great sadness and confusion, but by the numbers, it is a better place to live for almost everybody than it was in the 1980s. You actually don't have to make any kind of moral argument about it. It is telling that so few white South Africans are taking Trump up on his offer to fast-track U.S. citizenship, an offer many millions of people in many other countries would kill for.
P.S. Andrews also says that because I'm an American, I "never had to raise a child or operate a business [in South Africa]. Those activities would have made it harder for her to believe that crumbling infrastructure was all in the mind." That's not really true either--for ten years I've been partnered and then married to a South African who operates his own business in downtown Johannesburg, so I think all the time about how the country's realities affect our family.
I found this interview after reading Ms. Andrews’ review of “The Inheritors.” Her command of facts and logic made for a deeply persuasive argument, so I listened to this conversation knowing I would be on her side. That said, the conventional wisdom about South Africa’s apartheid era is so rarely challenged that it feels dangerous, even subversive, to humanize Afrikaners and properly contextualize their attitudes and actions. Yet, that is what Ms. Andrews does so well (when most of us are dissuaded from trying by what seems like disproportionate downsides). This not only takes courage but represents a careful balancing act scrubbed of any and all vulnerabilities. My hat is off to her.
Thank you for your feedback! How would you contextualize the attitudes actions of Afrikaners during the Apartheid era?
I appreciate the challenge, though I won’t do nearly as good a job explaining what motivated the construct of apartheid as Helen Andrews did in her remarkable review (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/look-back-in-anger/).
Explaining it is different from excusing it, mind you, and here you have one of many disclaimers that must, in our age, precede an honest discussion of South Africa’s history if one is to make it alive to the other side of the minefield, a treacherous stretch of land full of “Go to Jail” spring traps.
As a starting point, I consider the current state of South Africa and ask myself whether any aspect of its dysfunction was predictable, and whether in fact some Afrikaners had predicted it.
I also remind myself of the country’s racial composition for much of its history: “In 1948 [the start of apartheid], South Africa’s population was divided into four main racial groups: Black Africans (about 70%), Whites (roughly 20%), Asians (mainly Indians, about 2%), and Coloreds (of mixed race, around 8%)” (Wikipedia). For the white minority to enfranchise its neighbors would necessarily mean, for better or for worse, surrendering control of an economy – Africa’s strongest – largely of its own making.
Anticipating some push-back (along the lines of “But who provided the cheap labor?” and “Afrikaners simply helped themselves to the riches of someone else’s land!”), I should add that I am referring to the indispensable educational and physical infrastructure associated with Western-style capitalism and developed on the heels of the industrial revolution.
Lastly, I keep in mind that Afrikaners were ethnically and culturally homogenous to an unusual degree. Unlike the United States, an obvious point of reference, where a mix of different cultures and ethnicities had lowered the threshold for integration, this tight cohesion among SA’s white minority heightened its desire for “being apart” from other groups, arguably even the British.
These considerations loomed large at a time when the world had no successful model for integrating native populations in colonized lands to offer. To this day, a fragile consensus exists only with respect to the perceived failures of ALL related efforts, which in and by itself should compel a reasonable person to contemplate the challenges inherent in such an undertaking.
Thank you for your explanation. My view, still, is that apartheid is a form of tribalism, and in an enlightened society, that should not be allowed.