Quote:
Originally Posted by yofie
Between 1945 and 1965, was the British connection stronger in South Africa than in Australia or Canada? (I guess that the British connection was as strong in New Zealand as in South Africa?) At that time, was the US less important for South Africa than for Australia or certainly Canada?
|
The South Africans were a mixed bunch, and the white Afrikaners were far more Dutch than British, and the Afrikaans language, with the Portuguese and Dutch being the first traders and colonialists rather than the British, and the Dutch left a significant cultural impact.
During the Dutch and British colonial years, racial segregation was mostly informal, though some legislation was enacted to control the settlement and movement of indigenous people.
Britain colonial interest in South Africa started due to Cape Town being an important port for the Royal Navy and Britain occupied Cape Town from Napoleonic times (1803), however British interest later increased when investors became aware of the countries rich resources including diamonds and gold.
The Second Boer Wars (1899 –1902), were especially costly for Britain who lost over 26,000 men, and the British subsequently negotiated the South Africa Act 1909 granted nominal independence while creating the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910, which was just eight years after the end of the Second Boer War.
The later creation of an apartheid state caused further strains in relations and public criticism from many British politicians and included the famous "Wind of Change" speech made by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to the Parliament of South Africa on 3 February 1960 in Cape Town.
So in conclusion, no Britain did not have that close a relationship with South Africa when compared to many other Commonwealth countries and more especially dominions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.