By Mike Smith
25th of May 2010
One of the first and most criticised laws of the “Apartheid” era is the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act No 55 of 1949. This law, along with the Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23) made it illegal to marry or have sexual relations with other races.
Many people today believe that this act was introduced by the now hated Afrikaner dominated National Party, but that is simply not true.
As early as 1685 Dutch Cape law prohibited marriage between white men and slave women; some legal unions of white men with free women of colour continued to take place, but with decreasing frequency.
The predecessors of the “Apartheid” laws on mixed marriages were the Immorality Act [No. 5] of 1927, and the two laws of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal) of 1897, called law no. 2 and 3 -- 1897, "Wet tot tegengaan van deontucht," (Law prohibiting sex between whites and blacks.)
There were some other laws namely the Cape Colony law no. 36- 1902, "Betting Houses, Gaming Houses, and Brothels Suppression Act,“ which prohibited voluntary sexual relations for the purpose of gain between white women and Africans.
In Natal: No. 31-1903, "Criminal Law Amendment Act," prohibited indecent relations between white women and coloured persons (sec. 16); coloured were defined in the "Vagrancy Law" 15-1869 as "Hottentots, coolies, bushmen, Lascars, and members of the so-called kaffer population."
Orange Free State: No. 11 -- 1903, "Suppression of Brothels and Immorality Act," sec. 14-16. Transvaal: No. 46-1903, "Immorality Ordinance," similar to Natal, but with harsher punishment and with a very broad definition of "native" as including natives of the indigenous or coloured races of Africa, Asia, or St. Helena.
The Rhodesian "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" (by Cecil John Rhodes's British South African Company) made illegal and punishable sexual relations between a white woman and a black man (but not those between a white man and a black woman).
South Africa was by far not the only country to introduce a ban on mixed marriages. Neither were the Germans with the 1935 15 September: "Nürnberger Gesetze" prohibiting interracial sex and marriage between "Aryans" and "Jews" in Nazi Germany; "Gesetzzum Schutz des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre" and"Reichsbürgergesetz," Reichsgesetzblatt 1146.
Germany actually banned interracial marriage in German Samoa as early as 1912.
A Spanish royal decree in 1805 required that persons of "pure blood" obtain permission of the viceroy or the audiencia in order to marry "elements of Negro and Mulatto origin."
5 April 1778: The "Order of the Council of State forbade all marriages between whites and blacks in France, on penalty of being expelled at once to the colonies."
In 1771 The Viceroy of Portuguese Brazil ordered degradation of an Amerindian chief, who, "disregarding the signal honours which he had received from the Crown, had sunk so low as to marry a Negress, staining his blood with this alliance."
In 1724 French edict (of March) by Louis XV banned intermarriages between whites and blacks (but not whites and Indians) in Louisiana; this special Code noir for Louisiana also prohibits whites "or freeborn or
freed blacks" to live in concubinage with slaves; article 6 says:
"Défendons à nos sujets blancs, de l'un et de l'autre sexe, de con-tracter mariage avec les Noirs, à paine de punition et d'amende arbitraire; et à tous curés, prêAtres ou missionaires, séculiers ou réguliers, et méme aux aumôniers de vaissaix de les marier." ("We forbid our white subjects of either sex to contract marriage with blacks, under threat of punishment and fines; and forbid all clerics, priests, or missionaries, lay or ordained, and even ships' chaplains, to marry them.")
In fact, between 1913 and 1948 (The year the NP government came to power in South Africa) laws prohibiting miscegenation were enforced in 30 of the 48 states of the USA and continued until 1967.
The question of miscegenation is a bit of a red herring. On the one side there are the Bible experts that are split into two groups fighting amongst themselves. One group quotes reams of text explaining that God prohibits marriages outside of our race. Their equally Biblical fanatical opponents declare that we are “All one in Christ”…
I am always sceptical of people who build their entire argument on what the Bible says.
As I have explained before, the only job of a government is to protect all its citizens against the initiation of force. The question thus arises whether laws against miscegenation are the job of the government?
How is the decision of two consenting people to mix their race any business of the government or anyone else? They are not attacking anyone, they simple love or lust after each other. Pretty harmless at first glance if you ask me, but this issue needs to be looked at deeper. We have to go back to the basics of nature.
Most simplistic arguments that one hears is that “ a cat and a dog does not mix”, but the truth is that a black dog can mix with a white dog and more specific a Labrador can mix with an Alsatian. A Persian cat can mix with a Siamese cat, etc.
In nature we see many closely related species that can interbreed, but do not. The Black Wildebeest and the Blue Wildebeest in Africa can interbreed, but in the wild, they do not. It is only when they are forced together in small game reserves that they do and have to be kept apart.
The reason for this, the game wardens explain is, because the offspring of this miscegenation is a weak result, prone to diseases of all kinds and weakening both herds in the long run. This offspring is easily eaten by predators or taken out of the gene pool by disease.
This is Mother Nature’s way of ensuring the survival of the species as Darwin said. Similar cases can be made for the White and Black Rhino or the Kruger and Knysna Elephants as well as thousands of closely related bird species. The fact is that Mother Nature prefers to keep species apart to ensure their survival…the survival of all of them. Nature is Nationalistic and Nationalism is nature. It is true diversity, not make believe liberal nonsense that aims to destroy all species.
But how does this law of nature manifest itself amongst different human species or races?
Between 1946 and the enactment of the Apartheid law to prohibit mixed marriages in 1949, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages. That is about 0.23% of all marriages in the country and relatively insignificant.
It shows that we still prefer our own kind to breed with, the way nature intended it to be. The formation of “China Towns”, Negro ghettos, Muslim and Jewish communities in European countries is a testimony to this perfectly natural phenomenon.
We do not actually need laws to keep us apart, we do not need laws prohibiting us from interbreeding. Nature takes care of this in its own way. It is when we want to play God and set the laws for Mother Nature that she comes back and hits us over the head.
Our greatest mistakes that we ever made were to interfere with Mother Nature. We think we are clever, we think we can reroute rivers and build levies and dykes, but the time will come that Mother Nature will return everything to the natural state of being. We think that we can force different species and nations together and force them to interbreed under unnatural Socialist captivity, but sooner or later Mother Nature restores the status quo with disastrous results. The break-ups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda in recent years are case studies in point.
We do not seem to have a problem with the separation of Blue and Black Wildebeest after hearing the explanation of game wardens, yet the separation of different human species is regarded as “Evil”…even “A crime against humanity”….The fact that genetically Black diseases such as Sickle Cell amenia and Lupus are transferred to children is of no concern to the liberal brigade. The lifelong suffering of such children is sacrificed at the politically correct altar.
When a married couple with small children have a divorce, the courts are quick to point out that their major concern is the welfare of the children involved, but when it comes to marrying adults of vastly different ethnical and cultural backgrounds, no consideration for the wellbeing of the future offspring is produced.
Children from such unions suffer their entire life. They never have a complete identity. They never feel as if they fit in anywhere. They are never considered as “White”, neither are they ever considered as “Black”. They are torn between two worlds. Even when they decide to fully embrace one side of the union and identify with it, they will never fully be accepted by that side.
In the six thousand years of recorded history there have been about 25 great civilisations. Just about every single one has disappeared due to miscegenation with lesser races.
These are the stark realities that previous white governments were faced with. Was it moral to legislate interbreeding? Yes, certainly.
The prevention of interbreeding of different cultures and races means the protection of those cultures. It means securing their continuation and their future.
The Liberal doctrines of Multiculturalism and Racial Egalitarianism are illogical paradoxes; the end result is not the protection of different cultures and races, but the destruction of all. It leads to NO culture, NO Race, No religion and NO identity.
Can you imagine a world where there is only one type of flower in the entire world? Can you imagine only one type of plant; only one type of food; only one type of car; only one type of music; only one style of dress code…? That is what the end result of Communism is.
We have seen this kind of influence from various communist states already. Mao Ze Dong introduced “The Mao suit”….a unisex black or blue dress code that was worn by millions of Chinese. That was his sick vision of a communist world.
In East Germany you basically had one type of car, the Trabant…maybe a Warburg if you were lucky, but you had to wait years for a car…
That is what Liberals and Socialists proudly call their unholy paradox of “Diversity” today.
During Apartheid, very few people actually had a problem with the prohibition on mixed marriages or the immorality act. The Indians, the Chinese, the Muslims, the Jews, the Greeks or the Portuguese never actually complained, because they saw it as a way of protecting their cultures and their way of life.
Only the blacks and the coloureds objected to these laws. One cannot blame them for wanting to breed with whites, because it is a natural phenomenon supported by Darwin to select superior genes for your offspring.
Therefore the desire of coloureds and blacks to breed with whites is an admission on their part that whites have superior genes. If they are so convinced about black superiority then they would select the best amongst their own.
The Seal/Heidi Klum, O.J.Simpson/Nicole, Tiger Woods/Elin Nordegren, Alan Boesak/ Elna … type relationships are testimony only to the inferiority these men feel about their own people and about themselves.
In their desire to be with white women and produce children with them they acknowledge their own inferiority and the inferiority of their own women. It is clear that the LWB`s (Liberal White Bitches) who married these so called successful Blacks had only money, status and limelight on their agendas, but every single one eventually came face to face with the degenerate criminal streak inherent in the black genes.
It would actually be amusing to know what black women think of these race traitor men of them, because as soon as they have a bit of money, they buy themselves a white whore that no respectable white man will even touch with a barge pole.
Coming back to the South African situation, we have to decide whether the laws of Apartheid was justified. Did it succeed in protecting ALL the citizens of South Africa?
Here we have to consider short term and long term goals. In the short term the laws of Apartheid ensured relative safety and peace between various races and cultures that can not be equalled by the current ANC Marxist terrorist regime. In fact if it was not for the insurrection of the communist agitators, we would still be living in peace and harmony with each other today.
In the long term…? Well the proof is in the proverbial pudding. All the different tribes of South Africa with their diverse cultures and languages are still largely intact and with us today. We have to thank he policies of “Mother tongue education” at least in primary school level and separate, but equal, development.
If the argument is to promote and protect diversity then Nationalism has passed with flying colours and honours.
My original question therefore still stands, “Whether laws against miscegenation are the job of the government?”
Personally I believe that mother nature will take care of this. The only law we need in this respect is the law of nature. In formalising a natural law, the NP opened themselves up to attack. All things considered one can understand their rationale as a professional government wishing to protect all of its citizens, irrespective of their diversity. They have fully succeeded in that.
During the 1980`s Professor Heese from Stellenbosh University wrote a book called, “Groep Sonder Grense” (Group without borders) where he researched the interracial marriages amongst whites and coloureds during the early periods of European settlement at the Cape. His conclusion was that Whites in South Africa have about 6% coloured blood in them. Many say that his book was banned by the NP government, but it is utter nonsense. I was personal friends with the son of Prof. Heese, namely Johan. He took a lot of flack from teachers because of the book his dad wrote, so much so that he had to change schools, but we all got to read “Groep sonder Grense”. It was not banned at all.
The 6% coloured genes Prof. Heese referred to was actually less than France who has a 9% miscegenation rate. And less than Germany, Belgium or The Netherlands.
In South Africa amongst the Afrikaners we have a special family, a special paradox, called the Breytenbach brothers.
On the one hand we have Colonel Jan Breytenbach, Commander of the crack South African Defence Force, Special Forces known as “The Recces” (Recognisance Unit). He was also commander of the most decorated unit namely “32 Batalion” (Buffalo soldiers, mainly black unit with white officers fighting communists). He was also commander of the 44th Parra Brigade. A finer soldier on the face of this earth will be hard to find.
On the other hand we had his brother, Breyten Breytenbach. He fell in love with a French/Vietnamese woman and was not allowed to live with her in South Africa. Breyten Breytenbach is one of our best poets and novelists. He went to France and founded an anti Apartheid organisation called Okhela. He planned terrorist attacks against white South Africans and tried to re-enter in 1975, but his own ANC Marxist buddies who did not trust him sold him out and he spent 7 years in prison for high treason.
Breyten Breytenbach, a victim of the mixed marriages act, is your typical liberal useful idiot who still do not know where he stands. The one moment he praises the ANC and the next he criticises them.
Recently he declared that we are all coloureds of various degrees, we are the “Rainbow nation” after all…
Now I do not have a problem with that per se….Problem is that the ANC on all their government forms still insist on us declaring our race, because they allocate Affirmative Action quotas and BEE contracts to non-whites. So if we are all so “Coloured”, what is the problem? When can we start to insist on our AA and BEE rights?