Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting

Was Abraham Kuyper, scholar, statesman, and university founder, the ideological father of Apartheid in South Africa? Many belief so. But, there are others, amongst them George Harinck of the Free University in Amsterdam, who don’t think so. The article argues that there is an element of truth in bot...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Patrick Baskwell
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: AOSIS 2006-10-01
Series:HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
Online Access:https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/401
id doaj-8b28d379959142b382f8864a958c9138
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8b28d379959142b382f8864a958c91382020-11-24T21:25:06ZafrAOSISHTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 0259-94222072-80502006-10-016241269129010.4102/hts.v62i4.401284Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisitingPatrick Baskwell0University of PretoriaWas Abraham Kuyper, scholar, statesman, and university founder, the ideological father of Apartheid in South Africa? Many belief so. But, there are others, amongst them George Harinck of the Free University in Amsterdam, who don’t think so. The article argues that there is an element of truth in both opinions. Kuyper did exhibit the casual racism so characteristic of the Victorian era, with its emphasis on empire building and all that it entailed. Kuyper was also directly responsible, ideologically, for the social structure in the Netherlands known as “verzuiling” or “pillarization” in terms of which members of the Catholic, Protestant, or Socialist segments of society had their own social institutions. This pillarizing, or segmenting, of society was, however, always voluntary. This is not true of the pillarizing or segmenting of South African society known as Apartheid. While there are similarities between Apartheid and “verzuiling”, especially in their vertical partitioning of the individual’s entire life, the South African historical context, the mediation of Kuyper’s ideas through South African scholars, the total government involvement, and therefore, the involuntary nature of Apartheid, point to their inherent dissimilarity. Apartheid was simply not pure Kuyper. Hence, while the effects of Kuyper’s ideas are clearly discernable in Apartheid policy, the article aims at arguing that Kuyper cannot be considered the father of Apartheid in any direct way.https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/401
collection DOAJ
language Afrikaans
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Patrick Baskwell
spellingShingle Patrick Baskwell
Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
author_facet Patrick Baskwell
author_sort Patrick Baskwell
title Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
title_short Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
title_full Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
title_fullStr Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
title_full_unstemmed Kuyper and Apartheid: A revisiting
title_sort kuyper and apartheid: a revisiting
publisher AOSIS
series HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
issn 0259-9422
2072-8050
publishDate 2006-10-01
description Was Abraham Kuyper, scholar, statesman, and university founder, the ideological father of Apartheid in South Africa? Many belief so. But, there are others, amongst them George Harinck of the Free University in Amsterdam, who don’t think so. The article argues that there is an element of truth in both opinions. Kuyper did exhibit the casual racism so characteristic of the Victorian era, with its emphasis on empire building and all that it entailed. Kuyper was also directly responsible, ideologically, for the social structure in the Netherlands known as “verzuiling” or “pillarization” in terms of which members of the Catholic, Protestant, or Socialist segments of society had their own social institutions. This pillarizing, or segmenting, of society was, however, always voluntary. This is not true of the pillarizing or segmenting of South African society known as Apartheid. While there are similarities between Apartheid and “verzuiling”, especially in their vertical partitioning of the individual’s entire life, the South African historical context, the mediation of Kuyper’s ideas through South African scholars, the total government involvement, and therefore, the involuntary nature of Apartheid, point to their inherent dissimilarity. Apartheid was simply not pure Kuyper. Hence, while the effects of Kuyper’s ideas are clearly discernable in Apartheid policy, the article aims at arguing that Kuyper cannot be considered the father of Apartheid in any direct way.
url https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/401
work_keys_str_mv AT patrickbaskwell kuyperandapartheidarevisiting
_version_ 1725984866220113920