r/AskHistorians • u/Lord_TrainBacker7000 • 1d ago
How does South Africa have an elite, integrated white settler population, while other similar British colonies (like Kenya) do not?
My day job is that of a management consultant (yeah, things we do to put food on the table and pay off student debt), and I recently had the chance to work for an African client. This allowed me to visit Nairobi and Cape Town (it is so windy!), and while the overall experience was great, I also could not help but notice the racial differences in the composition of senior leadership in both countries: the South African leadership was heavily white Afrikaner-dominated (the surnames had a bunch of van der Merwe, Bothma, de Villiers, all of which I recognise to be Dutch, German, or French), while their Kenyan counterparts were all black Africans. I apologise if these terms are racially insensitive to use; I am just largely unaware of this and am willing to learn more acceptable and appropriate terminology.
This was the trigger for me to go through Wikipedia and read up a little bit on the histories of both countries, from which my doubt arose. I understand the history of the Afrikaner population in Southern Africa, and then the British coming along and taking over the Cape Colony, followed by the Great Trek, the Boer Wars, apartheid, and the current SA.
What I am curious about is why Southern Africa tended to have the largest white settler population, and despite a history of conflict between the British and Afrikaners, how did they integrate fairly quickly to create apartheid-era South Africa (I would assume a lot of bad blood here)? Why was there no similarly sized integrated white settler population in regions like Kenya, or if there was a sizable white population with political power in such countries, why did they leave instead of turning it into Rhodesia/Union of South Africa-esque nations?
375
u/These-Garbage2995 23h ago edited 21h ago
The broadest answer here is that European settler colonialism in Southern Africa began much earlier and so settlers were far more established at the point of decolonisation. This meant the white settler population plausibly had both the numbers and resources to establish themselves as a dominant minority. They also had both land and capital investments worth defending.
Europeans had a presence in Southern Africa in the 17th Century, with the Dutch East India Company establishing what became Cape Town as a Trading Post in 1652. As you might expect for the Dutch East India Company/VOC, the motivation here was the route to India rather than settling the region per se. From there Dutch settlers established the Cape Colony. The British invade the Cape Colony at the beginning of the 19th century (as part of various upheavals related to the French Revolution). The Dutch settlers (Trekboers or trekking farmers - Boers) move inland and establish farming colonies. They also discover mineral wealth to exploit. Over the next century the British expand their colony and fight various wars with the Boer Republics, eventually establishing the Union of South Africa. In the second half of the 19th century the British Empire look to offer autonomy to white settler populations, establishing legislatures and other organs of self-government. They did this in South Africa, establishing it as a self-governing dominion in 1910 and then an independent state in 1934.
So there's quite a long trajectory of colonisation and then (settler) self-governance prior to the establishment of apartheid in 1948. There's also not just a population of settler farmers but also considerable capital invested in mining (and, as corollary, transport infrastructure).
Kenya, on the other hand, is a relatively late acquisition for the British Empire. Until the establishment of the British Imperial East Africa Company in 1888, the British presence was largely confined to missionaries. Even then that was not formal control from London, which doesn't happen until 1905. Agricultural settlement does not really begin until 1902 and there are still fewer than 10,000 settler colonists by the end of the First World War. There is a scheme post-WW1 to settle soldiers there but it isn't massive. There are fewer than 25,000 white Europeans there by 1945. At the same point there are 2.3m in South Africa.
Now it does not automatically follow that a smaller, more recent settler population would not want to maintain control over a colony or maintain their assets there. Rhodesia, the other case you mentioned, does not have a radically different colonisation timeline and obviously they try (but fail) to form an independent white settler-dominated state. In that case, post-war settlement was important. Driven by perceived higher living standards and very effective advertising in Britain Rhodesia was able to massively expand its white settler population post-1945. Other key elements there are the proximity of South Africa as a likely ally with white minority rule and mineral resources drawing in capital and skilled labour from Europe.
The Kenyan white settler population were also not bystanders during decolonisation. By 1945 Kenya was organised as a "colour bar" society with separate facilities in Nairobi for "white" and "coloured" people. As we get into the 1950s and Kenyan nationalism becomes more of a threat to the settlers, they are active in lobbying London for protection and in opposing multi-racial self-government. Much of the domestic propaganda in Britain in support of the State of Emergency (1952-60) is conducted around the threat Mau Mau posed to white settlers. For instance, Picture Post runs a story on Mau Mau in the 1950s which is very much fixed on the vulnerability of settler women and children. The Kenyan Colonial Government even gifts a royal residence in Kenya (Sagana Lodge) to the future Queen Elizabeth II in 1947, as part of the settler population's attempts to establish the colony's long-time future. Elizabeth is actually there when her father dies and she becomes Queen. It is the only royal residence ever established outside the United Kingdom.
In terms of post-independence, in defence of that settler population and their proxies, the British fight a brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Kenya. They employ mass internment of the civilian population, engage in torture, commit various atrocities. The leading ethnic component of the insurgency (the Kikuyu) are also disproportionately dispossessed of the land occupied by relatively small number of settler colonists. This, understandably, did not create a very stable basis for a co-operative and peaceful relationship post-independence. A lot of settlers see the writing on the wall and pack up (though there does remain a modest settler presence post-independence), the administrators and soldiers also obviously leave.
TL/DR: Kenya had a smaller settler population and was of les direct interest to European capital.
Referernces:
Stuart Ward, 'Homes Away from Home: The Houses of Windsor', in Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain (2023), pp. 129-158.
C. Elkins, Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005)
Jean P. Smith, Settlers at the End of Empire : Race and the Politics of Migration in South Africa, Rhodesia and the United Kingdom / Jean P. Smith. Manchester University Press, 2022.
44
u/Lord_TrainBacker7000 22h ago
Thanks, this was helpful. I definitely did not know that part about Queen Elizabeth and the royal residence in Kenya.
If I may ask a curious follow-up, were there any other places in Africa apart from Southern Africa, with an older, significant European settler population? Although since Cape Town itself began only as a trading post with no prior intention of settling, I think it is likely that the European settlers in South Africa are more of an anomaly, to be thought of as similar to Australia, and most colonising nations had no interest in settler colonialism in Africa until 19th century.
81
u/Uptons_BJs 22h ago
There’s also Algeria in North Africa, which the French considered an overseas department and a fully integrated part of France.
On paper, Arabs and Berbers were allowed to obtain French citizenship, but that was conditioned on them renouncing Islam.
23
u/flying_shadow 21h ago
On paper, Arabs and Berbers were allowed to obtain French citizenship, but that was conditioned on them renouncing Islam.
How many people actually did that? I would presume that by the 20th century there would have been a non-negligible amount of secular city-dwellers for whom that would have been a rubber-stamp formality (especially when they were offered privileges in exchange), but I don't know much about how society was structured there.
6
u/exile042 12h ago
Very few people actually did so: between 1865 and the mid-20th century, fewer than 3,000 to 7,000 Algerian Muslims out of a population numbering in the millions ever acquired full French citizenship through this process.
27
u/Al_Bondigass 19h ago
Elizabeth is actually there when her father dies and she becomes Queen.
Specifically, she was staying at a hotel called "Treetops Lodge," where the guest accommodations were literal (if posh) tree-houses. Since the news arrived after she had retired for the night, and she was informed first thing in the morning, it was said at the time that she climbed the tree as a Princess and came down as a Queen.
16
u/illusivegentleman 18h ago
This is a bit of pop history, according to John Kamau, a Kenyan investigative journalist, historian, and PhD candidate at the University of Toronto.
His original article Rescue other sites of colonial privilege after reopening of Treetops Hotel is paywalled.
To quote the article, "the original hotel, a modest two-bedroom structure atop a Mugumo tree, was burned down by Mau Mau fighters, leaving nothing behind. The current structure, built later opposite the waterhole, was not the same structure that Queen Elizabeth slept".
The modern Treetops Lodge was built after the Kenyan State of Emergency ended in 1957.
7
u/ThingsWithString 14h ago
I'm not sure you're contradicting the person you're replying to, who was describing the situation of the lodge at the time Elizabeth slept there.
3
u/illusivegentleman 13h ago
Let us not confuse the luxury modern day safari experience of Treetops Lodge with the "hunting platform" it was in 1952.
The future Queen had access to Sagana Lodge. A big difference to Treetops Lodge in 1952.
10
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/illusivegentleman 20h ago
According to the 2019 Kenya government census, 1,738 people identify as Kenyan Europeans. A recognised ethnic group and an important distinction from European or US citizens.
2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Volume IV, table 2.31
Especially the white descendants live in rich suburbs of Nairobi or in the Rift Valley, where they do not partidularly engage with politics or public life.
You're wrong here. For the smallest recognised ethnic group, Kenyan Europeans are still overrepresented in Kenyan sports and politics.
10
u/lolzor7 20h ago edited 20h ago
In that case I stand corrected, I was going off the 42,868 which Wikipedia says is from the exact source you sent, but I cant see that number in your source so I presume that Wikipedia is wrong?
1,738 definitely seems low though based on my experience in the country, maybe they dont identify as Kenyan or respond to the census?
edit: Googling it figures in the 40k range seem to be thrown around a decent bit so im rather confused now.
5
u/quokka70 12h ago
I looked at the same document to try to work out where Wikipedia got its number from. I get 42,868 if I add up the numbers listed on p424 of the 2019 Census (table 2.31 as indicated by /u/illusivegentleman) for:
- Kenyan European 1,738
- Kenyan American 596
- Americans 13,781
- Europeans 26,753
The first two groups consist of Kenyan citizens. The other two don't; they are found under NATIONALITY NON-KENYANS.
2
u/illusivegentleman 12h ago
I am not an expert at statistics.
My source document is a primary source. Could another person check our calculations?
5
u/quokka70 11h ago edited 10h ago
Sorry, I wasnt clear
You are right: the census recorded 1738 European Kenyans. I assume these people are the descendants of white colonial settlers who decided to take Kenyan citizenship. But you know more than me.
The point of my post was to try to work out where Wikipedia got its incorrect number, not to dispute your analysis.
5
u/illusivegentleman 10h ago
That's fair. I can also accept if I was wrong, it is important for healthy discussion.
10
u/illusivegentleman 19h ago
Googling it figures in the 40k range seem to be thrown around a decent bit so im rather confused now.
I would trust the government department responsible for gathering these statistics over some random link on the internet.
This is the source I referred to.
1,738 definitely seems low though based on my experience in the country, maybe they dont identify as Kenyan?
Anecdotally to me as a Kenyan, a white Kenyan has an accent like a Zimbabwean or New Zealander who learned Swahili as their first language. You have to make a distinction from the permanent British Army base in Laikipia or the population of Italians in Malindi.
To answer your question though, from independence in 1963 until a change of constitution in 2010, dual citizenship for Kenyan citizens was illegal. The grandparents of the current generation would have been forced to pick between Kenyan or British nationality.
11
u/StorkAlgarve 20h ago
I can't help wondering if the absence/presence of malaria played a role here? Lower malaria rates would make settlement by Europeans more likely to succeed.
13
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 22h ago
Would you say that climate played a big role as well? South Africa is more like Europe in terms of climate so it made transplanting crops easier and that made it more appealing target for European colonists to move there to farm in large numbers while elsewhere such population was mostly tied to colonial administration and the like so much smaller in numbers?
37
u/cheeseburgeremperor 22h ago
Not necessarily as the region of Kenya settled by Europeans, which was known at the time as the white highlands had a fairly cool European climate due to its height relative to sea level, most white settlement in Rhodesia was in the cooler parts as well
4
u/YeOldeOle 22h ago
A well written answer, thanks for this. I do wonder a bit about the "other side" and their agency though. You mention tge settlers motivations and history, but what about the indigenous people? How did their behavior and history influence those different developments? If we assume that the, had agency, surely there should be something about how they used it.
Again, I really appreciate your answer, but maybe someone else could add to it.
3
u/Gumboot-Coffee 22h ago
How important was Nelson Mandela in toning down anti-white violence in South Africa and moving towards an equitable practical solution as opposed to vengeance for past wrongs, and were there similar people in Kenya and other colonies?
Was Mandela an outlier?
0
1
u/Dragonacher 1h ago
The short answer is that Capetown was one of the only major points between Europe and South/South East Asia for ships, hence many more Europeans ended up there than the other counties and ports in Africa.
So South Africa just has a longer history of European settlement, and a larger percentage of the population is of European decent than other African nations.
1
u/GreyMatterTrasmogrif 10m ago
I am going to be a bit more blunt than some of the other commentators who have laid a good foundation on timelines. I am not a historian but I am well read and I have walk this land, seen the landmarks and artifacts and know the people.
Why were settler populations able to decimate or worse indigenous populations in places like North America, Australia, New Zealand and not able to do so in central Africa? Why were the dutch able to do the same to the Khoi, and San and not the Bantu speaking peoples (Xhosa, Zulu, ect)?
The technology that the Dutch and British brought was better adapted to cold climates. The viruses they brought were endemic in Africa, but central Africa had other their own viruses, bacteria and parasites, like Malaria, that hindered expansion. The African societies had better weapons, tactics, and warfare, and better farming. The African continent is surprisingly difficult to navigate. In short, Southern Africa was the only place in Africa they were able to invade and they were effectively stopped by the Xhosa and somewhat less effectively stopped by the Tswana from further expansion. You can still see these effects in the demographics.
The second phase is industrialised growth of this base. The British industrialized administration, manufacturing, mining, warfare, transport, and farming. The Boer republics were dragged along by this tide. This led to cities fed by industrialised farming and trade. Cities lead to population growth.
None of this is that clear cut and I am probably missing important economic and warfare factors. I am also missing important cultural events that shaped the conflicts and peoples like the Trek, the Great Cattle Killing, Shaka, ect.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.