\nAmerica generally tried to parse South African racial ~stuff~ through its understandings of itself, either the (immigrated) white/(imported) black divide or native/settler distinctions when it’s even more interesting
Like “white” was the distinct identities of Boer and English, and much of “black” wasn’t even one of the several native identities but economic migrants from other colonies to the only industrial economy in sub-Saharan Africa
Then there’s the Indians, because a British colony with Indian Ocean coastline obviously has (imported!) Indians, remember how the Ben Kingsley Ghandi starts in South Africa?
Some of this works, such as there being two separate white ruling groups who both were unbelievably racist but where one was pro-slavery and the other was anti-slavery. I don’t actually know the post-abolition history of imported slaves in South Africa, I should look into it. There’s the Bantustans, being in some ways similar to the reservation system.
One of the things I’ve been reading about more recently is post-apartheid urbanization and I’m coming to the not-yet-fully-qualified-don’t-quote-me conclusion that having an oppressed majority at the point when equal rights were declared is part of why South Africa’s post-equality era has been so tumultuous, different from say, post Jim Crow in the USA, and has only slightly improved quality of life for most of the population.
Yeah no if in that first part you’re trying to rig a North/South parallel you need to further account for the division between the northeastern coastal moralists and the “mechanics” (industrial skilled laborers) and smallholders in the northwest (“Midwest”) promoting a “free land, free labor” (“those slaves are taking our jerbs!”) line
"}