Colonial ethnography supplied the classificatory categories apartheid segregation built upon.

Evidence

The Tomlinson Commission of 1950–54, a prime architect of apartheid, enshrined ethnographers’ distinctions among languages and cultures— Nguni, Sotho, Venda, and Shangaan-Tsonga—on the way to recommending separate lands and statuses for each of them. It also asserted that each of them divided into lineage-defined tribes, typically headed by a single chief. Thus for a series of South African peoples, including various categories of Europeans and Asians, the Tomlinson Report adopted a model of longestablished nations that, as they matured, would acquire their own separate states (Ashforth 1990, 159). Indeed, the report recommended a kind of ethnic cleansing, exchanging white and black populations until they filled substantial homogeneous regions, with the black-occupied regions further segregated by assigned linguistic-cultural category (Ashforth 1990, 176). — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 567

Categorization

  • XREF: Echoes French colonial practice in A Mission to Civilize (ethnographic classification enabling administrative rule) and Along the Archival Grain (colonies built on the same classifications they claimed to discover). — connects to: The apartheid state engineered categories for groups that had no prior bounded identity. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 557; Apartheid intensified preexisting state-created categories rather than inventing new ones — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 566; Divide-and-rule ethnoracial fragmentation long predated formal apartheid — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1481 (+7 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 567

Broader Connections