Cultural Differences between South Africa and Australia

Both South Africa and Australia were once colonial countries under British rule. Both had gold
rushes, and both had significant Asian immigration. However, South African identities are dominated by
conceptions of race. In Australia, social policy has worked to prevent race becoming a huge factor in the
Australian identity until relatively recently.
When it comes to multiculturalism, although both South Africa and Australia are multicultural
countries, multiculturalism means different things in each. In South Africa, multiculturalism refers to a
mosaic of different cultures living within a rainbow nation. Reflecting this diversity, South Africa has 11
official languages. The most common language spoken at home is Zulu (24 per cent), followed by
Xhosa (18 per cent), and Afrikaans (13 per cent). English (8 per cent) is only the sixth-most common
language. In Australia, multiculturalism basically means lots of people with different coloured faces
living together. English is Australia's only official language and it is the home language for 92 per cent
of Australians. Furthermore, with the exception of the apartheid-style permit system for Aboriginal
communities, there is no policy of keeping groups separated from other groups. Although the original
policy of multiculturalism shared some commonalities with apartheid, today mixing, learning, and
integration is favored. Such values were represented in the 2005 Australian government's official view
on multiculturalism which proposed: "to build on our success as a culturally diverse, accepting and open
society, united through a shared future."
As far as the pre-colonial history is concerned, for tens of thousands of years, hunter gatherers
known as the San roamed South Africa. Around 2000 years ago, Khoikhoi ( Hottentot) reached South
Africa. The Khoikhoi were graziers and believed themselves to be of a superior class due to their
ownership of animals. The San continued to survive in the desert and mountain regions where grazing
was not suitable. Around 500 AD, the Bantu people migrated from the north and settled in eastern South
Africa. Like the Khoikhoi, the Bantu people were not hunter gatherers. They had domesticated animals,
farmed crops and lived in villages. The arrival of the Bantu appears to have forced the Khoikhoi to the
arid grazing areas. However, in Australia humans are believed to have first arrived around 60,000 years
ago. It is possible that some domestication of animals and farming may have occurred shortly after
arrival or in the following millennia. At the time of European colonization; however, there was no
domestication of animals (dingo aside), no farming of crops and no villages.
In regard to the white population, the Dutch established in the 17th century a colony in western
South Africa. Migration from Holland, France and Germany eventually led to the creation of an
Afrikaner identity that represented a composite of the European races in Africa. In the early 1800s,
Britain purchased the Western Cape from the Dutch. Large numbers of British migrants subsequently
flowed into South Africa. The Afrikaners were not fond of British rule, which eventually led to a war
against British control at the beginning of the 20th century. Urban Australia, however, was established to
be a prison in 1788. The Convict heritage made a large segment of the population hostile to English rule;
however, no major conflicts were fought against the English. Furthermore, because those hostile to the
English spoke the same language as the English, and were the same race as the English, it was difficult
for their hostility to be passed down the generations like the Afrikaner.
As to the black white population ratio, in 2007, it was estimated that black Africans comprised
80% of the South African population and the whites comprised 9.1% while in Australia, Aborigines
comprised around 2.3% of the population while whites represented 92%. The differing racial

compositions stemmed from past actions of respective white governments. In South Africa, the white
governments wanted to exclude the black population. Consequently, blacks were never provided with a
equal education nor were any attempts made to assimilate them. Admittedly, some black people, such
as Nelson Mandela, were given an education by Christian missionaries. Two societies developed side by
side in very different ways. White society grew into first world with low birth rates. Black society
remained third world with high birth rates. The black third world was able to gain access to medical
treatment and thus reduce their mortality rate. In Australia, nonetheless, white governments practiced a
policy of assimilation towards Aborigines. When Aboriginal populations were near cities, they were
encouraged to enter society and live like whites. This was reflected in Aborigines being given the vote
when the colonies of NSW, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia framed their constitutions in the
1850s. At times, white missionaries actively went into Aboriginal communities, removed children and
put them in schools. As a result of the assimilation policies, Australia never developed black shanty
towns on the edges of its major cities. Today, 70 per cent of the Aboriginal population lives in cities in a
lifestyle that is not dissimilar to any other Australian.
As for slavery, during the second half of the 17th Century, South African whites imported
Malaysian slaves to work in Cape Town. In 1806, the Cape Colony had a white population somewhere
around 26,000, a slave population of some 30,000 and a mixed race population of around 20,000. In
Australia, Convicts were the slaves. They were assigned to land owners to do work as required. If they
conformed and behaved, they would eventually be set free. Aborigines were never made into slaves
because they could just walk off into the bush.
Because the slavery of Australia was only based on race for a short period, Australia never developed the
hierarchical notions of race as did South Africa. Furthermore, Australian stereotypes never paired
different racial groups with specific jobs or specific socio-economic classes.
On the subject of human rights activists, South Africa has produced numerous human rights
activists that are celebrated by the international community. Ghandi was the first to claim international
attention. Before he led India to independence, Ghandi made a name for himself in South Africa by
organizing non-violent resistance amongst South African sugar cane workers of Indian descent. Nelson
Mandela is another famous human rights activist. Mandela was initially sentenced to death for terrorist
activities. In prison he became a symbol of black persecution. Australia, though, has never produced a
black leader in the vein of Ghandi, or Mandela. The heroes of black politics are white men such
as Gough Whitlam, William Deane and Paul Keating. For example, in 1993, Keating gave a speech in
which he accepted white responsibility for injustices against Aborigines. Despite being the heroes of
Aborigines, the white men failed in their task of eliminating Aboriginal disadvantage; despite having all
the resources of a first world economy at their disposal. They probably failed because they were wanted
to harness the political benefits of self-flagellation instead of defining the model Aborigine that they
wanted to socially engineer.
Concerning the racial policies, the South African policy of apartheid (separating races) initially
commenced under British rule. Because black tribes were in numerical dominance in the areas of
Lesotho and Swaziland, the British gave them their own countries within South Africa. These countries
were subsequently recognized by the international community and are still in existence today. After
South Africa became a republic, the Afrikaner government extended the British policy by creating selfgoverning homelands for other black groups. However, because the Afrikaners had become accustomed
to blacks working as their cleaners and laborers, they didn't want to exclude them completely from white
South Africa. Consequently, the blacks could leave the homeland to work for the whites. These
homelands were not recognized by the international community and became symbolic of white
racism. Today, some whites want to create a white only homeland to protect Afrikaner culture.

Australia's major race-based policy was the Immigration Restriction Act that aimed to keep criminals,
paupers, and non-whites out of Australia. It came into effect in 1901 and was progressively dismantled
after World War 2. The policy was designed to deny businesses from using foreign labor to weaken
Australian unions. Although the economic intentions of the Immigration Restriction Act were
completely opposite to apartheid, it has also become symbolic of white racism. Ironically, it allowed
strong unions to form and prevented the stereotypical pairing of non-whites with low class jobs.
Today, Australia has some policies similar to apartheid and there is a push to extend them. Aboriginal
tribes in outback Australia have been given the legal right to exclude outsiders from entering their lands.
Just as the blacks could under apartheid, Aborigines are free to leave the lands to work in the cities.
Even though it is apartheid under a different name, the policy is currently defined as "progressive".
Much like the Afrikaners of South Africa, some Aborigines want a self-governing Aboriginal homeland
for all Aborigines.
Around the world, justice is usually punitive and comes in variations of the old adage of an eye for
an eye. Basically, if someone murders someone else, they might be executed or incarcerated. Critics of
punitive practices argue that it just leaves two pissed off people without eyes. Restorative practices work
on the belief that if crime hurts, justice should heal. It aims to make perpetrators understand the hurt they
have caused and victims feel that their stories have been heard. Ideally, this will also allow them to
forgive and move on.
After the end of Apartheid, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions were set up and run along
restorative principles. They provided amnesty for all crimes committed for political reasons; provided
that guilty parties confessed their guilt, met the victims of their crimes and signed their confessions. Due
to the restorative practices, many people walked free who the average person would want in jail or
executed. For example, white people who killed blacks, barbequed their bodies and drank beer as the
bodies burnt to ash told their stories to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They then signed their
names and walked away. Admittedly, they asked for forgiveness from the families of their victims, but
forgiveness was not given. In Australia, reconciliation has been modeled on restorative principles;
however, there have been some significant differences. Perpetrators and victims are almost never named.
Instead, there are vague references to conflict on the frontiers in the 18th century. Not only is it
possible to name those involved, it is also difficult to even verify that they occurred. This has in turn
caused the history wars where different white academics have disputed interpretations of the past using
morality rather than evidence. In such an environment, white society has been unreconciled and this
unable to engage in reconciliation with Aboriginal society.

http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/southafrica.html