What do you think?
Rate this book
White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History
A comparative history of race relations in the U.S. and South Africa seeks to explain the different paths each nation followed
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 15, 1981
29 people are currently reading
448 people want to read
About the author
George M. Fredrickson
49 books25 followersGeorge M. Fredrickson was the Edgar E. Robinson Professor of United States History at Stanford University, where he taught from 1984 until his retirement in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 17, 2019
Comparative history has fallen out of fashion in the last quarter-century, which is a shame because when done well it can generate powerful analytical insights. George Fredrickson's WHITE SUPREMACY, which compares race relations in the United States and South Africa prior to World War Two, is a good example of comparative history done well. There were, the author observes, many similarities between the two countries. Both had a colonial "frontier phase," in which a white settler population displaced or subjugated coastal indigenous peoples (Algonquian-speaking Indians in North America, Khoisan in southern Africa). Both subsequently had imperial or neo-imperial governments that tried to limit white territorial expansion, which led to resistance from Southern state governments in the U.S. (culminating in Indian Removal) and from the Dutch-descended trekboers in South Africa. Both countries developed a racially-inflected ideology of "manifest destiny" that helped justify the enslavement of non-whites, first of indigenes and later of imported slaves.
In the nineteenth-century United States, however, slavery proved much more economically important and inflexible an institution than in South Africa, whose imperial government placed restrictions on the power of slave-owners (something the American federal government didn't do until the 1860s), and whose land owners preferred to rely on indentured or contract laborers. Attitudes toward interracial liaisons also differed in the two countries: Southern Americans saw intermarriage as a threat to social order, while Afrikaaners initially tolerated miscegenation and permitted the emergence of a privileged "colored" population in the eighteenth century. Only after the 1860s did South Africa acquire a more oppressive racial regime than the United States'. While both countries practiced segregation and deprived blacks of political rights, the United States confined the most egregious forms of white supremacy to the South, a militarily-subjugated region which freedmen could and did leave. In South Africa, by contrast, segregation and disenfranchisement were embraced both by the defeated Boers and their English conquerers, and applied throughout the Union after 1910. This Fredrickson attributes to a critical demographic and economic difference between the two countries: in post-1900 South Africa, blacks were a growing majority brought into the country as industrial laborers, while in the United States, blacks were a minority employed in a declining Southern agricultural economy, their status more akin to the South African Colored caste than to that of South African blacks.*
While a densely-written book, WHITE SUPREMACY is a thoughtful and often fascinating introduction to a subject few American readers will have encountered. The only criticism one might make of it today is that it devotes little time to the agency and ideological resistance of black people in both countries. As if to preempt that criticism, Fredrickson followed up this book in 1995 with BLACK LIBERATION, also recommended.
* Maurice Evans, an English South African visiting the American South in 1915, declared that he saw little difference between the segregation regime in South Africa and Jim Crow. However, he did note that the U.S. South had a way to go before it had the same level of apartheid (e.g., separate reservations for blacks) as his homeland. Fredrickson would be quick to note that the South failed to follow the path that Evans laid out for it.
In the nineteenth-century United States, however, slavery proved much more economically important and inflexible an institution than in South Africa, whose imperial government placed restrictions on the power of slave-owners (something the American federal government didn't do until the 1860s), and whose land owners preferred to rely on indentured or contract laborers. Attitudes toward interracial liaisons also differed in the two countries: Southern Americans saw intermarriage as a threat to social order, while Afrikaaners initially tolerated miscegenation and permitted the emergence of a privileged "colored" population in the eighteenth century. Only after the 1860s did South Africa acquire a more oppressive racial regime than the United States'. While both countries practiced segregation and deprived blacks of political rights, the United States confined the most egregious forms of white supremacy to the South, a militarily-subjugated region which freedmen could and did leave. In South Africa, by contrast, segregation and disenfranchisement were embraced both by the defeated Boers and their English conquerers, and applied throughout the Union after 1910. This Fredrickson attributes to a critical demographic and economic difference between the two countries: in post-1900 South Africa, blacks were a growing majority brought into the country as industrial laborers, while in the United States, blacks were a minority employed in a declining Southern agricultural economy, their status more akin to the South African Colored caste than to that of South African blacks.*
While a densely-written book, WHITE SUPREMACY is a thoughtful and often fascinating introduction to a subject few American readers will have encountered. The only criticism one might make of it today is that it devotes little time to the agency and ideological resistance of black people in both countries. As if to preempt that criticism, Fredrickson followed up this book in 1995 with BLACK LIBERATION, also recommended.
* Maurice Evans, an English South African visiting the American South in 1915, declared that he saw little difference between the segregation regime in South Africa and Jim Crow. However, he did note that the U.S. South had a way to go before it had the same level of apartheid (e.g., separate reservations for blacks) as his homeland. Fredrickson would be quick to note that the South failed to follow the path that Evans laid out for it.
July 17, 2015
An impressive work of comparative history. I can only imagine how daunting the task was for the late Fredrickson, especially considering the complexities involved in comparing two different countries with different colonial histories and cultures. Many people are quick to generalize or just focus on the legal aspects of the systems of segregation and apartheid, but that can't be done without explaining the histories and cultures that these systems were built upon and embedded within. I do feel that he unfairly focused disproportionately on the Cape Coloureds. While he did make a convincing case for comparing their experience to that of African-Americans -- which is why I think he gave them more attention -- he could have discussed the experience of Africans and smaller minority groups, like Indians, more if at least for us to have a deeper understanding of how it differed. (He does explain the differences, but he could have gone into more detail.) Nonetheless, I recommend this as a great read for those who are interested in systems of racism, understanding the structure of white supremacy and it's different iterations, South African and/or American history, and comparative history.
April 9, 2016
This work really focuses on 18th & 19th Century histories of institutional racism, injustice, and slavery in South Africa and the United States. The author context switches between these continental differences often at the paragraph frequency, which strikes me as too frequent for this comparative study. The telling in detail ends abruptly before the 20th Century with the run-up to WW I in the last few pages. There is no Sun City or Mandela Nelson here, though I get the feeling while it is not overtly stated that South Africa's longer if less bloody trek through Apartheid is what would have happened in the U.S. had it not been for the messy catharsis of the Civil War.
March 8, 2014
A fascinating read, particularly after reading Leonard Thompson's comprehensive book, A History of South Africa. This book goes back to trace the ways in which different kinds of discrimination and racist thinking have led, in both countries and along similar but differing paths, to the establishment of an ideology of white supremacy. It also helped this U.S. expat in South Africa better understand the social geography of this country.
July 6, 2021
An excellent, thorough look into how discriminatory ideas, practices, and policies hampered the social development of both the U.S. and South Africa. This book was written in the 80s, a time before Apartheid laws were completely abolished, which certainly affects the tone of the text as well as its arguments (i.e, usage of the present tense). Regardless, Fredrickson's work stands up supremely well and is a must-read for anyone who wants to better understand how white supremacy operates, how it originated, and how it uniquely manifested in each nation to create glaring inequalities that exist to this day.
December 27, 2025
Both the United States and South Africa have a history of white supremacy. But for all their similarities, they have many differences in origin, legal form, and ideological rationalizations. George Fredrickson presents a detailed multi-century historical comparison. Here are some main points.
There was some precedent for Dutch men in the East Indies to marry women of the local population. In the Cape, where white men greatly outnumbered white women, this practice continued.
At the turn of the 19th century, the British took over the Dutch possessions in South Africa. They attempted to ban slavery. The Dutch descendents (Afrikaners) resented this and moved further east, eventually forming their own short-lived countries. They continued their racist practices, likening themselves to the Israelites-- God's chosen people in the wilderness.
The Afrikaners never developed sophisticated rationalizations for their racism based on any type of pseudoscience. This was quite different in the US, where a huge population of whites who did not own slaves would need to be convinced of the necessity or merits of racial discrimination.
In the era of industrialization in the US, eventually black and white people ended up working the same jobs. There wasn't enough black labor to do all the work. This was not the case in South Africa where the whites were surrounded by indigenous black communities. Whites could therefore pass laws restricting certain low paying jobs to black labor. Whites would be paid higher wages by law, often working in state owned enterprises.
The book is very good. Shows how race and racist structures are the result of specific historical developments and are not in any way "natural." The author's credulous interpretation of Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence are a low point.
There was some precedent for Dutch men in the East Indies to marry women of the local population. In the Cape, where white men greatly outnumbered white women, this practice continued.
At the turn of the 19th century, the British took over the Dutch possessions in South Africa. They attempted to ban slavery. The Dutch descendents (Afrikaners) resented this and moved further east, eventually forming their own short-lived countries. They continued their racist practices, likening themselves to the Israelites-- God's chosen people in the wilderness.
The Afrikaners never developed sophisticated rationalizations for their racism based on any type of pseudoscience. This was quite different in the US, where a huge population of whites who did not own slaves would need to be convinced of the necessity or merits of racial discrimination.
In the era of industrialization in the US, eventually black and white people ended up working the same jobs. There wasn't enough black labor to do all the work. This was not the case in South Africa where the whites were surrounded by indigenous black communities. Whites could therefore pass laws restricting certain low paying jobs to black labor. Whites would be paid higher wages by law, often working in state owned enterprises.
The book is very good. Shows how race and racist structures are the result of specific historical developments and are not in any way "natural." The author's credulous interpretation of Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence are a low point.
November 24, 2007
It has such a great title, but is so utterly disappointing.
From the introduction, the book states that it will talk about race, but won't call it "racism" ... WHAT!?! it basically wants to sum up the struggles between white and black folks in South Africa to class issues...
I see the point of wanting to talk about class, but you can't ignore race. And you can't say race wasn't the reason for discrimination.
And the book was written/researched during apartheid!!!
From the introduction, the book states that it will talk about race, but won't call it "racism" ... WHAT!?! it basically wants to sum up the struggles between white and black folks in South Africa to class issues...
I see the point of wanting to talk about class, but you can't ignore race. And you can't say race wasn't the reason for discrimination.
And the book was written/researched during apartheid!!!
September 30, 2015
Fascinating comparative history of the U.S. and South Africa. Groundbreaking for his time, though published in 1981 and reflective of his day and ongoing apartheid in South Africa. Thorough yet accessible.
May 30, 2011
This book is a classic, well worth reading for anyone who is a student of the history of race and racial formation in the U.S. and around the world.
July 25, 2011
This was a well-researched history. Well-written, not so much--but if you're looking for something to put you to sleep while enlightening you, this is a good bet.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews