Talk:United Party (South Africa)

message: "Although more moderate than its National Party opponents, the United Party was committed to white supremacy." This seems a bit POV. According to In Search of History, Grade 12 (Mulaudzi, Bottaro and Visser): "There were disagreements over racial policies, because some United Party members were opposed to segregation." --Taejo 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "It is often said that the United Party was a more Anglo-African party." I think this can be proved by various means, such as public opinion surveys and geographical distribution of votes. I'm looking for relevant data.Dynzmoar 11:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo African Party 

message: I think the "Politics & Government of South Africa" infobox should only appear in the articles of political parties that are currently active.  Unless someone disagrees, I will remove it. — Gk sa (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: There is confusion and contradiction between the statement that the party "tacitly supporting apartheid" and was "against apartheid as a system".  The party opposed Apartheid, but did not oppose white minority rule.  That would be a more accurate way to state the scenario. There is a big difference between apartheid and white rule.
:: Jan Smuts, who dragged South Africa into two senseless wars, actually invented "Apartheid", not in name but in concept "parallel development": https://archive.org/details/JanSmutsNativePolicyInAfricaInventingApartheid --154.69.56.130 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: I do not believe that it is correct to say that the United Party was "tacitly supporting apartheid". It opposed apartheid. It is important not to equate a primarily white electoral roll (AKA White rule) with apartheid. Apartheid did not exist before 1948. The National Party introduced apartheid, the United Party opposed that. Similarly I don't think it is correct to say that the party lacked "commitment to a clear policy on race relations". It did have a policy - continued white majority rule. The National Party supported this too, but also supported segregation and the eventual separation of the races. It is definitely not correct that the National Party supporting "preserving white supremacy at all costs". Neither party was white supremacist.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rhetoric of the parties may have been different, but it is incorrect to say that the "United Party" opposed "Apartheid". In fact, their leader and icon Jan Smuts was the first and foremost theoretician of this. He just called it differently "parallel development". The term "Apartheid" itself was only on several National Party documents. The official documents use the term "Separate Development", which in theory means that the distinguishable population groups should develop in accordance with their own characteristics and capabilities. In practice there is of course far more to it with bureaucrats and interest groups being involved that may have diverging agendas. Ironically the National Party may have been more liberal in many ways than the United Party, although it's commonly portrayed in the opposite way --41.146.43.231 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance of apartheid? 

message: All articles relating to this topic are found in 1(One) article & seem to follow a pattern in terms of layout.
Please arrange it accordingly as this one missed to mention headquarters. Twaz Bad (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters -???