This has a small element of truth in it, but very small - when South Africa adopted a decimal currency in 1961, Canada and East Africa already had decimal currencies and the rest of Africa followed suite in a matter of a year or two. The strong argument in favour of decimalization was the mechanization of accounting procedures. Moreover, decimalization had all-party support, having first been introduced as a private members bill by an anti-Apartheid MP some years earlier.
As regards metrication, the Afrikaaners got their republic in 1961, Britain announced a metrication program in 1965 and South Africa in 1968. South Africa and Australia followed a very similar pattern in metrication policy (at about the same time). If there was a political aspect to metrication, the pragmatic aspect was much larger. For the record, when I was a student I know that the South Africa Security Police had a file on me because of my association with anti-Apartheid activities. However, I fully supported the SA Government in in respect of decimalization and metrication. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 28 March 2010 02:51 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46993] FW: Re: Conversions Comment from a consultant at work, who is from South Africa. Carleton _____ From: Meston, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 09:16 To: MacDonald, Carleton Subject: RE: [USMA:46609] Re: Conversions Hi There is a political aspect to the metrication process. When the National Party government came to power in 1948, they began to implement apartheid. The commonwealth nations reacted very badly to this. Ultimately South Africa left the commonwealth in 1961 and became a Republic. Dropping the "English" measures was part of this overall process of breaking from the disapproving English. A _____ From: MacDonald, Carleton Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:56 PM To: Meston, Andrew Subject: FW: [USMA:46609] Re: Conversions More about the previous item sent. Carleton MacDonald Policies and Procedures Officer 777-2341/202-906-2341 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vlietstra Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 14:50 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46609] Re: Conversions John, I received most of my schooling in South Africa. By the 1950's the only aspect of life where Dutch measures were used was in land surveying in three of South Africa's four provinces - the fourth, Natal, used English measures. South West Africa (now Namibia) which was formerly a German colony and then a de facto fifth province used metric units for land surveying. The aggressive approach was more one of Teutonic thoroughness - the Government, having had a successful decimalisation of coinage a decade earlier, realized that the country could not afford to live with two systems of measure and along with the rest of the English-speaking world adopted the metric system. They also realized that in order for the conversion to succeed, a "critical mass" of metric users had to be obtained and that those who were at the forefront of metrication should not be penalized. It is noteworthy that although the Government had a very bad press over Apartheid, the country generally supported the metrication process as they were "benevolent dictators" in ensuring that there was no profiteering. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 12 February 2010 14:28 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46605] Re: Conversions The article shows some obvious problems in trying to merge Dutch and British traditional measures. That is probably significant in why South Africa was so aggressive in its approach to metric conversion. I wonder if we would find similarities in other colonies the British "took over" rather than where they were the first colonial power. However, in the US and Canada, non-British areas (French Canada, "New Holland", the Louisiana Purchase territories, the American Southwest) don't seem appreciably more metric than the rest of the countries (except maybe I-19 in Arizona). _____ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 1:44:21 AM Subject: [USMA:46599] Conversions Oh how I minds we do pervert, When first we practice to convert. See http://ancestry24.com/learning-centre/weights-and-measures Cheers, Pat Naughtin
