The famous Egyptian pyramids utilized slave labor, and the African slave trade which began long before Egypt continues today in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s mining operations. Officially however, Western “migrant” labor is also sourced from Africa on a continuous basis, especially from countries classified as “Human Resource” countries of which Uganda is one example.
It is clear therefore, that slaves are never seen as “equal” by anybody, anywhere. In fact, it is historically true that slaves are seen within a social class construct, and not a racial construct. The upper classes, sometimes described as the “elite,” have no preference about the race of a slave because they simply need basic cheap labor.
Broadly speaking, England was the first empire that stretched across the globe. This happened after the “New World” was discovered resulting in European countries sending their “huddled masses” off into the unknown. Where these European “slaves” discovered riches however, the various European Kings competed as to who could extract the most from these new territories.
In America, the slaves eventually had enough of the English King and kicked him out in 1783, resulting in the King looking around for a new territory to target. It just happened to be that the Netherlands had the beginnings of a new territory on the Southern tip of Africa to provide logistic support to lucrative shipping trade with Eastern targets such India and China.
Around 1795 the “half-way house” on the southern tip of Africa was sold to the English King and he set about incorporating his new territory and its assets (including human assets) into his Empire. Therefore, the settler-slaves in this area were sold to the English King. The intention however was not to give them English citizenship, but to keep them on as “slaves.”
These new “slaves” in Africa were not Black people; they were Europeans mostly from Dutch and French ancestry. The Dutch settlers had no choice in the matter, but the French settlers were upset because it was not their King who sold them. But after roughly a century years of living as free men, in a free country, the settlers overall were unhappy with this arrangement, and many moved inland.
But the English King finally had his half-way house and continued his eastbound drive unabated, while the secessionist settlers established small republics within the immediate interior of the territory. This arrangement carried on for another century until they discovered diamonds and gold. Obviously, the King did not wait to extract those minerals for himself and set about taking these established little republics by force during the Anglo-Boer War of 1899–1901. The remarkable British military strategy of this war was called the “scorched earth” strategy and it demonstrated the extent to which English soldiers were allowed to rape and kill settler-slave women and children of all colors in concentration camps.
Instead of giving British citizenship to its conquered subjects, the Empire set about establishing this new territory as a colony called South-Africa in 1910. In this colony Blacks had no right to vote and were subject to a law called “Segregation.” But the effect of this law also meant that while settler-slaves could buy first-class tickets for a train, they rarely had the money to do it due to the British practice of business “segregation” via the Colonial Office.
After 1910 the settler-slaves rallied around their protestant belief system which resulted in them gaining immature political control of the colony in 1948 as the world collapsed after WW2. The British King was distracted by the general de-colonization movement in Europe and lost control of South Africa in 1961 — 178 years after America — when these settler-slaves finally also declared their independence.
South Africa recovered remarkably well after independence (just like America did after their independence). In South Africa however, they quickly followed this up by writing law in their own language, but then due to political immaturity, they included the part on segregation instead of redefining it properly. Hence the original English law of segregation was perpetuated. What they missed regarding the difference between segregation (as an English construct) and apartheid (as an Afrikaans construct), was that the former was horizontal and the latter vertical. The English saw a slave separation, while the Afrikaner intuitively saw a tribal separation.
Tribal separation to this day, is practiced in all African countries as well as in South Africa and Uganda. Tribal Kings are still acknowledged and encouraged. However, Apartheid as a legal principle was subsequently abused by the British to morally blame Afrikaner policies on the international stage, thereby (successfully) avoiding accountability for their own administrative and war atrocities. They even went so far as to provide financial and technical support to Mandela and the African National Congress political party despite Mandela and his party being on America’s terror watchlist. It was clearly more important and cheaper to distract the world’s attention away from Britain’s Monarchial liability.
In 1994 Mandela was elected the President of South Africa and the previous Afrikaner President FW de Klerk apologized for his party’s Apartheid policies and disbaned his party, but the British never apologized to this day. Subsequently Mandela got along very well with Afrikaner businesses (not so much the English or Americans), and he encouraged them to also assist Uganda with economic development (electricity, cellphones, banks, shopping malls, agriculture, rhino sanctuary, game farm and military vehicles), as a reward for prior Ugandan support to Mandela (and Ramaphosa today).
Today Uganda is doing better than thirty years ago. Maybe the limited but successful Afrikaner contributions to Ugandan economics were graciously accepted because Ugandans quietly understand the British mindset very well.