SOUTH Africa is the only portion of that continent with an appreciable long-established European settlement. Unlike the European thrust into the Americas, that into southern Africa neither displaced non-Europeans nor produced large ethnic mixtures. Instead, as in New Zealand, the penetration left Europeans living alongside non-Europeans. But while New Zealand Maoris became a minority, South African Europeans remained one.1 From this basic population fact has flowed a historic concept recently caught up in the word iapartheid, which entered Afrikaans only in the late I930's. While the word can be translated as apartness, significantly common usage does not make this apartness territorial or geographical. Instead the word connotes the entire complex of superior-subordinate relationships between Europeans and nonEuropeans. The two concepts of territorial and social have competed in South Africa since Jan van Riebeeck's wild orange hedge between colonists and Hottentots began official support of the literal, territorial type.2 When the colonists trampled the hedge, they initiated the rival frontier concept of social apartheid, which might also be termed frontier in that it was an attitude developed on the frontier, which pitted it against literal, territorial in a struggle with four stages. In each of them the frontier attitude identified itself more closely with Afrikaner nationalism and finally transferred to a larger South African nationalism, so that current usage of apartheid is largely social with only slight territorial connotations. During the first stage frontier emerged and vainly sought to become official policy. Beginning with the Netherlands East India Company each regime deplored expansion with attendant expensive native wars, and also increasingly tended to view Europeans and natives as near equals. While the colony hugged the western district with its settled grain and wine growers