An effect of the law was to exclude non-Whites from living in the most developed areas, which were restricted to Whites. It caused many non-Whites to have to commute large distances from their homes in order to be able to work. The law led to non-Whites being forcibly removed for living in the "wrong" areas. This can be seen in particular, in Source 2 – a sign disallowing non-whites to a picnic site. The sign is written in both English and Afrikaners and not the native African languages, which could be indicative of the Afrikaans attitude towards the natives. Also the sign states ‘non-whites 3 miles lower down’, forcing them to not share a public area with others. The sign is established by the Department of Forestry, therefore likely a government initiative of the ‘Petty Apartheid’ policy. The purpose of these was to provide whites with access to the most privileged suburbs, and disenfranchise non-whites politically. This included everyday facilities, such as this sign: ‘picnic site[s]’. The area of non-whites ‘3 miles lower down’ was likely poorly looked after, and degraded. These petty apartheid laws were highly enforced by the police whom were white, and if the blacks opposed, they would be severely attacked.
The source is indefinitely reliable because it is raw evidence, presented as a photograph; the sign is from 1950. Thus, it is a first-hand piece of evidence, and cannot have been manipulated. It is also useful on many levels: firstly, it provides us with an insight into how white people thought of non-whites, because it shows how they did not want to affiliate with other races. Furthermore, this area is a nature reserve, and you would expect in such a harmonious place to say, everyone would be able to access this area; therefore this source shows the extent to which white people enforced the apartheid legislation. However, the source does not specifically show the extent to which black people were inhumanely treated, as it only presents that white and non-white people were separated, which after all, was the overarching purpose of the apartheid. Therefore, on a technical note, it could be said this source is bias, as we can assume black people did the same, and probably had signs stating something along the lines of: ‘no white people allowed’.
Can Thember, a black man investigated the attitudes towards non-whites, by entering several white dominated churches. Racism was institutionalised and it took place in all corners of society – Source 3 illustrates this, showing the Presbyterian Church of Orange Grove, and the Dutch Reform Church in Kensington both shun black natives. The author described it as not doing his “nerves any good”. Christianity, a religion that is taught to treat others with empathy and compassion, disregarded and dejected non-whites, whom wanted to share their beliefs in Christ. The apartheid laws were enforced not only by the government (politically), but also religiously and socially. The author says “they said something about...boy’s club policy” and “government’s law”. Obviously, the government policies has had significant influence over the churches rulings, and the man refusing black natives to enter has become passively racist. At the Dutch Reform Church, the aged church official, whom “bellowed”, “showed” and acted “violently” has a much more rigorous belief against their supposed inferiors – non-whites – as it is the Dutch Reform Church who hold the belief that God had ordered the Apartheid.
The source contains a substantial amount of useful content. Firstly, it compares how different people held different opinions towards non-whites. Of course, the Dutch Reformed Church holds the most fundamental views against non-whites. However, every other church has an extent of influence, as they are all considered ‘white people’s churches’. Though, the source is first person, and present of the apartheid, in such an overwhelming situation – such as being beaten off – memories can become a blur and distorted, and not a representation of the overarching situation. Or, in the case of it being a book ‘The will to die’, the text may be hyperbolised to create tension and engross the reader.
Apartheid stood on the principles of segregating different races, and white people aimed to disassociate themselves with supposedly inferior races, such as black peoples. Initially, Dr Millan designed the Apartheid system in 1948, considering it a movement to ‘separate development’. However, the laws crescendo, increasingly undermining black rights, and enforcing white dominance. Non-whites suffered tumultuous lives, and white people treated them animalistically. Non-whites wanted an end to Apartheid, whilst non-whites wanted to remain prosperous, which was the situation during Apartheid. However, the Apartheid foundations were unstable, and constant pressure from big empires such as America withdrawing investments, sanctions and boycotts imposed, and neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe preparing guerrilla warfare. P.W Botha crumbled under the pressure from the affluent rich who now had to pay much more for amenities such as oil and food, and the black labour workers, whom wanted rid of the Apartheid. P.W Botha had to make some sort of compromise to stabilise the economy, but made the unduly mistake of making no changes because he didn’t want to give up Apartheid. He then passed away, and democracy replaced the old system. In 1997, Nelson Mandela was elected and pronounced the new Prime Minister of South Africa. He was glorified for his major stepping stones he’s given SA, but many testify that he was not the true causation for changes in SA. I will look at all the sources provided, and come to an interpretation of my own after analysing the sources whether Nelson Mandela was the prime catalyst, or if there were other factors involved just as important.
This is a preview of the whole essay
As a statesman, Mandela was profoundly supported by non-whites as he tenaciously fought to debase the Apartheid. From Source B2 – a photograph - it is evident Mandela’s proponents glorified him, as a banner heralds ‘Mandela for President’ and he provides an opportunity for a new epoch, free of racial injustice. Undoubtedly, Mandela was internationally supported, due to the sheer size of the crowd, which the camera has perfectly depicted. The purpose of the photograph maybe to advertise and act as propaganda to congregate more proponents. Also, it could be to gain international support and loyalty, by accentuating his potential and brilliance to stop the Apartheid.
This source duly supports the notion that Mandela was the essential motive and instigator of the ending of Apartheid. Conversely, though they support Mandela’s cause, it does not necessarily suggest definitively that Mandela was the prime cause for its ending. Oriental races would feel obliged to attend, if they had any hope of being free – and therefore, though Mandela was surely an essential asset to the hindrance of Apartheid, this source does not contribute any background information on other leaders, participants or figurehead. The source is biased, in suggesting that Mandela was the one and only figurehead in the demolition of Apartheid, because Mandela was the leader of the ANC party, and so would be given all the gratification for the achievements of the ANC. When in reality, there would be many lesser-known campaigners.
An extract from Nelson Mandela’s autobiography ‘Long Walk to Freedom’ shows intent to be a catalyst of an uprising to start a revolution. The extract shows he has become erudite and well researched in order to achieve his desired goal: ‘freedom’. Despite not ever being involved in military operations he read and spoke to experts. His dedication shows he has a fundamental role in ending Apartheid, because he is clearly the main focus of organising the ‘guerrilla warfare’ by taking the initiative and showing his commitment despite the consequences that could be of being defeated. This commitment is denounced from his heroic statement: ‘I will continue fighting for freedom till the end of my days’.
The extract is obviously very convincing in suggesting Nelson Mandela was heroic and charismatic, as it is his own autobiography and intends on heralding his work. Therefore, it is hyperbolised to emphasise his work, but also to sell. People want to be enticed when reading, and this extract certainly achieves this, by using inspirational phrases, and showing his dedication to achieving racial morality. Another subtlety of the extract is the seemingly untroubled language used, to underplay the revolution, making it sound tranquil, and not uproarious and calamitous. The refined text reinforces Mandela’s stability, making him seem like a plausible candidate to stand for president.
Nelson Mandela’s work brought him gratification from South Africa, and source B5 shows how his is glorified. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and anti-apartheid politician is a much respected man himself, showing his gratification for Mandela’s work, and giving the perspective that he had a major role in the debasement of Apartheid. He is described as an ‘icon’ suggesting he is to be admired, and a role model to strive to become and is thanked to on behalf of God, showing the extend of the gratification and inspiration.
The author Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-apartheid and civil rights campaigner, and would therefore undoubtedly support Nelson Mandela’s morals and as a veteran, would have seen these revolutionary changes take place as Mandela transforms South Africa into a democracy. He would therefore have seen the extent of Mandela’s sacrifice and personal achievement, and possibly have worked with him, and so would fully support him. Also, it is Mandela’s 90th birthday, and a national interview, and therefore the source may be biased, in that Archbishop Desmond Tutu would be obliged to give compliments regardless of his thoughts, as it would be unkind not to do so.
Source B6 is an article found in the Times Magazines, with former SA president F.W. de Klerk – once Nelson Mandela’s enemy - endorsing Mandela as one of the twentieth century’s major figures, in 2005. F.W de Klerk denounces that Mandela was a fundamental cog playing a ‘decisive role’ to bringing about harmony between all races in South Africa, in spite of the fact that F.W de Klerk was in favour of Apartheid. The content inferences Mandela as achieving the impossible, as initially the text begins saying it was ‘unlikely’ that races would unite, and Mandela achieved it, despite being sentenced for life in prison.
One particular questionable aspect of the text, is that though F.W. de Klerk presents his deepest gratification to Mandela, it could be questioned that this is only being said to reflect positively on himself, otherwise he may be ridiculed for not showing respect. As a past enemy, his outward views would have to change in order to reflect well on himself, and avoid having a bad legacy or name for himself. However, important figure heads have gained Mandela’s attention, showing that Mandela has obviously done major achievements in order to get such accreditations. Furthermore, the article being printed in the ‘Times Magazine’ a very populous and well established magazine portrays how important and well respected he is in comparison to other people who helped stop the Apartheid.
Many feel that F.W. De Klerk was a major instigator towards the ending of the Apartheid. Source B9 states the main actions to get rid of the ‘main props of the racist Apartheid’, including removing the ban on the ANC movement, and freeing Mandela from his life sentence in prison. Therefore many people believe the ending of Apartheid was a combination of F.W. De Klerk and Mandela, otherwise Mandela would not have been able to carry out his actions without being released from prison. Also, F.W. De Klerk made an extraordinary sacrifice, as his respect from the white population was lost, and he was ridiculed for ‘betraying his people’. His speech was also described as ‘epoch-making’ meaning his speech was immensely influential and revolutionary, as it made a new ‘epoch’ of its own.
The extract is from a book called ‘…the history of the world in 366 days’ meaning the book will contain only the most significant events, and will lack elaboration in certain places. He may not have mentioned that Nelson Mandela’s publicity and resilience may have put pressure on F.W. De Klerk, meaning he acted on the intentions of fortifying his own reputation. The caption of the source mentions that the source is specifically presented for ‘general readers’ meaning the author would be keeping the text concise and coherent, offering only simplified and intriguing information. The text is also aimed to be impartial and factual, so that the reader can reach his own interpretation.
Many people hold the perspective that Mandela was respectively the main reason for the ending of the Apartheid; others argue otherwise. One argument is that Apartheid had become under strain, as world critiques questioned the authenticity and morality of Apartheid. World leaders lost the respect as the world became more aware of the cruelty it inflicted on non-whites, and countries across the world pressed for South Africa to relieve its white supremacy, meaning many major leaders began to impose penalties. Their economy was depressed due to foreign investment being introverted, and sanctions and boycotts being imposed – one example being Multinational Corporations such as Pepsi Cola, IBM and Peugeot closing factories and offices in South Africa. Source B11 says that economic recession in 1975, coupled with the already ‘grievances’, caused the system to falter. Bantu’s were gaining increasing confidence with the ‘Black Consciousness Movement’ along with the fact there were no remaining white governments in neighbouring countries. Afraid, businesses implored the government to make modifications to the Apartheid regime to ‘restore confidence in the economy’.
The source is written by a historian, and therefore Tony Howarth – the author of the history textbook ‘The World Since 1900 – would be erudite in the Apartheid era. He would also have conducted extensive research into the time period in order to corroborate his knowledge. Therefore he would hold the view that the economic recession was a fundamental cause to the collapse of Apartheid. The book is however a very broad topic, covering the ‘World since 1990’ meaning the book would involve worldwide history. Therefore the research acquired would not be as deeply as a book specifically researched on the ending of Apartheid. The extract is also only involving a fragment of the book, and therefore further expounding may take place further into the book. This therefore means that Tony Howarth has disregarded the role played by Nelson Mandela, but rather has taken the time to consider a variety of reasons that Apartheid collapsed.
White people during the Apartheid of South Africa felt deeply and passionately towards rugby. The boycott placed on the Springbok rugby tours was so traumatising to the South Africans at the time, that the news passed into the prison of Robben Island as the ‘wardens were such rugby fanatics’. White people took such pride in rugby because it was supposedly a superior sport to football, which the Bantu’s played, meaning that when the boycott was placed it infuriated the white population as it reflected badly on them. Boycotting was a method which punitively protested against Apartheid, and had huge influence over the ending of Apartheid. The extent to which the boycotts affected them was severe, because rugby was considered a ‘religion’ to them. He clearly has the views that the Apartheid diminished as a result of the Springbok Rugby boycotts, because previous methods had failed, and there were always ‘holes’ to get round penalties placed on South Africa.
The source is written by MP Peter Hain for Neath, renowned for playing rugby and so he would be appealing to the rugby population to flaunting his part in assisting to catalyse the anti-apartheid movement. He is one of the ‘leading’ anti-apartheid proponents, and therefore would be well researched of the Springbok Rugby boycott. The interview was given in 2004, thirty-four years after the boycotting and therefore all the facts may not be corroborated by critiques. The facts may therefore have been somewhat hyperbolised, in order to gain attention from the public, and to dramatize the situation so that he gets more appreciation for his work during the time.
Some believe that there were many other influential figureheads, and women played an important role involved in the ending of the Apartheid, shown by source B15. The source is a eulogy for Lilian Ngoyi, which emphasises that she was a saviour to the Black population of Apartheid. She is named in a lexis of people who were important in ending the Apartheid, juxtaposed with Nelson Mandela, showing her significance. She is also said to have been sent by God, showing the grave respect she has made of herself. The oration intends to inspire the younger generation, to have the determination she inherited, and to strive for equality, ‘men will catch the disease’ suggesting that women have equal abilities to inspire and make a difference.
It cannot be ignored that the eulogy is present of relatives and friends, and therefore condolences would be amiable and sympathetic. The oration would not reference anything negative, to concentrate on the goodness Lilian brought to the world. Therefore, it may be biased. Moreover, she was the first women elected to the executive committee of the ANC, and therefore colleagues would wish to preserve her legacy as a determined women.
CONCLUSION SOURCES A
The sources are all very useful because they provide a perspective as to how people felt – particularly the black population – and therefore provide a baseline to distinguish between the quality of life of different races. Though some sources may be particular misguided, in that the content may be biased depending on the origin of the source, they still prove useful, because the intention of the content can be appropriately judged. For example, Source A3 may have been twisted somewhat to elicit attention from the audience of the book, however, we can still fathom that the underlying prejudice of white people towards the blacks is existent. However, two indisputable sources which are completely representative of attitudes towards blacks include sources A2 and A6, both presentative of the government attitudes and intentions of Apartheid which defies the original intentions of ‘separate development’. Rather, the intentions that the two sources infer, are too marginalise and intimidate black persons, which in hindsight, is exactly the principle of the Apartheid. In my opinion, source A6 is more useful, for two main reasons. Firstly, it is published in a textbook, therefore entrenching the racist ideology in future generations, which really conveys the treatment of blacks and the prejudice the government held. Then secondly, Source A2 in my opinion does not really quantify the extent to which the government felt about black people, as the sign only enforces the initial idea of ‘separate development’ by disallowing black people in an area of whites. I also feel sources A4 and A7 are particularly reliable. Firstly A4 published in a student book would have to be factually correct, and present its information impartially to avoid misleading students – this would have also likely have been corroborated by editors and publishers, further giving me confidence in the source. Therefore, it provides me an opportunity to configure my own opinion and interpretation. Finally, it was written in hindsight, allowing for the historian to acquire and collate a myriad of resources to accurately configure a reliable source. The source is useful, as it insinuates that white people wanted to warrant their actions by blaming black people – therefore justify their irrational prejudice. A7 is also accurate and reliable, because there is no plausible reason for the government to interfere with the statistics, as the statistics aren’t meant to be propaganda, or otherwise convincing. The statistics would be rendered useless if altered, and therefore are almost definitely factual. The statistics are useful to visualise and quantify the extent of the social gap between black and white peoples, and therefore conclude that black people were unjustly discriminated.
CONCLUSION SOURCES B
Sources B all provide varying perspectives of whom was most responsible for the deconstruction of the Apartheid, and I feel they all show pragmatic and insightful reasoning. However, to be the most useful and reliable, the sources must not be influenced by external factors. For example, the autobiography would have been influenced by the fact Nelson Mandela was standing for candidacy, and would want to appease his audience. Likewise, Source B5 is an interview, presented on the day of Mandela’s 90th birthday, and therefore it would only be respectful to provide compliments. The most plausible source in my opinion for convincing me of the main instigator to end apartheid would be Sources B2 and B9. B2 demonstrates the extent of Nelson Mandela’s support, and how extensive his trust lies in the desperation of South Africa. The photograph is also indisputable, as it is provided as photographic evidence. B9 is also very reliable because it is found in a history book and therefore would be surely factual, as the author would be well researched and knowledgeable in the subject. It references how Mandela was released by F.W. de Klerk, the reason I feel the two sources work well in conjunction with each other as I feel F.W. de Klerk’s work gave momentum to the work of Mandela. Mandela could not have achieved the work he accomplished without being released from prison. However, I am more convinced that Mandela was the priority instigator, as it was his publicity in prison that coerced F.W. de Klerk into releasing Mandela, and therefore F.W. de Klerk, may or may not have released Mandela out of compassion, but rather to satisfy society and the international public. I also feel that the B sources reinforcing Mandela as the main instigator for the ending of Apartheid are more convincing because without a figurehead to admire, and glorify, and act dependently, there would have been no hope and passion for black people to unite and work in unity. Sources disputing that other factors were more influential than Mandela are mainly standalone, are minor factors in the overarching situation, but however all contribute to the work that Mandela contributed. Therefore, I feel all sources have somewhat logical convictions, but Mandela’s work was the pinnacle of the decommissioning of Apartheid.