Apartheid in South Africa.

Apartheid

Apartheid was policy of racial segregation formerly followed in South Africa. The word apartheid means "separateness" in the Afrikaans language and it described the tight racial division between the governing white minority population and the non-white majority population.

The National Party introduced apartheid as part of their campaign in the 1948 elections, and with the National Party victory, apartheid became the governing political policy for South Africa until the early 1990s. Although there is no longer a legal basis for apartheid, the social, economic, and political inequalities between white and black South Africans continue to exist.

The apartheid laws classified people according to three major racial groups – white, Bantu, or black Africans, and coloured, or people of mixed descent. Later Asians, or Indians and Pakistanis were added as a fourth category. The laws determined the social and economical way of life for the citizens in South Africa: where members of each group could live, what jobs they could hold, and what type of education they could receive. Laws prohibited most social contact between races, authorised separate public facilities, and denied any representation of nonwhites in the national government. People who openly opposed apartheid were considered communists and the government passed strict security legislation, which in effect turned South Africa into a police state.

Before apartheid became the official policy, South Africa had a long history of racial segregation and white dominance.

In 1910 parliamentary membership was restricted to whites and legislation passed in 1913 restricted black land ownership to 13 percent of South Africa's total area. Many Africans opposed these restrictions. In 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) was founded to fight the government policies. In the 1950s, after apartheid became the official policy, the ANC declared "South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white," and worked to abolish apartheid. After anti-apartheid riots in Sharpeville in March 1960, the government banned all black African political organisations, including the ANC.

From 1960 to the mid-1970s, the government tried to make apartheid a policy of "separate development." Blacks were consigned to newly created and impoverished homelands, called Bantustans, which were designed to eventually become petty sovereign states. The white population still held control of more than 80 percent of the land. Increasing violence, strikes, boycotts, and demonstrations by opponents of apartheid, and the overthrow of colonial rule by blacks in Mozambique and Angola, forced the government to relax some of its restrictions.

From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the government implemented a series of reforms that allowed black labour unions to organise and permitted some political activity by the opposition. The 1984 constitution opened parliament membership to Asians and Coloureds, but it continued to exclude black Africans, who made up 75 percent of the population. Apartheid continued to be criticised internationally, and many countries, including the United States, imposed economic sanctions on South Africa. More revolts erupted and, as pressure on South Africa increased, the government's apartheid policies began to show.

In 1990, the new president, F. W. de Klerk, proclaimed a formal end to apartheid with the release of ANC leader Nelson Mandela from prison and the legalisation of black African political organisations.

The Sharpeville Massacre, 1960

Sharpeville Massacre was incident in 1960, when South African police opened fire on protesters outside a police station in Sharpeville.

Following the election of the National Party to office in South Africa in 1948, a policy of racial segregation known as apartheid was introduced. Apartheid was created to control the lives of the black majority and to maintain white minority rule. Laws (legislation) were passed governing where blacks could live and work, and massive restrictions were placed on the exercise of civil liberties. During the 1950s black protest against apartheid mounted. This was organised by the African National Congress (ANC) and by its rival, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC). The PAC called for a nationwide demonstration on March 21, 1960, against South Africa's pass laws, which controlled the movement and employment of blacks and forced them to carry "reference books" of identity papers. As part of this mass demonstration, a large crowd gathered outside a police station in Sharpeville, some people burning their reference books. The police opened fire. They continued to shoot as the protesters tried to run away, and 69 blacks were killed in total. More than 180 people were injured.

The excitement among South African blacks was immediate, and the following week demonstrations, protest marches, strikes, and riots took place all around the country.

On March 30, 1960, the government declared a state of emergency, detaining more than 18,000 people. The ANC and the PAC were banned and forced to go underground or into exile. As a result, both the ANC and PAC abandoned the traditional strategy of non-violent protest and turned increasingly to armed struggle. A lot of protesting around the world followed the Sharpeville shootings, including condemnation by the United Nations. Sharpeville made a huge change in South Africa's history: the country found itself increasingly isolated in the international community for the next 3 decades.

IMPORTANT DATES

1488

Portuguese sailors rounded the Cape of Good Hope. The Cape quickly became an important station for European ships en route to Asia.

1652

Dutch settlers founded a colony at Cape Town. The colony soon began expanding north and east.

1814

The Dutch ceded the Cape Colony to Britain toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

1835

Thousands of Boers began leaving the Cape Colony on the Great Trek and settled in the Natal area. The exodus continued into the early 1840s.

1843

Britain declared Natal a crown colony. Many Afrikaners began moving north to the Transval region.

1852

The Transvaal region became independent. The Orange Free State became an independent republic two years later.

1867

Diamonds were discovered near Kimberley. Mineral deposits transformed South Africa’s economy in the late 19th century.

1879

British forces defeated the Zulu.

1886

Large gold deposits were discovered in the Witwatersrand, near Johannesburg.

1899-1902

Britain annexed the Transvaal region (the South African Republic) and the Orange Free State after bitter fighting during the Boer War.

1910

The Union of South Africa was founded as a dominion of Britain.

1914-1918

South African troops seized a German colony in south-western Africa during World War I. South Africa occupied this area, later known as Namibia, under a United Nations mandate after the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

1867

Diamonds were discovered near Kimberley. Mineral deposits transformed South Africa’s economy in the late 19th century.

1879

British forces defeated the Zulu.

1886

Large gold deposits were discovered in the Witwatersrand, near Johannesburg.

1899-1902

Britain annexed the Transvaal region (the South African Republic) and the Orange Free State after bitter fighting during the Boer War.

1910

The Union of South Africa was founded as a dominion of Britain.

1914-1918

South African troops seized a German colony in south-western Africa during World War I. South Africa occupied this area, later known as Namibia, under a United Nations mandate after the war.

1931

South Africa gained full autonomy as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

1948

The National Party instituted a policy of racial segregation called apartheid.

1960

69 blacks were killed in Sharpeville when police opened fire on a crowd of antiapartheid demonstrators. The African National Congress (ANC) and other opposition groups were banned.

1961

South Africa became a republic.

1976

Riots protesting apartheid in the black township of Soweto were brutally crushed by the government.

1984

Widespread protests against apartheid began throughout South Africa.

1988

South Africa agreed to allow Namibia to become an independent country, which it did in 1990.

1989

F. W. de Klerk became president.

1990

Nelson Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison, and the ANC was legalised.

1991

Apartheid laws were abolished, and South Africa began preparing for multiracial elections.

1993

Mandela and de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their leadership towards a democratic South Africa.

1994

Mandela led the ANC to victory in South Africa’s first free elections and became president.

Questions

(a) Source A is a written account from a journalist who witnessed the events at Sharpeville on March 21st 1960. Source B is a report taken from a British newspaper on March 22nd 1960.

Sources A and B both state that a lot of armoured vehicles and loaded guns (Saracens) were present at Sharpeville, perhaps indicating how there was much more crowd control than realistically required.

Source A indicates that the police are expecting trouble from the crowd, which Source B confirms as it clearly states that there was ‘a shooting in the morning in which one African was killed and another seriously wounded.’ Both sources agree that the crowd was shouting “Izwe Lethu,” (Our Land) or “Africa, Africa.” They also both agree that although each and every member of the demonstrators were aware of the situation and circumstances – of the lethal weapons the police had obtained – they were not alarmed by this at all or they would have run away earlier before the police started shooting.

(b) These two particular sources disagree with each other more than they agree. The principal piece of evidence to prove this is that Source A is an eyewitness account from the only journalist allowed into the demonstration in Sharpeville, and Source B is secondary information from the South African government to a British newspaper. When the transaction of information was taking place between the British newspaper and the South African government, the information could have been altered, censored or watered down so as to seem not so bad as people may have originally thought. Also, media can completely contradict the truth, so what really may have happened may have been summarised or changed and nobody other than those who changed it would have known any differently.

This makes Source B unreliable as a result. The sources (although confirm that the crowd was shouting) disagree about what the crowds were shouting. Source A says the crowd was shouting “Izwe Lethu,” (Our Land) and Source B says the crowd was shouting “Africa, Africa.” As Source A is a witness’ account, it is more believable that the crowd was shouting “Izwe Lethu,” because what Source A says is directly from somebody standing among that crowd and Source B is an account with information from an unreliable source.

Source A is personalised by the journalist, Tyler, being able to describe the expressions on the faces of the people in the crowd (‘they were grinning and cheerful’) and Source B is a very objective factual piece of text.

I do not believe they can fairly be compared because of where the information for each was obtained (for example, if they were either eyewitness accounts or both extracts from newspapers), but it makes it easier to make a comparison of differences rather than similarities. This is because the newspaper article only referred to the information the government gave and Tyler’s account refers to personal experience.

Source C shows policemen sitting on the top of and surrounding their vehicle. The crowds are standing calmly as if watching and anticipating some kind of show. Nobody is running around, showing acts of violence or behaving in a disruptive manner. The police are facing the crowd like a teacher to their class. This definitely agrees with Source A because Tyler describes the mood of the crowd and the atmospheric feeling as ‘calm’.

What is noticeable is that Tyler writes about how some of the children in the crowd waving to the policemen and how two of them wave back, which implies that the policemen are not inhuman, but that two evidently are able to show compassion by returning the greeting. Supposedly, the children cannot have done anything wrong or illegal, plus the fact that they probably know nothing of the depth of what triggered the demonstration: apartheid (segregation).

Source D shows a large car, perhaps an armoured vehicle passing through the crowds. The people in the crowds are surrounding it, however, they do not in any way seem to be being destructive or violent in any way and do not appear threatening at all. They have their thumbs sticking up which is symbolic, as it is a sign to show that they are protesting. This shows that they are being civil and this makes it obvious that this source agrees with Source A.

Source F is a firsthand account from somebody who would have to tell the truth in the first place anyway because of their religion and profession: Ambrose Reeves – the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg.

This could be seen as unreliable though, in the sense that the Anglican Church was very against apartheid so the Bishop could be saying this in favour of all those against apartheid or suspicious of the happenings at Sharpeville.

However, in the concluding paragraph of his statement, Reeves states that there is no way (due to the severity of their wounds and also separating wards) that the witnesses he interviewed could have made any contact with the other witnesses so they could come up with a different story to the reality and truth of the event (as ‘they could not have talked together before making statements to their lawyers’). Also, the statements that the witnesses made were made under oath so although it would not have been impossible to lie, it would have been extremely difficult not to tell the truth, and they would have had no reason to lie anyway because they would have wanted the truth of the situation to come out sooner or later. All the witnesses had identical stories and they all agreed that:

There was no warning before the police opened fire other than one African policeman who ran forward shouting: “Run, they are going to shoot,” directly before the shooting,

The crowd was ‘good-natured and unarmed’ and that it had no violent intentions,

The police lined up together and started shooting in what had seemed to be unison,

The population of the crowd of protesters was a mere 4000 (including Europeans), not the extreme claim of 20,000 Africans who reportedly ‘besieged’ the police station and

Most injuries were gunshot wounds in the victim’s backs which is significant because it shows that they were all running away when the shooting started; that none of them stayed to retaliate; that the policemen had intended to mow them down or wipe them out like a predator to prey.

I think that this statement is not opinionated in any way but it gives a definite impression that Reeves believes the witnesses, not the outrageous claims that the government made. I think this source can be relied upon to be accurate and stable because:

It is first-hand information directly from the witnesses to the Bishop,

It has evidence to back up the statements and claims and information obtained from interviewing the witnesses (for example, how the witnesses were shot in the back and

It is purely factual and objective rather than opinionated, because opinions are what people believe to be true and this can often differ greatly from the actual truth of the situation.

This is backed up by the disapproving nature of source E, which is another account from Tyler. Tyler claims that the crowd was harmless and unarmed and the crowd stoned the only 3 members of the police. All of the other policemen were unharmed.

Tyler confirms that the crowd assumed the police were firing blanks, which is why they did not run sooner or take the police seriously when they opened fire. This shows why it is likely that most of the crowd were shot in the back (Source F) because they were running away, but all too late to save themselves.

In conclusion, this shows source F to be reliable, because not only is it realistic but also it is backed up by a personal account from an eyewitness.

Source E is another extract from Tyler’s account. Because it describes the sequence of events literally, as he was there, it gives a crystal-clear impression of lots of aspects of the events at Sharpeville. For example, Tyler talks about how some of the women who ‘rushed past’ him were laughing. This is a blatant indicator and evidence of how gentle the crowd was: that they did not take the police’s gunshots seriously. They were oblivious to the seriousness, depth and fatality of the situation. It is also evident of the desperation of those trying to escape when Tyler refers to a young boy who was trying to shield himself from the bullets with an old black coat. This shows that no retaliation occurred, that the crowd ran away in effort to save themselves.

Source G helps you to visualise the situation in your mind as it photographically illustrates the scene, but it does not give you the sufficient type of detail in information and statistics that you need to pass fair judgement on the situation. It can only really suggest the atmosphere and makes clear the fear of the police; and show what words cannot.

For example, it shows the crowd fleeing, but not the enemy from whom they are fleeing i.e. it cannot tell you about a policeman who looked as if he was ‘firing his gun into the crowd’ or how many died or were injured and you cannot really see the expressions on the faces of the protesters.

I think that source E is far more informative and it gives more detail to make it easier to compare to other sources and analyse because it is a written account. Source G is harder to analyse and extract information from because all it shows is a crowd running away from danger, which although can be vague, can also give impressions and feelings of the scene which words cannot describe.

(a) Source H is from one of the policemen, Colonel Piernaar, who opened fire at Sharpeville. In the opening sentence of his brief statement, he generalises all South Africans and makes the premature assumption that ‘for them to gather means violence’. He seems to be a harsh, cruel man as well because the reason that he believes to be legitimate for killing 69 protesters is that his car was struck with a stone. Pienaar excuses the multiple deaths caused by merely stating ‘If they do these things they must learn their lessons the hard way’, so basically, if one strikes another person’s car with a stone, then one must be killed promptly. He stereotypes all South Africans by saying that ‘The native mentality does not allow South Africans to gather for peaceful demonstrations…’ This indicates that because South Africa has a very violent social and political history.

Apartheid had existed for a long time as custom, but it was legalised in 1948 and laws about separating the blacks, whites, coloureds and Asians were created. This was because Daniel F. Malan came to power as Prime Minister in a coalition with a smaller Afrikaner party. This made prejudice and racism seem okay and acceptable because it was legal and publicised. This encouraged people’s prejudiced side to come out into the open and racism was a way of life rather than an issue that had to be dealt with. As a result, more people were brought up to be racists. This also meant that people with authority, for example: the police, could determine the way in which they treated the blacks and whites because racism and prejudice was regarded as acceptable, effectively, this made unnecessary abuse easier to overlook by the government and authorities.

Source I, a statement from Dr Verwoerd - the prime minister, comments on an incident which is not mentioned in any of the other sources: that ‘2000 Africans demonstrated by entering people’s homes and forcibly removing their identity books’. The word ‘forcibly’ is biased because Dr Verwoerd could easily be saying that so anyone who does not know what happened from personal experience could be completely ignorant to the truth. Also, it is a generalisation i.e. saying that every one of the protesting Africans set out with violent intentions. It also says the crowd population was about 20000 and that telephone wires were cut and disturbances were occurring. He states that the police ‘had’ to open fire which is also biased because it is opinion, not fact; also that the outcome was 25 dead, 50 wounded. This is extremely one-sided and the irony is that Verwoerd says how the Africans ‘forcibly’ entered houses when he is virtually forcing an opinion with supposed fact in it onto them.

Source J is completely a biased statement from the South African government as it says that the police opened fire in ‘self-defence’. This means that the information and statistics can easily have been altered and/or censored as the South African government was in favour of white supremacy as apartheid was legalised at that point. It says that there were 20000 protesters; same as Source I, and that there were weapons such as firearms used against the police, which is why they opened fire so as to ‘prevent more tragic results’. This gives the impression that the police cared about the protesters and that they did not want to open fire, however, if they really did not want to open fire, then they should have fond some other way of controlling the crowds. Anyway, there is evidence that clearly points out that there were 3 policemen mildly wounded by stones and that no member of the crowd was in possession of any weapons whatsoever.

The South African authorities had low opinions of the black majority as it was under the white minority rule. The members of the South African government were prejudiced as the PAC and the NAC had been banned, so there was no opposition to the racist legislation. Therefore, the attitude that the authorities had to black South Africans was that they basically despised them and this was made blatant by the circumstantial evidence recorded about apartheid.

(b) These three accounts – sources H to J, differ greatly from the rest because of where they are from. For example, Source H is from Colonel Pienaar, a South African policeman, so he was obviously not in favour of any anti-apartheid activity. Source I is from Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister, (who was later assassinated for his involvement in encouraging a racially prejudiced government) was in power and obviously wanted to keep the segregating laws as they were, so he was evidently against any racial equality demonstrations. Source J is from the government who had banned all anti-apartheid parties, and they hated the concept of any disagreement in the white supremacy rule and lifestyle. This is why they all back up and mirror each other: they all believe that they will be believed if they all stick to the same story as each other because they are in a very authoritative position (i.e. they have higher status than that of the South African civilians).

Only Colonel Pienaar was at Sharpeville when the massacre occurred. Dr. Verwoerd was not there, nor the South African government so they cannot make any accurate judgements of the events. They only have second-hand knowledge of the happenings and are trying to mask the reality so they do not have to take the blame. Also, it is highly unlikely that a policeman who opened fire on innocent protesters is going to voluntarily take the blame for taking part in one of history’s worst massacres. (This is with reference to Colonel Pienaar, who used the excuse that the native mentality of black South Africans prevented them from protesting without misconduct or violence, which is hardly a justifiable or legitimate reason.)

As prime minister Dr. Verwoerd had to, in respect, justify the police’s actions and motives at the Sharpeville massacre so he may have been either lying because he wanted or to forced to lie to keep up the appearance that the South African government had good intentions and so that the devastating results had no effect on their reputation or popularity. In addition to that, he may have felt he could have used earlier disturbances to excuse the police’s choice of crowd control and as leader, he felt he had to protect the police from any unlawful propaganda, nationally or internationally.

→ ‘The demonstrators were controlled and unarmed. The police opened fire on the crowd and continued to shoot as they turned and ran in fear. It was a massacre.’ Nelson Mandela, 1994

→ ‘The police were under attack and opened fire in self-defence.’ A book published in South Africa, 1988.

I think the first interpretation is far more accurate than the second. It does not tell you enough about where the second interpretation came from to be able to judge its level of accuracy, therefore, it could be really unreliable.

Nelson Mandela confirms exactly what sources A, D, E, F and G show both in detailed accounts from eyewitnesses (for example, Tyler, Reeves etc) and are as a result, reliable and first-hand, uncensored information. The second statement, on the other hand, is biased. How do we know that the police were firing in self defence? We were not there so it is difficult to know who to trust in these sort of situations so we have to go by the evidence which can only be presented by the people who were there.

Source D shows the crowd surrounding a vehicle sticking their thumbs up which is a peaceful but significant sign indicating protest. Source G shows the crowd fleeing from the police. These are major hints that the only action the crowd took was to run away in order to save themselves. There is no evidence to support the brief sources that agree with the second statement and none of where these sources originated from can be relied upon to be unbiased, uncensored and truthful.

Nelson Mandela is currently an ex-president and elder statesman in South Africa and he has a high status, and lots of people respect him he could not lie and would not lie so as to promote anti-apartheid activity. Also it would not be known as the Shrapeville Massacre for no apparent reason. It would have most likely have got that name from what most people refer to it as and if most people refer to it as a massacre, then that indicates that the majority of people believe it to be a massacre.

Sources B, H, I and J agree with the weaker, biased latter interpretation. Source B is from, an English newspaper, and the only way of obtaining evidence or information about the Sharpeville Massacre was directly from the government. This means that the information that the English newspaper had could have easily been changed or withheld and the newspaper and those reading it would not have known any differently and one cannot really question the South African government as most would expect the information to be honest and accurate.

Sources H, I and J are not from people and places that can be relied on to be honest as they are all in favour of the white minority rule and support a raically prejudiced government. They agree that the police fired in self-defence but photographs and witness accounts prove this to be untrue. Also if they agree with the white supremacy policies (that it is legal and accpetable to be openly politically and socially racist), then they are not exactly going to go out of their way to make it look like a bad organisation full of police that are will to massacre innocent, harmless people with a government that are willing to lie and overlook it. They make generalisations and premature assumptions and also stereotype all black South Africans based on narrow-minded opinions and irrelevant historical issues, such as maybe violence that happened to have been committed by black South Africans and as a result, they now think they can say that that is what all black South Africans are like as a general statement.

What draws my attention to this whole issue is the fact that, in Source E, Tyler says how ‘One little boy had on an old black coat which he held up behind his head, thinking perhaps that it might save him from the bullets,’ because the form of self-defence that the crowds had (clothing – which did not affect or harm anybody else) in comparison to the form of self-defence the police had (fatal bullets) was absolutely ludicrous.

I think that people disagree about what happened at Sharpeville because there are only two sides to it:

In favour of those who believe/experienced it to be a massacre for their own reasons OR
In favour of those who believed in the police’s and government’s authority so believed what they said to be the truth.

Obviously those who fell victim to wounds as a result of the shooting or lost family/friends/relatives in the shooting know what happened, along with those policemen firing the shots. There is evidence to back up that the police kept shooting at the crowd even as they were running away as a majority of the dead and injured were shot in the back. Also photographs prove this. The fact that the government controlled the information that was submitted to the national or international media suggests that the government took advantage of that power and withheld or censored and only those who withheld or censored the information distributed amongst the newspapers knew what the information really meant.

However, the police claimed that the crowd was violent and uncontrollable and that they had to shoot to prevent a more tragic outcome. The police would not want to set a bad example for the public and bring down the government’s reputation, because if they did, less people would be in favour of the white supremacy polices and maybe groups like the ANC or the PAC would come to power and abolish apartheid, which the government evidently did not want.

Perhaps the Sharpeville Massacre helped us in the sense that it showed the horror of racism and mass killings and brought more light on the subject.

People disagree because who are they to believe?

The government who could:

Be absolutely right: the crowd were violent and shooting them dead was the only way of controlling them,
Be lying so as to protect their reputation and excuse the police.

Or, the victims of the shootings and others who believe it was a massacre who could:

Be absolutely right: the police unnecessarily killed innocent men, women and children peacefully protesting (as shown in photographs),
Be making it up so as to publicise how bad apartheid and the government were so they could change they way of life for oppressed black South Africans.

There is more of a forceful persuasiveness coming from the people who believe it was the fault of the crowds and a more instinctive persuasiveness coming from the people who believe it to have been a massacre as nowadays, racism or prejudice of any sort is illegal and less people are being brought up in racist or prejudiced families.

Apartheid had legally been around since 1948 so people were almost used to segregation by 1960 and were tired of it, which was why the protest began in the first place. Because the barrier between black and white South Africans was so great, the Sharpeville Massacre automatically looked like a massacre anyway because most saw it as an example of the police’s attitude to any opposing their rules and their authority.

As prejudice and racism are such big issues now, it is constantly being debated as our society is a democracy and everybody gets a say, and also, more evidence crops up supporting one side or the other.

Some people lean more to the victims’ side, some to the police’s side and each individual can make up their own mind about whether or not it was a massacre or a justified shooting in ‘self-defence’.