South Africa - Apartheid Sources Questions

South Africa

Question A

From Source A, we can learn that the National Party thought that integration would lead to the ruin of the whites. ‘Apartheid’ meant the segregation of whites and blacks and the National Party were strong believers in this. The National Party’s aim was to ‘safeguard the White Race’. This tells us that the National Party were racist and wanted to rid of all other races apart from the whites.

The National Party also stated that churches that were against the National Party’s vision of Apartheid would not be tolerated. The National Party did not want people to be preached against Apartheid by religious figures which were strongly believed in by the public and therefore, any churches that did say Apartheid was wrong, would face lethal consequences.

Another thing Source A tells us is that The National Party wanted schools and services for blacks put in reserves further into the centre of South Africa, so blacks would not need to be in the urban areas of South Africa, therefore not taking any jobs that the white people could have. So The National Party wanted all blacks to be removed from the ‘white areas’ and all be put together away from the main centres of South Africa so as not to be jeopardising any jobs, homes or schools meant for whites. Source A also says that any blacks that were in urban, ‘white’ areas, were to be seen as migrants and not allowed any rights. Therefore black people could not vote, own a home or business and were generally only used for jobs that were seen as undesirable for white people to do. So this meant that any black people who did live in the urban parts of South Africa had no rights at all and were treated as slaves and not citizens.

In South Africa there were also Indian people, who had been born there and lived there all their life. Source A tells us that The National Party wanted to send Indian people “home”. The National Party didn’t see Indians as ‘true’ South Africans and wanted them to go back to India, which was their ‘home’.

The National Party wanted a white South Africa, and Source A shows us that their views were racist and bad for the future of South Africa.

Question B

(i) : The way in which Source A and Source B disagree about Apartheid is that Source A and Source B are both written by different people for different reasons. Source A is in favour of Apartheid and Source B is against it. Source A states that Apartheid will save the whites and if integration between races is ongoing then it will ‘ruin’ every race, whereas Source B argues that white people needed black people in the cities to do all the jobs that were not good enough for white people and that it would be ‘economically out of the question’ to introduce Apartheid in South Africa.

(ii) : One difference between Source A and Source B is that Source A is a propaganda leaflet handed out by The National Party during the 1948 elections in which they were trying to win whereas Source B is written by a British woman, living and writing in South Africa during the elections. She is writing for a newspaper called ‘The Manchester Guardian’ which is a serious newspaper covering world issues.

‘The Manchester Guardian’ was a British newspaper and was not published in South Africa, it supported liberal views as was mainly read by educated, middle class people. However, the propaganda leaflet handed out by The National Party was aimed at poor, white Afrikaners as The National Party wanted to gain their votes to win the election.

Question C

Supporters of the United Party might have been disappointed at the result of the General Election because after much battle with The National Party, they failed to win the election and the result of the election was very close. The National Party received 443,278 votes, which was 41.2% of the votes whereas The United Party received 547,437, which was 50.9% of the votes, but although The United Party received more votes, winning the election counted on the number of seats the parties MPs got. The National Party managed to get 79 seats and The United Party 71, resulting in the National Party winning the election and the United Party supporters feeling disappointed.

Question D

In Source E the view of Bantustans are shown as being a bad thing. It tells us that the conditions were terrible and were not fit for living in.

In Source D the Bantustans come across as good places. It is a poem praising Dr Verwoerd and making him sound as if he was being fair to the people sent to live in the Bantustans.

The poem says ‘because he knew what we needed and we could not manage’; this implies that the people sent to the Bantustans could not manage by themselves.

Whereas Source E tells ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Question D

In Source E the view of Bantustans are shown as being a bad thing. It tells us that the conditions were terrible and were not fit for living in.

In Source D the Bantustans come across as good places. It is a poem praising Dr Verwoerd and making him sound as if he was being fair to the people sent to live in the Bantustans.

The poem says ‘because he knew what we needed and we could not manage’; this implies that the people sent to the Bantustans could not manage by themselves.

Whereas Source E tells us the Bantustans were ‘home of disease and miserable poverty’. It tells us how the Bantustans were a dumping ground for ‘unwanted elements’ and how the land was impossible to farm on so they were completely dependent on the government. Source D also describes to us that the people in the Bantustans were ‘shabbily clad’ and the animals were ‘feeble and bony’. The Bantustans were described as the ‘white mans garbage can’ which, given the suggested conditions, describes the Bantustans perfectly. Therefore it can be seen that Source D challenges Source E because they disagree with each other.

Source H tells us about the kind of people that were put in the Bantustans. The old, unfit and women with children were sent to the Bantustans, as they were not capable of carrying out any duties for the white people. Neither were disabled people. Criminals were also sent to the Bantustans, as they would not be wanted near white people in case any ‘crime’ that the black people would of committed affected them.

Black doctors, lawyers, traders, businessmen who were not needed were also sent to the Bantustans as there were plenty of white people to take their job places.

Source E also tells us that these people were sent to Bantustans therefore we can see that Source H supports Source E because they agree with each other.

Source F tells us about the purposes of education and how it affected black children. Source F is a speech made in the South African Parliament by Dr Verwoerd. It tells us that black children should not be taught everyday South African subjects like English, Mathematics and Afrikaans because they would have no use for it in the future as they have no place in the ‘European community above the levels of certain forms of labour’. This suggests that there was no point in giving black children an education because it would only disappoint them in later life because they would not be able to get a good job in the ‘civilized world’. So Source F says that this would be good for black children because it would be less cruel to make them think that they could ever achieve anything out of life.

Source E does not directly discuss the issue of education. However its view would seem to be that this speech and belief was indoctrinating black children and other people and leading them to believe that this was true and that they were uncivilised, inferior people. This would be bad for black children because its taking away opportunities rather than giving them, closing doors and not opening them and treating them like they were not important.

So Source E and Source F agree on the purposes of education but they disagree on weather or not it was good for the black children.

Therefore, it can be seen that Source D challenges the view of Bantustans, Source H agrees with the view of Bantustans and Source F both agree and disagree with the view of Bantustans.

Question E

The Sources D, G and I are useful in helping us to understand the effects that Apartheid had upon South Africans. Each Source has its different uses and some are more useful than others.

Source G shows us a table for the average spending on the school pupils in South Africa in 1953. It tells us that the most amount of money was spent on white students as they received and annual average of £63.92. This tells us that Apartheid determined how much money to spend depending on the ethnicity of the pupils. This shows us that Apartheid only valued white children’s education and thought it was more important than coloured, asian people or black children. The black children only received an annual average of £8.99, which meant that black children had the worst education and that they had no resources. We can trust Source G because it makes the South African government look bad and can easily be checked if any of the information was changed. Source G is useful because it shows us how education was for black children and it also shows us how Apartheid effected all ethnic groups and the attitudes towards this.

Source I tells us what information was in the Pass Books and who had to carry them. The Pass Books had to be carried by all black Africans aged over 16 living outside a Bantustan. It was another form of identification but more extreme, and did not have to be issued to white people. This suggests that Apartheid forced black people to prove themselves to others. They had no privacy and it was also a form of controlling where black people could go. We can trust what Source I says because it is just factual information and not making anyone look good or bad. Source I is quite useful because it shows us the extent the government went to to control black people.

Source D is part of a poem entitled, ‘Dr Verwoerd, Minister for Native Affairs’. It was published in a magazine called ‘Bantu’ in the 1960s. This magazine was distributed free to all schools. Source D tells us that Apartheid is a good thing and that it protects blacks and gives them good education and laws. This Source suggests that Apartheid was indoctrinating children, making them think that Apartheid was best for them and that it was a good thing. We cannot trust what Source D says because it is propaganda made by the government to make Apartheid look good and that everyone should believe in it. Source D is useful in the way that it teaches us how the government desperately wanted everyone to believe in Apartheid.

So it can be seen that Apartheid had mixed effects on South Africans, some good, and some very, very bad.

Question F

The issue of Apartheid being harmful to South Africa is a complex subject and needs to be viewed on different levels. Looking at how Apartheids affect on black South Africans, white South Africans and the whole of South Africa.

The first area to look at to decide if Apartheid was harmful or not, is its effects on the white South Africans.

Apartheid was harmful for the Whites in the way that because so many black were sent to Bantustans, it was difficult for employers to fill jobs and make money, as most of the population of South Africa was black. Another reason that Apartheid was harmful to white South Africans was that the white South Africans who did not support Apartheid found it very hard to raise their children to be anti-racist as there was so much propaganda and open racism around them. One more reason it affected white people in a bad way was because of certain laws that said white and black couple were not allowed to marry or be together. So couples who were in love with each other had to go through the pain of being forced to separate.

However, Apartheid was hugely beneficial for white South Africans. Children and young adults had good educations and high standard of living with a swimming pool and huge garden for nearly every house in the white neighbourhoods. But the most important thing that white people had, in which black, mixed race and asian people wanted very much, was the vote. In South Africa, Apartheid allowed only white people to vote people into power.

So mostly, Apartheid was a good thing for whites, hardly harming them at all. But for non-racist whites trying to bring up their children and being in mixed relationship it was hard as the racist society they lived in made it difficult to lead a normal life.

The second area to look at to decide if Apartheid was harmful or not, is the effects it had on black people.

Apartheid was very harmful for blacks in many, many ways. For example, black people were forced out of their homes in the main cities and forced to live in Bantustans with disgusting conditions not fit for living in. Apartheid allowed them no chance of the vote, so they couldn’t decide what they wanted for their country, even though about 80% of the population of South Africa was black. Black children had no educational opportunities, resulting in no chance of a job in the future. Black people also had to carry around Pass Books, therefore having no privacy and having their lives controlled by the police. Finally, black people had no equal rights whatsoever. They were discriminated and judged because of their ethnicity and because of this they were seen as an inferior part of society, which resulted in terrible poverty and abuse.

Overall, it can be seen clearly that Apartheid was terribly harmful for black people. The reason being because there were no reasons for Apartheid not being harmful towards black people and it is obvious from the Sources and my own knowledge that black people were affected by Apartheid the worst.

The third area to look at to decide if Apartheid was harmful or not, is the effect on the country as a whole.

Apartheid was harmful for the whole country in the way that it mainly destroyed its economy. Other countries refused to trade with South Africa because of Apartheid, which resulted in great money loss. Even if South Africa did trade with some countries or large businesses, their products would be boycotted by the public and resulting in hardly any trade in South Africa at all and huge amounts of money lost.

The Tourist industry was also destroyed by Apartheid as people refused to travel there. If they did go to South Africa, they had a lot of trouble once they had been, as once the South African stamp was issued in a persons passport, they could not travel to any other country in Africa because those countries would have no part in supporting Apartheid.

In 1963, South Africa was banned from entering the Olympics because of Apartheid. Musicians also boycotted touring South Africa because of Apartheid and its racist views and actions.

Apartheid also had a huge police state trying to ‘control’ South Africa but because there were so many police officers, it became hugely expensive to run and resulting in a massive amount of money loss.

Another thing that affected South Africa as a country was its social relations. Mixed relationships were banned causing great upset for mixed couples especially with children. These kinds of laws were not only racist but they created distrust and hatred for not only the government but between other South Africans because women or men who had previously been in a mixed relationship would of got a lot of racial abuse from people who disapproved of mixed relationships.

There were many peaceful protests against Apartheid. People started boycotting the buses and the Defiance Campaign was launched. The Defiance Campaign was a non-violent protest that was created by the ANC’s (African National Congress) leader, Nelson Mandela. The Defiance campaign resulted in protests such as black protesters going into ‘white only’ carriages on trains, they also demanded to be served at ‘white only’ counters in post offices and broke the pass laws. The Defiance Campaign lasted one year in which 8,000 protesters were arrested. Although this did not succeed in changing the laws, it won black protesters a lot of publicity for the anti-apartheid campaign.

However, not all the protests in South Africa were non-violent. There were a number of guerrilla warfare groups such as ‘the spear of the nation’ otherwise known as the ‘MK’ and the ‘Poqo’. The MK were a military wing of the ANC who carried out a number of bombings and sabotage on government buildings and power stations. The MK tried to avoid as much civilian death as they could whereas the Poqo, who where the military wing of the PAC (Pan African Congress) targeted civilian targets in order to create maximum terror in South Africa. The PAC were mostly ex-ANC members who did not like the fact that some whites and Indians had power within their organisation. So a man called Robert Sobukwe set up the PAC for only black people. The PAC was mainly supported by young, unemployed black people in townships, which were black only areas on the edge of major cities. One of these townships was called SOWETO (SOuth WEstern TOwnship). This was a township near the city of Johannesburg. The schools in SOWETO were very badly resourced. Class numbers were huge, as many as 100 children were in a class at a time with only 1 teacher. There were hardly any textbooks or good qualified teachers. In 1976, all the schools in SOWETO were told that half of their subjects would have to be taught in Afrikaans. This angered the children of SOWETO deeply and lead to marches, school boycotts, rioting, school burnings and attacks on the police and government buildings. By the end of the year, the police had killed 576 of the demonstrators and had wounded 2389. Most of these demonstrators were teenagers.

Another of these townships to have great amounts of violence inflicted upon them was Sharpeville. In 1960 the PAC organised a demonstration in Sharpeville outside the local police station. The demonstration was to protest about the Pass Laws and 5,000 people met outside the police station. The events are a little unclear but soon the police opened fire on the crowd of 5,000 which killed 69 people and injured 180. There was a huge public reaction against the government in South Africa and many countries around the world condemned it too. The government’s response to the massacre, which the police had inflicted upon the crowd, was to ban the ANC and PAC. The government also arrested 18,000 people and declared a State of Emergency, which gave the police more power. This declared ‘State of Emergency’ cost the government even more huge amounts of money thus, damaging their economy even more so.

In conclusion, my evidence shows that Apartheid had no benefits for South Africa and harmed not only its economy, opportunities, respect and overseas connections but it lost the lives, dignity, equality and privacy of many innocent South Africans who did not deserve to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity.

All of humanity suffers by the infliction of prejudice.

Nina Ryner