An investigation into South African regimes: To What Extent Was Apartheid a Continuation of the Earlier Policy of Segregation, Exhibited by The Union of South Africa?
Table of Contents
A. Plan of the Investigation………………………………………........................3
B. Summary of Evidence……………………………………………………….……4-5
C. Evaluation of sources……………………………………………………………….6
D. Analysis………………………………………………….…………………………….7
E. Conclusion…………………………….……………………….………………...…..8
F. Bibliography…………………………..…………………………………….…...……9
G. Appendix A – Quote by Cecil John Rhodes………...………………..……….11
H. Appendix B – Souce: Immorality Act No. 5 of 1927………….……………..12
A. Plan of the Investigation
This investigation aims to assess the extent at which Apartheid may be considered as nothing more than a continuation of the earlier policy of segregation which was introduced by the British Parliament. To assess the extent at which Apartheid was nothing more than an extension of the Union of South Africa which took place from 1910–1961; I will be looking at how the policies of the Union of South Africa and Apartheid (1948–1994) addressed the ‘native question’. Evidence shows that both the Union of South Africa and Apartheid shared three common objectives, to address the ‘native question’. The native question was of course how one limits the chances of the black population in realizing the strength that they hold in numbers. Hence, this was addressed with legislation which pin-pointed 3 concerns — African homelands, migrant labour and political dominance. The motives behind these commonalities will be explored to answer how the policies of each regime answered the ‘native question’, but this investigation will be limited to a comparison of legislation inducted during both regimes. The comparison will therefore establish whether the two regimes had overlapping legislation, and determine the extent to which they shared the same ideological sentiment of explicit racial divide, characterized by Apartheid. In order to develop this assertion I will evaluate a secondary source of an online journal entry, and my primary source will be an official Apartheid act (legislation). The first piece of evidence to be examined is a secondary source titled: Capitalism and cheap labour-power in South Africa: from segregation to apartheid by Harold Wolpe. The second piece of evidence is a primary source of a repealed act titled: Immorality Act, Act №5 of 1927[1].
B. Summary of Evidence
In 1909 the South Africa Act was passed by the British Parliament and this act established the unification of two British colonies and two Afrikaner[2] republics under one governance — the Union of South Africa (O’Malley, 2013). These were the Cape Colony, Natal Colony, Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic, respectively (Larson, 2007). The formation of the Union of South Africa was effective as of 31 May, 1910, and lasted till the year which saw South Africa officially being referred to as the Republic of South Africa– 1961. This period of rule, from 1910 to 1961, was known as the “segregation period” and literally implied a period of rule which encouraged racial division, both socially and geographically. Its geographic extent of segregation can best be depicted by the Natives’ Land Act of 1913 which reserved a significant portion of land for the white race of South Africa and in contrast a drastically minimal allocation of land was set aside for the black population which almost constituted 90% of the population of South Africa, around the time (Glücksmann 2010, pg. 10). Hence, this act imposed a disproportional figure of land allocation in relation to the native black population and the white South Africans. Statistical reports of these figures indicate that 87% of South Africa’s total land was to be occupied only by the white race, and the remaining 13% was allotted to the black populace (Wiley & Kornbluh, 2013).
In effect, this act, though considered in isolation, characterized the policy of segregation carried out during the Union of South Africa. Apartheid, which had a similar ideology of segregation, was only established in 1948 but it indeed shared three similar concerns like the Union of South Africa. Wolpe (1972) states that these were, “…political domination, African reserves [homelands], and African migrant labour”. Legislation was enacted to address these issues, the most significant of which was the aforementioned Native Affairs Act №23 of 1920, the Mines and Works Act №12 of 1911 and the Native (Urban Areas) Act №21 of 1923. In comparison to these acts Apartheid addressed the ‘native question’, by enacting the Group Areas Act №41 of 1950, Bantu Education Act №47 of 1953, and the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents) Act №67 of 1952, amongst others (Glücksmann 2010, pg. 9,11,13,14 & 16).
The aim of the Bantu Education Act №47 of 1953 was to establish an educational curriculum which would suit the native’s future, as outlined by Minister of Native Affairs, Hendrik Verwoerd; it had an underlying tone of specifically subjugating the black populace in the skills-based labour of the economy (Glücksmann, 2010). This was an arguably explicit racist sentiment as Mr Verwoerd suggested this act was there to eradicate any prospects that black people would have, to apply for jobs that “they wouldn’t be able to hold in society” (Glücksmann, 2010).
The second acts which arguably addressed the native question of the African homelands is the Union’s Natives’ Land Act №27 of 1913, and Apartheid’s Group Areas Act №41 of 1950 (Glücksmann, 2010). The intent of the first act was to racially segregate South Africa into rural and urban settlements, whereby blacks would live in rural settlements, and their movement would be regulated by local authorities (Glücksmann, 2010).
In contrast, the Group Areas Act №41 of 1950 was enacted to separate each race into their own residential area and this was reinforced with a “forced removal” of people as soon as the act was enacted (Glücksmann, 2010).
Furthermore the introduction of the Native Affairs Act №23 of 1920 by the Union and the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents) Act №67 of 1952, by the Apartheid government exemplified a contrast in the way natives were seen by both regimes (Glücksmann, 2010) . The first act allowed a commission to be setup for and by the black populace, which would allow prominent figures to express their concerns with the authorities. Act 67 of 1952 however, this act, which was once again racially specific, required all black persons above the age of 16 to carry a “pass book” when travelling in public and urban areas (Glücksmann, 2010). This was therefore a structural overlap of the Group Areas Act №41 of 1950.
Both regimes posed discriminatory practice against individuals of colour, in their ideological constructs. Even though evidence may suggest that The Union of South Africa wasn’t as encouraging of racism like Apartheid, in its legislation; evidence such as the Immorality Act №27 of 1913, which in summary, prohibited sexual relations between natives and Europeans (whites) would suggest otherwise as this was a punishable offence in the eyes of the law.
C. Evaluation of Sources
Capitalism and cheap labour-power in South Africa: from segregation to apartheid was written by Harold Wolpe (1972), and was sourced from the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Centre for Civil Society webpage. The purpose of this secondary source was to examine and comment on the methodology used by the governments of 1910 to 1994 (end of Apartheid), to achieve their capitalistic aims. Through the acquisition of political dominance, both regimes were able to follow through their policies of racial divide amongst whites and blacks (Wolpe, 1972). Wolpe (1972) further claims that the other two commonalities of outsourcing black labour and relocating the black populaceinto their own homelands only signified a continuation of the regimes’ policies. The value of this source is that it is dated during the era of Apartheid and on these grounds may be deemed as a primary source. Furthermore, the author also lived to experience both eras because he was born in 1926. A possible limitation would be that if we look at the biographical history of the author he may be giving an overly critical argument as he was a member of the African National Congress[3] (ANC) and therefore his facts may be biased, in correlation to the collective anti-apartheid sentiment of this political party.
Immorality Act, Act №5 of 1927, enacted by the Union of South Africa, is a primary source which was taken from Digital Innovation South Africa (DISA), which is “a freely accessible online scholarly resource focusing on the socio-political history of South Africa[4]”.The purpose of this source is to show and inform the public about this act by giving a full account of the legislation and repercussions in the advent of its violation. The act clearly stipulates that it was illegal and therefore a crime for natives (black South Africans) to engage in sexual intercourse with white South Africans. Contravention of this act showed that depending on the contravener (culprit); a jail sentence would be issued. As a result this act explicitly suggests that intimate relationships between Europeans and natives was socially looked-down upon, in that it was “immoral”. Thus this further suggests that there was a racist sentiment behind this act as it was supported as a punishable offence.
The value of this source is that it is an official document published during the era of the Union of South Africa and therefore serves as a primary source which objectively articulates the aforementioned act and accurately explains the intent and context of the legislation. This source therefore contains a significant amount of reliability to explain the nature of the Immorality Act, Act №5 of 1927, because it is an official government document signed by the governor general himself.
However, one limitation of the source is that it has been singled out amongst an array of acts which could argue that the Union of South Africa did not thrive on a racist ideology like Apartheid. Perhaps a cross-reference of preceding legislation, amendments, and other racially specific legislation may establish an opposing argument.
D. Analysis
The most complex issue here at hand is trying to determine the extent to which Apartheid can be seen as an extension or continuation of the previous policy of segregation. In effect, this assertion aims to establish whether Apartheid, though solely governed by the Afrikaner race, was a regime which uprooted its foundation from the governance of the Union of South Africa. It has been identified that the domestic policy of the governance under the Union of South Africa, towards its citizens, was to answer the native question and it did so by centralizing the governance of the country to achieve political dominance (Wolpe 1972, pg. 1).
Wolpe (1972) argues that there is a strong overlap in the “ideological foundations” of Apartheid and the Union of South Africa. However, Glücksmann (2010) argues that the ideological foundations differ because the sentiment shared by the British Parliament during the Union of South Africa was to establish an ideology which would unite the British and Afrikaners and segregate the blacks from their localities. Though this may be arguably seen as an indication of racial divide; it still did not explicitly suggest that there was an underlying racist sentiment behind such actions.
The Natives’ Land Act of 1913 may have been implemented to address the ‘native question’ in South Africa. Wolpe (1972) argues that the native question is one that aims to find an answer to how the blacks could be subordinated to achieve the capitalistic aims of the government at the time. Wolpe’s (1927) argument is reflective of Cecil John Rhodes sentiment to the exploitation of countries with great resources and the use of the “cheap” labour presented by the existence of the native to achieve this task[5]. Wolpe (1972) further suggests that the addressing of the native question revealed the three common concerns of the Apartheid government and that of the Union of South Africa.
If you look at the Mines and Work Act №12 of 1911; you will see that there is no racist sentiment behind this piece of legislation as its aim was to exploit the surplus black population of South Africa in the acquisition of its mineral wealth (Wolpe 1972). In fact it did not mention any colour of race and therefore did not specify whether blacks were subdued to work on mines — it only enticed them because the pay was considerably reasonable to them but of course it was a small price to be paid by the Union (Glücksmann, 2010). Wolpe (1972) would agree with Glücksmann’s (2010) depiction of the legislation’s capitalistic sentiment shared by the Union but he still feels that just like Apartheid’s racist ideology — the Union of South Africa was nothing different.
The Immorality Act №5 of 1927 would coincide with Wolpe’s (19270 argument as it is suggestive of racial class and differences. It was enacted to lawfully prohibit “carnal” acts between natives and Europeans and this may suggest that it was, as the title suggests, improper and unacceptable for intimate relationships to occur between white and black South Africans. Therefore, perhaps this act may depict a racist sentiment being shared by officials in government during the era of the Union of South Africa.
E. Conclusion
The similarities shared by both regimes are definitely how the ‘native question’ was addressed. However, unlike Wolpe (1972), Glücksmann (2010) would agree that the legislation of the Union was not central to racist sentiments especially if you consider the recognition of their socio-political representation, characterized by the Native Affairs Act. Wolpe (1972) a lawyer himself, as well as member of the ANC, is adamant that both regimes were racist. After close examination of the various acts I found that there is a continuation, and that it is a structural one — exhibited by the Apartheid regime. This is worth noting if you connect the familiarities in the legislation which segregated the whites and blacks. Indeed, there is definitely an overlap of legislation visible.
Though many other factors need to be considered, based on the aforementioned arguments, my analysis of both regimes lead me to believe that in addressing the native question; Apartheid was not exactly more racist in its policies than its predecessor. I would argue that it was significantly more structured in that it enacted laws which can be seen as overlapping legislation, enacted during the Union, and furthermore, laws to control the movement of blacks, beyond their allocated area of residence was employed.
F. Bibliography
§ Wolpe, Harold. “Capitalism And Cheap Labour-power In South Africa: From Segregation To Apartheid.” Economy and Society 1.4 (1972): 425–456.
§ Glücksmann, Ralph. “-.” Apartheid Legislation in South Africa — (2010): 22. Welcome to the home of the lawyer and tax offices Ralph lucky man!. Web. 26 Dec. 2013.
§ DISA. “Immorality Act, Act No 5 of 1927”. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19270327.028.020.005
§ “Segregation.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555568/South-Africa/44085/Segregation
§ O’Malley, Padraig. “The O’Malley Archives.” 1909. [Union of] South Africa Act. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/
§ Larson, Eugene. “Salem Press.” Salem Press. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. http://salempress.com/store/samples/gre
§ South Africa, Overcoming Apartheid Building Democracy. “Resources.” South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-2&page=3
G. Appendix A
“We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories” — Cecil John Rhodes
H. Appendix B
[1] See Appendix B (pg. 11)
[2] Descendants of French-speaking Dutch farmers who arrived in South Africa, under the context of colonization, in the early 19th century
[3] The South African political party which spear-headed the liberation of South Africa’s oppressed non-whites, and saw its transition into a democratic country
[4]Immorality Act, Act No 5 of 27. http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19270327.028.020.005
[5] See Appendix A (pg. 10)
