National Party’s policy of Apartheid

From reading source A, I can learn a lot about National Party’s policy of Apartheid. They could integrate or separate the races. The National Party believed that integration “would in the long run amount to suicide”.

They saw Apartheid as an opportunity to “safeguard” the future of whites, by segregating the different racial communities. This soon became the National Party’s principle. Anyone, for example churches, which may oppose this, were not to be tolerated.

Blacks were thought of as not superior and were to stay in their reserves. They figure that if they make the Indian’s go back to India (this is called repatriation), and put the blacks in suburbs, segregation would stop non-whites trying to clear out whites. The blacks were even robbed of basic civil rights, such as social and voting rights

From reading sources A and B, I can say their views of Apartheid differ tremendously. The National Party issued source A. They believe that the system of Apartheid would benefit South Africa. Keeping black separate from white would lead to social, and economical increase for the country. Source C opposes this. The writer believes that Apartheid will cause economic difficulties, for example, the National Party believes that an absolute necessity to employ native and coloured labour in the factories. To move non-Europeans back to their native country is expensive and therefore, economically out of the question.

Black forces need to live in urban areas, close to the factories. Reservations merely distant them from their work place. Source A believes Apartheid to be beneficial, whereas Source B believes that it is a social, and economic obstacle.

There are many differences between Source A and source B. This has a lot to do with the writers of the two sources. Source A is a leaflet issued by the National Party during the 1948 general election campaign. As the National Party is trying to gain votes, they perceive Apartheid to be beneficial to South Africa and its people

Source B is from an article published in a British newspaper. It was written by an English woman who lived in Cape Town. The newspaper she wrote for, supported liberal views, and so, would stand for the rights of the people, and not the economic benefits. The writer is not writing to gain votes, so can therefore expose the truth about Apartheid. She is opposing the views of the government and creating an opposition

Source A distorts the truth to gain votes, whilst source B opposes this view.

From studying source C, I can see why supporters of the United Party would be disappointed by the results of the 1948 general election. Although the United Party got 547,437 votes compared to 443,278 for the National Party, the National Party won more seats. This emphasises what is written in the National Party’s leaflet

“Missions which oppose the policy of Apartheid will not be tolerated” (source A)

The United Party were opposing the policy of Apartheid and they were not tolerated.

Bantustans were reserves on which blacks lived in, during Apartheid. These reserves were set up by whites to ensure total separation.

Source E was written by Albert Luthului, the Chief and President of ANC. It is an extract from his autobiography,

“Let My People Go ”

Luthului, tells of terrible conditions that could be found in Bantustans.

“To us, the Bantustan means the home of disease and miserable poverty”

Bantustans do not seem like a home for Albert Luthului, but more like a dumping ground.

“Our home, is the white man’s garbage can”

This one sentence just about sums up what Bantustans were like for the blacks.

Source D is part of a poem entitled “Dr Verwoerd, minister for native affairs”. This poem was published in the department of Native Affairs magazine, ‘Bantu’, and was distributed free to all schools. This poem is in favour of Hendrik Verwoerd and Bantustans.

“Praises be unto Dr Verwoerd, the defender of the Bantu”

It portrays Bantustans to be beneficial for blacks. It praises the reserve for their ‘good laws’ and ‘proper education’. This view challenges the view in source E. it contradicts all that was written. Source F is from a speech made by Verwoerd, speaking about the Bantu Education Act. He clearly implies that Bantus are second-class citizens and that their education should be restricted.

“What is the use of teaching a Bantu child, mathematics, when it cannot use it practise? That is absurd”

Verwoerd is referring to the Bantus as ‘it’. This proves that Verwoerd does not see the Bantu, as individuals, but more like slaves to the country. They have no prospect of joining the affluent society, so education needn’t be proper. This source supports source E, Bantustans are not beneficial for the people who live in them.

Source H is from a government circular. It shows that the Bantu who live in Bantustans are those who are incapable of basic labour – the rejects. This can’t be used in factories, so are dumped in Bantustans. This source supports source E. it proves that Bantustans are “The white man’s garbage can”

Source D is a praise of Verwoerd and Bantustans. It says that Verwoerd gave the Bantu’s, “good laws” and “proper education”.

“Verwoerd knew that we (Bantus) needed and we could not manage”

It is telling us that Apartheid is beneficial for the Bantus, living in Bantustans. As source D was published by the government, it is seen as biased. This poem was distributed free, to all schools, so it would hide the truth about the conditions of the Bantustans. This piece of propaganda is only a limited source, because it describes the aims, and not the effects.

Source G shows a table of figures and how much money is spent on education. It says that whites get �63.92 spent on each child, compared to a mere �8.99 on black children. This shows that the blacks are being deprived of basic educational rights. This source may be seen as reliable because the South African Government published it, however, the figures may have also been altered, to make them look better, it is a useful source, as all sources are useful in some way, but the information is limited. The table only shows the effects of the difference in money spent.

Source I is information telling us what all Black Africans aged over 16, living outside a Bantustan were expected to carry. Without these things, blacks were not permitted to enter a town or city. This shows how blacks were treated differently to whites. This information can be seen as reliable because it is from a government source, but may be questioned to whether it is biased or not. Again this source says nothing of the effects that it had upon South Africans, it is extremely limited.

Source K was written in 1996 by a British historian. It says;

“Apartheid could never work, and was harmful to South Africa”

This is a statement, not a fact. There are many arguments, which go along with this. Was South Africa really unworkable during Apartheid? – The system of Apartheid, as planned by Verwoerd, who was proving increasingly impossible to put into practice. With the need for a black labour force, there would have to be blacks, situated in and around cities, near factories. With blacks and whites living together, this contradicted the idea of Apartheid; separation.

Was South Africa really harmful during Apartheid? Apartheid damaged South Africa economically, socially and internally. It was economically harmful blacks, because the white government took the money that the blacks had worked for. There was a social downfall when separation became law. There were no longer such things as mixed marriages as this was restricted, and the government went as far as to have separate amenities.

Internationally, South Africa was harmed when, in the 1980’s, other countries discovered the poor conditions that the black labour force was kept in. many refused to trade with South Africa. South Africa depended on trade, and without trade, there was a serious decrease in money that South Africa brought in. so this can prove that Apartheid was harmful to South Africa.

There was a severe increase in violence during Apartheid with many blacks rebelling against the conditions. For instance, in 1960, Robert Sobukwe (leader of the PAC – a new black group formed to gain equal rights for Pan-Africans) began a campaign. Sobukwe and his supporters marched to the police station of Orlando Township. They were immediately arrested, but this just caused a larger disturbance. A large, noisy crowd surrounded the police station. One young policeman lost hi nerve, and fired into the crowd, as did his colleagues. Sixty-nine people were murdered that day, and a further one hundred and eighty were injured. This incident is known as the ‘Sharpeville Massacre. This became known, worldwide, and demands were made for Apartheid to end.

During 1960’s, there were various worldwide anti-Apartheid movements. For instance, sporting boycotts and also trade boycotts – which I’ve already mentioned.

Although I have so far proved that Apartheid was unworkable, and harmful, this is not necessarily true. Although trade did decrease during 1980’s, it rose from 1960, onwards. With South Africa being rich in minerals, Apartheid was the perfect time to take advantage of these resources. Using blacks for cheap labour, the government soon gained. This proves the statement wrong. It decreased when the world discovered working conditions, and refused to trade. South Africa soon became a pariah state.