Pascale
South Africa Mock:
2) How far could the historian use Sources 3 and 4 together to investigate the aims of apartheid in the 1950’s? (20)
Apartheid was a political social system in South Africa while it was under white minority rule. The system caused the people of South Africa to be divided by their race, and forced to live apart from each other, which was upheld by may different laws. The aim of apartheid in the 1950’s was to separate the people of South Africa into small independent nations; to segregate the black South Africans from the white population. The word ‘apartheid’ in Afrikaans means ‘segregation’, which was exactly what the whites were aiming for with the policy.
Source 3 is taken from a speech in 1950 by Hendrik Verwoerd, the Minister of Native Affairs at the time. He is making his speech to the Native Representative Council, which consisted of six white officials, and twelve elected black Africans. This is very significant as he is addressing those affected by apartheid, giving him reason to not give them the full details, making the source less valuable to a historian. In his speech, Verwoerd makes his message very clear that apartheid is as much in the ‘interests of both the Bantu as those of the European.’ What is more, he talks of how a clash of races will lead to ‘unhappiness and misery’, as well as ‘competition and conflict.’ He talks of how this cannot be an ‘ideal future’ for either of the two races, and that the only possible way would be if they ‘divorced from each other.’
He goes on to state how the Africans have been made to believe that ‘apartheid means oppression’ and that actually, ‘the opposite is intended.’ This is far from true as the aim of apartheid was to simply keep the whites in control and separate them from what they saw as the lower black community. This was proven through acts such as the Population Registration Act, The Group Areas Act and The Bantu Education Act, all passed in 1950-53. The Pass Laws Act in 1952 made it compulsory for all black South Africans to carry a ‘pass book’ at all times. Similarly, the Group Areas Act consisted of three acts that assigned racial groups to different residential sections of urban areas, segregating the population. Verwoerd’s speech is not very useful to a historian in investigating the aims of apartheid as he is giving his speech to the black South Africans, lying to them about the aims and meanings of the apartheid.
Source 4 on the other hand was written by a white English clergyman, Trevor Huddleston. His book was published in 1956, and was written when he returned to England in 1955. Huddleston was an anti-apartheid campaigner who had worked in South Africa from 1943-55. This gives the source more utility than source 3 as Huddleston was against apartheid and was present in South Africa at the beginning of apartheid in the 50’s. Huddleston talks of how the whites would ‘shudder’ at the thought of the two different races integrating in any way. What is more, he states how they saw miscegenation as ‘a sin more mortal than any in the handbook of mortal theology.’ This contrasts directly with what Verwoerd said in Source 3, that apartheid wasn’t about oppression, but about allowing the blacks to ‘pass through a development of their own.’ Huddleston states that the first essential aim of the South African Government was to ‘keep up the barriers’ between the two races. However, Huddleston’s view was written in a book, meant to be published to earn him money. This could have altered the way he worded some of his statements, so that the book would not be too difficult to sell. This reduces the usefulness and value of the source into looking at the aims of apartheid, as some of his statements may be alterations of the truth.
Overall, out of the two sources, source 4 is more useful to a historian in investigating the aims of the apartheid in the 1950’s. However, neither of the sources directly mention the aims of apartheid at the time, causing neither of the sources to be overly useful. However, looking at the two sources together does give the historian more detail, as it is clear that source 3 is far from truthful, when comparing it with source 4.
6) How accurate is it to say that the principal reason for Botha’s decision to negotiate in the years 1985-89 was the impact of internal isolation of South Africa? (20)
Internal isolation was a contributing factor affecting Botha’s decision to negotiate from 1985-89, however it was not the main reason. Other factors such as internal pressures, domestic pressures, economic issues within South Africa, external pressures such as the civil war between South Africa, Angola and Mozambique, as well as Botha’s idea of ‘Total Strategy’ all contributed hugely.
Internal isolation of South Africa began in the 1960’s. In 1962 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that deemed apartheid to be a violation of South Africa’s obligations under the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security. This kick started boycotts requesting other member states to cut off trade and relations with South Africa, beginning their isolation. South Africa also began to become culturally isolated, as the UN imposed cultural sanctions on South Africa in the 1980’s. White South African artists were banned from touring and many celebrities in the West refused to visit. What is more, sport became isolated in South Africa, with teams refusing to play or travel to South Africa. South Africa was also excluded from some Olympic games, with almost 50 countries threatening to boycott the games if South Africa attended. This isolation however was not the key reason for Botha’s decision to negotiate in the 1980’s. but it was a contributing factor.
In regards to International pressures, Botha’s main policy was his ‘Total Strategy’ which was a policy of addressing international pressures. He used this policy to settle disputes between South Africa and other countries. For example, South Africa were in dispute with Namibia in regards to their border and their independence. South Africa were involved in this, mainly due to Botha’s ‘Total Strategy’. Namibia borders South Africa along the Orange River; the dispute was mainly over where exactly the border was.
What is more the ANC had been gaining support in neighbouring countries after they had been banned from South Africa. During 1981, there were over 90 MK armed actions against police stations, railway lines, power plants, military bases and army recruiting offices. Botha had to begin thinking about reforms, as a result he moved Nelson Mandela and other imprisoned ANC leaders from Robben Island to Pollsmoor Prison in mainland Cape Town.
What is more, banks that were owned by America began pulling out of South Africa and not renewing their loans, due to their disagreeing with Apartheid. However, some of the banks did not want to lose their stand in South Africa, so they just changed their names. Furthermore, Botha lost the support of Reagan and Thatcher due to their disagreement towards Apartheid.
Lastly, South Africa were in a civil war with Angola and Mozambique, the war was mainly over the threat of communism and Soviet Russia being a threat. Due to this civil war, conscription of white youths became a problem. The south Africans were obviously unhappy about their men being conscripted, causing unrest within South Africa.
Domestic pressures were also an issue for South Africa and the National Party. Conscription, due to the civil war, was becoming a large problem as many of the white men were away fighting. It was mainly white youths that were being conscripted and the public were not pleased at this, they did not want to be fighting in this war, and as the majority were whites, they were losing many of their male population. In addition to this, Botha had relaxed certain aspects of Apartheid and the Pass Laws had practically been diminished; this gave the black community reason to believe that perhaps, apartheid was being relaxed. What is more, the townships were in revolt from 1984-87. These revolts were mainly due to Botha’s reforms. He was not trying to end white power, but find new routes to preserve it. The National Party had the power to repress black protest in the townships, however they fought back with violence, which was not the best way to deal with it. What is more, he increased the power of the police which only made the situation worse as they were using violence in response to violence.
Furthermore, businesses were beginning to fail, which was leading to a collapsing economy.
Economically, South Africa were having many problems, mainly due to Botha. Businesses were failing and the US were pulling their banks out of South Africa. These two aspects combined were bad, not just for the economy, but for Botha and his popularity. As he began to loose popularity, he began to lose the support of the people. In addition to the banks pulling out, the cost of the war and Botha’s ‘Total Strategy’ were very high, and with an already declining economy, made a large impact. Furthermore, the UN began to sanction South Africa as they were against Apartheid. They reduced the trade that South Africa were allowed and aided Nelson Mandela one he had been freed.
Overall, the internal isolation of South Africa was not the principal reason for Botha’s decision to negotiate. It was part of a complex mixture of reasons, ranging from pressures internally, as well as externally, which caused him to begin negotiations.