Oral History: Apartheid in South Africa - Literature review Example

Oral history: Apartheid in South Africa Affiliation Oral history refers to the situation whereby historical data is collected from through interview are conducted on a face to face basis. In this case, the researcher identifies a source and asks questions relevant to the field of study whereby they get the feedback directly. Thus, one has to be physically there. Oral history is commonly used by social scientists such as historians to be able to get candid information on historical landmarks from survivors of such. This paper employs oral history to discuss the apartheid in South Africa. The oral history, as narrated by our source, will touch on the effects of apartheid on the natives, the whites and the colored community, the aftermaths of apartheid. It will also not fail to mention the contribution of key personality to the struggle against apartheid. The paper will also marry the literature review with the oral history from our source in a bid to determine if the discrepancy between documented evidence and the oral history exists. Literature review The beginning of apartheid, or its rise in 1948 was viewed as a very complex situation fueled by Cecil Rhodes in his quote “we must find new lands from which we can obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is easily available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories”. South Africa seemed a very viable ground for this exposition with its endowment of natural resources that included rich farmlands and minerals with the South African mines recognized the world over for their diamonds and gold. South Africa was consequently colonized by the Dutch and the English in the early seventeenth century with the discovery of diamonds in Orange Free State and Transvaal around 1900 leading to the English invasion that agitated the Boer War. The initial goal of the apartheid was to preserve white domination while still upholding racial segregation. This explains why, starting the 60’s, a plan promoting Grand Apartheid was planned emphasizing on territorial segregation and police repression. Some scholars subscribe to the belief that was the fruit of racial prejudices as well as policies campaigned for by the British and the Dutch settlers with recent explanations inclined to the possibility of this being instigated by factors ranging from land dispossession, biased economic factors, the colonial conquest as well as the exclusion of the African community. So, when did apartheid begin? Where did this infamous word originate from? What role did the Afrikaners and the whites play in engineering the politics of the country then and now? Who were the real culprits? John Allen in his book, Apartheid in South Africa: an Overview of the Origin and Effects of Separation Development tries to answer this question. According to Allen, as opposed to the popular international beliefs, racism neither started with the Afrikaner government in 1948 nor ended with the ANC government formed in 1994. It is also worth mentioning that this racism mindset is not and was not only experienced in South Africa but most other countries the world over. However, in the South African scenario, personalities such as Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), Nelson Mandela (1918-2013), Paul Kruger (1852-1904) and Steve Biko cannot go unmentioned whenever apartheid is discussed. Allen narrates how, when traveling to Britain in the early 1970s, he was discriminated against for being a South African. Mind you he was white alright. But the fact that he came from South Africa was enough to have him refused residence in a house in north London because they are the people who promoted to the plight of Africans in South Africa and that family was concerned about “the plight of Africans living down there to concern themselves with him”. This disputes the popular portrayal by the media that apartheid only applied to the black people while portraying all whites as brutal and agents of the practice (Allen, 2005). Apartheid is also explored by the South African writer and Nobel laureate for literature with her candid, revealing and intimate literature helping to expose apartheid to a global front. Ms. Gordimer, who passed on in July 13 at her home in Johannesburg, was instrumental at exposing the brutality and ironically the beauty her country experienced even long after the racist government had died down. An active member of the African National Congress, Ms. Gordimer has written varied literature but all touching on the sensitive topic of apartheid such as The Conservationist that went on to win the Man Booker Prize in 1974. Perhaps Burger’s Daughter laborates on the topic of apartheid in greater details. In his novel, the political as well as the personal problems of Rosa Burger, who is the daughter an Afrikaner doctor and a fervent anti-apartheid activist who died in prison are disclosed. This can be used as a mirror reflection and a sample case of many people, both white and blacks that experienced apartheid both directly or indirectly. In her other books, July’s People and A World of Strangers, she details the extremely difficult and out rightly inhuman conditions for living suffered by both the whites and blacks who found themselves in the middle of racial segregation. So, what exactly is apartheid? David Downing (2004) in Apartheid in South Africa explains that apartheid is an Afrikaans word to mean apartness. Afrikaners, not to be confused with Africans or natives, were the white South African, who was the resultants of Belgian, French, German but mainly Dutch colonialists. The goal of apartheid, apart from separating the South Africa’s black majority from the white minority, was also to steer a division based on tribal lines in a bid to reduce the political power. As such, the government had prohibited marriages between the whites and people from all other races in the country. It had also gone to the extent of banning sexual relations between black and white South Africans. In the Population Act of 1950, all the South African residents were divided on basis of race with the black Africans being classified as Bantus, white people remaining white and another category, Asian, also included to cater for the Pakistani and Indians in the country. Documented evidence reveals that so serious was the racial segregation legislation that families were split with parents who had intermarried being classified as either black or white and the children as colored (Downing, 2004). Another ugly effect was whereby Land Acts designated over 80 percent of the country’s land to the white community leaving the other communities, including the natives to make do with the 20 percent. All non-whites were also required to have, at all times, passes that, upon production, and would give them access to certain restricted areas. So serious was apartheid that the white government, in a bid, to minimize the contact among the races, set to have exclusive public facilities for use by the whites and non-whites. Matsime Mohapi’s, The Unbroken Chain of Apartheid (2011)recounts how efforts to disguise apartheid saw Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, who was the prime minister in 1958 refine the apartheid policy into a system he chose to call separate development. This led to a Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959 to have Bantustans that had 10 Bantu homelands. This policy of separation of black South Africans from each other allowed the government to say there was no black majority while reducing the possibility of blacks unifying into one nationalist organization. While we know little concerning the individual lives of ordinary people during those times, post-apartheid literature points to the possibility of slaves’ struggles against harsh conditions imposed by their white oppressors. However, in some devastating incidences of apartheid, the government forcibly evicted black South Africans from rural areas. Records show that from 1961 to 1994, over 3.5 million people were moved from their homes and taken to the Bantustans where they were subjected to poverty and utter hopelessness. In Segregation in Twentieth Century South Africa, (1995), author William Beinart also shows instances of resistance came in many forms and in 1960, in a black township of Sharpeville, the police shot at a group of unarmed blacks injuring at least 180 and killing more than 67 people. As they had been demonstrating peacefully, this incidence at Sharpeville led many anti-apartheid leaders to the inclination that freedom could not be realized through useful means which consequently led to the Pan African Congress and the ANC to establish military wings and Nelson Mandela, who would later be referred to as the founding father of liberated South Africa and Umkhonto we Sizwe. As the pressure from the international community mounted, the white government now agreed to some reforms that saw bans on the interracial marriages lifted and the carrying of passes done away with. The interview The interview took place in Durban, South Africa. The interviewee, Dludlu Rachel is a senior citizen who lived in Soweto during much of the apartheid period, but worked as a nanny with a white family in Durban. The interview had duration of about one day during which the respondent answered to questions put across by me. Because of the existing language barrier as my source is semi-literate, I sought the help of Teddy who was born during the apartheid era, but grew up in the post-apartheid era. This would only mean that besides being my interpreter, he would also weigh in some areas that mentioned on the area after the apartheid. The interview was carried out efficiently with ethical issues clearly followed. Below are some of the questions asked during the interview. The questions were carefully selected to encompass every possible question about apartheid. As mentioned above, the translator was present, and ethics was carefully followed. Me: How old were you when you first learned about apartheid? Rachel: I was born around 1934. My parents were of African origins, and my ancestors have been buried in this land. I experienced the rich and bubbly scenario of an African child growing up always surrounded by the extended family, farming, playing and because I was a girl, tending to three young children. Lives followed a pattern in that if I did not pass away during my childhood, I would be married off and start my family. However, the death of my mother led me to the city where I now felt the full impact of apartheid. As opposed to my village that was near the border with the Khoisans, the experience was new. I now saw the white people at a close range and also saw how the blacks were segregated making it almost difficult to talk to a person belonging to another tribe. I also learned of the Africa National Congress from the memsahib I was working for and how it was disturbing the plans of the whites. Me: Would you say your experience as a woman was different from that of a man? Rachel: To some extent, the fact that one was black meant that life was almost unbearable. One was supposed to stay away from the whites, and if you got a chance (like I got through working for them, you were always supposed to address them with respect. Also, apartheid was very hard on the women as they were subjected to both racial and gender discrimination. A fact that made it very hard for them to find employment in apartheid South Africa. If and when one found employment, like I did, the salary was meager as employment was limited to agricultural and domestic labor. Other impacts on apartheid to women was felt when they were left in the rural areas as their men were forcefully taken to work in the urban areas. Women would also suffer the blows of apartheid in both psychological and emotional turmoil when their children suffered from some communicable diseases bred by the deplorable living conditions and malnutrition. These problems were however unique to the black and colored women. Me: Would you narrate your feelings towards the whites during this period? Rachel: I hated the whites. I failed to understand why they brought us a religion that talked of all of us being equal yet on the ground, and we were ranked according to color, race and sometimes the political ideologies. When my nephew was killed during a demonstration in Soweto, my heart broke into smithereens. So much so that anytime I was cooking madams food or holding the children, I would always be filled with malicious intentions but I knew this would only lead to a painful, slow and brutal death for me. When they arrested Mandela, I now knew that they (whites) had won, and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren would never know how it felt to belong and be free. Every time riots started, or blacks were prejudiced or killed, I hated the whites more. Me: do you think that apartheid ended with the black government of 1992? Rachel: No. Apartheid was still vivid in the hearts and the minds of those that had either experienced or heard of it. People were bitter. Some of the whites were not ready to relent just because a black government had taken over power. A black person could not just go and walk on the white’s road just because Mandela had been announced president. I can say that contrary to popular belief, apartheid is still felt, in however negligible amounts in current day South Africa. It took time to heal the wounds and selfless men like Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu to convince the people that the end of apartheid did not mean domination by the blacks, or chasing away of the whites but the creation of a society that all people would coexist irrespective of color. In my experience, apartheid would start ending with attending a conference in the outskirts of Durban. In the conference, we were told of the benefits of forgiving and of loving one another. One of the benefits included peace of mind which then led to longevity of life. You can see am old (chuckles). In my experience, therefore, Mandela with his aides ensured that reconciliation had been championed for, followed up, and that people learnt to coexist and allowed to love one another despite being black, white or colored. What I learnt from the interview is that racial segregation effects were scarring. Rachel’s sentiments on being a black resonate with those of Allen when he first visited England where he was classified as a “white from South Africa”. When she talks of “people were bitter”, it exemplifies how it feels to not belong in your motherland as narrated by Allen too. Rachel’s narration also gives a firsthand account of the real situation on the ground. The malnourished, the impoverished Africans, proud Afrikaners, and the struggle to freedom as documented in various books such as the Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela. When she talks of "my nephews were killed during a demonstration in Soweto", it only serves to elaborate how ghastly the experience was on the ground. Through her, I could identify and sympathize with thousands of South Africans who lost their loved ones or their limbs in their conquest for peace. Rachel’s account on apartheid resonates with those on Allen that apartheid is still not completely wiped out, but it’s controlled. Teddy’s opinion of post-apartheid South Africa that “the land is now habitable. People can no longer be classified as black or white as many people are now colored. Forgiveness has enabled us to march towards developing a united South Africa where people can walk, laugh and eat together. Save for the class differences which I choose to call modern day apartheid, South Africans are united. We people that grew up past apartheid have worked to ensure that we protect what Mandela and others suffered in dingy prisons for". These sentiments resonate with Mandela’s in his book, Long walk to freedom where he implores on all South Africans to maintain the country and nurture it. In conclusion, apartheid can be seen to be an evil that invaded South Africa. Apartheid, while it cannot pass as unique to South Africa, we have seen what has led to it making an interesting case for it. It is also important to note that while oral sources may not always be available, they provide for very interesting, moving and candid first-hand sources of historical data. The element of bias, while being constant and unavoidable to human nature, psychological, emotional or psychological reasons have been minimized or avoided by having adequate background information gathered from the literature review. That apartheid happened and ended that there is always a lesson to be learnt in any historic event, and they are good yardsticks for gauging other future events. Reference Downing, David (2004). Apartheid in South Africa. (pp. 14-57). Heinemann Library. Read More