Chapter five discusses the South
African fight against apartheid from the 1980s to mid-1990s. Since the arrival
of the Europeans and white colonizers, South Africans had been experiencing the
crushing defeats of apartheid.
It seems really shocking that such
a large portion of South Africa was inhabited by “coloreds,” and yet the small
minority of whites took control anyways. It was stated that this regime had “all
the trappings of democracy,” (Kenney 122). The South Africans didn’t know a
thing about apartheid until they were exposed to it firsthand. In this way, the
whites were able to take dominance and convince the South Africans that
apartheid was a good thing, and that oppression was not involved.
Also, throughout the whole
apartheid regime, South African opposition leaders maintained their peaceful
means of fighting against their opponents. However, their opponents did not
respect the same desire for nonviolence. Along with these oppositional leaders,
one man stood the test of time - Nelson Mandela’s figure and force ultimately promoted
him to an extremely high moral authority.
The apartheid regime was
essentially an expression of nationalism. It was not a policy of
discrimination, but of “separateness,” (Kenney 122). So basically, segregation.
This also falls under the Jim Crow Laws to a certain extent, as well. The
profession of the “separate but equal” clause in the Jim Crow Laws applies
directly to the apartheid regime in South Africa at this time. The South Africans
were still humans, though treated as less by the whites, and they still had
some basic human rights. But of course they were neither match nor equal (or
close to being equal, at that) to the whites then. The whites completely stripped
them of their well-being and lowered them to less than nothing.
 |
| London, UK - Anti-apartheid protest at the South Africa House |
The African National Congress (ANC)
was founded in 1912 as the chief oppositional organization against apartheid.
They espoused nonviolence and soon viewed the bombings and guerilla warfare as “a
necessary counterpart to the ideal of nonviolence,” (Kenney 123). Nelson
Mandela was a leader of the ANC, but was soon imprisoned in 1964. By 1983,
however, many of the ANC’s forces were either in prison, exiled, or
underground. So their power and organization had begun to lose control and
footing in the fight.
The ANC’s document, On Negotiations, was an informal
approach to strategy. This document specifically is responding to the claims
that the ANC was moving away from its pledge to armed resistance and to
accusations that it was trying to destroy South African society in the name of
revolution. They point out the main problem in the country throughout
this document. They say that the main conflict is “between the forces of
national liberation and democracy on one hand, and those of racism and reaction
on the other,” (Kenney 127). The ANC states that the issue of their current
government and apartheid is what is causing the disruption of peace in South
Africa. They end their appeal by calling the South African people to action
against the apartheid regime.
A short biography of the life of Nelson Mandela
A movement known as the United
Democratic Front (UDF) soon appeared shortly after. Their main goal was to stir
up civil disobedience and local empowerment through boycotts, strikes, and the
like. This movement offered the people of South Africa a “new possibility
focused on tactics that any individual could use,” (Kenney 123). I believe that
this movement was an introverted way to become a community fighting against the
same cause. They give instructions and encouragement for the individual to fight up against
apartheid, not just the community as a whole. While this could be seen as both
a pro and a con to this situation, I see it as a positive reinforcement. If the
UDF has people individually acting against apartheid in the meantime, causing
disruptions and civil unrest, other people will be more influenced to jump on
the bandwagon. Also, smaller projects could be carried out by the individual,
while the entire community focused on a larger task at hand.
The UDF’s document, Ya, the Community Is the Main Source of
Power, attempted to unite the people against the apartheid regime. In this
document, they called the people to peacefully harass the regime.
Alison Ozinsky’s account of the Purple Reign is insightful and
surprising. She takes you through the march to Parliament as if you were there
experiencing it with her. Just the thought of walking out into the streets
knowing that you could be killed at any minute is enough to strike fear and
terror in those participating. Yet, they still marched onward. That would have
taken some insane courage and bravery! And then when they sat down in the
middle of the road and refused to move, their determination and dedication to
the cause showed through. These people felt so strongly about a certain cause
that they were willing to put their lives on the line to fight for that cause.
I personally enjoy eyewitness accounts, because of the heightened emotions and
effects present in retelling the story. I feel as if I get more out of that
then just reading about it in a history book.
This chapter makes me think of the
book, Heart of Darkness, by Joseph
Conrad. This book is about European colonization in Africa, and the effects it
has on both the Africans and the whites. It talks about the “white man’s
burden,” which is essentially to imperialize and colonize those people
considered uncivilized by the whites. In this book, the European colonizers
traveled to Africa in search of ivory to bring back home. While there, however,
they discovered the “uncivilized people” living there. The Europeans soon took
over and enforced a system of apartheid onto the Africans. The Africans were
treated as slaves, less than human workers who were to treat their European
enslavers as god-like figures.
Overall, this chapter brought to my
attention the true intents of the apartheid regime and the oppositional forces
fighting against it. It also surprised me that the South African oppositional
forces were able to start a revolution (and win, for that matter) by only using
means of nonviolence. They were able to restrain and control themselves and
their factions so well that violence wasn’t even in the picture. I think that’s
pretty awesome for what they had to go through!
Kenney, Padraic. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End : A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment