Paes-Black win Wimbledon mixed doubles!
More than a game: how football beat apartheid on Robben Island
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - Four Hundred Eleven
Palash Biswas
http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/
Paes-Black win Wimbledon mixed doubles!
At least somthing to cheer about!India's Leander Paes and Cara Black of Zimbabwe beat South African Wesley Moodie and Lisa Raymond of the US 6-4, 7-6 (5) to win the Wimbledon mixed doubles title on Sunday.
With this victory, Paes surpassed his one-time doubles partner Mahesh Bhupathi in winning the most Grand Slam titles for India. Paes now has six doubles and six mixed-doubles titles. Bhupathi has 11 Grand Slam titles -- four doubles and seven mixed doubles titles.
Paes and Black were the runners-up here last year. They won the 2008 US Open and the 2010 Australian Open together. The finalists have a slew of Wimbledon doubles titles between them.
Paes, 37, won the 1999 (with Lisa Raymond) and 2003 (with Martina Navratilova) mixed titles, and the 1999 men's doubles (with Bhupathi).
Black has won three Wimbledon ladies' doubles titles and one mixed doubles title.
Paes and Black have forged a successful partnership. They have reached five Grand Slam finals winning three titles in two years.
Paes and Navratilova notched up two titles in four Grand Slam finals.
In the 2010 Australian Open, Paes partnering Black, outplayed Russia's Ekaterina Makarova and Czech Jaroslav Levinsky.
They took 37 minutes to win the first set that saw five breaks of serve.
It was a close fight in the second set, but Paes and Black held their nerves. Paes sealed the victory with a volley at the net in the tie-break to finish the match in nearly two hours.
I had to attend a meeting on OBC Head Count in the Bharat Sabha Hall in Central Kolkata and had to leave Home earlier. I could not meet the Hawker Boy W as they call him who supported ARGENTINA all the way as we had been supporting Asia and Africa. I may only guess his disaapointment now. It is general scenerio in Kolkata as with the exit of two football giants -- Brazil and Argentina -- from the World Cup, fans in Kolkata have either lost interest or have found new favourites.Brazil and Argentina have always been overwhelming favourites in the City of Joy.
As both teams stormed their way into the quarter-finals, expectations soared high, but the enthusiasm was shortlived.
I May NOT Support Any team other than Uruguay as Asia and Africa Defeated in Fifa World Cup. Last day, as GHANA was ousted, I was writing that the Final Match should be in between Holland and Spain. I do not expect URUGUAY to win aginst Holland. But today, I have no choice but to support URUGUAY the sole Latin american team as the RISE of Holand in Football has unfortunately PROMOTED APARTHEID once again in Africa as the DUTCH Origin Whites in South Africa has intensified the Hatred campaign against the Blacks who they RULED as Slaves. It is reminiscent of ROBBEN Island Football and RUGBY fashion in White Community!
Since Football has always been Aboriginal celebration of life and Identity of Black untouchables worldwide, I have to watch the final Match. We knew very well from the beginning that Asia and africa have little chance to upset the Apple Carts of Europe and Latin America but we opted for South Korea, Japan and Ghana. Had ghana been in the fray, we would have digest yet another disappointment as the most of Kolkata Masses have digested the Defeat of Brazil and argentina. But Kolakat is divided Afresh in between Germany and Holland as the teams really deserve this.
The first shock came when five-time champion Brazil lost to the Netherlands on Thursday. Fans also had their hopes pinned on Diego Maradona's Argentina. But their expectations got a drubbing after Germany outplayed Argentina 4-0 Friday for a semi-final spot.
In the 1960's, Nelson Mandela along with a group of anti- apartheid fighters had revolted inside the notorious prison on Robben Island. Reason? They wanted to play soccer on two pitches created on the prison grounds. They eventually got their wish.
Perceived by many as a land of endless war and famine, South Africa, like the rest of Africa has learned football its way. Playing barefoot on the rutted streets with found objects for balls has been a tradition. Displaying that unbelievable stamina on the field is a habit. The country may not boast of the players who have made their mark on the international stage but this does not stop a mine worker in a remote village on the eastern corner of the country dance with pride every time he sees his team step on the field.
When 2010 FIFA World Cup came to South Africa to be played at 10 stadiums over nine cities, the country once again sprang to life. For a South African, this World Cup is their chance. A chance to dismiss the idea created byapartheid that there are greater and lesser human beings. A chance to take its own place in the world.
Makana F.A.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Makana Football Association was a sporting body formed by political prisoners on Robben Island, South Africa who organised football leagues for fellow inmates.[1] Formed in 1966, the association ran a league until 1973, adhering strictly to the Laws of the Game,[2] the FIFA rulebook being one of the few books in the prison library.[3] Prior to this the game had been banned by the prison authorities, but starting in December 1964 prisoners took it turns to "...request to be allowed to play football" every Saturday.[3] At one point the F.A. was running three leagues, with teams from nine clubs competing.[4] The organisation crossed the political divides in the prison, between the ANC and the PAC, with over half of the inmates involved in the leagues.[4] A small group of prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada were, however, barred from participating in or even watching the matches organised.[5]
The Makana F.A. was given honorary membership of FIFA in 2007,[6] and in the same year a film was made telling the story of the F.A., entitled More Than Just A Game.[5] Current President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, was a Makana F.A. referee.[2] Others involved in the F.A.'s organisation included Steve Tshwete, Dikgang Moseneke, and Tokyo Sexwale.[4][2]
[edit] References
- ^ "Tokyo Sexwale: Football kept us alive". FIFA. 2007-07-18. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=554548.html. Retrieved 2009-11-03.
- ^ a b c "Fifa gives Zuma his ref's certificate". SouthAfrica.info. 2009-06-30. http://www.southafrica.info/2010/zuma-referee.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-03.
- ^ a b Ticher, Mike (February 2009). "BOOK REVIEWS:General:More Than Just A Game". When Saturday Comes. http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/2843/28/. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
- ^ a b c Stocks, Chris (2008-10-16). "'On the football pitch we were free'". Metro (UK). http://www.metro.co.uk/news/newsfocus/article.html?On_the_football_pitch_we_were_free&in_article_id=359884&in_page_id=65. Retrieved 2209-11-04.
- ^ a b "Football 'more than just a game'". SouthAfrica.info. 2007-11-26. http://www.southafrica.info/news/arts/morethanjustagame.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
- ^ "Prison soccer league in spotlight on Mandela birthday". Reuters. 2007-07-18. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1884263520070718. Retrieved 2009-11-03.
 | This association football article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
More than a game: how football beat apartheid on Robben Island
A new film tells how jailed ANC leaders kept their discipline by following sport's rules to the letter
- The Observer, Sunday 11 November 2007
- Article history
Forty years after detainees formed the Makana Football Association inside the island fortress, the club was officially recognised by Fifa, the sport's international governing body. Now the little-known story of how prisoners set up their own league under the noses of the warders is to be told in a feature film.
The players, many belonging to the banned African National Congress, had spoken out against racial discrimination or committed violent acts of defiance against the apartheid regime. Following the strict Fifa rules of a football league, they say, helped them cope with years of imprisonment without trial in the island jail off Cape Town.
The film, More Than Just a Game, which is to be released in South Africa in the next few weeks, celebrates the achievements of the players and the success many found in later life. Among the organisers and footballers involved were South Africa's future distinguished constitutional court judge, Dikgang Moseneke, and several ANC cabinet ministers, including the late national hero Steve Tshwete. Inmates who secretly followed matches from the prison's isolation wing included Mandela himself, Walter Sisulu and President Thabo Mbeki's father, Govan Mbeki.
Chuck Korr, an American sports historian and visiting professor at Leicester's De Montfort University, who co-produced the film with acclaimed South African film-maker Anant Singh, discovered the Makana Association's dog-eared documentation by chance in an academic archive in South Africa. He found details of a three-division league and records of trophies and fines for infringing the rules.
'It is amazing. They followed every rule in the book,' said Korr this weekend. 'They were re-creating the mundaneness of the outside world, I think partly to comfort themselves.'
More Than Just A Game stars Presley Chweneyagae, best known for his performance in the Oscar-winning Tsotsi, and tells the story through the eyes of five political prisoners, Anthony Suze, Liso Sitoto, Marcus Solomons, Sedick Isaacs and Mark Shinners, who all spent their youth imprisoned on the island.
'We played soccer on Robben Island with such passion and such detail - it was another way of survival,' said Suze. 'Somehow we found a Fifa book there and played according to Fifa rules. In a situation that sought to undermine us, it gave us hope. It is amazing to think a game that people take for granted all around the world was the very same game that gave a group of prisoners sanity and in a way glorified us.'
At first the men played covertly in their cells using balls made of paper, cardboard and rags. Then in 1965, after sustained lobbying, the authorities allowed prisoners to play outside on Saturdays. The teams built their own goals and threw off their prison uniforms to put on team colours.
A binding constitution was drawn up by Suze and the referees even took Fifa exams, said Korr. If one of the players transgressed, he was disciplined at a committee hearing. Team managers organised fixtures by writing formal letters to each other, although they may have been in neighbouring cells.
'They loved football, of course,' said Korr, 'but it was also a way to show they could run things. They were showing they understood due process, even if it had not been legally afforded to them. It was about dignity and survival.'
Prisoners in the isolation wing were able to follow the progress of teams through a secret communication system and they found a way to actually watch many of the games, until the authorities built a wall that blocked their view.
South African director Junaid Ahmed says the film is a revelation. 'It uncovers layers of history that I never knew of before, and it shows the great sacrifices people made for our freedom'.
From prison to power
Walter Sisulu One of the fathers of the modern South African state as founder member of the ANC Youth League. Sent to Robben Island in 1963. He died four years ago.
Dikgang Moseneke Born 1947, served 10 years on Robben Island. Helped to set up the Makana Football Association. Now a judge in the Constitutional Court.
Steve 'Tangana' Tshwete, who died in 2002, served as Sports Minister under Nelson Mandela. After the ANC was banned, he went underground. He was captured in 1963 and sentenced to 15 years for sabotage. Mandela said he made his 'incarceration a building stone for the future'.
"After Brazil crashed out of the quarterfinals, the only attraction was Argentina. But everything seems to have gone haywire. Now I am least interested in this World Cup," Tamal Das, a MBA student, told IANS.
The streets of Kolkata are still adorned with huge posters of Kaka, Robinho, Messi and Maradona. Flags of Brazil and Argentina are still fluttering atop houses, but the interest has died down.
"It was really pathetic to see the way Argentina lost to Germany," said Saibal Roy, an engineer, who cut short his sleeping hours to see Messi in action.
The German victory has broken many hearts here.
"For me, the World Cup is over as Argentina is out of race. I think it has been proved again that great players don't always make great coaches. I won't see any more matches of this World Cup. Not even the final," a fan wailed, sitting beside a large cutout of Maradona.
The soccer crazy city is now gunning for revenge against Germany and the Netherlands, who knocked out Argentina and Brazil. So Spain and Uraguay are the new favourites that will keep their football appetite alive.
"I am a die hard fan of Argentina but for the time being I am supporting Spain," said Bubun Pal.
"I am banking on Uruguay. But frankly speaking I cannot think of a World Cup final without Brazil and Argentina," says Sanjay Das, a diehard Brazil supporter.
The Dutch press waxed lyrical Saturday about the Orange Eleven's 2-1 elimination of Brazil to reach the football World Cup semifinals in South Africa next week.
"World Class," headlined the front page of the popular De Telegraaf newspaper about Friday's encounter in Port Elizabeth, asking: "Who can stop this team?"
With photographs of all 11 players, the daily named them heroes and said they were on the road to the Netherlands' first World Cup final since 1978.
"Gold in sight," it said.
The popular Algemeen Dagblad called the Dutch victory "Grandiose!"
"Top favourite Brazil sent home 2-1 in a grandiose football thriller," it continued, dedicating several pages to party photographs and quotes from Dutch fans celebrating their team's victory.
For its part, the leftist daily Volkskrant asked: "Will Oranje (Orange) win the World Cup? It is possible."
Next to a photograph of Inter Milan star Wesley Sneijer whose second-half header put the Netherlands in the lead, the newspaper said: "There is still room for their play to improve."
The Dutch next face Uruguay in a semifinal in Cape Town on Tuesday.
Uruguay may have paid a high price for their contentious victory over Ghana on penalties to set up a World Cup semifinal with the Netherlands in Cape Town on Tuesday. The two-time world champions reached the last-four for the first time in 40 years after denying the Ghanaians from becoming the first African team to reach the semi-finals of a World Cup.
Uruguay held their nerve to win the penalty shoot-out 4-2 after it was locked at 1-1 after extra-time at Soccer City on Friday.
Striker Luis Suarez, whose deliberate handball in the final minute of extra-time denied Ghana the winning goal, will miss the Dutch showdown after he was red-carded by Portuguese referee Olegario Benquerenca.
Asamoah Gyan had the chance to win the match for Ghana, but the Rennes forward crashed his penalty against the crossbar forcing the match into penalties.
Coach Oscar Tabarez may also have to find a new centre-back pairing after Jorge Fucile received his second yellow card of the tournament and skipper Diego Lugano withdrew before halftime with an injured right knee.
"I don't know how far we can go. The Netherlands have great players but we cannot betray this group of players," Tabarez said.
"We have a little time to prepare for the match but we are going there to win.
"We didn't play good football against Ghana but we fought very hard.
"We are amongst the four best teams at this World Cup. This is something we would never have imagined before coming to South Africa."
Debate raged on Saturday over Suarez's deliberate handball, which ultimately proved decisive for the Uruguayans, who lost 3-1 to Brazil the last time they reached the World Cup semifinals in Mexico in 1970.
The Ajax striker was hailed as a hero in Uruguay for what he has called his 'Hand of God.'
Diego Maradona famously credited a goal against England at the 1986 World Cup to the "Hand of God" after he scored with his hand.
"I did it so that my teammates could win the penalty shoot-out. When I saw Gyan miss the penalty it was a great joy," Suarez said.
Man-of-the-match Diego Forlan spoke for his teammates when he said of Suarez's actions:" "It's a pity (he will miss the semi), he made a good save today, we'll try to do our best.
"He played his part. He didn't score a goal but he saved one and now we go to the semifinal."
Tabarez supported Suarez amid cheating accusations, by saying:"It was instinctive, he instinctively put his hand out to the ball and was red-carded and will miss the next game.
"He has paid for the consequences of his actions. He wasn't to know that Ghana would miss the resulting penalty. It is not fair to say that we cheated our way to victory."
But Ghana's Serbian coach Milovan Rajevac was sanguine about the manner in which his team was dumped from the World Cup and thereby snuffing out the remaining African hope at the tournament.
"All I can say is this is football. That's football," Rajevac said.
"I do not know what I would tell him (Suarez) if I saw him. We had a penalty in the last minute, but it was bad luck, that's all I can say. We weren't lucky today.
"This is sport and justice. Today Uruguay were the lucky ones."
Argentina shattered as Maradona mulls future
Cape Town Argentina head home on Sunday with their World Cup dream in tatters and coach Diego Maradona lamenting the toughest day of his life as he considers whether to quit.The South American giants didn't just lose to long-time rival Germany in the quarter-finals, they were humiliated 4-0 and it appears Maradona's reign could be over.
A third-minute goal by Thomas Mueller stunned the Argentines, putting them in an unaccustomed position, and they never recovered.
Germany turned the screw after the interval with Miroslav Klose getting two more in his 100th game and centre-back Arne Friedrich scoring his first for his country.
It was Argentina's worst World Cup defeat since they lost to the Netherlands, also 4-0, in 1974 and Maradona said he felt a deep sadness.
"The day I stopped playing football could be similar, but this sadness is really strong," said the former midfield maestro, who hung up his boots on his 37th birthday in 1997.
"It's tough because the idea was to go beyond this match and be among the four best teams and we didn't achieve that.
"We all had this hope and dream and we were just thinking about winning and the opposite happened."
As one of Argentina's most celebrated and controversial figures, on and off the field, Maradona has been through countless highs and lows, but he said yesterday's defeat was the hardest thing he had ever faced.
"I lived through this in 1982 as a player. I was a boy and didn't realise the importance of things," he said.
"Today I'm nearly 50, I'm mature and this is the toughest moment in my life. It is really like a kick in the face. I have no more energy for anything."
Maradona, who was appointed coach in November 2008 after overcoming cocaine addiction despite having little previous managerial experience, indicated that that he may quit, but that he needed time to think.
He said in his post-match press-conference that "I may leave tomorrow", but when pushed, Maradona appeared to backtrack.
"We will see what happens. I haven't thought about leaving, I have to check with my family, with the players. There are a number of things I have to consider," said the 49-year-old.
"But as coach and player, the type of football people like is this one. Touch the ball, rotate, run, Argentina can't play a different style."
Argentina is a football-mad nation and how the team is recieved on their return could determine Maradona's fate.
He is acutely aware of having let down an expectant nation.
"I am totally disappointed like everyone in Argentina," he said.
"We will go back to our country and that is difficult after losing but we will sit down and work out what happened.
"I don't think anybody can be happy with the result. We live and breathe football and no-one will be glad we lost 4-0."
While Maradona was clearly upset at losing, it was the size of the defeat that was the real surprise.
Few expected Germany to take them apart as they did, with Argentina coming into the match having won all their group games and the round of 16 clash against Mexico.
Maradona suggested that the scoreline did not tell the real story, despite Germany controlling the game.
"We studied Germany well and defined exactly who was playing where but from the first cross they got a goal and suddenly it was a different match," he said of Mueller's opener.
"We made it easy for them. They had more ideas and better control of the ball. They took advantage of the opportunities they had.
"But this does not take away from my belief that the result does not correspond with what happened on the pitch.
Of Brazil, Ghana and two heartbreaks in one night
Avijit Ghosh, 03 July 2010, 03:44 PM ISTIt never really needed any kind of confirmation, but then this is it. Late Friday night we saw why football is the greatest game in the world, and, also why it always will be. No other sport evokes so many emotions so fervently and so honestly across the globe. No other sport offers such a wide spectrum of human drama --- every emotion that Shakespeare wrote about in those 16th century rom-coms and tragedies played out before our eyes. In those dying minutes of the Ghana-Uruguay extra-time, football became a parable for life. When Gyan slammed that penalty into the woodwork, I knew that Ghana had fluffed its brightest chance. For football is not like boxing. It is not about scoring points and adding them up in the end. Football is not even about justice either; it is just about scoring goals.
Yet we mourn Ghana's exit. There is always a part in us that loves an outsider with heart. In Ghana, we saw the underdog daring for the unthinkable without forsaking its dignity and quality. How we loved those moves and moaned every miss. For a moment, we were Ghana-ians. Why? I really don't know. That's what football does to us humans. Even if they failed to become the first African nation to enter the last four, the Black Stars certainly restored the pride of the host continent. What more can you ask of 11 men?
One would never know what Ghana would have achieved if their best player Michael Essien were fit for the championship. Having followed the EPL closely for the past five years, I harbour no doubt that he would have been the prime mover of this team, the missing piece in the jigsaw that could have taken them beyond. In the context of everything that happened last night, his absence will be endlessly discussed in his country.
For me, Luis Suarez, the Uruguay striker whose handball gave Ghana that last-minute penalty, is also a hero. The referee was right in awarding the penalty and showing him the red card. But Suarez will always be remembered for his supreme sacrifice. The talented striker, whose rainbow-like bender ended the South Korean dream in the last 16, knew that handling the ball meant that his own World Cup was over. But he did it because it gave his country a last chance. He was like one of those infantry soldiers who would sacrifice himself on a suicide mission. He will be an Uruguay Ratna all his life.
My personal heartbreak happened a little earlier in the evening when Brazil was knocked out by Holland. It was harder to handle because it was unexpected. I knew Holland was no pushover. But I thought Brazil was too strong for them.
They indeed were in the first 45 minutes. Apart from that quality Robinho strike, Dunga's boys had at least three more chances to put the game beyond Holland. They didn't. Even then, one goal looked enough. The Oranjes were nowhere in the frame.
Then came the cruellest of cuts: an own goal as both Felipe Mello and goalkeeper Julio Cesar went for the ball. This was the first own goal conceded by Brazil in 97 World Cup games. What a moment to do that!
Now chew on this. Melho wouldn't have played the game but for Elano's injury and that Ramirez was on two yellow cards. But the burly midfielder wasn't through yet. He kicked Robben, that great footballer and actor, and was promptly red-carded.
Till that fortuitous goal, Holland hadn't created a single opening. The goal should have spurred the five-time champion to produce their best. The test of a champion side is its ability to perform under pressure when the chips are down.
But Brazil never managed to do anything special after that. In fact, the equalizer injected kilos of self-belief among the Dutch. They gradually became a more confident side.
The second goal came from another needless defensive mistake. Under no pressure, Juan gave away a corner. Sneijder scored from a header to put the Dutch ahead. There were still 25 minutes to go but Brazil never looked like getting the equalizer. They seemed to have lost self-belief. And they appeared to be already thinking about the hostile reception that would await them.
Any good coach should have had a good plan B in place. Dunga didn't. Replacing Luis Fabiano with Nilmar is a non-plan. At this point, Brazil needed somebody with creative magic. But Dunga had left all those men back in Brazil.
Kaka was a total flop on the day. Right through the tournament he had mispassed by the dozen. But often he helped create one special move. On Friday, he couldn't create a single chance worth mentioning. He was meant to be the spine and leader of the squad. He was not. Dunga had clearly bet on the wrong horse.
Better Dutch teams have lost to Brazil in the past, especially in 1994 and 1998. This team isn't half as good as the team of 1994. But they have grit and steel. And, yes, luck. May be they will achieve what Cryuff's 1974 team didn't.
So Brazil is gone. Hopefully they will be back with a stronger, more creative side. It has been 18 hours since but the heartache persists. For all its limitations, every Brazilian fan knew this was a strong team. And deserved to do much better. One also knows that in any five-match series with the same Dutch team, Brazil would win at least four. But the real point is, can you display your best in a crunch game. Brazil didn't and suffered. What is football but being the best in those 90 minutes.
But let us enjoy this World Cup beyond all this. There'll be plenty of great football in the coming days. Meanwhile, I am living in heartbreak central.
When Gyan spilt Africa's life
FIFA World Cup|Uruguay|Ghana|Diego Forlan|Luis Suarez
The two-time world champions reached the last-four for the first time in 40 years after denying the Ghanaians from becoming the first African team to reach the semi-finals of a World Cup.
Uruguay held their nerve to win the penalty shoot-out 4-2 after it was locked at 1-1 after extra-time at Soccer City on Friday.
Striker Luis Suarez, whose deliberate handball in the final minute of extra-time denied Ghana the winning goal, will miss the Dutch showdown after he was red-carded by Portuguese referee Olegario Benquerenca.
Asamoah Gyan had the chance to win the match for Ghana, but the Rennes forward crashed his penalty against the crossbar forcing the match into penalties.
Coach Oscar Tabarez may also have to find a new centre-back pairing after Jorge Fucile received his second yellow card of the tournament and skipper Diego Lugano withdrew before halftime with an injured right knee.
"I don't know how far we can go. The Netherlands have great players but we cannot betray this group of players," Tabarez said.
"We have a little time to prepare for the match but we are going there to win.
"We didn't play good football against Ghana but we fought very hard.
"We are amongst the four best teams at this World Cup. This is something we would never have imagined before coming to South Africa."
Debate raged on Saturday over Suarez's deliberate handball, which ultimately proved decisive for the Uruguayans, who lost 3-1 to Brazil the last time they reached the World Cup semifinals in Mexico in 1970.
The Ajax striker was hailed as a hero in Uruguay for what he has called his 'Hand of God.'
Diego Maradona famously credited a goal against England at the 1986 World Cup to the "Hand of God" after he scored with his hand.
"I did it so that my teammates could win the penalty shoot-out. When I saw Gyan miss the penalty it was a great joy," Suarez said.
Man-of-the-match Diego Forlan spoke for his teammates when he said of Suarez's actions:" "It's a pity (he will miss the semi), he made a good save today, we'll try to do our best.
"He played his part. He didn't score a goal but he saved one and now we go to the semifinal."
Tabarez supported Suarez amid cheating accusations, by saying:"It was instinctive, he instinctively put his hand out to the ball and was red-carded and will miss the next game.
"He has paid for the consequences of his actions. He wasn't to know that Ghana would miss the resulting penalty. It is not fair to say that we cheated our way to victory."
But Ghana's Serbian coach Milovan Rajevac was sanguine about the manner in which his team was dumped from the World Cup and thereby snuffing out the remaining African hope at the tournament.
"All I can say is this is football. That's football," Rajevac said.
"I do not know what I would tell him (Suarez) if I saw him. We had a penalty in the last minute, but it was bad luck, that's all I can say. We weren't lucky today.
"This is sport and justice. Today Uruguay were the lucky ones."
Bylines, bonanza and blackout
Pradeep Vijaykar, 03 July 2010, 01:32 PM IST
There was no chance for me to celebrate International Sports Journalists Day on July 2 as there was work, work and work. And the usual tight-rope walking, balancing act you call it. Why because of my penchant over the last 40 years to provide a level field to all sports - from kabaddi to kho kho to bridge and rugby and gymnastics, mallamkhab, body building to squash, billiards snooker plus the Olympic sports and not the least cricket in which I have covered five World Cups from 1979 onwards. July 2 was the day when, 86 years ago, the International Sports Press Association was established at the 1924 Paris Olympics. Elsewhere in the world from Nepal to Karachi to Patna and Assam rallies were held and meetings to mark the day.
The morning was spent attending the 13th day shraddha ceremony of former Test player Gundibail Sunderam. Several local players were present. Asked to speak I said the fellowship that cricket promotes distinguishes it from other sports and that was why Sunderam was held in great esteem. His boss at Mekaster, Virendra Mohan Trehan, flew down from Delhi for the occasion. Around the same time spin wizard Bishen Singh Bedi was to arrive at MCA's swank indoor complex to impart gyaan to the Mumbai's juniors, a visit arranged by smart thinking from journalist Makarand Waingankar who used Bedi's visit for the Saturday (July 3) Dilip Sardesai Memorial Lecture at the CCI on his second death anniversary on July 2. Sunil Gavaskar delivered the first one last year.
Bedi's flight was delayed when he arrived he found time not enough for a three-hour discourse, he postponed it to next week. That gave me time to move to Otters Cup where the big-time squash was on and the juniors were slugging it out. The future of Indian squash was in view. And I was not going to miss any of it having covered the sport since 1972 when I accompanied The Times of India's all-time great journalist Leyland de Sousa to the CCI courts.
There were encouraging mothers watching their kids slug it out. It was amazing to see what levels of energy the kids have. The moment one game got over the kids would rush into the courts to knock the ball around, some showing control to get the ball back to themselves to play solo, others giving each other posers with drops and drives. Young Otters lass Sachika Balvani scalped women's second seed Ankita Sharma. How one wished Sachika's dad was there. Once in-charge of Times Music, Ishwin Balvani passed away a few years ago. He spent all his spare time egging his kids (Ishaan was junior champ and went to the Ivy League) to play the sport.
For over a hundred Indian kids squash has been the platform to American Universities. There's precious little talent in other parts of the world and many of them get full scholarships. All thanks to the coverage we provide through our columns. No wonder then Anil Nayar won the US title in the 60s. In the 80s, Adrian Ezra emulated him and was inducted in the college sports Hall of Fame. And this year three Indians, Parth Sharma, Vikram Malhotra and Supreet Singh were part of the winning Trinity team and Alisha Mashruwalla in the winning women's Harvard team.
Of course it is a squash drain because these kids stay back and do jobs in the US, mostly investment banking but no one can complain as because of a few sports dominating people just can't think of continuing in other sports.
At the end of the day the future of Indian squash looked even brighter when Navy man Vikas Jangra ousted India star Riwtik Bhattacharya. And cousin Sandeep all but beat India No. 2 Harinder Pal Sandhu.
A decade ago one had written about these frail-looking Jangra kids when they were being put through their paces by Sunil Verma at the Jindal Squash Academy at Jindal Steel complex at Vashind, some 75 km from Mumbai. Sajjan Jindal, the steel baron, played squash at Willingdon Sports Club and wanted to make it grow. I provided the media backing, Jindal, was encouraged and a new generation of players has flowered, which hopefully won't drain out to the US as these are middle class kids who will be happy and contended with what they get. Imagine travelling 75 km two ways every day to play tournaments in Mumbai! Resilience of a sportsman begins here.
Holland were playing Brazil, yet the Otters arena was packed watching the Otters Open men's squash semi-final. Otters squash aficionados delayed their happy hours to see the finish of the semi-final and then went on to enjoy the soccer and the brew.
This made my day. The multi-sport and multi-dimensional sportsscribe in me chuckled in delight seeing the commitment of the squash buffs.
Commitment indeed was the key note of the address of Gianni Merlo, president of AIPs, the world sports journalist federation, on the occasion of International Sports Journalists Day. Just back from the FIFA World Cup Giano stated, "With the ever-present development of new technology our profession continues to evolve almost daily. The recent AIPS Congress in Antalya, Turkey focussed on the impact of the so-called 'New Media'. We must keep up with change and embrace it in order to stay relevant and not be afraid. It is our duty to defend the independence of our profession at all levels. Our role in the coming years will be important - we must join the fight to save the integrity of sport. We cannot allow corruption to take over and spoil what is at the very heart of our lives.''
One went to sound sleep reading those lofty ideals. The morning brought a shock, a thud in the bheja. Not a line appeared of what I wrote about the tournament and Numero Uno Ritwik had lost. For a change one blamed it on football and not cricket for nudging other sports out of the sports pages. It's the spice of the moment. The setback won't stop me from going back to Otters for the finals though the officials are going to make snide remarks about the squash blackout.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Sportvicarious/entry/bylines-bonanza-and-blackout
Paes-Black win Wimbledon mixed doublesHindustan Times - 35 minutes ago India's Leander Paes and Cara Black of Zimbabwe beat South African Wesley Moodie and Lisa Raymond of the US 6-4, 7-6 (5) to win the Wimbledon mixed doubles title on Sunday. With this victory, Paes surpassed his one-time doubles partner Mahesh Bhupathi ... Doubles joy for Paes and BlackThe Press Association - 11 minutes ago India's Leander Paes and Zimbabwe's Cara Black won their first Wimbledon title together with a 6-4 7-6 (7/5) victory over Wesley Moodie and Lisa Raymond in the mixed doubles final. Both Paes and Black had won titles at the All England Club before, ... Paes and Black beat Moodie and Raymond for 1st Wimbledon mixed title togetherThe Canadian Press - 46 minutes ago WIMBLEDON, United Kingdom — Leander Paes of India and Zimbabwe's Cara Black have won the Wimbledon mixed doubles title for their third Grand Slam championship together. They defeated South Africa's Wesley Moodie and American Lisa Raymond 6-4, ... Paes wins Wimbledon mixed doubles for 12th Grand SlamIndia Talkies - 6 minutes ago London, July 5 – India's Leander Paes and Zimbabwe's Cara Black won the Wimbledon mixed doubles titles, overpowering Wesley Moodie of South Africa and American Lisa Raymond 6-4, 7-6 (7-5) here Sunday. The second seeded Indo-Zimbabwean pair, ... Tennis-Paes, Black calm early nerves to win mixed doubles titleReuters Africa - - 36 minutes ago LONDON July 4 (Reuters) - Cara Black and Leander Paes overcame some early jitters to win the Wimbledon mixed doubles title in straight sets on Sunday. India's Paes and Black from Zimbabwe strolled on Centre Court after Rafael Nadal had won the men's ... Amritraj praises Paes who readies for another finalTimes of India - - 21 hours ago LONDON: Indian tennis legend Vijay Amritraj applauded countryman Leander Paes for longevity and heart. The 37-year-old Kolkatan, who along with Zimbabwe's Cara Black, is seeded two in the Wimbledon mixed-doubles, takes on South African Wesley Moodie ... Mixed DoublesWimbledon - - 4 minutes ago India's Leander Paes created another piece of Wimbledon history right at the end of a memorable Championships by becoming only the second man to win Wimbledon titles in three different decades. The 37-year-old, together with Zimbabwean partner Cara ... | Timeline of articlesNumber of sources covering this story
|
Jackie Selebi: South Africa's 'corrupt' police chief
South African police chief guilty of taking drug bribes
Ex South African Police Chief Guilty of Corruption
ANC youth join in denouncing Selebi
S.Africa's ex-top cop found guilty of corruption
Former South Africa police chief convicted of taking bribes
Former S.African police chief found guilty of graft
Selebi 'corruption' verdict due
South Africa's Top Cop Found Guilty Of Corruption
Former South Africa Police Chief Convicted of Corruption
S.African ex-Interpol chief convicted of corruption
Ex-Interpol chief convicted of corruption
Ex-South African police chief faces 15 years in jail
South Africa: Former Head of Police Force Guilty of Corruption
Ex-police chief accepted bribes from drug baron
South Africa ex-police head Selebi guilty of corruption
South Africa Convicts Ex-Police Chief
S Africa police chief guilty of accepting bribes
Selebi guilty of corruption
World Cup Travels in Post-Apartheid South Africa
CAPE TOWN—In Cape Town, we stay in a neighborhood called Observatory, at the home of Darryl, a friend of a friend, who kindly picks us up at the airport and gives us a tour of the city. He points out Robben Island, a spot of land on the horizon, the place where Nelson Mandela spent almost two decades in prison doing hard labor in a lime quarry. Darryl, whose grandparents immigrated to South Africa from Eastern Europe, is now 40, so Mandela was imprisoned during his entire childhood. "Growing up, I didn't know what Robben Island was," he says. "I had never heard of it."
It's hard to imagine that something so tangible, so visible in the distance, could have been unknown to someone growing up so near. But there was censorship, and only one TV station, and that's the way apartheid worked: It kept people blind.
There was a soccer league on Robben Island during Nelson Mandela's tenure, Chuck Korr recounts in the book More Than Just a Game. Prisoners constructed goals made from planks of wood and fishing nets washed up on the shores of the island, and an inmate who had been a cobbler cut and molded studs into the soles of sandals the prisoners had fashioned out of car tires.
I call up several former Robben Island inmates who decades ago organized the soccer league and ask them what they think of South Africa's hosting the World Cup.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon"I see whites, blacks, they all fly the South African flag for the first time," says Sedick Isaacs, now 70 and a retired professor. "This can change people."
"It's a terrible waste of resources," says Marcus Solomon, also now 70, the founder of a children's organization, who says the stadium construction money could better have been spent on housing for shack-dwellers and the homeless. But of course he is watching the games. "Your soul is dead if you're not interested in sport."
The Cape of Good Hope is the tip of the continent, the meeting of the warm, green-tinged Indian Ocean and the cold, gray-blue Atlantic—and if it isn't the end of the world, it feels like it. The rough rocks and red earth drop down to form a raggedy edge of land, with wind gusting so hard that it's difficult to move against it. This was the first place Europeans landed in South Africa when they came to settle here, when the Dutch East India Company founded the colony of Cape Town as a supply station for ships sailing to India and the Far East. This bit of the world is incredibly beautiful: When we climb to the top of Table Mountain, we are higher than the clouds, and we watch them drift in, first in spiky waves below us, then toward us, encompassing us in tufts of mist.
It's easy to see that this country is one of those places whose incredible physical loveliness coexists with tortured human relations. Of course, I have just skimmed the surface here. But part of what has been most interesting about this trip is seeing the ways South Africa mirrors our own country. Every time I sit down to write about its excesses, I realize they are our own. We, too, are obsessed by race. We, too, have a history where European colonists came, moved to inhospitable hinterlands, developed myths around their hardships, deepened a sense of religious mission, seized land, and moved the native people of the place onto some kind of reserve. In the American case, most of the indigenous people were killed, and now our national mythologizing has mostly moved on. Traveling South Africa, I saw many different ways apartheid played out, and some of them feel somehow familiar, echoes of possible American fates.
But something about this trip has been uncomplicated, too. South Africa is a country whose people love soccer, and they are enjoying a global tournament on their own soil. The soccer love in this country is everywhere: School holidays were extended for the World Cup, work slowed down, and roads closed. This tournament spawned its own arts: clay pots and beaded change purses that say FIFA 2010 (in absolute violation of stringent copyright rules), life-size and key-chain soccer players made of beads, paintings of elephants and zebras kicking soccer balls. Some whites we encountered said they had previously thought of soccer as a game only for blacks, but for the first time they were obsessively following the fate of Bafana Bafana. And, in almost every place we pass through, kids were playing the game—even if the goal posts were piles of rocks in the middle of a dirt street. In a deserted restaurant in a small town where we had a late dinner one night, the waiters started kicking a soccer ball around with a patron inside among the tables—until a few wine glasses were smashed—but the manager just came out and shook his head without reprimand.
I've become used to this routine: Present the gold-embossed FIFA ticket to the collector, share a huge smile, enter a stadium filled with fans in national blocs: the two teams playing, plus South Africans.
Our last game is Spain vs. Portugal in the round of 16.
"No. 8 and No. 6 are kind of like a metronome—they keep the rhythm, they pass the ball back and forth," says my boyfriend, Marcel, of the Spanish team.
Sure enough, I watch fast, even passing: tick, tick, tick.
Over three weeks traveling watching soccer in South Africa, I didn't quite develop a passion for the game, but I did come to appreciate it. I like the way it's pared down—a person and a ball. No other equipment. No armor, no accessories. Just skill, instinct, wiliness, speed. It's a great equalizer and a beautiful thing to watch. No one ever really has the ball—the players can't hold it in their hands—the best any player can do is touch and guide it with the chest, the head, the foot, and move it on.
on the Fray
Soccer Is Not a National Metaphor
A losing team does not reflect a failed state.
South African journalists generally looked forward to the World Cup with loathing, anticipating that all the thorny political and corruption stories they struggle even under normal circumstances to get readers interested in would be buried under an avalanche of trivial game broadcasts and match reports pumped out by foreign sportswriters. And so, one afternoon not long before the kickoff, a group of local writers were grousing about the World Cup over lunch in Johannesburg. At one point, a spirit of confession took hold, and one of them revealed he was planning to write a little about the soccer. "Oh," said another, sympathetically. "You must mean soccer as metaphor."
He didn't. He meant soccer as soccer, actually: deep world-historical issues like dribbling, crossing, and scoring goals. But his companion was more prescient. This has become the World Cup of soccer-as-metaphor. We've watched dribbling, crossing, and scoring of a particular team described as a reflection of its nation's political situation, national mood, or future trajectory. An Italy loss represents the decline of Old Europe. A Ghana win represents the economic aspirations of the entire African continent. And so forth. But this is a category error. It's wrong to assume the most beautiful people are the smartest, and it's also wrong to imagine the most capable nations in this World Cup are much other than capable at soccer.
This conflation began this year with South Africa. It wasn't an unreasonable instinct, in the beginning. You could find plenty of clues to South Africa's greater well-being in its preparations to host the World Cup: Could it handle all the logistics involved, just 15 years after the transition out of apartheid? Could the local governments in scandal-ridden provinces like Mpumalanga get it together to finish their stadiums in time? Could crime, the national scourge, be kept in check? Would black and white fans unite to attend the games?
But as kickoff approached, the mad search for soccer synecdoche extended from preparations to the performance of the South African soccer team itself. "DO IT FOR MANDELA," headlines screamed the morning Bafana Bafana took on Mexico in the tournament's opener, as if a triumph on the pitch would somehow ratify Mandela's greater work to reconcile the country after black liberation. Then, the team's subsequent 3–0 loss to Uruguay supposedly reflected the ways in which South Africans had fallen short of Mandela's standard—like their tendency to "thrive when their confidence is up but wilt quickly in adversity," as one newspaper put it. And as South Africa's nervous, unfocused second effort stood in for the country's current growing pains and lack of unity, so the score in its final match-up against France was held to be a sort of set of chicken bones that could divine whether the country would set itself right in the end. "All South Africans should appreciate that support for Bafana Bafana is support for South Africa as a country and its ability to overcome all difficulties," asserted the youth branch of the ruling political party in an official statement. Or, as one fan explained it to the South African wire service: "Bafana Bafana is us!"
I suspect France would rather not imagine that Les Bleus are them, given the team's unbelievable flameout in a bathetic melodrama of losses, intra-team screaming matches, and strikes by the players. But France the team has also been endlessly compared with France the country. I mean, going on strike: that's so French! More alarmingly, the team's meltdown is said to foretell of a coming racial meltdown back home. The New York Times wrote a whole article from Paris about it, in which a French philosopher explained that the players' behavior mirrored the unrest of the North African youth in the ghettos around Paris. The multiracial soccer team "behaved as individuals," said the politician Marine Le Pen, neatly demonstrating how it may be impossible for France ever to forge a multicultural national identity.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, we Americans were celebrating Team America's redemption of American identity. Landon Donovan's last-gasp goal in the game against Algeria seemed not merely fabulous but fabulously Yankee. It reflected our resilience, our earnestness, our up-by-the-bootstraps philosophy of believing perseverance can overcome any obstacle, even up to and including lack of actual talent. "Landon Donovan scores game-winner that embodies American spirit," shouted the headline in the New York Daily News. "Whatever, however, the U.S. will find a way," proclaimed the New York Post. My old colleague at The New Republic, Franklin Foer, went so far as to declare the U.S. team's "temerity" a "potent tool for our public diplomacy."
Which made it all the more perplexing when the United States flubbed its next game, against Ghana. Hey, what happened? This was supposed to have been soccer's "Barack Obama moment," Foer lamented. I guess that makes Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan soccer's Deepwater Horizon.
Maybe the Americans lost because the Ghanaian team happens to play better soccer, not because the last year or so has revealed the general fragility of Barack Obama moments. Now, it's undeniably fun to read something bigger into the World Cup. It's a contest of nations that falls somewhere between real life and Risk: the countries are real, but their jostle for top-dog status comes to a satisfyingly conclusive end, unlike actual history. One country wins. And it's hard to resist the temptation to think the final score vindicates the winner's whole culture and governing philosophy, not just its coach. It's especially hard to resist if you don't know much about the game itself.
But the conflation has sharp limits. Take France. Twelve years ago, France won the World Cup—and the 3–0 blowout against Brazil was heralded as evidence that multiculturalism was working. The Los Angeles Times called the win "an unassailable argument that generations of immigrants have brought into France a rich flow of talent, physical strength and brains." One politician lauded the soccer team's "secret mission" to teach a "lesson" of "unity" to the French people. I guess les Français weren't very good pupils, because four years later the right-wing politician Jean-Marie Le Pen came in second in the presidential election.
Or consider Switzerland. The team that shocked Spain in the qualification stage is more multiethnic than the Spanish squad—which fields Turks, Albanians, a Congolese, and a Cape Verdean. But what does that mean in the year Switzerland voted to ban minarets?
Anyway, investing so much meaning in a team can be not only silly, but dangerous. France needs a national identity crisis like it needs a hole in the head, and it really doesn't need one triggered by something as trivial as a grudgematch between a soccer player and his coach. Down here in South Africa, I've heard more than a few whine-fests about the soccer team turn into whine-fests about the entire country. Bafana Bafana is twenty-three guys. It isn't the soul of the nation.
Yesterday, Ghana took on Uruguay in a quarterfinal match in Johannesburg. As the last team from Africa in the running, they had a not-so-secret mission: to prove the whole continent is on the upswing. Most South Africans I know—white and black—rooted for Ghana now, and not because they particularly revere Asamoah Gyan's footwork. When I watched the team beat the U.S. last weekend with a South African friend in a Cape Town bar, I suggested it was a little ridiculous to cheer for America's loss in my face when he couldn't even find Accra on a map. "I have to root for my people," he huffed. How about supporting Germany, then: one of Ghana's top players, the Ghanaian-German defender Jerome Boateng, plays for the German national team.
If you need to assign this World Cup a metaphor, it would the breakdown of international borders altogether. But I like the attitude of my one South African friend who is rooting for Germany. Is it because of Boateng's story? Does he enjoy Berlin? Admire something about the "German spirit"? No, he told me, laughing. He likes how Germany attacks down the middle when it plays soccer.
Eve Fairbanks is a writer living in South Africa as a fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs.
http://www.newsweek-interactive.org/2010/07/03/soccer-is-not-a-national-metaphor.html?from=rss
| Beneath the glitter of the World Cup | Send to a friend |
| Friday, 02 July 2010 09:16 |
| 0diggsdigg  An injured woman is helped by colleagues after a protest near the Moses Mabhida World Cup stadium in Durban on June 14, 2010. The protest broke out after stadium workers said they had not been properly paid By the time the first whistle in the South AfricAąMexico World Cup opener was blown, preparations for the global soccer fest had wolfed down over $6 billion (Sh486 billion), money sourced from Fifa and South Africa's public coffers. In the din of a million vuvuzelas, does South Africa have any business hosting the World Cup just to prove that "Africa can make promises, keep those promises and deliver on them?" Obviously, the event will reverse stereotypes of the "dark continent" besides South Africa remaining in global consciousness for years. While such intangible benefits are priceless, South African taxpayers will be paying for this World Cup for decades. And, examined closely, the psychological "feel-good factor" is not as significant as wrestling the vast, serious and more urgent socio-economic challenges facing the 16-year old democracy. Cynics are also asking whether Pretoria could have spared the $1 billion (Sh81billion) spent on the 10 swanky World Cup stadia on socio-economic projects, had it been denied hosting rights. Most people in South Africa, the continent's biggest economy, live in seedy conditions. They need more schools than stadia, better sanitation than electronic scoreboards, cheaper clinics than fast trains, improved housing than sports hostels, and more drugs in hospitals. So, are the economic and psychological benefits of hosting "The Greatest Show on Earth" greater than reversing effects of 40 years of Apartheid education policy, for instance? South Africa's illiteracy rate stands at 24 per cent of the population aged over 15 years whilw township schools have poorly-trained teachers according to the United Nation's Human Development Report 2009. Dropout rates stand above 50 per cent, and despite the government allocating 20 per cent of its budget to educational programmes, about 30 per cent (six to eight million) adults are functionally illiterate. One out of every four adults is jobless in a country with one of the highest inequalities anywhere. To redress economic inequalities occasioned by Apartheid, the South African government, in 2008, introduced the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), a pragmatic growth strategy to empower disadvantaged South Africans through transfer of ownership, management and financial control of companies, and multi-level transference, employment equity and preferential procurement. But, half of the 50 million South Africans survive on less than $1.25 (Sh100) a day. According to the United Nation's Human Development Report 2009, South Africa is globally ranked 129 out of 182 countries, in Human Poverty Index (HPI), the indicator of a country's standards of living. The Rainbow Nation, where about 50 cash dispensers are raided monthly, has one of the world's highest crime rates in the world according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It is ranked first for assaults, second for murder (Johannesburg has been dubbed the murder capital of the world), and rape per capita. An estimated 500,000 rapes are reported annually. With all these socio-economic goals to score, including fighting an HIV/Aids and TB pandemic, an estimated R1.2 billion (Sh12 billion) was spent on building the 64,100-seater Green Point Stadium, near Khayelitsha Township. Khayelitsha has three government clinics and no running water for its over 1.5 million residents. As part of its official social responsibility campaigns for what Fifa boss Sepp Blatter called "The greatest World Cup in history," Fifa created "20 Football for Hope Centres for 2010" equipped with public health, educational and sporting facilities in 20 African countries. Khayelitsha got one centre, but residents threatened to set up shacks outside Green Point on the eve of the World Cup "to show the world how they live." The UN classifies South Africa as a middle-income country with an abundant supply of resources, well developed financial, communications, energy, transport infrastrutcure and one of the top 20 stock exchanges in the world. But Mthobeli Zona, the deputy chairperson of a local pressure group in Khayelitsha told South Africa's Sowetan newspaper: "We live in dirty and smelling places. We have no jobs. We live shameful lives. There are no toilets here. There is no electricity. We have to pay R20 (Sh200) a month to use other people's toilets." And for all the R1.2 billion (Sh12 billion) spent, The Green Point Stadium hosted only five World Cup matches. Green Point is one of five stadia built from scratch including Cape Town Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium in Port Elizabeth, Durban Stadium, Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit, and Peter Mokaba Stadium in Polokwane to host the "love story between Blatter, Fifa and the continent." The billions spent on building new, instead of upgrading old stadia make little sense considering the squalid conditions of residents next to them. The Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban roughly cost R1.8 billion (Sh18 billion) according to South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan. Yet, at the nearby Cato Crest Township, hundreds of thousands of residents have no access to affordable electricity. Just before the World Cup, over 200 shacks were destroyed by a fourth fire blamed on a paraffin stove reported the Green Left Weekly. Moses Mabhida is a 70,000-seater stadium, yet Durban is a city of two soccer teams with a few thousand fans, according to a website. The 40,000-seater Mbombela stadium cost R600 million (Sh6 billion), while the 45,000-seater Peter Mokaba Stadium cost $154 million (Sh1.1 billion). A community school had to be bulldozed, and students moved to container classrooms, to make way for Mbombela stadium. And by October last year, residents rioted, as the school had not been replaced, according to the Mail&Guardian. Apart from hosting future sports tournaments and music concerts, stadia have little by way of economic benefits once the referee blows the final whistle. And few countries, it seems have learnt from Spain. Aware that huge tournaments leave many abandoned structures, Spain invited experts to redesign the stadia constructed for the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Engineers reconstructed athlete's hostels, apartment style, and put them up for sale. The seaside Olympic Village was refashioned into a mall housing trendy hotels, art galleries, banks and ritzy restaurants. This post-planned Olympic hospitality generates 14 per cent of Barcelona's annual tourism revenues, an increase of two per cent after the Games, according to the Los Angeles Business Journal. It is not clear what South Africans will use the stadia for besides sports and gala events. But Fifa considered many factors before awarding the hosting rights. They included South Africa's capacity to accommodate 450,000 visitors, transport systems, hospitality, information and communication technology, and world-class sports facilities. Infrastructure To meet Fifa requirements, the South African government spent $1 billion (Sh81 billion) on new and upgrading old stadia, $8 million (Sh648 million) on public transport infrastructure, while security, accommodation, branding and marketing swallowed $2 billion (Sh162 billion), according to Danny Jordaan, head of the Local Organising Committee (LOC). This spending earned South Africa several economic free kicks. The World Cup helped to generate 160,000 new full-time and part time jobs, according to Jordaan. For instance, an estimated 8, 000 extra police officers and 2,000 civilians were recruited to provide security while suppliers and contractors smiled all the way to the bank. The gross economic impact of the event, according to global audit firm, Grant Thornton, was expected to claw the R93 billion (Sh930 billion) ceiling, with 63 percent expected to be generated before June 11, the kick off date, and 38 percent after July 11, when the World Cup ends. According to Deloitte Worldwide, the accounting firm, host nations on average experience at least, a 0.3 per cent rise in GDP during major tournaments. But hosting the world cup doesn't necessarily translate into economic development. When Mexico hosted the 1970 edition its economy grew by 6.9 per cent, but fell to 4.2 per cent after the tournament, according to Soccerphile website. (West) Germany didn't fare any better. Its economic growth nosed south by negative 1.5 per cent from 0.2 per cent after hosting the 1974 World Cup. Irony Italy followed the same grim script after Italia '90. Its economy fell by 0.6 per cent from 2 per cent to 1.4 per cent. Same for the USA. The world's biggest economy shrunk from 4 per cent to 2.4 per cent after hosting the 1994 World Cup. France followed suit four years later when its economy dropped to three per cent from 3.5 per cent after France '98, when it won the World Cup on home soil. Only the economies of Argentina and Spain grew from -3.4 to 7.1 and from 1.2 to 1.8 per cent respectively when they hosted the '78 and '82 editions of the tourney respectively. Mexico's too grew from -3.7 to 1.7 per cent after Mexico '86. The post-World Cup benefits or lack of them to South Africa are yet to be seen but the irony of squalour versus big budget sports events was seen in Angola this year. The oil-rich nation hosted the 27th edition of the Africa Cup of Nations in January. Three decades of civil war and its negative effects notwithstanding, Angola forked out $1 billion (Sh81billion) to put up five world-class stadia, refurbishing one from scratch, building new hotels and roads. All that in a country in need of new schools, electricity, sanitation, water and hospitals. Angola is Africa's second biggest oil producer after Nigeria, and the world's fifth largest diamond exporter. But despite the massive wealth, over 60 per cent of Angolans live on less than a dollar (Sh81) day. And the 2010 Fifa World Cup has just placed a magnifying glass on the socio-economic creases on South Africa's post-apartheid fabric. Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group's Africa Media Network Project. |
Watching the World Cup in post-apartheid South Africa. - Robin Shulman - Slate ...
South Africa: Celebrating humanity
Beneath the glitter of the World Cup
Soccer Is Not A National Metaphor
World Cup 2010: Zuma: Tournament Has Inspired Africans
FIFA WC 2010- Soccer and South Africa
What Did South Africa Get?
South Africa life shaped by social U-turn
South Africa set to break even on World Cup
WITNESS-Soccer-World-Cup success left me spellbound
South Africa bracing itself for post World Cup violence
World Cup Digest
The cup half full
World Cup's lasting legacy in South Africa
A glimpse of Mandela's gift
In South Africa, women want a World Cup boost
South Africa under apartheid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| History of South Africa | |
|---|---|
 This article is part of a series | |
| General periods | |
| Before 1652 | |
| 1652 to 1815 | |
| 1815 to 1910 | |
| 1910 to 1948 | |
| 1948 to 1994 | |
| 1994 to present | |
| Specific themes | |
| Economics | |
| Military | |
| Religious | |
| Social | |
| South Africa Portal |
Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpɐrtɦəit], separateness) was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government in South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority non-white inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and minority rule by white people was maintained.
Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times, but apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. New legislation classified inhabitants into racial groups ("black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian"),[1] and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by means of forced removals. From 1958, black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.[2]
Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence as well as a long trade embargo against South Africa.[3] A series of popular uprisings and protests were met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more violent, state organizations responded with increasing repression and state-sponsored violence.
Reforms to apartheid in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid, culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela. The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society.[4]
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Precursors of apartheid
The British colonial rulers introduced a system of Pass Laws in the Cape Colony and Colony of Natal during the 19th century.[5][6][7] This stemmed from the regulation of black people's movement from the tribal regions to those occupied by white and coloured people, ruled by the British. Laws were passed not only to restrict the movement of black people into these areas, but also to prohibit their movement from one district to another without a signed pass. Black people were not allowed onto the streets of towns in the Cape Colony and Natal after dark and had to carry their passes at all times.[8]
The Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892 instituted limits based on financial means and education to the black franchise,[9] and the Natal Legislative Assembly Bill of 1894 deprived Indians of the right to vote.[10] In 1905 the General Pass Regulations Bill denied blacks the vote altogether, limited them to fixed areas and inaugurated the infamous Pass System.[11] Then followed the Asiatic Registration Act (1906) requiring all Indians to register and carry passes,[12] the South Africa Act (1910) that enfranchised whites, giving them complete political control over all other race groups and removing the right of blacks to sit in parliament,[13] the Native Land Act (1913) which prevented all blacks, except those in the Cape, from buying land outside "reserves",[13] the Natives in Urban Areas Bill (1918) designed to force blacks into "locations",[14] the Urban Areas Act (1923) which introduced residential segregation and provided cheap labour for industry led by white people, the Colour Bar Act (1926), preventing anyone black from practicing skilled trades, the Native Administration Act (1927) that made the British Crown, rather than paramount chiefs, the supreme head over all African affairs,[15] the Native Land and Trust Act (1936) that complemented the 1913 Native Land Act and, in the same year, the Representation of Natives Act, which removed previous black voters from the Cape voters' roll.[16] One of the first pieces of segregating legislation enacted by the Jan Smuts' United Party government was the Asiatic Land Tenure Bill (1946), which banned any further land sales to Indians.[17]
Jan Smuts' United Party government began to move away from the rigid enforcement of segregationist laws during World War II.[18] Amid fears integration would eventually lead the nation to racial assimilation, the legislature established the Sauer Commission to investigate the effects of the United Party's policies. The commission concluded integration would bring about a "loss of personality" for all racial groups.
[edit] Institution of apartheid
[edit] The election of 1948
In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid.[19][20] The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).
[edit] Apartheid legislation
| Apartheid legislation in South Africa |
|---|
| Precursors Population Registration Act (1950) |
National Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen "nations" or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups.
The state passed laws which paved the way for "grand apartheid", which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, "petty apartheid" laws were passed. The principal apartheid laws were as follows:[21]
The first grand apartheid law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalised racial classification and introduced an identity card for all persons over the age of eighteen, specifying their racial group.[22] Official teams or Boards were established to come to an ultimate conclusion on those people whose race was unclear.[23] This caused difficulty, especially for coloured people, separating their families as members were allocated different races.[24]
The second pillar of grand apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950.[25] Until then, most settlements had people of different races living side by side. This Act put an end to diverse areas and determined where one lived according to race. Each race was allotted its own area, which was used in later years as a basis of forced removal.[26] Further legislation[which?] in 1951 allowed the government to demolish black shackland slums and forced white employers to pay for the construction of housing for those black workers who were permitted to reside in cities otherwise reserved for white people.
The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 prohibited marriage between persons of different races, and the Immorality Act of 1950 made sexual relations with a person of a different race a criminal offence.
Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as "whites only" applied to public areas, even including park benches.[27] Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.[2] An act of 1956[which?] formalised racial discrimination in employment.
Further laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organizations that were deemed threatening to the government.
Education was segregated by means of the 1953 Bantu Education Act, which crafted a separate system of education for African students and was designed to prepare black people for lives as a labouring class.[28] In 1959 separate universities were created for black, coloured and Indian people. Existing universities were not permitted to enroll new black students. The Afrikaans Medium Decree of 1974 required the use of Afrikaans and English on an equal basis in high schools outside the homelands.[29]
The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 created separate government structures for black citizens and was the first piece of legislation established to support the government's plan of separate development in the Bantustans. The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act of 1958 entrenched the National Party's policy of nominally independent "homelands" for black people. So-called "self–governing Bantu units" were proposed, which would have devolved administrative powers, with the promise later of autonomy and self-government. The Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959 set up a mechanism to transfer capital to the homelands in order to create employment there. Legislation of 1967 allowed the government to stop industrial development in "white" cites and redirect such development to the "homelands". The Black Homeland Citizenship Act of 1970 marked a new phase in the Bantustan strategy. It changed the status of black people living in South Africa so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa, but became citizens of one of the ten autonomous territories. The aim was to ensure a demographic majority of white people within South Africa by having all ten Bantustans choose "independence".
Interracial contact in sport was frowned upon, but there were no segregatory sports laws. The government was able to keep sport segregated using other legislation, such as the Group Areas Act.
The government tightened existing pass laws, compelling black South Africans to carry identity documents to prevent the migration of blacks to "white" South Africa. Any black residents of cities had to be in employment. Families were excluded, thus separating wives from husbands and parents from children. Up until 1956 women were for the most part excluded from these pass requirements as attempts to introduce pass laws for women were met with fierce resistance.[30]
[edit] Disenfranchisement of coloured voters
In 1950, D F Malan announced the NP's intention to create a Coloured Affairs Department.[31] J.G. Strijdom, Malan's successor as Prime Minister, moved to strip voting rights from black and coloured residents of the Cape Province. The previous government had first introduced the Separate Representation of Voters Bill in parliament in 1951; however, a group of four voters, G Harris, WD Franklin, WD Collins and Edgar Deane, challenged its validity in court with support from the United Party.[32] The Cape Supreme Court upheld the act, but the Appeal Court reversed on appeal, finding the act invalid because a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament was needed in order to change the entrenched clauses of the Constitution.[33] The government then introduced the High Court of Parliament Bill (1952), which gave parliament the power to overrule decisions of the court.[34] The Cape Supreme Court and the Appeal Court declared this invalid too.[35]
In 1955 the Strijdom government increased the number of judges in the Appeal Court from five to eleven, and appointed pro-Nationalist judges to fill the new places.[36] In the same year they introduced the Senate Act, which increased the senate from 49 seats to 89.[37] Adjustments were made such that the NP controlled 77 of these seats.[38] The parliament met in a joint sitting and passed the Separate Representation of Voters Act in 1956, which transferred coloured voters from the common voters' roll in the Cape to a new coloured voters' roll.[39] Immediately after the vote, the Senate was restored to its original size. The Senate Act was contested in the Supreme Court, but the recently enlarged Appeal Court, packed with government-supporting judges, rejected the application by the Opposition and upheld the Senate Act, and also the Act to remove coloured voters.[40]
[edit] Unity among white South Africans
Before South Africa became a republic, politics among white South Africans was typified by the division between the chiefly-Afrikaner pro-republicans and the largely English anti-republicans,[41] with the legacy of the Boer War still a factor for some people. Once republican status was attained, Verwoerd called for improved relations and greater accord between those of British descent and the Afrikaners.[42] He claimed that the only difference now was between those who supported apartheid and those in opposition to it. The ethnic divide would no longer be between Afrikaans speakers and English speakers, but rather white and black ethnicities. Most Afrikaners supported the notion of unanimity of white people to ensure their safety. White voters of British descent were divided. Many had opposed a republic, for example leading to a majority "no" vote in Natal.[43] Later, however, some of them recognised the perceived need for white unity, convinced by the growing trend of decolonisation elsewhere in Africa, which left them apprehensive. Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" pronouncement left the British faction feeling that Britain had abandoned them.[44] The more conservative English-speakers gave support to Verwoerd;[45] others were troubled by the severing of ties with Britain and remained loyal to the Crown.[46] They were acutely displeased at the choice between British and South African nationality. Although Verwoerd tried to bond these different blocs, the subsequent ballot illustrated only a minor swell of support,[47] indicating that a great many English speakers remained apathetic and that Verwoerd had not succeeded in uniting the white population.
[edit] Homeland system
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009) |
Under the homeland system, the South African government attempted to divide South Africa into a number of separate states, each of which was supposed to develop into a separate nation-state for a different ethnic group.[48]
Territorial separation was not a new institution. There were, for example, the "reserves" created under the British government in the nineteenth century. Under apartheid, some thirteen per cent of the land was reserved for black homelands, a relatively small amount compared to the total population, and generally in economically unproductive areas of the country. The Tomlinson Commission of 1954 justified apartheid and the homeland system, but stated that additional land ought to be given to the homelands, a recommendation which was not carried out.[citation needed]
With the accession to power of Dr Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd in 1958, the policy of "separate development" came into being, with the homeland structure as one of its cornerstones. Verwoerd came to believe in the granting of independence to these homelands. The government justified its plans on the basis that "(the) government's policy is, therefore, not a policy of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, but a policy of differentiation on the ground of nationhood, of different nations, granting to each self-determination within the borders of their homelands - hence this policy of separate development".[citation needed] Under the homelands system, blacks would no longer be citizens of South Africa; they would instead become citizens of the independent homelands who merely worked in South Africa as foreign migrant labourers on temporary work permits. In 1958 the Promotion of Black Self-Government Act was passed, and border industries and the Bantu Investment Corporation were established to promote economic development and the provision of employment in or near the homelands. Many black South Africans who had never resided in their identified homeland were nonetheless forcibly removed from the cities to the homelands.
Ten homelands were ultimately allocated to different black ethnic groups: Lebowa (North Sotho, also referred to as Pedi), QwaQwa (South Sotho), Bophuthatswana (Tswana), KwaZulu (Zulu), KaNgwane (Swazi), Transkei and Ciskei (Xhosa), Gazankulu (Tsonga), Venda (Venda) and KwaNdebele (Ndebele). Four of these accepted independence (Transkei in 1976, Bophuthatswana in 1977, Venda in 1979, and Ciskei in 1981), although this was never recognised by any other country.
Once a homeland was granted its nominal independence, its designated citizens had their South African citizenship revoked, replaced with citizenship in their homeland. These people were then issued passports instead of passbooks. Citizens of the nominally autonomous homelands also had their South African citizenship circumscribed, meaning they were no longer legally considered South African.[49] The South African government attempted to draw an equivalence between their view of black citizens of the homelands and the problems which other countries faced through entry of illegal immigrants.
[edit] Forced removals
During the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the government implemented a policy of 'resettlement', to force people to move to their designated "group areas". Some argue that over three and a half million people were forced to resettle during this period. These removals included people re-located due to slum clearance programmes, labour tenants on white-owned farms, the inhabitants of the so-called 'black spots', areas of black-owned land surrounded by white farms, the families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and 'surplus people' from urban areas, including thousands of people from the Western Cape (which was declared a 'Coloured Labour Preference Area'[50]) who were moved to the Transkei and Ciskei homelands. The best-publicised forced removals of the 1950s occurred in Johannesburg, when 60,000 people were moved to the new township of Soweto, an abbreviation for South Western Townships.[51][52]
Until 1955 Sophiatown had been one of the few urban areas where blacks were allowed to own land, and was slowly developing into a multiracial slum. As industry in Johannesburg grew, Sophiatown became the home of a rapidly expanding black workforce, as it was convenient and close to town. It could also boast the only swimming pool for black children in Johannesburg.[53] As one of the oldest black settlements in Johannesburg, Sophiatown held an almost symbolic importance for the 50,000 blacks it contained, both in terms of its sheer vibrancy and its unique culture. Despite a vigorous ANC protest campaign and worldwide publicity, the removal of Sophiatown began on 9 February 1955 under the Western Areas Removal Scheme. In the early hours, heavily armed police entered Sophiatown to force residents out of their homes and load their belongings onto government trucks. The residents were taken to a large tract of land, thirteen miles (19 km) from the city centre, known as Meadowlands (that the government had purchased in 1953). Meadowlands became part of a new planned black city called Soweto. The Sophiatown slum was destroyed by bulldozers, and a new white suburb named Triomf (Triumph) was built in its place. This pattern of forced removal and destruction was to repeat itself over the next few years, and was not limited to people of African descent. Forced removals from areas like Cato Manor (Mkhumbane) in Durban, and District Six in Cape Town, where 55,000 coloured and Indian people were forced to move to new townships on the Cape Flats, were carried out under the Group Areas Act of 1950. Ultimately, nearly 600,000 coloured, Indian and Chinese people were moved in terms of the Group Areas Act. Some 40,000 white people were also forced to move when land was transferred from "white South Africa" into the black homelands.[citation needed]
[edit] Petty apartheid
The National Party passed a string of legislation which became known as petty apartheid. The first of these was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949, prohibiting marriage between white people and people of other races. The Immorality Amendment Act 21 of 1950 (as amended in 1957 by Act 23) forbade "unlawful racial intercourse" and "any immoral or indecent act" between a white person and an African, Indian or coloured person.
Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as "white South Africa" without a permit. They were supposed to move to the black "homelands" and set up businesses and practices there. Transport and civil facilities were segregated. Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones. Trains, hospitals and ambulances were segregated.[54] Because of the smaller numbers of white patients and the fact that white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded black hospitals.[55] Blacks were excluded from living or working in white areas, unless they had a pass—nicknamed the dompas ("dumb pass" in Afrikaans). Only blacks with "Section 10" rights (those who had migrated to the cities before World War II) were excluded from this provision. A pass was issued only to a black person with approved work. Spouses and children had to be left behind in black homelands. A pass was issued for one magisterial district (usually one town) confining the holder to that area only. Being without a valid pass made a person subject to arrest and trial for being an illegal migrant. This was often followed by deportation to the person's homeland and prosecution of the employer (for employing an illegal migrant). Police vans patrolled the white areas to round up illegal blacks found there without passes. Black people were not allowed to employ white people in white South Africa.
Although trade unions for black and coloured (mixed race) workers had existed since the early 20th century, it was not until the 1980s reforms that a mass black trade union movement developed.
In the 1970s each black child's education within the Bantu Education system (the education system practiced in black schools within white South Africa) cost the state only a tenth of each white child's. Higher education was provided in separate universities and colleges after 1959. Eight black universities were created in the homelands. Fort Hare University in the Ciskei (now Eastern Cape) was to register only Xhosa-speaking students. Sotho, Tswana, Pedi and Venda speakers were placed at the newly-founded University College of the North at Turfloop, while the University College of Zululand was launched to serve Zulu scholars. Coloureds and Indians were to have their own establishments in the Cape and Natal respectively.
In addition, each black homeland controlled its own separate education, health and police system. Blacks were not allowed to buy hard liquor. They were able only to buy state-produced poor quality beer (although this was relaxed later). Public beaches were racially segregated. Public swimming pools, some pedestrian bridges, drive-in cinema parking spaces, graveyards, parks, and public toilets were segregated. Cinemas and theatres in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks. There were practically no cinemas in black areas. Most restaurants and hotels in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks except as staff. Black Africans were prohibited from attending white churches under the Churches Native Laws Amendment Act of 1957. This was, however, never rigidly enforced, and churches were one of the few places races could mix without the interference of the law. Blacks earning 360 rand a year, 30 rand a month, or more had to pay taxes while the white threshold was more than twice as high, at 750 rand a year, 62.5 rand per month. On the other hand, the taxation rate for whites was considerably higher than that for blacks.
Blacks could never acquire land in white areas. In the homelands, much of the land belonged to a 'tribe', where the local chieftain would decide how the land had to be utilized. This resulted in white people owning almost all the industrial and agricultural lands and much of the prized residential land. Most blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship when the "homelands" became "independent". Thus, they were no longer able to apply for South African passports. Eligibility requirements for a passport had been difficult for blacks to meet, the government contending that a passport was a privilege, not a right. As such, the government did not grant many passports to blacks. Apartheid pervaded South African culture, as well as the law. This was reinforced by much of the media, and the lack of opportunities for the races to mix in a social setting entrenched social distance between people.
[edit] Coloured classification
The population was classified into four groups: Black, White, Indian, and Coloured. (These terms are capitalized to denote their legal definitions in South African law). The Coloured group included people of mixed Bantu, Khoisan, and European descent (with some Malay ancestry, especially in the Western Cape). The Apartheid bureaucracy devised complex (and often arbitrary) criteria at the time that the Population Registration Act was implemented to determine who was Coloured. Minor officials would administer tests to determine if someone should be categorised either Coloured or Black, or if another person should be categorised either Coloured or White. Different members of the same family found themselves in different race groups. Further tests determined membership of the various sub-racial groups of the Coloureds. Many of those who formerly belonged to this racial group are opposed to the continuing use of the term "coloured" in the post-apartheid era, though the term no longer signifies any legal meaning. The expressions 'so-called Coloured' (Afrikaans sogenaamde Kleurlinge) and 'brown people' (bruinmense) acquired a wide usage in the 1980s.
Discriminated against by apartheid, Coloureds were as a matter of state policy forced to live in separate townships—in some cases leaving homes their families had occupied for generations—and received an inferior education, though better than that provided to Black South Africans. They played an important role in the anti-apartheid movement: for example the African Political Organization established in 1902 had an exclusively coloured membership.
Voting rights were denied to Coloureds in the same way that they were denied to blacks from 1950 to 1983. However, in 1977 the NP caucus approved proposals to bring coloured and Indians into central government. In 1982, final constitutional proposals produced a referendum among white voters, and the Tricameral Parliament was approved. The Constitution was reformed the following year to allow the Coloured and Asian minorities participation in separate Houses in a Tricameral Parliament, and Botha became the first Executive State President. The theory was that the Coloured minority could be granted voting rights, but the Black majority were to become citizens of independent homelands. These separate arrangements continued until the abolition of apartheid. The Tricameral reforms led to the formation of the (anti-apartheid) UDF as a vehicle to try and prevent the co-option of coloureds and Indians into an alliance with white South Africans. The subsequent battles between the UDF and the NP government from 1983 to 1989 were to become the most intense period of struggle between left-wing and right-wing South Africans.
[edit] Women under apartheid
Colonialism and apartheid had a major impact on women since they suffered both racial and gender discrimination. Oppression against African women was different from discrimination against men. They had very few or no legal rights, no access to education and no right to own property.[56] Jobs were often hard to find but many African women worked as agricultural or domestic workers though wages were extremely low, if existent.[57] Children suffered from diseases caused by malnutrition and sanitary problems, and mortality rates were therefore high. The controlled movement of African workers within the country through the Natives Urban Areas Act of 1923 and the pass-laws, separated family members from one another as men usually worked in urban centers, while women were forced to stay in rural areas. Marriage law and births[58] were also controlled by the government and the pro-apartheid Dutch Reformed Church, who tried to restrict African birth rates.
[edit] Other minorities
Defining its East Asian population, which is a minority in South Africa but who do not physically appear to belong any of the four designated groups, was a constant dilemma for the apartheid government. Chinese South Africans who were descendants of migrant workers who came to work in the gold mines around Johannesburg in the late 19th century, were classified as "Other Asian" and hence "non-white", whereas immigrants from Japan and the Republic of China (Taiwan), with which South Africa maintained diplomatic and economic relations, were considered "honorary whites", thus granted the same privileges as normal whites.[59]
[edit] Conservatism
The National Party government implemented, alongside apartheid, a programme of social conservatism. Pornography [60], gambling [61] and other such vices were banned. Cinemas, shops selling alcohol and most other businesses were forbidden from operating on Sundays[62]. Abortion[63], homosexuality[64] and sex education were also restricted; abortion was legal only in cases of rape or if the mother's life was threatened.[63]
Television was not introduced until 1976 because the government viewed it as dangerous.[65] Television was also run on apartheid lines - TV1 broadcast in Afrikaans and English (geared to a white audience), TV2 in Zulu and Xhosa and TV3 in Sotho, Tswana and Pedi (both geared to a black audience), and TV4 mostly showed programmes for an urban-black audience.
[edit] Internal resistance
The system of apartheid sparked significant internal resistance.[3] The government responded to a series of popular uprisings and protests with police brutality, which in turn increased local support for the armed resistance struggle.[66] Internal resistance to the apartheid system in South Africa came from several sectors of society and saw the creation of organizations dedicated variously to peaceful protests, passive resistance and armed insurrection.
In 1949 the youth wing of the African National Congress (ANC) took control of the organization and started advocating a radical black nationalist programme. The new young leaders proposed that white authority could only be overthrown through mass campaigns. In 1950 that philosophy saw the launch of the Programme of Action, a series of strikes, boycotts and civil disobedience actions that led to occasionally violent clashes with the authorities.
In 1959 a group of disenchanted ANC members formed the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), which organised a demonstration against pass books on 21 March 1960. One of those protests was held in the township of Sharpeville, where 69 people were killed by police in the Sharpeville massacre.
In the wake of the Sharpeville incident the government declared a state of emergency. More than 18 000 people were arrested, including leaders of the ANC and PAC, and both organisations were banned. The resistance went underground, with some leaders in exile abroad and others engaged in campaigns of domestic sabotage and terrorism.
In May 1961, prior to the declaration of South Africa as a Republic, an assembly representing the banned ANC called for negotiations between the members of the different ethnic groupings, threatening demonstrations and strikes during the inauguration of the Republic if their calls were ignored.
When the government overlooked them, the strikers (among the main organizers was a 42-year old, Thembu-origin Nelson Mandela) carried out their threats. The government countered swiftly by giving police the authority to arrest people for up to twelve days and detaining many strike leaders amid numerous cases of police brutality.[67] Defeated, the protesters called off their strike. The ANC then chose to launch an armed struggle through a newly formed military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), which would perform acts of sabotage on tactical state structures. Its first sabotage plans were carried out on 16 December 1961, the anniversary of the Battle of Blood River.
In the 1970s the Black Consciousness Movement was created by tertiary students influenced by the American Black Power movement. BC endorsed black pride and African customs and did much to alter the feelings of inadequacy instilled among black people by the apartheid system. The leader of the movement, Steve Biko, was taken into custody on 18 August 1977 and was murdered in detention.
In 1976 secondary students in Soweto took to the streets in the Soweto uprising to protest against forced tuition in Afrikaans. On 16 June, police opened fire on students in what was meant to be a peaceful protest. According to official reports 23 people were killed, but news agencies put the number as high as 600 killed and 4000 injured.[68] In the following years several student organisations were formed with the goal of protesting against apartheid, and these organisations were central to urban school boycotts in 1980 and 1983 as well as rural boycotts in 1985 and 1986.
In parallel to student protests, labour unions started protest action in 1973 and 1974. After 1976 unions and workers are considered to have played an important role in the struggle against apartheid, filling the gap left by the banning of political parties. In 1979 black trade unions were legalised and could engage in collective bargaining, although strikes were still illegal.
At roughly the same time churches and church groups also emerged as pivotal points of resistance. Church leaders were not immune to prosecution, and certain faith-based organisations were banned, but the clergy generally had more freedom to criticise the government than militant groups did.
Although the majority of whites supported apartheid, some 20 percent did not. Parliamentary opposition was galvanised by Helen Suzman, Colin Eglin and Harry Schwarz who formed the Progressive Federal Party. Extra-parliamentary resistance was largely centred in the South African Communist Party and women's organisation the Black Sash. Women were also notable in their involvement in trade union organisations and banned political parties.
[edit] International relations
| International opposition to Apartheid in South Africa |
|---|
| |
| Campaigns |
| Academic boycott · Sporting boycott |
| Instruments and legislation |
| UN Resolution 1761 (1962) |
| Organisations |
| Anti-Apartheid Movement |
| Conferences |
| 1964 Conference for Economic Sanctions |
| UN Security Council Resolutions |
| Resolution 181 · Resolution 191 |
| Other aspects |
| Elimination of Racism Day |
[edit] Commonwealth
South Africa's policies were subject to international scrutiny in 1960, when British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan criticised them during his celebrated Wind of Change speech in Cape Town. Weeks later, tensions came to a head in the Sharpeville Massacre, resulting in more international condemnation. Soon thereafter, Verwoerd announced a referendum on whether the country should become a republic. Verwoerd lowered the voting age for whites to eighteen and included whites in South West Africa on the voter's roll. The referendum on 5 October that year asked whites, "Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union?", and 52 percent voted "Yes".[69]
As a consequence of this change of status, South Africa needed to reapply for continued membership of the Commonwealth, with which it had privileged trade links. Even though India became a republic within the Commonwealth in 1947 it became clear that African and Asian member states would oppose South Africa due to its apartheid policies. As a result, South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth on 31 May 1961, the day that the Republic came into existence.
[edit] United Nations
"We speak out to put the world on guard against what is happening in South Africa. The brutal policy of apartheid is applied before the eyes of the nations of the world. The peoples of Africa are compelled to endure the fact that on the African continent the superiority of one race over another remains official policy, and that in the name of this racial superiority murder is committed with impunity. Can the United Nations do nothing to stop this?"
At the first UN gathering in 1946, South Africa was placed on the agenda. The primary subject in question was the handling of South African Indians, a great cause of divergence between South Africa and India. In 1952, apartheid was again discussed in the aftermath of the Defiance Campaign, and the UN set up a task team to keep watch on the progress of apartheid and the racial state of affairs in South Africa. Although South Africa's racial policies were a cause for concern, most countries in the UN concurred that this was a domestic affair, which fell outside the UN's jurisdiction.[71]
In April 1960, the UN's conservative stance on apartheid changed following the Sharpeville massacre, and the Security Council for the first time agreed on concerted action against the apartheid regime, demanding an end to racial separation and discrimination. From 1960 the ANC began a campaign of armed struggle of which there would later be a charge of 193 acts of terrorism from 1961–1963, mainly bombings and murders of civilians.
Instead, the South African government then began further suppression, banning the ANC and PAC. In 1961, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld stopped over in South Africa and subsequently stated that he had been unable to reach agreement with Prime Minister Verwoerd.
On 6 November 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. In 1966, the UN held the first[which?] of many colloquiums on apartheid. The General Assembly announced 21 March as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in memory of the Sharpeville massacre.[72] In 1971, the General Assembly formally denounced the institution of homelands, and a motion[which?] was passed in 1974 to expel South Africa from the UN, but this was vetoed by France, Britain and the United States of America, all key trade associates of South Africa.[73]
On 7 August 1963 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 181 calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, and in the same year, a Special Committee Against Apartheid was established to encourage and oversee plans of action against the regime. From 1964, the US and Britain discontinued their arms trade with South Africa. It also condemned the Soweto massacre in Resolution 392. In 1977, the voluntary UN arms embargo became mandatory with the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 418.
Economic sanctions against South Africa were also frequently debated as an effective way of putting pressure on the apartheid government. In 1962, the UN General Assembly requested that its members sever political, fiscal and transportation ties with South Africa. In 1968, it proposed ending all cultural, educational and sporting connections as well. Economic sanctions, however, were not made mandatory, because of opposition from South Africa's main trading partners.
In 1978 and 1983 the United Nations condemned South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism, and a significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to disinvest from South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa.
After much debate, by the late 1980s the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.[74] A divestment movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.[75]
[edit] Organization for African Unity
The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was created in 1963. Its primary objectives were to eradicate colonialism and improve social, political and economic situations in Africa. It censured apartheid and demanded sanctions against South Africa. African states agreed to aid the liberation movements in their fight against apartheid.[76] In 1969, fourteen nations from Central and East Africa gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, and formulated the 'Lusaka Manifesto', which was signed on 13 April by all of the countries in attendance except Malawi.[77] This manifesto was later taken on by both the OAU and the United Nations.[76]
The Lusaka Manifesto summarised the political situations of self-governing African countries, condemning racism and inequity, and calling for black majority rule in all African nations.[78] It did not rebuff South Africa entirely, though, adopting an appeasing manner towards the apartheid government, and even recognising its autonomy. Although African leaders supported the emancipation of black South Africans, they preferred this to be attained through peaceful means.[79]
South Africa's negative response to the Lusaka Manifesto and rejection of a change to her policies brought about another OAU announcement in October 1971. The Mogadishu Declaration declared that South Africa's rebuffing of negotiations meant that her black people could only be freed through military means, and that no African state should converse with the apartheid government.[80] Henceforth, it would be up to South Africa to keep contact with other African states.
[edit] Outward-looking policy
 | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008) |
In 1966, B.J. Vorster was made South African Prime Minister. He was not prepared to dismantle apartheid, but he did try to redress South Africa's isolation and to revitalise the country's global reputation, even those with black-ruled nations in Africa. This he called his "Outward-Looking" policy; the buzzwords for his strategy were "dialogue" and "détente", signifying a reduction of tension.
Vorster's willingness to talk to African leaders stood in contrast to Verwoerd's refusal to engage with leaders such as Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of Nigeria in 1962 and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia in 1964. In 1966, Vorster met with the heads of the neighbouring states of Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana. In 1967, Vorster offered technological and financial aid to any African state prepared to receive it, asserting that no political strings were attached, aware that many African states needed financial aid despite their opposition to South Africa's racial policies. Many were also tied to South Africa economically because of their migrant labour population working on the South African mines. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland remained outspoken critics of apartheid, but depended on South Africa's economic aid.
Malawi was the first country not on South African borders to accept South African aid. In 1967, the two states set out their political and economic relations, and, in 1969, Malawi became the only country at the assembly which did not sign the Lusaka Manifesto condemning South Africa' apartheid policy. In 1970, Malawian president Hastings Banda made his first and most successful official stopover in South Africa.
Associations with Mozambique followed suit and were sustained after that country won its sovereignty in 1975. Angola was also granted South African loans. Other countries which formed relationships with South Africa were Liberia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritius, Gabon, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), Ghana and the Central African Republic. Although these states condemned apartheid (more than ever after South Africa's denunciation of the Lusaka Manifesto), South Africa's economic and military dominance meant that they remained dependent on South Africa to varying degrees.
[edit] Cultural and sporting isolation
South Africa's isolation in sport began in the mid 1950s and increased throughout the 1960s. Apartheid forbade multiracial sport, which meant that overseas teams, by virtue of their having players of diverse races, could not play in South Africa. In 1956, the International Table Tennis Federation severed its ties with the all-white South African Table Tennis Union, preferring the non-racial South African Table Tennis Board. The apartheid government responded by confiscating the passports of the Board's players so that they were unable to attend international games.
In 1959, the non-racial South African Sports Association (SASA) was formed to secure the rights of all players on the global field. After meeting with no success in its endeavours to attain credit by collaborating with white establishments, SASA approached the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1962, calling for South Africa's expulsion from the Olympic Games. The IOC sent South Africa a caution to the effect that, if there were no changes, they would be barred from the 1964 Olympic Games. The changes were initiated, and in January 1963, the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee (SANROC) was set up. The Anti-Apartheid Movement persisted in its campaign for South Africa's exclusion, and the IOC acceded in barring the country from the 1964 Games in Tokyo. South Africa selected a multi-racial team for the next Games, and the IOC opted for incorporation in the 1968 Games in Mexico. Because of protests from AAMs and African nations, however, the IOC was forced to retract the invitation.
Foreign complaints about South Africa's bigoted sports brought more isolation. Racially selected New Zealand sports teams toured South Africa, until the 1970 New Zealand All Blacks rugby tour allowed Maori to go under the status of 'honorary whites'. Huge and widespread protest occurred in New Zealand in 1981 against the Springbok tour, the government spent eight million dollars protecting games using the army and police force. A planned All Black tour to South Africa in 1985 remobilised the New Zealand protestors and it was cancelled. A 'rebel tour' not government sanctioned went ahead in 1986, but after that sporting ties were cut, and New Zealand made a decision not to convey an authorised rugby team to South Africa until the end of apartheid.[81]
B. J. Vorster took Verwoerd's place as PM in 1966 and declared that South Africa would no longer dictate to other countries what their teams should look like. Although this reopened the gate for sporting meets, it did not signal the end of South Africa's racist sporting policies. In 1968, Vorster went against his policy by refusing to permit Basil D'Oliveira, a Coloured South African-born cricketer, to join the English cricket team on its tour to South Africa. Vorster said that the side had been chosen only to prove a point, and not on merit. After protests, however, "Dolly" was eventually included in the team. Protests against certain tours brought about the cancellation of a number of other visits, like that of an England rugby team in 1969/70.
In 1971, Vorster altered his policies even further by distinguishing multiracial from multinational sport. Multiracial sport, between teams with players of different races, remained outlawed; multinational sport, however, was now acceptable: international sides would not be subject to South Africa's racial stipulations.
In 1978, Nigeria boycotted the Commonwealth Games because New Zealand's sporting contacts with the South African government were not considered to be in accordance with the 1977 Gleneagles Agreement. Nigeria also led the 32-nation boycott of the 1986 Commonwealth Games because of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's ambivalent attitude towards sporting links with South Africa, significantly affecting the quality and profitability of the Games and thus thrusting apartheid into the international spotlight.[82]
Sporting bans were revoked in 1993, when conciliations for a democratic South Africa were well under way.
In the 1960s, the Anti-Apartheid Movements began to campaign for cultural boycotts of apartheid South Africa. Artists were requested not to present or let their works be hosted in South Africa. In 1963, 45 British writers put their signatures to an affirmation approving of the boycott, and, in 1964, American actor Marlon Brando called for a similar affirmation for films. In 1965, the Writers' Guild of Great Britain called for a proscription on the sending of films to South Africa. Over sixty American artists signed a statement against apartheid and against professional links with the state. The presentation of some South African plays in Britain and the United States was also vetoed. After the arrival of television in South Africa in 1975, the British Actors Union, Equity, boycotted the service, and no British programme concerning its associates could be sold to South Africa. Sporting and cultural boycotts did not have the same impact as economic sanctions, but they did much to lift consciousness amongst normal South Africans of the global condemnation of apartheid.
[edit] Western influence
While international opposition to apartheid grew, the Nordic countries in particular provided both moral and financial support for the ANC.[83] On 21 February 1986 – a week before he was murdered – Sweden's prime minister Olof Palme made the keynote address to the Swedish People's Parliament Against Apartheid held in Stockholm.[84] In addressing the hundreds of anti-apartheid sympathizers as well as leaders and officials from the ANC and the Anti-Apartheid Movement such as Oliver Tambo, Palme declared:
"Apartheid cannot be reformed; it has to be eliminated."[85]
Other Western countries adopted a more ambivalent position. In the 1980s, both the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, in the USA and UK respectively, followed a 'constructive engagement' policy with the apartheid government, vetoing the imposition of UN economic sanctions on South Africa, justified by a belief in free trade and a vision of South Africa as a bastion against Marxist forces in Southern Africa. Thatcher declared the ANC a terrorist organisation,[86] and in 1987 her spokesman, Bernard Ingham, famously said that anyone who believed that the ANC would ever form the government of South Africa was "living in cloud cuckoo land".[87]
By the late 1980s, however, with the tide of the Cold War turning and no sign of a political resolution in South Africa, Western patience with the apartheid government began to run out. By 1989, a bipartisan Republican/Democratic initiative in the US favoured economic sanctions (realized as the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986), the release of Nelson Mandela and a negotiated settlement involving the ANC. Thatcher too began to take a similar line, but insisted on the suspension of the ANC's armed struggle.[88]
Britain's significant economic involvement in South Africa may have provided some leverage with the South African government, with both the UK and the US applying pressure on the government, and pushing for negotiations. However, neither Britain nor the US were willing to apply economic pressure upon their multinational interests in South Africa, such as the mining company Anglo American. Although a high-profile compensation claim against these companies was thrown out of court in 2004,[89] the US Supreme Court in May 2008 upheld an appeal court ruling allowing another lawsuit that seeks damages of more than $400 billion from major international companies which are accused of aiding South Africa's apartheid system.[90]
[edit] South African Border War
By 1966, SWAPO launched guerilla raids from neighbouring countries against South Africa's occupation of South-West Africa (present day Namibia). Initially South Africa fought a counter-insurgency war against SWAPO. This conflict deepened after Angola gained its independence in 1975 under the leadership of the leftist Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) aided by Cuba. South Africa, Zaire and the United States sided with the Angolan rival UNITA party against the MPLA's armed force, FAPLA (People's Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola). The following struggle turned into one of several late Cold War flashpoints in the world..[91] The Angolan civil war developed into a conventional war with South Africa and UNITA on one side against the Angolan government, the Cubans and SWAPO on the other.[92]
[edit] Total onslaught
By 1980, as international opinion turned decisively against the apartheid regime, the government and much of the white population increasingly looked upon the country as a bastion besieged by communism and radical black nationalists. Considerable effort was put into circumventing sanctions, and the government even went so far as to develop nuclear weapons, with the help of Israel.[93] In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that revealed an Israeli offer to sell Apartheid South Africa nuclear weapons.[94][95] Israel categorically denied these allegations and claimed that the documents were minutes from a meeting which did not indicate any concrete offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on "selective interpretation... and not on concrete facts."[96]
The term "front-line states" referred to countries in Southern Africa geographically near South Africa. Although these front-line states were all opposed to apartheid, many were economically dependent on South Africa. In 1980, they formed the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC), the aim of which was to promote economic development in the region and hence reduce dependence on South Africa. Furthermore, many SADCC members also allowed the exiled ANC and Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) to establish bases in their countries.
[edit] Cross-border raids
South Africa had a policy of attacking guerrilla-bases and safe houses of the ANC, PAC and SWAPO in neighboring countries beginning in the early 1980s.[97] These attacks were in retaliation for acts of terror such as bomb explosions, massacres and guerrilla actions (like sabotage) by ANC, PAC and SWAPO guerrillas in South Africa and Namibia. The country also aided organisations in surrounding countries who were actively combating the spread of communism in southern Africa. The results of these policies included:
- Support for anti-government guerrilla groups such as UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique
- South African Defence Force (SADF; now the South African National Defence Force; SANDF) hit-squad raids into front-line states. Bombing raids were also conducted into neighbouring states. Air and commando raids into Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana occurred the same day, against selective ANC targets.[98]
- An assassination attempt on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on December 18, 1981.[99]
- A full-scale invasion of Angola: this was partly in support of UNITA, but was also an attempt to strike at SWAPO bases.[100]
- Bomb attacks in Lesotho.[99]
- Kidnapping of refugees and ANC members in Swaziland by security services.[99]
- An unsuccessful South African organised coup in the Seychelles on November 25, 1981.[99]
- Targeting of exiled ANC leaders abroad: Joe Slovo's wife Ruth First was killed by a parcel bomb in Maputo, and 'death squads' of the Civil Cooperation Bureau and the Directorate of Military Intelligence attempted to carry out assassinations on ANC targets in Brussels, Paris,[101] Stockholm and London.[102]
In 1984, Mozambican president Samora Machel signed the Nkomati Accord with South Africa's president P.W. Botha, in an attempt to rebuild Mozambique's economy. South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, while the MK was prohibited from operating in Mozambique. This was a setback for the ANC. Two years later, President Machel was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain in South Africa near the Mozambican border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was accused by the Mozambican government and U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz of continuing its aid to RENAMO and having caused the accident by using a false radio navigation beacon to lure the aircraft into crashing.[103][104] This conspiracy theory was never proven and is still a subject of some controversy, despite the South African Margo Commission finding that the crash was an accident. A Soviet delegation that did not participate in the investigation issued a minority report implicating South Africa.[105]
[edit] State security
During the 1980s the government, led by P.W. Botha, became increasingly preoccupied with security. On the advice of American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, Botha's government set up a powerful state security apparatus to "protect" the state against an anticipated upsurge in political violence that the reforms were expected to trigger. The 1980s became a period of considerable political unrest, with the government becoming increasingly dominated by Botha's circle of generals and police chiefs (known as securocrats), who managed the various States of Emergencies.[106]
Botha's years in power were marked also by numerous military interventions in the states bordering South Africa, as well as an extensive military and political campaign to eliminate SWAPO in Namibia. Within South Africa, meanwhile, vigorous police action and strict enforcement of security legislation resulted in hundreds of arrests and bans, and an effective end to the ANC's sabotage campaign.
The government punished political offenders brutally. 40,000 people were subjected to whipping as a form of punishment annually.[107] The vast majority had committed political offences and were lashed ten times for their trouble.[108] If convicted of treason, a person could be hanged, and the government executed numerous political offenders in this way.
As the 1980s progressed, more and more anti-apartheid organizations were formed and affiliated with the UDF. Led by the Reverend Allan Boesak and Albertina Sisulu, the UDF called for the government to abandon its reforms and instead abolish apartheid and eliminate the homelands completely.
[edit] State of emergency
Serious political violence was a prominent feature of South Africa from 1985 to 1989, as black townships became the focus of the struggle between anti-apartheid organisations and the Botha government. Throughout the 1980s, township people resisted apartheid by acting against the local issues that faced their particular communities. The focus of much of this resistance was against the local authorities and their leaders, who were seen to be supporting the government. By 1985, it had become the ANC's aim to make black townships "ungovernable" (a term later replaced by "people's power") by means of rent boycotts and other militant action. Numerous township councils were overthrown or collapsed, to be replaced by unofficial popular organisations, often led by militant youth. People's courts were set up, and residents accused of being government agents were dealt extreme and occasionally lethal punishment. Black town councillors and policemen, and sometimes their families, were attacked with petrol bombs, beaten, and murdered by necklacing, where a burning tyre was placed around the victim's neck.
On 20 July 1985, State President P.W. Botha declared a State of Emergency in 36 magisterial districts. Areas affected were the Eastern Cape, and the PWV region ("Pretoria, Witwatersrand, Vereeniging").[109] Three months later the Western Cape was included as well. An increasing number of organisations were banned or listed (restricted in some way); many individuals had restrictions such as house arrest imposed on them. During this state of emergency about 2,436 people were detained under the Internal Security Act.[110] This act gave police and the military sweeping powers. The government could implement curfews controlling the movement of people. The president could rule by decree without referring to the constitution or to parliament. It became a criminal offence to threaten someone verbally or possess documents that the government perceived to be threatening. It was illegal to advise anyone to stay away from work or oppose the government. It was illegal, too, to disclose the name of anyone arrested under the State of Emergency until the government saw fit to release that name. People could face up to ten years' imprisonment for these offences. Detention without trial became a common feature of the government's reaction to growing civil unrest and by 1988, 30,000 people had been detained.[111] The media was censored, thousands were arrested and many were interrogated and tortured.[112]
On 12 June 1986, four days before the ten-year anniversary of the Soweto uprising, the state of emergency was extended to cover the whole country. The government amended the Public Security Act, expanding its powers to include the right to declare "unrest" areas, allowing extraordinary measures to crush protests in these areas. Severe censorship of the press became a dominant tactic in the government's strategy and television cameras were banned from entering such areas. The state broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) provided propaganda in support of the government. Media opposition to the system increased, supported by the growth of a pro-ANC underground press within South Africa.
In 1987, the State of Emergency was extended for another two years. Meanwhile, about 200,000 members of the National Union of Mineworkers commenced the longest strike (three weeks) in South African history. 1988 saw the banning of the activities of the UDF and other anti-apartheid organisations.
Much of the violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s was directed at the government, but a substantial amount was between the residents themselves. Many died in violence between members of Inkatha and the UDF-ANC faction. It was later proven that the government manipulated the situation by supporting one side or the other when it suited it. Government agents assassinated opponents within South Africa and abroad; they undertook cross-border army and air-force attacks on suspected ANC and PAC bases. The ANC and the PAC in return exploded bombs at restaurants, shopping centres and government buildings such as magistrates courts.
The state of emergency continued until 1990, when it was lifted by State President F.W. de Klerk.
[edit] Final years of apartheid
 | This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2008) |
In the 1960s South Africa had economic growth second only to that of Japan.[113] Trade with Western countries grew, and investment from the United States, France and Britain poured in. Resistance among blacks had been crushed. Since 1964 Mandela, leader of the African Nation Congress, had been in prison on Robben Island just off the coast from Cape Town, and it appeared that South Africa's security forces could handle any resistance to apartheid.
In 1974, resistance to apartheid was encouraged by Portugal's withdrawal from Mozambique and Angola, after the 1974 Carnation Revolution. South African troops withdrew from Angola in early 1976, failing to prevent the liberation forces from gaining power there, and black students in South Africa celebrated a victory of black liberation over white resistance.
The Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith, signed by Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Harry Schwarz in 1974, enshrined the principles of peaceful transition of power and equality for all. Its purpose was to provide a blueprint for the government of South Africa by consent and racial peace in a multi-racial society, stressing opportunity for all, consultation, the federal concept, and a Bill of Rights. It caused a split in the United Party that ultimately realigned opposition politics in South Africa, with the formation of the Progressive Federal Party in 1977. It was the first of such agreements by acknowledged black and white political leaders in South Africa.
In 1978 the defense minister of the Nationalist Party, Pieter Willem Botha, became Prime Minister. Botha's all white regime was worried about the Soviet Union helping revolutionaries in South Africa, and the economy had turned sluggish. The new government noted that it was spending too much money trying to maintain the segregated homelands that had been created for blacks and the homelands were proving to be uneconomic.
Nor was maintaining blacks as a third class working well. The labor of blacks remained vital to the economy, and illegal black labor unions were flourishing. Many blacks remained too poor to make much of a contribution to the economy through their purchasing power - although they were more than 70 percent of the population. Capitalism functioned on goodwill, and it was with goodwill that Botha's regime was most concerned - not for the sake of capitalism so much as it was afraid that an antidote was needed to prevent the blacks from being attracted to Communism.
The anti-apartheid movements in the United States and Europe were gaining support for boycotts against South Africa, for the withdrawal of U.S. firms from South Africa and for the release of Mandela. South Africa was becoming an outlaw in the world community of nations. Investing in South Africa by Americans and others was coming to an end and an active policy of disinvestment ensued. The then ShellBP used to circumvent the oil embargo on the apartheid regime by buying crude oil from Nigeria and transferring the crude oil from their ship to oil tankers headed for apartheid South Africa. This was done outside Nigeria's territorial waters. When Nigeria found out, Shell BP was nationalized. In retaliation, Margaret Thatcher's government introduced visa requirements for Nigerians visiting United Kingdom. This was in retaliation for Nigeria refusing to pay any compensation for the nationalization. Also many South Africans attended schools in Nigeria. Nelson Mandela has himself at several times acknowledged the role of Nigeria in the struggle against apartheid.
[edit] Tricameral parliament
In the early 1980s, Botha's National Party government started to recognise the inevitability of the need to reform apartheid.[114] Early reforms were driven by a combination of internal violence, international condemnation, changes within the National Party's constituency, and changing demographics—whites constituted only 16% of the total population, in comparison to 20% fifty years earlier.[115]
In 1983, a new constitution was passed implementing a so-called Tricameral Parliament, giving coloureds and Indians voting rights and parliamentary representation in separate houses - the House of Assembly (178 members) for whites, the House of Representatives (85 members) for coloureds and the House of Delegates (45 members) for Indians.[116] Each House handled laws pertaining to its racial group's "own affairs", including health, education and other community issues.[117] All laws relating to "general affairs" (matters such as defence, industry, taxation and Black affairs) were handled by a cabinet made up of representatives from all three houses, where the ruling party in the white House of Assembly had an unassailable numerical advantage.[118][119] Blacks, although making up the majority of the population, were excluded from representation; they remained nominal citizens of their homelands.[120] The first Tricameral elections were largely boycotted by Coloured and Indian voters, amid widespread rioting.[121]
[edit] Reforms and contact with the ANC under Botha
Concerned over the popularity of Mandela, Botha denounced him as an arch-Marxist committed to violent revolution, but to appease black opinion and nurture Mandela as a benevolent leader of blacks the government moved Mandela from Robben Island to a prison in a rural area just outside Cape Town, Pollsmoor prison, where prison life was easier. And the government allowed Mandela more visitors, including visits and interviews by foreigners, to let the world know that Mandela was being treated well.
Black homelands were declared nation-states and pass laws were abolished. Also, black labor unions were legitimized, the government recognized the right of blacks to live in urban areas permanently and gave blacks property rights there. Interest was expressed in rescinding the law against interracial marriage and also rescinding the law against sex between the races, which was under ridicule abroad. The spending for black schools increased, to one-seventh of white children per child, up from on one-sixteenth in 1968. At the same time, attention was given to strengthening the effectiveness of the police apparatus.
In January 1985, Botha addressed the government's House of Assembly and stated that the government was willing to release Mandela on condition that Mandela pledge opposition to acts of violence to further political objectives. Mandela's reply was read in public by his daughter Zinzi — his first words distributed publicly since his sentence to prison twenty-one years before. Mandela described violence as the responsibility of the apartheid regime and said that with democracy there would be no need for violence. The crowd listening to the reading of his speech erupted in cheers and chants. This response helped to further elevate Mandela's status in the eyes of those, both internationally and domestically, who opposed apartheid.
Between 1986 and 1988, some petty apartheid laws were repealed. Botha told white South Africans to "adapt or die"[122] and twice he wavered on the eve of what were billed as "rubicon" announcements of substantial reforms, although on both occasions he backed away from substantial changes. Ironically, these reforms served only to trigger intensified political violence through the remainder of the eighties as more communities and political groups across the country joined the resistance movement. Botha's government stopped short of substantial reforms, such as lifting the ban on the ANC, PAC and SACP and other liberation organisations, releasing political prisoners, or repealing the foundation laws of grand apartheid. The government's stance was that they would not contemplate negotiating until those organisations "renounced violence".
By 1987 the growth of South Africa's economy had dropped to among the lowest rate in the world, and the ban on South African participation in international sporting events was frustrating many whites in South Africa. Examples of African states with black leaders and white minorities existed in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Whispers of South Africa one day having a black President sent more hardline whites into Rightist parties. Mandela was moved to a four-bedroom house of his own, with a swimming pool and shaded by fir trees, on a prison farm just outside Cape Town. He had an unpublicized meeting with Botha, Botha impressing Mandela by walking forward, extending his hand and pouring Mandela's tea. And the two had a friendly discussion, Mandela comparing the African National Conference's rebellion with that of the Afrikaner rebellion, and about everyone being brothers.
A number of clandestine meetings were held between the ANC-in-exile and various sectors of the internal struggle, such as women and educationalists. More overtly, a group of white intellectuals met the ANC in Senegal for talks.[123]
[edit] Presidency of F.W. de Klerk
Early in 1989, Botha suffered a stroke; he was prevailed upon to resign in February 1989.[124] He was succeeded as president later that year by F.W. de Klerk. Despite his initial reputation as a conservative, De Klerk moved decisively towards negotiations to end the political stalemate in the country. In his opening address to parliament on 2 February 1990, De Klerk announced that he would repeal discriminatory laws and lift the 30-year ban on leading anti-apartheid groups such as the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the UDF. The Land Act was brought to an end. De Klerk also made his first public commitment to release jailed ANC leader Nelson Mandela, to return to press freedom and to suspend the death penalty. Media restrictions were lifted and political prisoners not guilty of common-law crimes were released.
On 11 February 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison after more than 27 years in prison.
Having been instructed by the UN Security Council to end its long-standing involvement in South-West Africa /Namibia, and in the face of military stalemate in Southern Angola, and an escalation in the size and cost of the combat with the Cubans, the Angolans, and SWAPO forces and the growing cost of the border war, South Africa negotiated a change of control of this territory; Namibia officially became an independent state on 21 March 1990.
[edit] Negotiations
Apartheid was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in elections in 1994, the first in South Africa with universal suffrage.
From 1990 to 1996 the legal apparatus of apartheid was abolished. In 1990 negotiations were earnestly begun, with two meetings between the government and the ANC. The purpose of the negotiations was to pave the way for talks towards a peaceful transition of power. These meetings were successful in laying down the preconditions for negotiations - despite the considerable tensions still abounding within the country.
At the first meeting, the NP and ANC discussed the conditions for negotiations to begin. The meeting was held at Groote Schuur, the President's official residence. They released the Groote Schuur Minute which said that before negotiations commenced political prisoners would be freed and all exiles allowed to return.
There were fears that the change of power in South Africa would be violent. To avoid this, it was essential that a peaceful resolution between all parties be reached. In December 1991, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) began negotiations on the formation of a multiracial transitional government and a new constitution extending political rights to all groups. CODESA adopted a Declaration of Intent and committed itself to an "undivided South Africa".
Reforms and negotiations to end apartheid led to a backlash among the right-wing white opposition, leading to the Conservative Party winning a number of by-elections against NP candidates. De Klerk responded by calling a whites-only referendum in March 1992 to decide whether negotiations should continue. A 68-percent majority of white voters gave its support, and the victory instilled in De Klerk and the government a lot more confidence, giving the NP a stronger position in negotiations.
Thus, when negotiations resumed in May 1992, under the tag of CODESA II, stronger demands were made. The ANC and the government could not reach a compromise on how power should be shared during the transition to democracy. The NP wanted to retain a strong position in a transitional government, as well as the power to change decisions made by parliament.
Persistent violence added to the tension during the negotiations. This was due mostly to the intense rivalry between the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC and the eruption of some traditional tribal and local rivalrys between the Zulu and Xhosa historical tribal affinities, especially in the Southern Natal provinces. Although Mandela and Buthelezi met to settle their differences, they could not stem the violence. One of the worst cases of ANC-IFP violence was the Boipatong massacre of 17 June 1992, when 200 IFP militants attacked the Gauteng township of Boipatong, killing 45. Witnesses said that the men had arrived in police vehicles, supporting claims that elements within the police and army contributed to the ongoing violence. When De Klerk tried to visit the scene of the incident, he was driven away by angry crowds, on whom the police opened fire, killing three.[125] Mandela argued that de Klerk, as head of state, was responsible for bringing an end to the bloodshed. He also accused the South African police of inciting the ANC-IFP violence. This formed the basis for ANC's withdrawal from the negoatiations, and the CODESA forum broke down completely at this stage.
The Bisho massacre on 7 September 1992 brought matters to a head. The Ciskei Defence Force killed 29 people and injured 200 when they opened fire on ANC marchers demanding the reincorporation of the Ciskei homeland into South Africa. In the aftermath, Mandela and De Klerk agreed to meet to find ways to end the spiralling violence. This led to a resumption of negotiations.
Right-wing violence also added to the hostilities of this period. The assassination of Chris Hani on 10 April 1993 threatened to plunge the country into chaos. Hani, the popular general secretary of the South African Communist Party (SACP), was assassinated in 1993 in Dawn Park in Johannesburg by Janusz Waluś, an anti-communist Polish refugee who had close links to the white nationalist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB). Hani enjoyed widespread support beyond his constituency in the SACP and ANC and had been recognised as a potential successor to Mandela; his death brought forth protests throughout the country and across the international community, but ultimately proved a turning point, after which the main parties pushed for a settlement with increased determination.[126] On 25 June 1993, the AWB used an armoured vehicle to crash through the doors of the World Trade Centre where talks were still going ahead under the Negotiating Council, though this did not derail the process.[127]
In addition to the continuing "black-on-black" violence, there were a number of attacks on white civilians by the PAC's military wing, the Azanian People's Liberation Army (APLA). The PAC was hoping to strengthen their standing by attracting the support of the angry, impatient youth. In the St James Church massacre on 25 July 1993, members of the APLA opened fire in a church in Cape Town, killing 11 members of the congregation and wounding 58.
In 1993, de Klerk and Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa".[128]
Violence persisted right up to the 1994 elections. Lucas Mangope, leader of the Bophuthatswana homeland, declared that it would not take part in the elections. It had been decided that, once the temporary constitution had come into effect, the homelands would be incorporated into South Africa, but Mangope did not want this to happen. There were strong protests against his decision, leading to a coup d'état in Bophuthatswana on 10 March which deposed Mangope, despite the intervention of white right-wingers hoping to maintain him in power. Three AWB militants were killed during this intervention, and harrowing images were shown on national television and in newspapers across the world.
Two days before the elections, a car bomb exploded in Johannesburg, killing nine.[129][130] The day before the elections, another one went off, injuring thirteen. Finally, though, at midnight on 26–27 April 1994, the old flag was lowered, and the old (now co-official) national anthem Die Stem ("The Call") was sung, followed by the raising of the new rainbow flag and singing of the other co-official anthem, Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika ("God Bless Africa").
[edit] 1994 election
The election was held on 27 April 1994 and went off peacefully throughout the country as 20,000,000 South Africans cast their votes. There was some difficulty in organizing the voting in rural areas, but, throughout the country, people waited patiently for many hours in order to vote amidst a palpable feeling of goodwill. An extra day was added to give everyone the chance. International observers agreed that the elections were free and fair.[131]
The ANC won 62.65% of the vote,[132][133] less than the 66.7% that would have allowed it to rewrite the constitution. In the new parliament, 252 of its 400 seats went to members of the African National Congress. The NP captured most of the white and coloured votes and became the official opposition party. As well as deciding the national government, the election decided the provincial governments, and the ANC won in seven of the nine provinces, with the NP winning in the Western Cape and the IFP in KwaZulu-Natal. On 10 May 1994, Mandela was sworn in as South Africa's president. The Government of National Unity was established, its cabinet made up of twelve ANC representatives, six from the NP, and three from the IFP. Thabo Mbeki and Frederik Willem de Klerk were made deputy presidents.
The anniversary of the elections, 27 April, is celebrated as a public holiday in South Africa known as Freedom Day.
[edit] Contrition
The following individuals, who had previously supported apartheid, made public apologies:
- FW de Klerk - "I apologise in my capacity as leader of the NP to the millions who suffered wrenching disruption of forced removals; who suffered the shame of being arrested for pass law offences; who over the decades suffered the indignities and humiliation of racial discrimination."[134]
- Marthinus van Schalkwyk[135]
- Adriaan Vlok - who washed the feet of apartheid victim Frank Chikane.[136]
- Leon Wessels - who said "I am now more convinced than ever that apartheid was a terrible mistake that blighted our land. South Africans did not listen to the laughing and the crying of each other. I am sorry that I had been so hard of hearing for so long".[137]
[edit] See also
 | Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Apartheid |
[edit] References
- ^ Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel; London, Lesley; du Gruchy, Jeanelle (1999). An ambulance of the wrong colour: health professionals, human rights and ethics in South Africa. Juta and Company Limited. p. 18
- ^ a b "The economic legacy of apartheid". Centre de recherches pour le développement international. http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-91102-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
- ^ a b Lodge, Tom (1983). Black Politics in South Africa Since 1945. Longman.
- ^ "De Klerk dismantles apartheid in South Africa". BBC News. 2 February 1990. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_2524000/2524997.stm. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
- ^ U.S. Library of Congress. "Africans and Industrialization". US Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/15.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
- ^ Jim Jones (2002). "HIS 311 Lecture on Southern Africa 1800–1875". West Chester University of Pennsylvania. http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his311/lectures/22sa-boe.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
- ^ Jessica Smith. "Pass Laws". Charlotte Country Day School. http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Africa/04/Jsmith/Jsmith.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
- ^ Holland, Josiah Gilbert; Gilder, Richard Watson (1896). The Century illustrated monthly magazine. 52 The Century Co.
- ^ Gish, Steven (2000). Alfred B. Xuma: African, American, South African. New York University Press. p. 8.
- ^ Hoiberg, Dale; Ramchandani, Indu (2000). Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1–5. Popular Prakashan. p. 142.
- ^ Allen, John (2005). Apartheid South Africa: An Insider's Overview of the Origin And Effects of Separate Development. iUniverse. p. xi.
- ^ Nojeim, Michael J. (2004). Gandhi and King: the power of nonviolent resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 127.
- ^ a b Leach, Graham (1986). South Africa: no easy path to peace. Routledge. p. 68.
- ^ Tankard, Keith (May 9, 2004). Chapter 9 The Natives (Urban Areas) Act. Rhodes University. knowledge4africa.com.
- ^ Baroness Young – Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (July 4, 1986). South Africa House of Lords Debate vol 477 cc1159-250. Hansard.
- ^ The Representation of Natives Act. sahistory.org.
- ^ Reddy, E.S.. "Indian Passive Resistance in South Africa, 1946–1948". http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/congress/passive.html.
- ^ Ambrosio, Thomas (2002). Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 56-57.
- ^ "Apartheid FAQ". about.com. http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blSAApartheidFAQ.htm.
- ^ "The 1948 election and the National Party Victory". South African History Online. http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/governence-projects/SA-1948-1976/1948-election.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Alistair Boddy-Evans. African History: Apartheid Legislation in South Africa, About.Com. Accessed 5 June 2007.
- ^ Boddy-Evans, Alistar. Population Registration Act No 30 of 1950. About.com.
- ^ Ungar, Sanford (1989). Africa: the people and politics of an emerging continent. Simon & Schuster. p. 224.
- ^ Goldin, Ian (1987). Making race: the politics and economics of coloured identity in South Africa. Longman. p. xxvi.
- ^ Boddy-Evans, Alistar. Group Areas Act No 41 of 1950. About.com.
- ^ Besteman, Catherine Lowe (2008). Transforming Cape Town. University of California Press. p. 6.
- ^ Beck, Roger B. (2000). The history of South Africa. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-313-30730-0.
- ^ Byrnes, Rita M. (1996). South Africa: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/.
- ^ "The Afrikaans Medium Decree". About.com. http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blsaJune16decree.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
- ^ "Extracts from paper prepared by the Secretariat for the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women, Copenhagen, July 1980 (The anti-pass campaign)". African National Congress. http://www.anc.org.za/un/womenrole.html. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
- ^ Van der Ross, R. E.; Marais, Johannes Stephanus (1986). The rise and decline of apartheid: a study of political movements among the Coloured people of South Africa, 1880-1985. Tafelberg. p. 255.
- ^ Davis, Dennis; Le Roux, Michelle (2009). Precedent & Possibility: The (Ab)use of Law in South Africa. Juta and Company Limited. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-77013-022-7.
- ^ Richmond, Anthony H. (1955). The colour problem: a study of racial relations. Penguin Books. p. 332.
- ^ Hatch, John Charles (1965). A history of post-war Africa. Praeger. p. 213.
- ^ Witz, Leslie (2003). Apartheid's festival: contesting South Africa's national pasts. Indiana University Press. p. 134.
- ^ Wilson, Monica Hunter; Thompson, Leonard Monteath (1969). The Oxford history of South Africa, Volume 2. Oxford University Press. p. 405.
- ^ "South Africa official yearbook." (1991). South African State Department of Information. p. 18.
- ^ Muller, C. F. J. (1975). Five hundred years: a history of South Africa. Academica. p. 430.
- ^ Mountain, Alan (2003). The first people of the Cape: a look at their history and the impact of colonialism on the Cape's indigenous people. New Africa Books. p. 72.
- ^ Du Pre, R H. (1994). Separate but Unequal - The 'Coloured' People of South Africa - A Political History. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg. p. 134-139.
- ^ Muller (1975), p. 508.
- ^ Booth, Douglas (1998). The race game: sport and politics in South Africa. Routledge. p. 89.
- ^ Thompson, Paul Singer (1990). Natalians first: separatism in South Africa, 1909-1961. Southern Book Publishers. p. 167.
- ^ Joyce, Peter (2007). The making of a nation: South Africa's road to freedom. Zebra. p. 118.
- ^ Suzman, Helen (1993). In no uncertain terms: a South African memoir. Knopf. p. 35.
- ^ Keppel-Jones, Arthur (1975). South Africa: a short history. Hutchinson. p. 132.
- ^ Lacour-Gayet, Robert (1977). A history of South Africa. Cassell. p. 311.
- ^ Leach (1986), p. 15.
- ^ Those who had the money to travel or emigrate were not given full passports; instead, travel documents were issued.
- ^ Western, J (June 2002). "A divided city: Cape Town". Political Geography 21 (5): 711–716. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(02)00016-1
- ^ "From the Western Areas to Soweto: forced removals". http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/places/villages/gauteng/soweto/history3.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-07.
- ^ "Toby Street Blues". Time Magazine. 21 February 1955. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,892971,00.html
- ^ Mandela, Nelson. p. 179.
- ^ On apartheid transport see Pirie, G.H. Travelling under apartheid. In D M Smith (ed.), The Apartheid City and Beyond: Urbanisation and Social Change in South Africa. Routledge, London (1992), pp. 172–181.
- ^ Health Sector Strategic Framework 1999–2004 — Background, Department of Health, 2004, accessed 8 November 2006
- ^ ANC/FSAW official website, Women's Charter. Adopted at the Founding Conference of the Federation of South African Women. Johannesburg, 17 April 1954
- ^ Lapchick, Richard E.; Stephanie Urdang (1982). Oppression and Resistance: The Struggle of Women in Southern Africa. Greenwood Press. pp. 48 and 52.
- ^ Bernstein, Hilda (1985). For their Triumphs and for their Tears: Women in Apartheid South Africa. International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa. p. 48.
- ^ "In South Africa, Chinese is the New Black". China Realtime Report. June 19, 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2008/06/19/in-south-africa-chinese-is-the-new-black.
- ^ JCW Van Rooyen, Censorship in South Africa (Cape Town: Juta and Co., 1987), 5.
- ^ Bet and board in the new South Africa. (legalization of gambling could lead to growth of casinos, lotteries)(Brief Article) The Economist (US) | August 5, 1995
- ^ Apartheid mythology and symbolism. desegregated and re-invented in the service of nation building in the new South Africa: the covenant and the battle of Blood/Ncome River
- ^ a b http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/arc_features/racial/safrica5-97.html
- ^ BMJ 2004;329:1415-1416 (18 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1415
- ^ Cros, Bernard. "Why South Africa's Television is only Twenty Years Old: Debating Civilisation, 1958-1969". http://laboratoires.univ-reunion.fr/oracle/documents/217.html.
- ^ African National Congress (1987). "Armed Struggle and Umkhonto / Morogoro". http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mk/forward.html#*. Retrieved 28 December 2007.
- ^ A War Won, TIME Magazine, 9 June 1961
- ^ Harrison, David (1987). The White Tribe of Africa.
- ^ J. C. Gordon Brown, Blazes Along a Diplomatic Trail: A Memoir of Four Posts in the Canadian Foreign Service (Trafford Publishing, 2000) p300
- ^ "Colonialism is Doomed" speech to the 19th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City by Cuban representative Che Guevara on December 11, 1964
- ^ Ampiah, Kweku (1997). The dynamics of Japan's relations with Africa: South Africa, Tanzania and Nigeria. CRC Press. p. 147.
- ^ UN.org
- ^ "United Nations and Apartheid - a chronology". http://www.anc.org.za/un/un-chron.html.
- ^ Kimberly Ann Elliott and Gary Clyde Hufbauer. "Sanctions". The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Sanctions.html.
- ^ "Summary of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act". United States Congress. http://actrav.itcilo.org/actrav-english/telearn/global/ilo/guide/antia.htm. Retrieved 2009-02-22.
- ^ a b Geldenhuys, Deon (1990). Isolated states: a comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. p. 274.
- ^ Royal African Society (1970). African affairs, Volumes 69-70. Oxford University Press. p. 178.
- ^ Hall, Richard (1970). "The Lusaka Manifesto." African Affairs. 69 (275): 178 – 179.
- ^ Rubin, Leslie; Weinstein, Brian (1977). Introduction to African politics: a continental approach. Praeger. p. 128.
- ^ Klotz, Audie (1999). Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Cornell University Press. p. 77.
- ^ The 1981 Springbok rugby tour – A country divided. New Zealand History Online.
- ^ "Commonwealth Games". About.com. http://experts.about.com/e/c/co/Commonwealth_Games.htm. Retrieved 2007-02-07.
- ^ International Labour Office (1991). Apartheid: Special Report of the Directed General on the Application of the Decoration Concerning the Policy of South Africa. International Labour Organization. p. 46.
- ^ Bangura, Abdul Karim (2004). Sweden vs apartheid: putting morality ahead of profit. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 104.
- ^ Grieg, Charlotte (2008). Cold Blooded Killings: Hits, Assassinations, and Near Misses That Shook the World. Booksales Inc Remainders. p. 43.
- ^ "Oliver Tambo interviewed by The Times". ANC. 13 June 1988. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/or/pr/lond88.html.
- ^ "Mandela's triumphant walk". News24. 18 July 2003. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Mandela/0,,2-7-1507_1389526,00.html.
- ^ Mark Phillips and Colin Coleman (1989). "Another Kind of War" (PDF). Transformation. http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/africanjournals/pdfs/transformation/tran009/tran009002.pdf.
- ^ Compensation case against South African miners thrown out
- ^ US court allows apartheid claims
- ^ "Interview with Pik Botha". 20 May 1997. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/botha1.html.
- ^ Lisbon Conference of the African National Congress (March 1977). "Colonialism of a Special Type". http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/special.html. Retrieved 28 December 2007.
- ^ McGreal, Chris (7 February 2006). "Brothers in Arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
- ^ McGreal, Chris (24 May 2010). "Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
- ^ McGreal, Chris (24 May 2010). "The memos and minutes that confirm Israel's nuclear stockpile". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
- ^ [1]
- ^ Ellis, Stephen; Sechaba (1992). Comrades against apartheid: the ANC and the South African Communist Party in exile. James Currey Publishers. p. 106.
- ^ Brecher, Michael; Wilkenfeld, Jonathan (1997). A study of crisis, Part 443. University of Michigan Press. p. 477.
- ^ a b c d Hanlon, Joseph (1986). Beggar your neighbours: apartheid power in Southern Africa. James Currey Publishers. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-85255-305-3.
- ^ Heitman, Helmoed-R. (1990). War in Angola: the final South African phase. Ashanti Pub. p. 10.
- ^ Watson, Wendy (2007). Brick by brick: an informal guide to the history of South Africa. New Africa Books. p.
- ^ Purkitt, Helen E.; Burgess, Stephen Franklin (2005). South Africa's weapons of mass destruction. Indiana University Press. p. 152.
- ^ Gale Research (1995). Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations: Africa. Gale Research. p. 292.
- ^ International Peace Academy. (1988). Southern Africa in crisis: regional and international responses. BRILL. p. 62.
- ^ Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1998). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa report. The Commission. p. 498. ISBN 978-0-620-23076-6.
- ^ Fox, William; Fourie, Marius; Van Wyk, Belinda (1998). Police Management in South Africa. Juta and Company Limited. p. 167.
- ^ Anzovin, Steven (1987). South Africa: apartheid and divestiture. H.W. Wilson Co. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-8242-0749-6.
- ^ Foster, Don; Davis, Dennis (1987). Detention & torture in South Africa: psychological, legal & historical studies. Currey. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-85255-317-6.
- ^ Pomeroy, William J. (1986). Apartheid, imperialism, and African freedom. International Publishers. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-7178-0640-9.
- ^ Legum, Colin (1989). Africa contemporary record: annual survey and documents, Volume 20. Africana Pub. Co. p. 668.
- ^ McKendrick, Brian; Hoffmann, Wilman (1990). People and violence in South Africa. Oxford University Press. p. 62.
- ^ Blond, Rebecca; Fitzpatrick, Mary (2004). South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland. Lonely Planet. p. 40.
- ^ Legasick, Martin (1974). "Legislation, Ideology and Economy in Post-1948 South Africa." Journal of South African Studies. 1 (1): 5 – 35.
- ^ Knox, Colin; Quirk, Pádraic (2000). Peace building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: transition, transformation and reconciliation. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 151.
- ^ Beinart, William (2001). Twentieth-century South Africa. Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-19-289318-5.
- ^ Taylor & Francis Group (2004). Europa World Year Book 2, Book 2. Taylor & Francis. p. 3841.
- ^ Taylor, Paul (December 23, 1993). "S. Africa Approves Charter; White-Led Parliament Votes for Constitution Canceling Its Powers." The Washington Post.
- ^ Wople, Harold (1990). Race, class & the apartheid state. Africa World Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-86543-142-3.
- ^ Marais, D. (1989). South Africa: constitutional development, a multi-disciplinary approach. Southern Book Publishers. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-86812-159-5.
- ^ Lötter, Hennie P. P. (1997). Injustice, violence and peace: the case of South Africa. Rodopi. p. 49. ISBN 978-90-420-0264-7.
- ^ "Cops fight crowds at S. Africa elections." Philadelphia Daily News. August 28, 1984.
- ^ South Africa: Adapt or Die. Time.
- ^ Lieberfeld, Daniel (2002). "Evaluating the Contributions of Track-two Diplomacy to Conflict Termination in South Africa, 1984-90." Journal of Peace Research. 39 (3): 355 – 372. doi:10.1177/0022343302039003006
- ^ Roherty, James Michael (1992). State security in South Africa: civil-military relations under P.W. Botha. M.E. Sharpe. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-87332-877-7.
- ^ Macleod, Scott (1992-07-07). "Enemies: Black vs. Black vs. White". Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975920-1,00.html.
- ^ "Turning Points in History Book 6: Negotiation, Transition and Freedom". http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/online%20books/turningpoints/bk6/intro.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
- ^ Kemp, Arthur (2008). Victory Or Violence - The Story of the Awb of South Africa. Lulu.com. p. 165 – 166. ISBN 978-1-4092-0187-8.
- ^ "The Nobel Peace Prize 1993". Nobel Foundation. http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1993. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
- ^ Christian Century (1994-05-11). "Dawn of liberation - 1994 South African election". BNet, a CBS Company. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n16_v111/ai_15239247. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "New cut-off date opens amnesty doors for pre-election bombers". South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9612/s961213g.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Deegan, Heather (2001). The politics of the new South Africa: apartheid and after. Pearson Education. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-582-38227-5.
- ^ "Elections '94". Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). http://www.elections.org.za/Elections94.asp. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Lijphart, Arend. "Spotlight Three: South Africa's 1994 Elections". FairVote. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=554. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ De Klerk apologises again for apartheid. South African Press Association. May 14, 1997.
- ^ Meldrum, Andrew (April 11, 2005). Apartheid party bows out with apology. The Guardian.
- ^ "Mr Adrian Vlok extends gesture of penance to Rev Frank Chikane, Director-General in the Presidency". South African Government Information. August 28, 2006. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2006/06082811151003.htm. Retrieved 2009-02-22.
- ^ Volume Five Chapter Six - Findings and Conclusions. Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
[edit] Further reading
- Davenport, T. R. H. South Africa. A Modern History. MacMillan, 1977.
- Du Pre, R. H. Separate but Unequal—The 'Coloured' People of South Africa—A Political History.. Jonathan Ball, 1994.
- De Klerk, F. W. The last Trek. A New Beginning. MacMillan, 1998.
- Eiselen, W. W. N. The Meaning of Apartheid, Race Relations, 15 (3), 1948.
- Giliomee, Herman The Afrikaners. Hurst & Co., 2003.
- Meredith, Martin. In the name of apartheid: South Africa in the postwar period. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
- Meredith, Martin. The State of Africa. The Free Press, 2005.
- O'Meara, Dan. Forty Lost Years : The National Party and the Politics of the South African State, 1948-1994. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1996.
- Hexham, Irving, The Irony of Apartheid: The Struggle for National Independence of Afrikaner Calvinism against British Imperialism." Edwin Mellen, 1981.
- Visser, Pippa. In search of history. Oxford University Press Southern Africa, 2003.
- Louw, P. Eric. The Rise, Fall and Legacy of Apartheid. Praeger, 2004.
- Terreblanche, S. A History of Inequality in South Africa, 1652-2002. University of Natal Press, 2003.
- Federal Research Division. South Africa - a country study. Library of Congress, 1996.
- Book: Crocodile Burning. By Michael Williams. 1994
- Davied, Rob, Dan O'Meara and Sipho Dlamini. The Struggle For South Africa: A reference guide to movements, organizations and institution. Volume Two. London: Zed Books, 1984
- Lapchick, Richard and Urdang, Stephanie. Oppression and Resistance. The Struggle of Women in Southern Africa. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 1982.
- Bernstein, Hilda. For their Triumphs and for their Tears: Women in Apartheid South Africa. International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa. London, 1985.
- Newbury, Darren. Defiant Images: Photography and Apartheid South Africa, [University of South Africa (UNISA) Press, 2009.
[edit] External links
- JSTOR's Struggles for Freedom digital archive on www.aluka.org A vast collection of primary source historical materials about apartheid South Africa
- Theology in Africa: Apartheid & Theology Specialised Articles on Apartheid
- The evolution of the white right
- A comprehensive timeline of the peace process negotiations during the 1980s and 90s.
- History of the freedom charter SAHO
- Full text of the UN convention on apartheid
- Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg
- The Effect of Sanctions on Constitutional Change in SA
- "Today it feels good to be an African" - Thabo Mbeki, Cape Town, 8 May 1996
- The African Activist Archive Project website has material on the struggle against apartheid
- South Africa: Cuba and the South African Anti-Apartheid Struggle by Nicole Sarmiento
- Interview with Dr. Ranginui Walker about the 'No Maoris' tours to South Africa under apartheid RadioLIVE interview on the exclusion of Maori from the All Blacks during the tours of South Africa under apartheid.
| ||
| ||
| |||
Africa
Apartheid, social and political policy of racial segregation and discrimination enforced by white minority governments in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.
The term apartheid (from the Afrikaans word for "apartness") was coined in the 1930s and used as a political slogan of the National Party in the early 1940s, but the policy itself extends back to the beginning of white settlement in South Africa in 1652. After the primarily Afrikaner Nationalists came to power in 1948, the social custom of apartheid was systematized under law.
The implementation of the policy, later referred to as "separate development," was made possible by the Population Registration Act of 1950, which put all South Africans into three racial categories: Bantu (black African), white, or Coloured (of mixed race). A fourth category, Asian (Indians and Pakistanis), was added later. The system of apartheid was enforced by a series of laws passed in the 1950s: the Group Areas Act of 1950 assigned races to different residential and business sections in urban areas, and the Land Acts of 1954 and 1955 restricted nonwhite residence to specific areas. These laws further restricted the already limited right of black Africans to own land, entrenching the white minority's control of over 80 percent of South African land. In addition, other laws prohibited most social contacts between the races; enforced the segregation of public facilities and the separation of educational standards; created race-specific job categories; restricted the powers of nonwhite unions; and curbed nonwhite participation in government.
The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 and the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959 furthered these divisions between the races by creating ten African "homelands" administered by what were supposed to be reestablished "tribal" organizations. The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 made every black South African a citizen of one of the homelands, effectively excluding blacks from South African politics. Most of the homelands, lacking natural resources, were not economically viable and, being both small and fragmented, lacked the autonomy of independent states.
Though the implementation and enforcement of apartheid was accompanied by tremendous suppression of opposition, continual resistance to apartheid existed within South Africa. A number of black political groups, often supported by sympathetic whites, opposed apartheid using a variety of tactics, including violence, strikes, demonstrations, and sabotage - strategies that often met with severe reprisals by the government. Apartheid was also denounced by the international community: in 1961 South Africa was forced to withdraw from the British Commonwealth by member states who were critical of the apartheid system, and in 1985 the governments of the United States and Great Britain imposed selective economic sanctions on South Africa in protest of its racial policy.
As antiapartheid pressure mounted within and outside South Africa, the South African government, led by President F. W. de Klerk, began to dismantle the apartheid system in the early 1990s. The year 1990 brought a National Party government dedicated to reform and also saw the legalization of formerly banned black congresses and the release of imprisoned black leaders. In 1994 the country's constitution was rewritten and free general elections were held for the first time in its history, and with Nelson Mandela's election as South Africa's first black president, the last vestiges of the apartheid system were finally outlawed.
Alonford James Robinson, Jr.See Also Afrikaner; Mandela, Nelson Rolihlahla; De Klerk, Frederik Willem.
South Africa and Apartheid
As Africans were moving to self-rule elsewhere on the continent, whites in South Africa were determined that they were going to maintain their way of life, which to them meant maintaining power, in other words, the whites would continue to deny power to the majority Africans. Whites in South Africa -- of British and Dutch descent -- were roughly 20 percent of South Africa's population. Asians (mainly Indians) were roughly 2 percent. Blacks were about 70 percent, and those classified as coloreds (of mixed race) were about 8 percent. Many of the more conservative whites -- largely farmers of Dutch descent, saw God as having given them their lands in South Africa, and they saw no reason to give up ruling themselves.
White farmers had become dependent upon blacks as cheap labor, and manufacturers were also using blacks for cheap labor. South Africa had become urbanized, with 50 percent of the black population living in cities dominated by white governments, many of the blacks there working as semi-skilled labor in manufacturing, blacks operating machinery having replaced the white master-craftsmen of previous generations. The labor of black people had become a mainstay of South Africa's economy, but with wage discrimination. A law had been passed creating what was called a Civilized Labor Policy, which protected the wage levels of white workers and left employers free to hire blacks at wages as low as possible. And there was the Bantu Act of 1953, which took schools away from missions and assured that whites would receive an education that was different from and superior to that of blacks.
The movement of blacks in the urban areas had exacerbated race relations, and in 1948 the most conservative of white political parties, the Nationalist Party, won the national election -- elections in which only whites participated. The Nationalist Party was predominately rural and consisted largely of those of Dutch heritage, and it was the most adamant in maintaining a separation between whites and the other races in South Africa.
They set out to more than maintain the separation of the races; they tried to turn back the clock and undo what appeared to them to be unacceptable integration. Blacks were working in white owned factories, other white businesses and in white homes. But they were largely segregated into black enclaves in the cities and had their own facilities and doors of entry to public places along with other restrictions that were common in the South in the United States. But still there was too much integration for the Nationalist Party.
New laws restricted blacks living in cities. They were forbidden to own their own homes in urban areas. They had to rent less than satisfactory housing from local administration boards. The old apartheid dogma that blacks were "temporary sojourners" in the cities was applied. Those who had worked for the same employer for ten years or for different employers for fifteen years were allowed to continue living in cities and towns, and all others were regarded as migrant workers who had to have special work permits, which were to be renewed every year.
So called black spots in South Africa's cities were wiped out. This included neighborhoods where people of different races had been living beside one another peacefully -- the black suburb called Sophiatown and the heart of the Colored community in Capetown (District Six). Blacks were now obliged to carry passbooks, open to inspection by any policeman or agent of the government whenever asked. Blacks had to acquire special permission for travel to various activities. Those no longer allowed in the cities, including the old and no longer useful, were to be forcibly removed to areas outside the cities designated as reserves for blacks -- dusty places with abject poverty and far from what blacks considered home.
Every square inch of South Africa was designated as belonging to a racial grouping, and blacks were removed from villages and lands where generations had lived and worked fields they believed they owned -- to be replaced by whites.
The response to the Nationalist Party's policies by blacks was increased agitation. An organization called the African National Congress turned to boycotts, strikes and civil disobedience. In the early fifties they began their Defiance Campaign, together with some of the South African Indians. The government arrested 8,500, which outraged many more, and tens of thousands mobilized for defiance.
In 1956, the government indicted 156 opposition leaders, including Nelson Rolihiafia Mandela, leader of the African National Congress. The African Nation Congress issued what it called a Freedom Charter, asserting that South Africa belonged to all who lived in it, "black and white," and which called for universal suffrage and those individual freedoms found in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
The British government was less than thrilled over the new repressions in South Africa, and a white majority approved a new constitution that in 1961 made South Africa a republic. South Africa's government had hoped to remain within the Commonwealth, but with criticism from other Commonwealth nations South Africa withdrew from that association.
By now, the Communist Party of South Africa, originally all white, had joined with blacks and Asians against the repression. Already the Party was banned, by the Communism Act of 1950, which denied people the right to function peacefully in the political party of their choice. But as usual with such suppressions the Party worked underground. Blacks joined the Party, and the government and police had another charge against its non-white opponents.
In March, 1962, while posturing righteously against the Communists and perpetrators of rebellion, government forces created what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre. In the black township of Sharpeville, south of Johannesburg, police fired on a crowd of about 10,000 that had gathered in front of a police station to protest against pass laws, the police killing 67 and wounding 186, including 40 women and 8 children, most of them shot in the back while trying to flee.
The Sharpeville massacre added to the other repressions made white rule more precarious, but the government continued on course and outlawed the African National Congress and the Pan-Africanist Congress, forcing these two organization underground. For awhile, only black labor activists were making protests, but the African National Congress was developing a military wing in its organization, called the Umkhonto. In 1963, diligent government forces discovered Umkhonto's headquarters and found there the leader Nelson Mandela. They arrested Mandela and others, and in 1964 Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch34-sa.htmRobben Island
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Robben Island* | |
|---|---|
| UNESCO World Heritage Site | |
 Prison buildings on Robben Island. Table Mountain is visible 15 km in the background | |
| State Party |  South Africa |
| Type | Cultural |
| Criteria | iii, vi |
| Reference | 916 |
| Region** | Africa |
| Coordinates | 33°48′24″S 18°21′58″E / 33.806734°S 18.366222°ECoordinates: 33°48′24″S 18°21′58″E / 33.806734°S 18.366222°E |
| Inscription history | |
| Inscription | 1999 (23rd Session) |
| * Name as inscribed on World Heritage List. ** Region as classified by UNESCO. | |
Robben Island (Afrikaans Robbeneiland) is an island in Table Bay, seven kilometres off the coast of Cape Town, South Africa. The name is Dutch for "seal island". Robben Island is roughly oval in shape, 3.3 km long north-south, and 1.9 km wide, with an area of 5.07 km². [1] It is flat and only a few metres above sea level, as a result of an ancient erosion event. The island is composed of Precambrian metamorphic rocks belonging to the Malmesbury Group. It is of particular note as it was here that future President of South Africa and Nobel Laureate Nelson Mandela and future South African President Kgalema Motlanthe,[2] alongside many other political prisoners, spent decades imprisoned during the apartheid era. Current South African President Jacob Zuma was also imprisoned there for ten years.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] History
Since the end of the 17th century, Robben Island has been used to isolate certain people—mainly prisoners—and amongst its first permanent inhabitants were political leaders from various Dutch colonies, including Indonesia. After a failed uprising at Grahamstown in 1819, the fifth of the Xhosa Wars, the British colonial government sentenced African leader Makanda Nxele to life imprisonment on the island .[3] He drowned on the shores of Table Bay after escaping the prison.[4][5]
The island was also used as a leper colony and animal quarantine station.[6] Starting in 1845 lepers from the Hemel-en-Aarde leper colony near Caledon were moved to Robben Island when Hemel-en-Aarde was found unsuitable as a leper colony. Initially this was done on a voluntary basis and the lepers were free to leave the island if they so wished.[7] In April 1891 the cornerstones for 11 new buildings to house lepers were laid. After the introduction of the Leprosy Repression Act in May 1892 admission was no longer voluntary and the movement of the lepers was restricted. Prior to 1892 an average of about 25 lepers a year were admitted to Robben Island, but in 1892 that number rose to 338, and in 1893 a further 250 were admitted.[7]
During the Second World War, the island was fortified and guns were installed as part of the defences for Cape Town.
[edit] Maritime peril
Robben Island and nearby Whale Rock[8] have been the nemesis of many a ship and its crew. The surf of the open Atlantic Ocean thunders continuously at its margins and any vessel wrecked on the reefs offshore is soon beaten to pieces and disappears. In the latter half of the 1600s a Dutch ship laden with gold coins earmarked for the payment of the salaries of employees of the Dutch East India Company in Batavia (now Jakarta, Indonesia) disintegrated on these reefs a short distance offshore, in relatively shallow but very restless waters.[citation needed] The gold today would be worth tens of millions of pounds sterling or U.S. dollars. A few coins have washed ashore over the centuries but the treasure itself remains in the ocean. It is protected largely by the almost ceaseless and violent surf. Many other vessels have been wrecked around the island.
[edit] Robben Island lighthouse
Jan van Riebeeck first set a navigation aid atop Fire Hill (now Minto Hil,), the highest point on the island. Huge bonfires were lit at night to warn VOC ships of the rocks that surround the island. The current Robben Island lighthouse, built on Minto Hill in 1864,[9] is 18 metres (59 ft) high and was converted to electricity in 1938. It is the only South African lighthouse to utilise a flashing light instead of a revolving light.[citation needed] Its light is visible for 24 nautical miles.[10]
[edit] Moturu Kramat
The Moturu Kramat, a sacred site for Muslim pilgrimage on Robben Island, was built in 1969 to commemorate Sayed Abdurahman Moturu, the Prince of Madura. Moturu, one of Cape Town's first imams, was exiled to the island in the mid-1740s and died there in 1754. Muslim political prisoners would pay homage at the shrine before leaving the island.
[edit] Animal life
When the Dutch arrived in the area in 1652, the only large animals on the island were seals and birds, principally penguins. In 1654, the settlers released rabbits on the island in order to provide a ready source of meat for passing ships.[11] The original colony of African Penguins on the island was completely exterminated by 1800. However the modern day island is once again an important breeding area for the species after a new colony established itself there in 1983.[12] The colony has grown to 13,000 and is now the third biggest for the species. The penguins are easy to see close up in their natural habitat and are therefore a popular tourist attraction.
Around 1958, Lieutenant Peter Klerck, a naval officer serving on the island, introduced various animals. The following extract of an article, written by Michael Klerck who was born on the island, describes the fauna life there:[13]
| " | My father, a naval officer at the time, with the sanction of Doctor Hey, director of Nature Conservation, turned an area into a nature reserve. A 'Noah's Ark' berthed in the harbour sometime in 1958. They stocked the island with tortoise, duck, geese, buck (which included Springbok, Eland, Steenbok, Bontebok and Fallow Deer), Ostrich and a few Wildebeest which did not last long. All except the fallow deer are indigenous to the Cape. Many animals are still there[14] including three species of tortoise—the most recently discovered in 1998—two Parrot Beaked specimens that have remained undetected until now. The leopard or mountain tortoises might have suspected the past terror; perhaps they had no intention of being a part of a future infamy, but they often attempted the swim back to the mainland (they are the only species in the world that can swim). Boats would lift them out of the sea in Table Bay and return them to us. None of the original 12 shipped over remain, and in 1995, four more were introduced—they seem to have more easily accepted their home as they are still residents. One resident brought across a large leopard tortoise discovered in a friend's garden in Newlands, Cape Town. He lived in our garden and grew big enough to climb over the wall and roam the island much like the sheep in Van Riebeeck's time. As children we were able to ride his great frame comfortably, as did some grown men. The buck and ostriches seemed equally happy and the ducks and Egyptian Geese were assigned a home in the old quarry, which had, some three hundred years before, supplied the dressed stone for the foundations of the Castle; at the time of my residence it bristled with fish. Recent reports in Cape Town newspapers show that a lack of upkeep, a lack of culling, and the proliferation of rabbits on the island has led to the total devastation of the wildlife; there remains today almost none of the animals my father brought over all those years ago; the rabbits themselves have laid the island waste, stripping it of almost all ground vegetation. It looks almost like a desert. A reporter from the broadcasting corporation told me recently that they found the carcass of the last Bontebok. | " |
There may be 25,000 rabbits on the island; they are being hunted and culled to reduce their numbers.[15]
[edit] List of former prisoners held at Robben Island
- Autshumato, one of the first freedom fighters against colonialism
- Dennis Brutus, former activist and poet
- Patrick Chamusso, former activist of the African National Congress
- Laloo Chiba, former accused at Little Rivonia Trial
- Eddie Daniels, author and activist
- Jerry Ekandjo, Namibian politician
- Nceba Faku, former Metro Mayor of Port Elizabeth
- Petrus Iilonga, Namibian trade unionist, freedom fighter and politician
- Ahmed Kathrada, former Rivonia Trialist and long-serving prisoner
- Gamzo Mandierd, activist
- Billy Nair, former Rivonia Trialist and ANC/SACP leader
- Langalibalele, one of the first freedom fighters against colonialism
- Mosiuoa Lekota, imprisoned in 1974, President and Leader of the Congress of the People
- Mac Maharaj, former accused at Little Rivonia Trial
- Nelson Mandela, African National Congress leader and former President of South Africa
- Chief Maqoma, former chief who died on the island in 1873
- Makana, one of the first freedom fighters against colonialism
- Michael Matsobane, leader of Young African Religious Movement. Sentenced at Bethal in 1979; released by PW Botha in 1987.
- Jeff Masemola, the first prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment in the apartheid era
- Amos Masondo, current Mayor of Johannesburg
- Govan Mbeki, father of former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. Govan was sentenced to life in 1963 but was released from Robben Island in 1987 by PW Botha
- Wilton Mkwayi, former accused at Little Rivonia Trial
- Murphy Morobe, Soweto Uprising student leader
- Sayed Adurohman Moturu, the Muslim Iman who was exiled on the island and died there in 1754
- Griffiths Mxenge, a South African Lawyer and member of the African National Congress
- M.D. Naidoo, a South African lawyer and member of the African National Congress
- John Nkosi Serving life but released by PW Botha in 1987
- Nongqawuse, the Xhosa prophet responsible for the Cattle Killing
- Maqana Nxele, former Xhosa prophet who drowned while trying to escape
- George Peake
- John Nyathi Pokela, co-founder and former chairman of the PAC
- Joe Seremane, current chairperson of the Democratic Alliance.
- Tokyo Sexwale, businessman and aspirant leader of the African National Congress
- Walter Sisulu, former ANC struggle hero
- Robert Sobukwe, former leader of the PAC
- Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, Namibian politician
- Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa and leader of the African National Congress
[edit] References
- ^ http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/robben.htm
- ^ "New S. Africa president sworn in". BBC News. 2008-09-25. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7634845.stm. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
- ^ Frederick Marryat. The Mission; or Scenes in Africa. London: Nick Hodson. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/21555. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Christianity in Africa South of the Sahara: 19th Century Xhosa Christianity". Bethel University. http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/SSAXhosa.html. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Edwin Diale (1979). "Makana". African National Congress. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/makana.html. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Winston Churchill (1900). London to Ladysmith via Pretoria. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14426. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ a b Newman, George (1895). Prize essays on leprosy. London : The Society. p. 194. http://www.archive.org/details/prizeessaysonlep00news.
- ^ James Horsburgh (1852). The India Directory, Or Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia and the Interjacent Ports. W.H. Allen & Co.. p. 71. http://books.google.com/books?id=gCk6YV5AslIC.
- ^ William Henry Rosser, James Frederick Imray (1867). The Seaman's Guide to the Navigation of the Indian Ocean and China Sea. J. Imray & Son. p. 280. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_8BBAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA275. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
- ^ Robben Island Lighthouse
- ^ George McCall Theal (1897). History of South Africa Under the Administration of the Dutch East India Company [1652 to 1795: Under the Administration of the Dutch East India Company (1652–1795)]. Swan Sonnenschein. p. 442. http://books.google.com/books?id=xzIPAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Les Underhill. "Robben Island". Avian Demography Unit, University of Cape Town. http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/robben.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ Michael Klerck. "Robben Island: Childhood Memories—a personal reflection". robbenisland.org. http://www.robbenisland.org. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
- ^ No longer true as of 2008
- ^ BBC News. Robben Island is 'under threat'. October 31, 2009.
[edit] External links
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Robben Island |
| | This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (November 2008) |
- Time line
- UWC Mayibuye Robben Island Archives
- Documentary about Apartheid and Robben Island
- Robben Island Museum
- Chief Maqoma imprisoned on island
- The Robben Island of Johannesburg, Constitution Hill
- Comprehensive list of prisoners held at Robben Island Prison during apartheid
- News 24 article, Robben Island "a lonely place", The once notorious Robben Island penal colony risks ghost town status as residents start leaving. March 17, 2008
- A background to Makana,
- The Robben Island Singers, a group of ex-prisoners who preserve Apartheid era songs and stories
| |||||||
World Cup Free Picks – Uruguay vs. Netherlands Lines
Holland vs Uruguay World Cup 2010 Betting Picks + Odds
Capperspicks.com Soccer picks channel is your best bet online for all the free Knockout round World Cup Betting Predictions you can handle. Check back with us for EVERY single tournament game. We're not the best soccer betting experts on the planet, but we work our ASSES off to make you some MONEY!
Semifinals Gambling Predictions
Matchup: Uruguay v Netherlands
Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Time: 2 :00 PM EST
Venue: Cape Town
TV: ESPN (In USA)
World Cup Fixture – Semi-Final Odds: Uruguay +550 / Netherlands -165 / Draw +250
BET ON Uruguay vs Holland HERE
After both sides reached it's final four appearance in come-from-behind victories, Uruguay –the lone remaining non European contender— and a red-hot Holland squad, will now meet for the first of two World Cup semifinal matches that start on Tuesday at Green Point Stadium in Cape Town, South Africa.
The Dutch extinguished the mighty Brazilians, coming from one goal down to win 2-1 in an exciting quarterfinal game. Trailing 1-0, the Oranje stayed within striking distance, and after an own goal from Felipe Melo and a header from Wesley Sneijder, spun the match 180 degrees in their favor. 
Robinho's first half goal separated the two as they battled back and forth in a tightly fought affair for much of the first 45 minutes. Then early in the second half disaster struck for the Samba Kings as Wesley Sneijder's cross into the box flicked off Melo's head into his own net, tying the game at one.
Sneijder headed in the winner with just over twenty minutes to go during which time's Melo's afternoon got worse when he was sent off for stomping on Arjen Robben.
Sneijder has found the net three times already in South Africa and has continued the great form that helped Inter win the Champions League just a few months ago.
Meanwhile, Uruguay showed tremendous resilience to come from a goal down, going on to win a penalty shootout against the last African team left in the World Cup – Ghana.
The Black Stars outplayed La Celeste for much of the first half and took a well-deserved 1-0 lead into the break with an extra-time strike from Sulley Muntari. Diego Forlan would score the equalizer from a free kick shortly into the second half. With the clock running down in the final minute of extra time, Luis Suarez deliberately handled an errant header from teammate Dominic Adiyah in the penalty area giving Ghana a last second penalty and earning himself a sending off.
With a chance to end the match and send Ghana to its first ever World Cup semifinal appearance, Asamoah Gyan stepped up to take the shot and banged it off the crossbar. The game was over and a penalty shootout followed, with Uruguay coming out on top, 4-2.
Their victory over five-time champions Brazil has surely given the Dutch a renewed since of hope that they can finally capture the prize that has eluded them twice, losing to Germany in the 1974 final in Munich and then to Argentina four years later in Buenos Aires.
Uruguay can make its first final in 60 years, but they will have to do it without leading goal scorer –striker Luis Suarez. Instead, they will put their dreams of a World Cup title on the foot of Diego Forlan, who illustrated against Ghana that he can strike a dangerous free kick.
Lastly, Netherlands coach Bert van Marwijk will have to juggle his starting lineup as Gregory van der Wiel and Nigel de Jongwere both picked up second yellow card bookings in the match against Brazil and will miss the semifinal. He will also be sweating the fitness of striker Robin van Persie.
The Arsenal forward injured his left arm against the Brazilians and went to the hospital on Saturday for a scan. Van Marwijk says he'll play.
It would seem that the Dutch should have the edge in this one, especially since Uruguay's Suarez will be rightfully suspended. One cannot rule out the Uruguayans chances – a squad that went unbeaten in the group stage, scoring four goals while conceding none.
Uruguay vs. Netherlands Free Pick
However, they have not faced a team with the offensive dynamism of the Dutch. I expect this one to go to Holland on a two-goal differential.
THINK YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN OUR SOCCER EXPERTS?
PLACE A BET TODAY WITH OUR OFFICIAL WORLD CUP BETTING PARTNER BETUS.COM!!! GRAB A NICE SIGNUP BONUS TODAY – CLICK HERE!
Matt Martz is a sportswriter for the Bakersfield Californian located in Central California.
Similar Posts You Might Like?!
- July 4, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Germany vs. Spain Lines
- July 1, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Germany vs. Argentina Lines
- July 1, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Paraguay vs. Spain Lines
- June 30, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Netherlands vs. Brazil Lines
- June 30, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Ghana vs. Uruguay Lines
- June 28, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Portugal vs. Spain Line
- June 28, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Japan vs. Paraguay Line
- June 27, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Chile vs. Brazil Line
- June 27, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Slovakia vs. Netherlands Line
- June 26, 2010 -- World Cup Free Picks – Mexico vs. Argentina Line
Wayne, one of the few Brazilian fans who remained at the bar after Brazil lost the match against the Netherlands. - photo by Kyle MacphersonPatrina Pink, Gleaner Intern
THE UNEXPECTED exit of the FIFA World Cup five-time world champions, Brazil, left many Jamaicans hurt yesterday.
Brazil went down 2-1 to an unhyped Netherlands.
For many, it was as if the wind had stopped blowing.
"Bwoy! The Brazil man them watch the game and bawl and left," said Jackie, the operator of a Caymanas Track Betting outlet on Duke Street in downtown Kingston.
The betting centre, which also operates a bar, has been accommodating World Cup matches since its June 11 start.
"We nuh sell nothing from morning. A only football, football! Nobody nuh care nothing about horse racing," she said as she lamented the economic costs of the World Cup to the business of the sport of kings.
Wayne was one of the few Brazilian fans who remained at the bar after Brazil's hopes and dreams were 'Dutchstroyed'.
His face was swollen from crying and he covered red eyes behind a blue rag, which he used intermittently to wipe the sweat of his former excitement.
"Bwoy! me nuh know wah fi seh. This was our year to win."
Pained, he could no longer withstand the jeers of fellow patrons and exited the betting centre, with his handy blue rag covering his face fully.
Another Brazil supporter was quick to put the blame squarely on Felipe Melo, who undid his early golden work as the game grew older.
"A number five mash up the game. The number five shouldn't have played. From the match start, him nuh good. A first him a come inna the game from the Cup start. Him just a start this match. I don't (know) where him come pon me side fah. Me not even know him name," the fan said.
Melo was a hero after his defence-splitting pass allowed Robinho to give Brazil an early lead.
But later, Melo scored an own goal and then slammed's Brazil wagon into the wall with his red card-earning 73rd-minute stamp on Arjen Robben's hamstring.
While some fans wanted Melo's head, some patrons criticised the 'folly' of what they deemed an overrated team.
Wayne Bachelor believes that it was overconfidence that led to Brazil's defeat and cautioned Jamaicans about not believing in the hype.
"Some supporters lose bets and money. But they should have noticed that their team is a lot of hype and dem lazy," Bachelor said.
"Jamaicans love the star ballers business too much. Most of we follow Brazil, but Brazil can't win everything, especially when the other side is hungry," he added.
patrina.pink@gleanerjm.comDutch Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a comprehensive list of the territories that formed the Dutch Empire, see Evolution of the Dutch Empire.Dutch Empire
An anachronous map of the Dutch colonial Empire. Light green: territories administered by or originating from territories administered by the Dutch East India Company; dark green the Dutch West India Company.The Dutch Empire (Dutch: Nederlands-koloniale Rijk) consisted of the overseas territories controlled by the Netherlands from the 17th to the 20th century. The Dutch followed Portugal and Spain in establishing an overseas colonial empire, but based on military conquest of already-existing Portuguese and Spanish settlements, and not on discovery and colonisation. For this, they were aided by their skills in shipping and trade and the surge of nationalism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain. Alongside the British, the Dutch initially built up colonial possessions on the basis of indirect state capitalist corporate colonialism, via the Dutch East and West India Companies. Dutch exploratory voyages such as those led by Willem Barents, Henry Hudson and Abel Tasman revealed to Europeans vast new territories.
With Dutch naval power rising rapidly as a major force from the late 16th century, the Netherlands dominated global commerce during the second half of the 17th century during a cultural flowering known as the Dutch Golden Age. The Netherlands lost many of its colonial possessions, as well as its global power status, to the British when the metropole fell to French armies during the Revolutionary Wars. The restored portions of the Dutch Empire, notably the Dutch East Indies and Suriname, remained under Dutch control until the decline of European imperialism following World War II.
Today, the Netherlands are part of a federacy called the Kingdom of the Netherlands, along with its former colonies Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.
Contents
[hide][edit] Origins (1543–1602)
The territories that would later form the Dutch Republic were originally part of a loose federation of seventeen provinces, which Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain had inherited and brought under his direct rule in 1543. In 1567 a Protestant revolt broke out against rule by Roman Catholic Spain, sparking the Eighty Years War. Led by William of Orange, independence was declared in the 1581 Act of Abjuration. The revolt resulted in the establishment of an independent Protestant republic in the north, although Spain did not officially recognize Dutch independence until 1648.
The coastal provinces of Holland and Zeeland had for a long time prior to Spanish rule been important hubs of the European maritime trade network. Their geographical location provided convenient access to the markets of France, Germany, England and the Baltic.[1] The war with Spain led many financiers and traders to emigrate from Antwerp, capital of Flanders and then one of Europe's most important commercial centres, to Dutch cities, particularly Amsterdam,[2] which became Europe's foremost centre for shipping, banking, and insurance.[3] Efficient access to capital enabled the Dutch in the 1580s to extend their trade networks beyond northern Europe to new markets in the Mediterranean and the Levant. In the 1590s, Dutch ships began to trade with Brazil and the Dutch Gold Coast of Africa, and towards the Indian Ocean and the source of the lucrative spice trade.[4] This brought the Dutch into direct competition with Portugal, which had dominated these trade networks for several decades, and had established colonial outposts on the coasts of Brazil, Africa and the Indian Ocean to facilitate them. The rivalry with Portugal, however, was not entirely economic: from 1580, after the battle of Ksar El Kebir, the Portuguese crown had been joined to that of Spain in an "Iberian Union" under Philip II of Spain. By attacking Portuguese overseas possessions, the Dutch forced Spain to divert financial and military resources away from its attempt to quell Dutch independence.[5] Thus began the several decade-long Dutch-Portuguese War.
In 1594, the "Company of Far Lands" was founded in Amsterdam, with the aim of sending two fleets to the spice islands of Maluku.[6] The first fleet sailed in 1596 and returned in 1597 with a cargo of pepper, which more than covered the costs of the voyage. The second voyage (1598-1599), returned its investors a 400% profit.[7] The success of these voyages led to the founding of a number of companies competing for the trade. The competition was counterproductive to the companies' interests as it threatened to drive up the price of spices at their source in Indonesia whilst driving them down in Europe.[7]
[edit] Rise of Dutch hegemony (1602–1652)
See also: Evolution of the Dutch EmpireAs a result of the problems caused by intercompany rivalry, the Dutch East India Company (or VOC, from the Dutch Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) was founded in 1602. The charter awarded to the Company by the States-General granted it sole rights, for an initial period of 21 years, to Dutch trade and navigation east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan. The directors of the company, the "Heeren XVII" were given the legal authority to establish "fortresses and strongholds", to sign treaties, to enlist its own army and navy, and to wage defensive war.[8] The company itself was founded as a joint stock company, similarly to its English rival that had been founded two years earlier, the English East India Company. In 1621 the Dutch West India Company was set up and given a twenty five year monopoly to those parts of the world that were not controlled by its East India counterpart: the Atlantic, the Americas and the west coast of Africa.[9]
[edit] Asia
The primary Dutch and Portuguese settlements in Asia, c. 1665. With the exception of Jakarta and Deshima, all had been captured by the Dutch East India Company from Portugal.[10]
The VOC began immediately to prise away the string of coastal fortresses that at the time comprised the Portuguese Empire. The settlements were isolated, difficult to reinforce if attacked, and prone to being picked off one by one, but nevertheless the Dutch only enjoyed mixed success in its attempts to do so.[11] Amboina was captured from the Portuguese in 1605, but an attack on Malacca the following year narrowly failed in its objective to provide a more strategically located base in the East Indies with favourable monsoon winds.[12] The Dutch found what they were looking for in Jakarta, conquered by Jan Coen in 1619, later renamed Batavia after the putative Dutch ancestors the Batavians, and which would become the capital of the Dutch East Indies. Meanwhile, the Dutch continued to drive out the Portuguese from their bases in Asia. Malacca finally succumbed in 1641 (after a second attempt to capture it), Colombo in 1656, Ceylon in 1658, Nagappattinam in 1662 and Cranganore and Cochin in 1662.[10] Goa, the capital of the Portuguese Empire in the East, was unsuccessfully attacked by the Dutch in 1603 and 1610. Whilst the Dutch were unable in four attempts to capture Macau[13] from where Portugal monopolised the lucrative China-Japan trade, the Japanese shogunate's increasing suspicion of the intentions of the Catholic Portuguese led to their expulsion in 1639. Under the subsequent sakoku policy, from 1639 till 1854 (215 years!) the Dutch were the only European power allowed to operate in Japan, confined in 1639 to Hirado and then from 1641 at Deshima. In the mid seventeenth century the Dutch also explored the western Australian coasts, naming many places.
The Dutch colonised Mauritius in 1638, several decades after three ships out of the Dutch Second Fleet sent to the Spice Islands were blown off course in a storm and landed in 1598. They named it in honour of Prince Maurice of Nassau, the Stadtholder of the Netherlands. The Dutch found the climate hostile and abandoned the island after several further decades.
By the middle of the 17th century, the Dutch had overtaken Portugal as the dominant player in the spice and silk trade, and in 1652 founded a colony at Cape Town on the coast of South Africa, as a way-station for its ships on the route between Europe and Asia.[14] After the first settlers spread out around the Company station, nomadic white livestock farmers, or Trekboers, moved more widely afield, leaving the richer, but limited, farming lands of the coast for the drier interior tableland. In 1795 the heavily taxed Boers of the frontier districts, who received no protection against the Africans, expelled the officials of the Dutch East India Company, and established independent governments at Swellendam and at Graaff Reinet.
Between 1602 and 1796, the VOC sent almost a million Europeans to work in the Asia trade.[15] The majority died of disease or made their way back to Europe, but some of them made the Indies their new home.[16] Interaction between the Dutch and native population mainly took place in Sri Lanka and the modern Indonesian Islands. Through the centuries there developed a relatively large Dutch-speaking population of mixed Dutch and Indonesian descent, known as Indos or Dutch-Indonesians.
[edit] Americas
In the Atlantic, the West India Company concentrated on wresting from Portugal its grip on the sugar and slave trade, and on opportunistic attacks on the Spanish treasure fleets on their homeward bound voyage.[18] Bahia on the north east coast of Brazil was captured in 1624 but only held for a year before it was recaptured by a joint Spanish-Portuguese expedition. In 1628, Piet Heyn captured the entire Spanish treasure fleet, and made off with a vast fortune in precious metals and goods that enabled the Company two years later to pay its shareholders a cash dividend of 70%,[19] though the Company was to have relatively few other successes against the Spanish.[20] In 1630, the Dutch occupied the Portuguese sugar-settlement of Pernambuco and over the next few years pushed inland, annexing the sugar plantations that surrounded it. In order to supply the plantations with the manpower they required, a successful expedition was launched in 1637 from Brazil to capture the Portuguese slaving post of Elmina,[9] and in 1641 successfully captured the Portuguese settlements in Angola.[21] In 1642 the Dutch captured the Portuguese possession of Axim in Africa. By 1650, the West India Company was firmly in control of both the sugar and slave trades, and had occupied the Caribbean islands of Sint Maarten, Curaçao, Aruba and Bonaire in order to guarantee access to the islands' salt-pans.[22]
Unlike in Asia, Dutch successes against the Portuguese in Brazil and Africa were short-lived. Years of settlement had left large Portuguese communities under the rule of the Dutch, who were by nature traders rather than colonisers.[23] In 1645, the Portuguese community at Pernambuco rebelled against their Dutch masters,[24] and by 1654, the Dutch had been ousted from Brazil. In the intervening years, a Portuguese expedition had been sent from Brazil to recapture Luanda in Angola, by 1648 the Dutch were expelled from there also.
On the north-east coast of North America, the West India Company took over a settlement that had been established by the Company of New Netherland (1614–18) at Fort Orange at Albany on the Hudson River,[25] relocated from Fort Nassau which had been founded in 1614. The Dutch had been sending ships annually to the Hudson River to trade fur since Henry Hudson's voyage of 1609.[26] In order to protect its precarious position at Albany from the nearby English and French, the Company founded the fortified town of New Amsterdam in 1625 at the mouth of the Hudson, encouraging settlement of the surrounding areas of Long Island and New Jersey.[27] The fur trade ultimately proved impossible for the Company to monopolise due to the massive illegal private trade in furs, and the settlement of New Netherland was unprofitable.[28] In 1655, the nearby colony of New Sweden on the Delaware River was forcibly absorbed into New Netherland after ships and soldiers were sent to capture it by the Dutch governor, Pieter Stuyvesant.[29]
Ever since its inception, the Dutch East India Company had been in competition with its counterpart, the English East India Company, founded two years earlier but with a capital base eight times smaller,[30] for the same goods and markets in the East. In 1619, the rivalry resulted in the Amboyna massacre, when several English Company men were executed by agents of the Dutch. The event remained a source of English resentment for several decades, and in the late 1620s the English Company shifted its focus from Indonesia to India.[30]
In 1643 the Dutch West India Company established a settlement in the ruins of the Spanish settlement of Valdivia, in southern Chile. The one of the expedition was to gain foothold in the west coast of the Americas, an area that by the time was almost an internal sea of Spain and to extract gold from nearby mines. Uncooperative indigenous peoples that had forced the Spanish to leave Valdivia in 1604 contributed to get the expedition to leave after some months of occupation. This occupation triggered the return of the Spanish to Valdivia and the building of one of the largest defesive complexes of colonial America.
[edit] Rivalry with England and France (1652–1795)
In 1651, the English parliament passed the first of the Navigation Acts which excluded Dutch shipping from the lucrative trade between England and its Caribbean colonies, and led directly to the outbreak of hostilities between the two countries the following year, the first of three Anglo-Dutch Wars that would last on and off for two decades and slowly erode Dutch naval power to England's benefit.[32][33]
The Second Anglo-Dutch War was precipitated in 1664 when English forces moved to capture New Netherland. Under the Treaty of Breda (1667), New Netherland was ceded to England in exchange for the English settlements in Suriname, which had been conquered by Dutch forces earlier that year. Though the Dutch would again take New Netherland in 1673, during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, it was returned to England the following year, thereby ending the Dutch Empire in continental North America, but leaving behind a large Dutch community under English rule that persisted with its language, church and customs until the mid-eighteenth century.[34]In South America, the Dutch seized Cayenne from the French in 1658 and drove off a French attempt to retake it a year later. However, it was returned to France in 1664 since the colony proved to be unprofitable. It was recaptured by the Dutch in 1676, but was returned again a year later, this time permanently. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 saw the Dutch William of Orange ascend to the throne, ending eighty years of rivalry between the Netherlands and England, while the rivalry with France remained strong.
During the American Revolutionary War, Britain declared war on the Netherlands, the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, in which Britain seized the Dutch colony of Ceylon. Under the Peace of Paris (1783), Ceylon was returned to the Netherlands and Negapatnam ceded to Britain.
[edit] Napoleonic era (1795–1815)
In 1795, the French revolutionary army invaded the Dutch Republic and turned the nation into a satellite of France, named the Batavian Republic. Britain, which was at war with France, soon moved to occupy Dutch colonies in Asia, South Africa and the Caribbean.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Amiens signed by Britain and France in 1802, the Cape Colony and the islands of the Dutch West Indies that the British had seized were returned to the Republic. Ceylon was not returned to the Dutch and was made a British Crown Colony. After the outbreak of hostilities between Britain and France again in 1803, the British retook the Cape Colony. The British also invaded the island of Java in 1810 which resulted in Anglo-Dutch Java War. The entire colony fell under British control in 1811.
In 1806 Napoleon dissolved the Batavian Republic and established a monarchy with his brother, Louis, on the throne as King of Holland. Louis was removed from power by Napoleon in 1810, and the country was ruled directly from France until its liberation in 1813. The following year, the independent Netherlands signed the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 with Britain. All of the colonies that Britain had seized were returned to the Netherlands, with the exception of the Cape Colony and Guyana.
[edit] Post-Napoleonic era (1815–1945)
After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, Europe's borders were redrawn at the Congress of Vienna. For the first time since the declaration of independence from Spain in 1581, the Dutch were reunited with the Southern Netherlands in a constitutional monarchy, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The union lasted just 15 years. In 1830, a revolution in the southern half of the country led to the de facto independence of the new state of Belgium.
The bankrupt Dutch East India Company was liquidated on 1 January 1800,[36] and its territorial possessions were nationalised as the Dutch East Indies. Anglo-Dutch rivalry in Southeast Asia continued to fester over the port of Singapore, which had been ceded to the British East India Company in 1819 by the sultan of Johore. The Dutch claimed that a treaty signed with the sultan's predecessor the year earlier had granted them control of the region. However, the impossibility of removing the British from Singapore, which was becoming an increasingly important centre of trade, became apparent to the Dutch, and the disagreement was resolved with the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. Under its terms, the Netherlands ceded Malacca and their bases in India to the British, and recognised the British claim to Singapore. In return, the British handed over Bencoolen and agreed not to sign treaties with rulers in the "islands south of the Straits of Singapore". Thus the archipelago was divided into two spheres of influence: a British one, on the Malay Peninsula, and a Dutch one in the East Indies.[37]
For most of the Dutch East Indies history, and that of the VOC before it, Dutch control over their territories was often tenuous, but was expanded over the course of the 19th century. Only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become the boundaries of modern-day Indonesia. Although highly populated and agriculturally productive Java was under Dutch domination for most of the 350 years of the combined VOC and Dutch East Indies era, many areas remained independent for much of this time including Aceh, Lombok, Bali and Borneo.[38]
In 1871, all of the Dutch possessions on the Dutch Gold Coast were sold to Britain.
The Dutch West India company was abolished in 1791, and its colonies in Suriname and the Caribbean brought under the direct rule of the state.[39] The economies of the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean had been based on the smuggling of goods and slaves into Spanish America, but with the end of the slave trade in 1814 and the independence of the new nations of South and Central America from Spain, profitability rapidly declined. Dutch traders moved en masse from the islands to the United States or Latin America, leaving behind a small populations with little income and which required subsidies from the Dutch government. The Antilles were combined under one administration with Suriname from 1828 to 1845. Slavery was not abolished in the Dutch Caribbean colonies until 1863, long after those of Britain and France, though by this time only 6,500 slaves remained. In Suriname, slave holders demanded compensation from the Dutch government for freeing slaves, whilst in Sint Maarten, abolition of slavery in the French half in 1848 led slaves in the Dutch half to take their own freedom.[40] In Suriname, after the abolition of slavery, Chinese workers were encouraged to immigrate as indentured labourers,[41] as were Javanese, between 1890 and 1939.[42]
[edit] Decolonisation (1942–1975)
Sukarno, the leader for Indonesian IndependenceIn January 1942, Imperial Japan invaded Indonesia. Two months later the Dutch surrendered in Java with Indonesians initially welcoming the Japanese as liberators.[43] The subsequent Japanese occupation of Indonesia during the remainder of World War II saw the fundamental dismantling of the Dutch colonial state's economic, political and social structures, replacing it with a Japanese regime.[44] In the decades before the war, the Dutch had been overwhelmingly successful in suppressing the small nationalist movement in Indonesia such that the Japanese occupation proved fundamental for Indonesian independence.[44]The Japanese encouraged and backed Indonesian nationalism in which new indigenous institutions were created and nationalist leaders such as Sukarno were promoted. The internment of all Dutch citizens meant that Indonesians filled many leadership and administrative positions, although the top positions were still held by the Japanese.[44]
Two days after the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Sukarno and fellow nationalist leader Hatta declared Indonesian independence. A four and a half-year struggle followed as the Dutch tried to re-establish their colony. Dutch forces eventually re-occupied most of the colonial territory and a guerrilla struggle ensued. The majority of Indonesians, and ultimately international opinion, favoured independence, and in December 1949, the Netherlands formally recognised Indonesian sovereignty. Under the terms of the 1949 agreement, Western New Guinea remained under the auspices of Netherlands New Guinea. The new Indonesian government under President Sukarno pressured for the territory to come under Indonesian control as Indonesian nationalists initially intended. Following United States pressure, the Netherlands transferred it to Indonesia under the 1962 New York Agreement.
In 1954, under the "Statute of the Realm", the Netherlands, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles (at the time including Aruba) became a composite kingdom. The former colonies were granted autonomy save for certain matters including defense, foreign affairs and citizenship, which were the responsibility of the Realm. In 1969, unrest in Curaçao led to Dutch marines being sent to quell rioting. In 1973, negotiations started in Suriname for independence, and full independence was granted in 1975, with 60,000 immigrants taking the opportunity of moving to the Netherlands. In 1986, Aruba was allowed to secede from the Netherlands Antilles federation, and was pressured by the Netherlands to move to independence within ten years. However, in 1994, it was agreed that its status as a Realm in its own right could continue.[45] In 2004 it was agreed that the federation of the Netherlands Antilles would be dissolved, scheduled to have taken place in December 2008, although it has not yet occurred. Curaçao and Sint Maarten would have "country status",[46] whilst the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba would be granted a status similar to Dutch municipalities.[47]
[edit] Legacy
[edit] Dutch language
Despite the Dutch presence in Indonesia for almost three hundred and fifty years, the Dutch language has no official status[49] and the small minority that can speak the language fluently are either educated members of the oldest generation, or employed in the legal profession,[50] as some legal codes are still only available in Dutch.[51] The Indonesian language inherited many words from Dutch, both in words for everyday life, and as well in scientific or technological terminology.[52] One scholar argues that 20% of Indonesian words can be traced back to Dutch words.[53]
The century and half of Dutch rule in Ceylon and southern India left few to no traces of the Dutch language. Today, in Suriname, Dutch is the official language[54] and 58 percent of the population speak it as their mother tongue. Twenty-four percent of the population speaks Dutch as a second language, and in total 82 percent of the population can speak Dutch.[55] In Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao, Dutch is the official language but spoken as a first language by only seven to eight percent of the population,[56][57] although most people on the islands can speak the language and the education system on these islands is in Dutch at some or all levels.[58] The population of the three northern Antilles, Sint Maarten, Saba, and Saint Eustatius, is predominantly English-speaking.
In New Jersey in the United States, an extinct dialect of Dutch, Jersey Dutch, spoken by descendants of seventeenth century Dutch settlers in Bergen and Passaic counties, was noted to still be spoken as late as 1921.[59]
The greatest linguistic legacy of the Netherlands was in its colony in South Africa, which attracted large numbers of Dutch farmer (in Dutch, Boer) settlers, who spoke a simplified form of Dutch called Afrikaans, which is largely mutually intelligible with Dutch. After the colony passed into British hands, the settlers spread into the hinterland, taking their language with them. As of 2005, there were 10 million people for whom Afrikaans is either a primary and secondary language, compared with over 22 million speakers of Dutch.[60][61]
[edit] Placenames
Some towns of New York and areas of New York City, once part of the colony of New Netherland have names of Dutch origin, such as Brooklyn (after Breukelen), Flushing (after Vlissingen), Harlem (after Haarlem), and Staten Island (meaning "Island of the States"). The last Director-General of the colony of New Netherland, Pieter Stuyvesant, has bequeathed his name to a street, a neighborhood and a few schools in New York City, and the town of Stuyvesant.
Many towns and cities in Suriname share names with cities in the Netherlands, such as Alkmaar, and Groningen.
[edit] Architecture
In the Surinamese Capital of Paramaribo, the Dutch Fort Zeelandia still stands today. In the centre of Malacca, Malaysia, the Stadthuys Building and Christ Church still stand. There are still archaeological remains of Fort Goede Hoop (modern Hartford, Connecticut) and Fort Orange (modern Albany, New York).[63]
Dutch architecture is easy to see in Aruba, Curaçao, and Bonaire. The Dutch style buildings are especially visible in Willemstad, with its steeply pitched gables, large windows and soaring finials.[64]
[edit] See also
- Dutch colonisation of the Americas
- Dutch East India Company
- Dutch West India Company
- Dutch Language Union
- List Of Dutch East India Company Trading Posts
[edit] References
[edit] Bibliography
- Ammon, Ulrich (2005). Sociolinguistics.
- Baker, Colin (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Multilingual Matters.
- Booij, G.E. (1995). The Phonology of Dutch.
- Boxer, C.R. (1965). The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600–1800. Hutchinson.
- Boxer, C.R. (1969). The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415–1825. Hutchinson.
- Davies, K.G. (1974). The North Atlantic World in the Seventeenth Century. University of Minnesota.
- McEvedy, Colin (1988). The Penguin Historical Atlas of the North America. Viking.
- McEvedy, Colin (1998). The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Pacific. Penguin.
- Ostler, Nicholas (2005). Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World. Harper Collins.
- Rogozinski, Jan (2000). A Brief History of the Caribbean. Plume.
- SarDesai, D.R. (1997). Southeast Asia: Past and Present. Westview.
- Scammel, G.V. (1989). The First Imperial Age: European Overseas Expansion c. 1400–1715. Routledge.
- Sneddon, James (2003). The Indonesian Language: Its History and Role in Modern Society. UNSW Press.
- Shipp, Steve (1997). Macau, China: A Political History of the Portuguese Colony's Transition to Chinese Rule. McFarland.
- Taylor, Alan (2001). American Colonies: The Settling of North America. Penguin.
- Vickers, Adrian (2005). A History of Modern Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54262-6.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.6.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.19.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p. 248.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.20.
- ^ Scammel (1989), p.20.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.22.
- ^ a b Boxer (1965), p.23.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.24.
- ^ a b Rogozinski (2000), p.62.
- ^ a b Boxer (1969), p.24.
- ^ Boxer (1969), p.23.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.189.
- ^ Shipp, p.22.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.250.
- ^ Nomination VOC archives for Memory of the World Register
- ^ Easternization of the West: Children of the VOC
- ^ Reproduced from Boxer (1965), p.101.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.62.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.63.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.26.
- ^ Boxer (1969), p.112.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.65.
- ^ Boxer (1969), p.120.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.26
- ^ Davies (1974), p.89.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.251.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.252.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.253.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.255.
- ^ a b McEvedy (1998), p.44.
- ^ Boxer (1965), p.261
- ^ McEvedy (1988), p.46.
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.259
- ^ Taylor (2001), p.260
- ^ SarDesai (1997), p.88.
- ^ Ricklefs, M.C. (1991). A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1300, 2nd Edition. London: MacMillan. p. 110. ISBN 0-333-57689-6.
- ^ SarDesai, pp.92–93.
- ^ Witton, Patrick (2003). Indonesia. Melbourne: Lonely Planet. pp. 23–25. ISBN 1-74059-154-2.; Schwarz, A. (1994). A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s. Westview Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 1-86373-635-2.
- ^ Rogozinski (1999), pp.213
- ^ Rogozinski (1999), pp.213–4
- ^ The Chinese in Suriname
- ^ Javanese in Suriname strive to preserve origins
- ^ Ricklefs (1991), p. 195. Vickers (2005), pp.85, 85.
- ^ a b c Vickers (2005), page 85
- ^ Rogozinski, pp.296–7
- ^ Curaçao and St Maarten to have country status - Government.nl
- ^ Three Antillean islands to receive new status - Government.nl
- ^ Lewes Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau, Inc
- ^ Baker (1998), p.202.
- ^ Ammon (2005), p.2017.
- ^ Booij (1995), p.2
- ^ Sneddon (2003), p.162.
- ^ A Hidden Language – Dutch in Indonesia
- ^ CIA - The World Factbook - Suriname
- ^ Bron: Zevende algemene volks- en woningtelling 2004, Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek
- ^ CIA - The World Factbook - Netherlands Antilles
- ^ CIA - The World Factbook - Aruba
- ^ Languages of Aruba
- ^ Jersey Dutch
- ^ "About the Netherlands". Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. http://www.minbuza.nl/en/welcome/Netherlands#a7. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
- ^ "Hoeveel mensen spreken Nederlands als moedertaal? (How many people speak Dutch as mother tongue?)". Nederlandse Taalunie. 2005. http://taalunieversum.org/taal/vragen/antwoord/4/. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
- ^ Tourism.gov.my
- ^ Dutch Colonial Remains
- ^ Willemstad, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles Heritage Site of the Month
[edit] Further reading
- Andeweg, Rudy C.; Galen A. Irwin (2005). Governance and Politics of the Netherlands (2nd ed. ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403935297.
- Boxer, C. R. (1957). The Dutch in Brazil, 1624–1654. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Bromley, J.S.; E.H. Kossmann. Britain and the Netherlands in Europe and Asia.
- Corn, Charles. The Scents of Eden: A History of the Spice Trade.
- Elphick, Richard; Hermann Giliomee (1989). The Shaping of South African Society, 1652–1840 (2nd ed. ed.). Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. ISBN 0819562114.
- Gaastra, Femme S. (2003). The Dutch East India Company. Zutphen, Netherlands: Walburg.
- Postma, Johannes M. (1990). The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600–1815. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521365856.
- Wesseling, H.L.. Imperialism and Colonialism: Essays on the History of Colonialism.
[edit] External links
- (Dutch) De VOCsite
- Dutch and Portuguese Colonial History
- (Dutch) VOC Kenniscentrum
- Archives of the Dutch East and West India Companies
| ||
| ||
| ||
Brief summary of the colonial history of South Africa
The colonial history of South Africa started on 6 April 1652, when the Dutch seafarer Jan van Riebeeck arrived in Table Bay with his three ships.
His mission was to establish a supply station on behalf of the Dutch East India Company ( V.O.C.).
Originally, the V.O.C. did not intend to establish a full-fledged colony at the Cape, but it committed itself when it gave nine Company servants their freedom in 1657 to establish private farms in the Rondebosch area below the eastern slopes of Table Mountain.
Learn more about the colonial history of South Africa;
- DUTCH RULE IN THE CAPE COLONY 1652 - 1795
BRITISH OCCUPATION 1795 - 1803
RETURN TO DUTCH RULE 1803 - 1806
SECOND BRITISH OCCUPATION 1806
Part of a very old map of Africa, showing Southern Africa as it was when the first European explorers rounded the Cape of Good Hope
Colonial History of South Africa
British occupation 1795 - 1803,...
After the French Revolution, the newly founded Republic of France conquered the Netherlands in 1795. The Netherlands became known as the Batavian Republic and the ruler of the Netherlands, Prince William of Orange, had to flee to England.
In England, the prince asked the British to prevent France taking possession of the Dutch colonies. Britain obliged and, as a result, became involved with the Cape colony. Problems occurred almost immediately because not all the inhabitants of the Cape were in favour of British occupation.
However, the British did bring with them certain improvements. Under British rule, officials received set salaries and were no longer dependent on incomes from fines. This eliminated most malpractices in the government.
British iron ploughs were imported, which assisted with agricultural development. Because of the war in Europe, there was a growing demand for agricultural products from the Cape, which furthered economical growth. British taxation was also lenient.
Main gateway into the castle of good Hope built between 1666 and 1679 by the Dutch East India Company, better known as the VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie)
Colonial History of South Africa - copyright © South-Africa-tours-and-travel.com
The biggest problem the British had to contend with was the unrest on the eastern frontier. The farmers on the frontier were not prepared to submit to British rule without a fight and the African population also resisted.
The farmers tried to recapture the Cape, but eventually surrendered. When Gaika became chief of the Xhosas, unrest and tension on the eastern frontier intensified. The farmers revolted under the leadership of Adriaan van Jaarsveld and relations between the farmers and authorities deteriorated.
In 1803, after the Cape had been returned to the Dutch in terms of the Peace of Amiens (signed between England and France), British rule at the Cape came to an end.
Replica of typical VOC ship, the Amsterdam, which waslost on its maiden voyage in 1749. The replica is on show at the Maritime Museum in the Netherlands
Colonial History of South Africa
<< Top of Page
Return to Dutch rule 1803 - 1806,…
The Dutch Batavian Republic appointed Janssens as governor of the Cape and De Mist became Commissioner-General. These two leaders were supporters of the Dutch Patriots and they tried to re-establish Dutch settlement at the Cape. They also brought about some significant political and administrative changes.
Janssens, as governor, held supreme legislative power and a political council assisted him in his duties. He also instituted a Council of Justice to represent the interests of the colonists. Municipal councils were instituted in Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet and every district had an appointed landdrost (magistrate).
Main gateway into the castle of good Hope built between 1666 and 1679 by the Dutch East India Company, better known as the VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie
Colonial History of South Africa - copyright © South-Africa-tours-and-travel.com
In 1804, De Mist published the Church Order that allowed for freedom of religion. Education was improved by importing teachers from the Netherlands. Sheep farming was also improved by importing merino rams from Spain. Wine experts from Germany were imported to try and improve the quality of wine.
Unfortunately, some of De Mist's plans for the frontier failed. The alliance between the Khoi people and the Xhosa on the frontier caused more friction and De Mist did not have sufficient funds to effectively carry out his frontier policy. When the Dutch flag was lowered for the last time on 10 January 1806, the Cape Colonists were sad to see De Mist and Janssens leave, because they had achieved much good over a short period of time.
View from the walls of the Castle of Good Hope towards the Cape Town CBD
Colonial History of South Africa - copyright © South-Africa-tours-and-travel.com
<< Top of Page
Second British occupation 1806,...
When war broke out in Europe in 1803, Napoleon tried to stop British trade with Europe. Britain had lost its American colonies with their valuable trading opportunities and was forced to look elsewhere to find new markets for trade. The logical choice was the East. This meant trading by sea and the Cape was the ideal place for ships to obtain fresh water and produce. This prompted the second occupation of the Cape by Britain, in January 1806.
Her majesty queen Victoria who reigned Great Britain and its colonies from 1837 until 1901
Colonial History of South Africa - copyright © South-Africa-tours-and-travel.com
Remembering the problems that it had had in its American colonies, Britain decided to be more autocratic in its governance of the Cape. The Cape would be governed as a crown colony, with a governor appointed by England and inhabitants of the Cape would no longer have any say in political matters.
The governor took his instructions only from the Minister of Colonies in London and was given the power to make laws and dismiss officials as he saw fit. However, the system of local government, which enabled magistrates and councils to continue as before, was retained.FIFA World Cup 2010 Theme Song Lyrics World Cup Insight
Globe and Mail - 39 minutes agoWhat a World Cup this has so far been! I can’t believe that Argentina was sent home packing; it was like a nightmare. Coach Diego Maradona may very well ...World Cup 2010: Diego Maradona should continue, says Gabriel Heinze - The Guardian
Germany vs Argentina highlights & score: FIFA world cup 2010 ... - New Delhi Chronicle.com (blog)
infocera - The Global Herald
all 7851 news articles »
FIFA World Cup 2010: Remaining World Cup teams take time off
Afrique en Ligue - 5 hours agoWorld Cup South Africa - The four remaining teams in the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa were observing Sunday and Monday as rest days, before going ...Schedule of Semi Finals of FIFA WORLD CUP-2010 - Haryana News (blog)
FIFA World Cup 2010 Bracket Update: World Cup 2010 Semi Finals Round - Skubble (blog)
South Asia Blog (blog) - The Global Herald
all 5998 news articles »
Spain vs. Paraguay highlights: fifa world cup 2010,[1-0]
WOW Sports World - 15 hours agoSpain vs. Paraguay, played a very good match at Johannesburg's Ellis Park. Spain now enters into semifinal and has match against Germany on july 8th. ...2010 FIFA World Cup- Spain vs Paraguay, Edgar Barreto and David ... - Goal.com
2010 FIFA World Cup Semifinals Predicitons: Spain vs. Germany - Bleacher Report
HIGH - 5: World Cup Day 21 - NDTV.com
USANewsWeek.com - Freaky Gossip
all 3327 news articles »
Brazil vs. Netherlands World Cup 2010 Match Results and Game ...
Skubble (blog) - Jack Staffard - 4 hours ago
Netherlands World Cup 2010 Scores and Highlights – The first football match in the Quarter Finals Round of the FIFA World Cup 2010 between Netherlands vs. ...World Cup 2010: FIFA Credit Wesley Sneijder With First Goal ... - Peace FM Online
Netherlands vs. Brazil 2010 Highlights Via YouTube: FIFA World Cup ... - BollyPatrika.com (blog)
infocera - Bleacher Report
all 4939 news articles »
World Cup 2010: Nigeria FA Boss Impeached?
Peace FM Online - 1 hour ago... teams from international football for the next two years. Nigeria's government has until Monday evening to rescind this decision or else face FIFA's wrath.World Cup 2010: Nigerians sack football leaders - BBC Sport
World Cup 2010: What FIFA Ban Means For Nigeria - Peace FM Online
all 369 news articles »
FIFA wants Mahindra Satyam for 2014 World Cup
Economic Times - 1 day ago"We have been informed on this and the relationship as official FIFA World Cup sponsor will be concluded three months after the 2010 FIFA World Cup," she ...FIFA World Cup 2010-The End of Cristiano Ronaldo
bettor.com (blog) - Michael Anderson - 3 days ago
Portugal lost against Spain in their round of 16 match a few days ago and it ended Portugal and Cristiano Ronaldo's dream of winning a World Cup title. ...Paraguay and Spain qualify for quarterfinals at FIFA World Cup 2010 - Mera Bilaspur
SmarTrend News
FIFA World Cup, 2010: Spain coach Del Bosque refuses to take ... - Entertainment and Showbiz! (blog)
New Delhi Chronicle.com (blog) - Haryana News (blog)
all 3788 news articles »
Brazil Vs. Chile FIFA World Cup 2010 score, highlights: Brazil ...
infocera - 5 days agoby Swati Dhanawat 2010-06-28 Brazil Vs. Chile FIFA World Cup 2010 score, highlights: Brazil beats Chile by 3-0: On Monday in Ellis Park, Johannseburg came ...FIFA World Cup 2010: Brazil makes it to quarterfinals - beats ... - Mera Bilaspur
Round Of 16 FIFA World Cup 2010 - Brazil Vs Chile Live Updates - dailynews365
World News (blog) - Freaky Gossip
all 3145 news articles »
Mah Satyam: Powering IT for FIFA World Cup
NDTV.com - 4 days agoIf you are an Indian you couldn't have missed the Mahindra Satyam signage during the matches of 2010 FIFA World Cup. The Hyderabad based company is assured ...Mahindra Satyam scores heavily in World Cup - Business Standard
all 4 news articles »
Tour de France 2010: still a long way from Rotterdam
Telegraph.co.uk (blog) - Ned Boulting - 7 hours ago
Once in a while the "World Cup" as it is known, or to give it its full title the "FIFA World Cup" (who else was going to try and organise one? ...
No comments:
Post a Comment