Discussion 5 Many of us in the U.S. have some idea/knowledge about Jim Crow/segregation in the U.S., but the history of apartheid in South Africa is someth

Discussion 5 Many of us in the U.S. have some idea/knowledge about Jim Crow/segregation in the U.S., but the history of apartheid in South Africa is someth

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

 

Many of us in the U.S. have some idea/knowledge about Jim Crow/segregation in the U.S., but the history of apartheid in South Africa is something less commonly learned about here.  Based on what you read last week and this week to introduce you to apartheid, answer the following questions:

1. The white population of South Africa, which first colonized the land then established apartheid as the legal code, was a small minority of the overall population.  How did such a small part of the population (between 13-20%) manage to establish such an oppressive system against the majority?  (Your answer should be 3-4 sentences long)

2. The readings from the end of this week focused on memories shared by people who lived under apartheid.  What did you find most striking or interesting from those stories?  Explain what you found so interesting/notable.  (Your answer should be 3-4 sentences long)  

3. Based on what we’ve learned so far about Jim Crow and apartheid, what are some of the similarities that immediately show up?  Do you see any differences yet?  If so, what? (Your answer should be 3-4 sentences long) 

 Race Wars (1795 – 1913) – Video – Films On Demand (indstate.edu) 

 The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in South Africa (thoughtco.com) 

 Growing Up in Apartheid-Era South Africa (vice.com) 

 Growing Up Under Apartheid | Cincinnati CityBeat 

 My Grandmother Recounts Growing Up During Apartheid – The Wildezine 

4

White Supremacy, Segregation and Apartheid

How did South Africa become a society in which racial discrimination was
so deeply entrenched?

White racism was certainly not confined to South Africa. Its roots are
complex, embedded in the lengthy process of European colonialism,
the subjugation of other people in territorial conquest and black enslave-
ment. It was given further impetus from the middle of the nineteenth
century when the need to ‘civilize inferior natives’ became part of the jus-
tification for the scramble for Africa. This was also the period when
Darwinist notions of evolution and hierarchy were applied to human races.
Whites readily came to believe that they were at the top of the evolutionary
scale, as shown by their apparent technological superiority and the dyna-
mism of their imperial expansion, while blacks at the bottom were thought
to be primitive, less intelligent and sluggard. Such pseudoscientific ‘Social
Darwinism’ clearly fitted the colonizers’ view of themselves and their world.

This kind of white supremacism took strong root in South Africa, as it
did in other British colonies in Africa and Asia as well as in the United
States. But in South Africa it developed into a systematic and legalized
discrimination shaping the economic, social and political structure of the
whole country in a more pervasive way than elsewhere. And while after
1945 white supremacism began to wane as many colonies began the move
towards independence, in South Africa discrimination became even more
entrenched. Under ‘apartheid’, South Africa from the late 1940s diverged
from international trends and was marked out for isolation.

The Making of Modern South Africa: Conquest, Apartheid, Democracy, Fifth Edition.
Nigel Worden.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

74 WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID

This chapter will examine the ways in which racial discrimination in the
pre-industrial period developed into structured segregation in the first few
decades of the twentieth century, the context in which this evolved into the
ideology of apartheid, and the varied attempts of a range of organizations
to resist these developments.

White supremacism before the twentieth century

The roots of apartheid are much disputed by South African historians.
Liberals writing in the early and mid-twentieth century placed emphasis
on the irrational frontier prejudices of nineteenth-century Afrikaners:
prejudices which came to override liberal non-racialism and were resur-
rected by the National Party’s policy of 1948. Such a view has become
widespread amongst English-speaking South Africans and outside the
country. But it has obvious flaws. Notably it ignores the racial discrimina-
tion of British settlers and officials. And segregation developed before the
triumph of Afrikaner political power in 1948.

An alternative view developed in the 1970s is that segregation was the
product of the mineral revolution, particularly in response to the needs of
the mining industry, and that apartheid was built on these foundations.
There is certainly much truth in this. However, to neglect the period before
the end of the nineteenth century distorts understanding of the context in
which segregation developed. Important precedents were created in the
pre-industrial period.

Perceptions of white racial superiority were apparent from the earliest
colonial encounters of the Dutch settlers with Khoekhoe pastoralists at the
cape. They also acquired a structured form in the divisions of legal status
in early cape society: Dutch East India company officials, free burghers
(settlers), slaves, ‘Hottentots’ (Khoisan) and free blacks (manumitted
slaves). The first two categories were made up of whites, the others of
blacks. Slavery, which lasted from 1658 to 1834, deeply influenced the class
divide of the colony (Worden 1985). All slaves and most laborers were
black; landowners and employers were white. There were some exceptions
to this rule, since some Voc employees served as overseers on farms and
a propertied and slave-owning free black community developed in cape
Town. The presence of white convicts exiled from other parts of the Voc
empire who worked alongside slaves and also Asian political exiles, some
of whom were treated with high respect, also complicated the absolute
identity of race and class (Ward 2009). However, slave manumission levels

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID 75

were low (Elphick and Shell 1989). And although miscegenation existed
there was no equivalent to the mixed-race mestizo classes of Latin American
colonies, where they fulfilled important interstitial positions in the economy.
Thus at the cape ‘by the late eighteenth century race and class had over-
lapped for so long . . . that to many Europeans this social structure appeared
to be natural or god-given’ (Elphick and giliomee 1989: 544).

Freund (1976) has argued that these prejudices and the close identifica-
tion of status and race were not entrenched in the legal order of the early
cape, and cannot be said to have been the precursor of the structured
racism of the twentieth century. While the latter point is valid, there were
nonetheless a number of racially discriminatory regulations by the end of
the eighteenth century. Khoekhoe and slaves were discriminated against in
the church and the courts. Free blacks also faced discriminatory controls,
such as liability to arrest if found in the streets of cape Town without
lanterns. None of these rules applied to whites. From the 1760s slaves and
Khoekhoe were obliged to carry passes signed by their employers to prove
that they were not runaways. In 1809 a proclamation by the British governor
Lord caledon laid down that all ‘Hottentots’ (Khoikhoi) must have a ‘fixed
place of abode’, normally on a settler farm as a worker. This was to be
registered with the local authorities, from whom passes had to be obtained
before they could move out of the area. In 1812 Khoekhoe children brought
up on settler farms were indentured for ten years until the age of eighteen,
thus effectively immobilizing Khoekhoe families on specific farms (Elphick
and malherbe 1989: 40–1).

In contrast to the general identity of race and class in the settled south-
western districts of the early cape colony, Legassick has argued that ‘white
frontiersmen expected all their dependants (save their families) to be non-
white: they did not expect all non-whites to be their servants’ and that ‘the
frontier in fact provided opportunities for non-whites to which they had
no access in the capital’ (1980: 56, 67). Links of trade and mutual depend-
ence between settlers and indigenous people were more significant than
had been previously acknowledged. This view contradicts the liberal tradi-
tion that the remoter pastoral frontier was the cradle of racism. There is a
danger of overstressing the cooperative aspects of frontier life; the crudest
examples of coercive violence between settlers and Khoekhoe come from
the northern and eastern cape, and the conflicts of the early nineteenth
century with the Xhosa heightened racial hostility. But Legassick’s argu-
ment does point to the need to probe behind the stereotype of frontier
racism.

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

76 WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID

In the early nineteenth century, important changes took place at the
cape. The commercialization and expansion of the colony required an
increase in the supply and mobility of labor. So ordinance 50 of 1828
removed the controls of passes and indenture over the Khoekhoe,
and slavery was ended in 1834 (although slaves remained apprenticed
to their owners until 1838). These measures did not greatly affect the mate-
rial conditions of proletarianized freed slaves and Khoekhoe, most of
whom lacked access to land and capital, although they did permit their
movement to new employers. In racial terms the removal of the distinction
between slaves and Khoekhoe led to the identification of them more
broadly as ‘colored’, in contrast to the ‘white’ and ‘Native’ inhabitants of the
colony.

Legislation was also passed in 1828 to deal with the use of African
laborers. ordinance 49 permitted Africans to enter the colony, but stated
that they were subject to arrest if they were found without a pass issued on
their arrival or if they failed to enter employment. As Hindson has pointed
out, this contrasts with the use of passes in the 1809 caledon code, which
was intended to immobilize existing workers and prevent them from
moving in search of alternative work. ordinance 49 encouraged workers to
enter the colony and to search for employers in a more mobile labor
market, although it still enforced compulsory labor penalties for ‘vagrants’
or those who were unemployed. It thus ‘reflects the beginning of a transi-
tion from senile to market allocated labor, albeit on a limited scale’ (Hindson
1987: 17).

However, other key laws in the mid-nineteenth-century cape made no
reference to race. For instance, the masters and Servants ordinance of 1841,
designed to regulate labor contracts, was color blind. Legislation with
overtly racial controls, such as the proposed Vagrancy ordinance of 1834,
was vetoed. most significantly, the franchise established for the cape Town
municipality in 1839 and that for representative government in 1853 were
not racially defined. These acts were far from socially disruptive: in practice
most servants under the masters and Servants regulations were black and
almost all masters were white. The 1853 franchise was based on earnings
and property ownership, although these were set at quite low levels: earn-
ings of £50 a year or property, which included land, worth £25. This admit-
ted a number of colored and African voters, as well as a large proportion
of the Afrikaner males in the colony (Lewsen 1971).

The non-racial franchise lay at the core of mid-nineteenth-century cape
liberalism. Like liberal constitutions in Europe at the time, it abolished

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID 77

monopoly of power by right of birth and ancestry but it upheld the inter-
ests of men of property and wealth. yet cape liberalism was more than just
an import from mid-Victorian Britain. Trapido (1980) has argued that it
must be seen in the context of the particular social formation of the cape.
It went further in its low franchise qualifications than most other constitu-
tions of its time by incorporating many ‘small men’, whose interests were
nonetheless linked to the administrative and commercial ruling classes.
These included black (‘colored’ and African) peasant farmers whose votes
could be relied upon to support commercial development, but it excluded
the proletarianized laborers.

This class-based analysis of cape liberalism is also used to explain its
apparent decline in the late nineteenth century. By the 1880s, peasant pro-
duction was less favored, and small-scale commercial interests were giving
way to larger capital interests. moreover, the incorporation of the ciskei in
1865 and the Transkeian territories twenty or so years later threatened to
alter the balance of power by enfranchising large numbers of African land-
owners. As a result higher franchise qualifications and literacy tests were
introduced. overtly discriminatory Acts were passed in the 1880s and
1890s, such as the anti-squatting legislation and the glen grey Act (see
p. 54). The latter not only restricted individual land tenure but also set up
district councils under appointed local chiefs and headmen to administer
specified areas of African cultivation. The system spread from the eastern
cape into some Transkeian districts and Pondoland in 1905 and 1911. rich
(1981) has argued that it had an important influence on the segregationist
notions of separate reserve administration in the 1920s.

By the turn of the twentieth century, some cape legislation was overtly
racial. Liquor laws restricted the sale of alcohol to Africans in the Transkeian
territories and elsewhere. In cape Town, where there was a greater degree
of inter-racial social interaction among the lower classes than in other
South African towns, social segregation markedly increased from the 1880s.
This was largely the result of concern by the city’s dominant English elite
at what they perceived as lower-class disorder and the need to protect the
white ‘deserving poor’, at a time when growing numbers of immigrants
were arriving from Europe (Bickford-Smith 1995). African migrant dock
workers in cape Town had always worked and lived separately from others,
but in 1902 a segregated location was established for all Africans in cape
Town. In 1905 the School Board Act introduced compulsory educational
segregation, which separated white and colored pupils in government
schools. cape liberalism was certainly dented by 1910. The Act of Union

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

78 WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID

preserved the cape franchise in that province, but there was no concerted
attempt by the cape representatives to have it extended elsewhere. And
even in the cape the black franchise remained limited by property quali-
fications, while for whites under the Act of Union it included all adult
males. Africans were also not permitted to stand as parliamentary candi-
dates but were to be represented by whites. As Davenport has noted, ‘even
liberals were more concerned in the final resort to preserve the dignity of
the cape in its relations with the other colonies than the rights of blacks’
(1987: 33).

In fact, white supremacist notions were heightened in the mid-
nineteenth-century period at the time of the origins of cape liberalism.
Humanitarian attitudes that had been expressed by some cape missionar-
ies and reformers in the era of emancipation and reform in the 1820s
and 1830s were on the wane. Disillusionment at the prospect of racial
harmony came with the conflicts in the Xhosa wars in the Eastern cape
and the Kat river rebellion and by the 1850s ‘a new racial conservatism’
had emerged amongst cape intellectuals, officials and colonists (Bank
1999: 375). The realities of Xhosa resistance to the cultural impositions of
missionaries and the political rule of soldiers and administrators produced
a new discourse of racial stereotyping. The Xhosa became irredeemable
savages, obstacles to the spread of imperial civilization (Price 2008). many
settlers had in any case shown no compunction in using racist arguments
in the 1830s to call for vagrancy legislation and tighter controls over slave
apprentices. Although the underlying causes of the great Trek were eco-
nomic (see p. 16), one of the stated objections of the emigrants had been
the placing of slaves on an ‘equal footing . . . contrary to the . . . natural
distinction of race and color’.

The principles of the cape liberal franchise were clearly rejected in the
constitutions of the trekker republics. The very concept of citizenship was
defined by membership of trekker families, since isolated farmers and set-
tlers attempted to establish forms of government in regions where indig-
enous people were still occupying much of the land. Thus there were no
limitations of property or wealth as at the cape, but political representation
was restricted racially to whites. The 1839 constitution of Natalia laid down
annual elections for all adult white males. The successor trekker republics
in the Free State and the Transvaal followed this pattern. The Transvaal
grondwet (constitution) of 1858 stated explicitly that ‘the people desire to
permit no equality between colored people and the white inhabitants of
the country, either in church or state’.

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID 79

This was also clear in other aspects of the trekker polities. The Dutch
reformed church (Drc) resolved to segregate its churches in 1857, a move
that led inexorably in 1881 to the complete separation of the established
Drc for whites and the Sendingkerk (mission church) for everyone else
(ritner 1967). And political power remained confined to whites. Indians
were excluded from the Free State altogether, and in the Transvaal were
denied the franchise in the 1880s. yet the issue here was not just one of
black exclusion. one of the bones of contention in the Transvaal in the
1890s was the refusal of Kruger’s government to give representation to
white outsiders (uitlanders).

other discriminatory Acts in the republics were passed, although often
without the means of effective enforcement. Africans were forbidden to
carry guns and they were subject to vagrancy and pass laws. In the Free
State they were not permitted to register land ownership, although many
controlled land held nominally by missionaries and other whites, and in
the Transvaal some land was purchased by African chiefs in the years after
the South African War. In the 1870s and 1880s, the lure of the mines led
to stricter enforcement of pass laws by the state in an attempt to keep labor
on the farms.

But these policies were not confined to the Boer republics, as is illus-
trated by the position in Natal. Initially the charter granted to the colony
in 1856 did set up a non-racial franchise on the lines of that of the cape,
granting a vote to those with fixed property worth £50 or those paying £10
per annum in rent. However, once the Natal settlers gained control over
government, this was whittled down. As more and more Africans acquired
claims to land that brought them within these levels, laws stemming black
registration were quickly passed in the 1860s. moves were also made to
exclude Indians, many of whom were merchants and men of property, from
the franchise, although this was not finally achieved until 1896.

overtly racial controls were also established by such means as the levy
of a £3 poll tax on all Indian labor immigrants who remained in Natal
without renewing their indentures. African migrants entering the colony
from the 1860s were obliged to carry passes, in a measure very similar to
the cape ordinance 49. And by the time of Union settler racist hysteria
had reached a height in the aftermath of the Bambatha rebellion and Indian
protest actions. Natal fitted happily into the Union’s racially restricted
franchise.

Natal was also the site of what Welsh (1971) has described as South
Africa’s first example of structured segregation: a form of indirect rule over

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

80 WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID

Africans known as the ‘Shepstone system’. Shepstone was placed in charge
of ‘Native Affairs’ in the colony in 1846. given the weakness of the settlers,
he realized that the only way to protect the colonial state was to allocate
land still unclaimed by white farmers as ‘locations’, which Africans would
have the right to cultivate undisturbed, under the rule of local headmen
and chiefs operating under ‘Native Law’, although this was ill defined.
control over the chiefs was in the hands of white resident magistrates and
Administrators of Native Law, themselves subject to Shepstone and the
Natal Legislative council. crucial to this system were the hut taxes that
were levied on each head of household. These paid for the administration
not only of the locations, but also of much of settler Natal, a vital factor
given the reluctance of the imperial government to provide much financial
support to the colony (Etherington 1989).

The Shepstone system was opposed by poorer settler farmers who
resented the tying up of land and labor in the locations. However, as labor
became more readily available with external migration in the 1870s and
1880s, such complaints died down. Shepstone and his supporters claimed
that the system of separation existed to ‘protect’ Africans from erosion of
their society by European influences, particularly in matters of land tenure
and homestead production. However, it is clear that his motivation was
primarily protection of the colony against the instability of African com-
petition and ‘disorder’. The priority of control was evident in the curfews
and pass laws used to restrict Africans working in towns and villages outside
the locations. And the contrast of the stability of Natal with the upheavals
of neighboring Zululand served to bolster this view of the Shepstone system
amongst the white settlers.

By the time of Union Natalians were therefore firmly behind the prin-
ciple of segregation. Shepstonian notions of separate administrative and
legal systems had much influence on the development of ‘Native’ policy in
the Union in the 1920s, as we shall see. other foundations of segregation
in the early twentieth century had precedents in the white supremacist laws
and practices of the nineteenth century. However, it was not until the early
twentieth century that a concerted ideology and overarching plan of seg-
regation was developed.

Segregation

Segregation needs to be distinguished from white supremacy. Although it
was predicated on perceptions of racial difference and was developed in

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID 81

the aftermath of colonial conquest, South African segregation was not just
racial subordination writ large. Its underlying principle was the enforced
separation, not just subordination, of blacks and whites in the spheres of
work, residence and government. Nineteenth-century precedents for this
had been seen in the demarcation of land and authority set up under the
glen grey Act in the eastern cape and the Shepstone system in Natal. But
it was only in the period between the end of the South African War in 1902
and the 1930s that a cogent ideology of segregation emerged and was
implemented.

There has been some disagreement amongst historians as to precisely
when and why segregation emerged. The liberal view that it was a direct
heritage of the nineteenth-century Boer republics has now been repudi-
ated. Indeed the Transvaal and orange Free State were less racially segre-
gated in terms of land settlement and economic activity than were Natal
and the eastern cape. As cell has pointed out, the Boer general Botha, who
was to become the first Prime minister of the Union, stated in 1903 that
cheap African labor was needed on the farms, not segregated tribal reserves
which locked up labor and withheld land from white ownership. White
supremacy was certainly central to his thinking, but ‘the language and the
details of segregation would represent not a direct continuation of prevail-
ing Afrikaner ideas about how economy and society should be regulated,
but a distinct departure from them’ (cell 1982: 49).

Botha’s comments were made in testimony he gave to the South African
Native Affairs commission (SANAc), appointed by milner, which sat
between 1903 and 1905. Its function was to prepare the way for Union by
establishing outline policies for Africans. As cell has shown, its major rec-
ommendations provided the first clear articulation of segregationist ideals
and it was the blueprint for much of the legislation that followed Union.
Thus it proposed racial separation of land ownership, the establishment of
‘Native locations’ in towns, regulation of labor influx to the cities with pass
laws, differential wage levels, mission-based schooling for Africans rather
than state education, administration in separate Native councils, and no
extension of the cape’s non-racial franchise to other parts of the Union.
Some of these recommendations were based on existing practices in various
parts of the country, such as pass laws, urban locations and racially deter-
mined wage levels. But it was only during milner’s reconstruction admin-
istration that they were combined into an overarching general policy.
milner was strongly influenced by racial notions of white supremacy and
solidarity across the Anglo-Saxon world, which included the United States

Worden, N. (2012). The making of modern south africa : Conquest, apartheid, democracy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Created from insu-ebooks on 2022-02-17 18:44:05.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
2
.
Jo

h
n
W

ile
y

&
S

o
n
s,

I
n
co

rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

82 WHITE SUPrEmAcy, SEgrEgATIoN AND APArTHEID

and other parts of the British Empire such as Australia, but the strongest
impetus for segregation came from within South Africa itself (Lake and
reynolds 2008).

As we have seen in the previous chapter, many of the recommendations
of the SANAc were put into practice by legislation of the subsequent
decades. most notable were the mines and Works Act (1911), which
imposed the color bar, the Natives Land Act (1913), which segregated land
ownership, and the Natives (Urban Areas) Act (1923), which provided for
residential segregation in towns. In addition to these restrictions, Africans
had long been subject to a variety of pass controls, requiring them to obtain
official documents in order to move freely between town and countryside.
The Stallard doctrine of controlled urbanization (see pp. 49–50) required
such mechanisms to be extended, although women were exempted after
the effective resistance to passes for women mounted in the orange Free
State in 1913. During the 1930s and 1940s attempts were made to tighten
up pass laws, although it was not until the 1950s t

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality