What can you learn from Source A about the National Party’s policy of Apartheid? Essay

A. What can you learn from Source A about the National Party’s policy of Apartheid?

I can learn from Source A that the National Party’s policy of Apartheid is very meticulous and was mainly used to segregate blacks ; Coloured/Asians from whites. Blacks were “regarded as migrants” and were separated from other South Africans. Apartheid seized the rights of the blacks by using state enforcement. Apartheid did not tolerate anyone who opposed to the policy. Apartheid severely punished those who went against Apartheid, whether it was non-whites or whites themselves.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The National Party believed that the policy of Apartheid was used for one purpose; “safeguarding of the white race.”

Coloured residents of South Africa such as Indians also had to face the cruelty and hatred from Apartheid, but they did not get treated as horribly as the blacks did. In Source A the National Party say that they will not “tolerate” any political advertising against whites. The power of the whites was maintained by making every single person encounter death if they disapproved the policy of Apartheid.

B. Use sources A, B and C and your own knowledge to explain why Apartheid was opposed by many people in South Africa and Britain.

Apartheid was opposed by many people because the way that the blacks were treated was unacceptable. Source A shows that blacks were considered as “migrants” and were not given the privilege to live the way they desired. Many black people met their demise after opposing Apartheid. Black people did not approve of the laws that were passed from 1949-53 because all the laws led them to inappropriate lives which they could not cope with. The Passbook Act and Group Areas Act are two of the laws that were passed.

The Passbook Act was where blacks had to carry passes with them wherever they go. The passbook consisted of the person’s personal information such as their name and address, and if they didn’t have their passbooks with them they would be arrested.

The Group Areas Act was where non-whites could not live in or own land in white areas which was approximately 87% of the country. The large population of the black people had to squeeze themselves to live in just 13% of South Africa; along with them were the Coloured/Asians which made it even more difficult and uncomfortable to live. Non-whites were forced to move out of their house when the areas they lived in became a white only area.

Nelson Mandela fought for equal rights with the freedom-charter in 1955 which resulted to make many more people oppose Apartheid.

Some whites and British people also disliked the policy of Apartheid. White people such as Rose Jordan also opposed to the policy of Apartheid. Jordan says in Source B that it is not right to send the “Non-Europeans to distant districts” and have to work in the white area. She was trying say that it is impossible to expect someone to live in an area and have them working miles away.

White people shot 69 blacks in Sharpeville when the blacks organised a demonstration against pass laws. The weapons that white people used overwhelmed other blacks supporting the demonstration. Black people acquired more support after the Sharpeville incident was broadcasted on T.V.

British people believed that the whites in South Africa were racist. Trevor Huddleston, a former African, set up the Anti-Apartheid movement to show his support for the black South Africans.

C. Does the evidence of Sources D, F and H support the views of Bantustans given in Source E?

Source E gives the impression that Bantustans were a “dumping ground” and whites threw the blacks into it like a “garbage can”. It shows that the people in Bantustan were the “undesirable elements, criminals and delinquents”. Albert Lutuli says that the undesirable elements in Bantustan were people that were “old” and “sick”.

Source F gives the impression that blacks were not given good education like the whites. Dr Hendrick Verwoerd believed that there was no point of teaching the blacks if they are not going to “use it”. The blacks were taught only a sufficient amount which will enable them to work for the whites. After analysing Source F I would say that it does support the views of the Bantustans in Source E.

Source D shows that blacks in South Africa wrote a poem dedicated to Dr Verwoerd, and the poem was sung like a prayer thanking Dr Verwoerd for the beautiful life he has given them. Source D also says that blacks received “proper education” and gave the Bantus “good laws” which was all thanks to Dr Verwoerd. Source D represents a good image of the Bantustans and I can say that it is biased because it is written by the government; therefore it will obviously try to show that blacks were getting the best out of their lives. I believe that Source D does not support Source E because they both have opposite views of the Bantus.

Source H on the other hand it partially supports Source E because it agrees with the fact that the people in Bantustan were of old “age” or had a “disability”, but Source H also mentions that “doctors, attorneys, agents” were sent to Bantustan which is not true according to Source E. Source E does not say that skilful people such as doctors and agents were a part of Bantustan.

D. How useful are Sources D, G and I in helping you to understand the effects that Apartheid had upon South Africans?

Source D is a poem written in the early 1960’s which showed that Dr Verwoerd was the “redeemer” of the black people. This poem was written in the government magazine ‘Bantu’ that will openly give a good impression of Apartheid. This magazine was distributed free to all the schools in South Africa which shows that they made students read it. Source D is a good example of propaganda that was used to maintain the power of the whites, thus it is not helpful to fully understand the effect Apartheid had upon South Africans.

Source G gives figures of the money spent on education for the whites, coloured/Asians and blacks. This was also published by the South African government and shows that whites received the most money in “pounds per head”, which means that “�63.92” was spent on each white person and only a quarter of this was spent on education for the blacks. This source can help to understand the effect Apartheid had upon South Africans because it shows that whites got better education than non-whites. Apartheid did not give South Africans good education which shows that it had a bad effect on them.

Source I can also help us to fully understand the effects of Apartheid because all the information is taken from passbooks that “all black Africans” had to have with them at all times. The passbooks consisted of factual information about the persons “name”, “address” etc. Bantustans had a hard life because they had to carry these passbooks everywhere everyday and if they were caught by policemen not having the passbook they would be arrested as they have committed a crime for not carrying it. This is very useful because it is all true and was taken out from passbooks which cannot be biased.

E. Using all the Sources does the history of South Africa in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s support the view in Source K that Apartheid was unworkable and harmful to South Africa.

During the years 1950s, 1960s and 1970s Apartheid did not treat non-whites equally. Black people were put into reserves and were considered as “migrants”. They had to carry passbooks with them otherwise they would be committing a crime and would be arrested.

It was harmful for the blacks when the Group Areas Act took place. Thousands of blacks in Sophiatown were forcibly evicted into the reserves and Sophiatown became a white only area. Blacks had to go through the trouble of having to make themselves comfortable in a new area, in a new home. The black and coloured/Asian areas were small and had many people living there. It was very complicated to live in the area.

Apartheid believed that blacks did not need good education because after they have studied what is necessary they will be working for the whites. Apartheid was unworkable in 1970 because they had to break their Group Areas law and bring the blacks to live in the white only areas next to the factories. There was still a problem because as the businesses grew the more skilled workers they needed. This caused problems they needed skilful workers and blacks were not educated enough to do the jobs that require skill.

Apartheid created violence with the blacks in South Africa which was harmful. In Sharpeville police shot and killed 69 people because of the anti-pass law demonstration organised by the PAC in 1960. Similarly in 1976 hundreds of students were killed and thousands were injured after Soweto students demonstrated against the teaching of Afrikaans in schools. Apartheid killed many people through violence to maintain the power of Apartheid.

Apartheid was unworkable because as opposition grew in South Africa simultaneously it also grew outside South Africa. Apartheid was unable to demolish the fast increase in opposition and could not survive very long.

Source J shows that South African banks were boycotted and says that Apartheid could “never” work and was “harmful” to South Africa.

In conclusion after using all the sources and my own knowledge I say that the history of South Africa in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s fully supports the view of Source J which shows that Apartheid could never work and was harmful to the non-whites in South Africa.

x

Hi!
I'm Tamara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out