Australian Aborigines live on reservations

The Native Policy in South Africa and Australia - a comparison

structure

A introduction
I. Research impetus and interest in knowledge
II. State of research
III. method

B Comparison of the beginnings of apartheid in South Africa and the politics of segregation in Australia
I. Territorial separation: suppression of non-whites by restricting their living space
1. South Africa
2. Australia
3. Comparison
II. Society: Restrictions in everyday life for non-whites
1. South Africa
a. Marriage and sexuality
b. Public life
c. Medical supplies
d. education
2. Australia
a. Marriage and sexuality
b. Public life
c. Medical supplies
d. education
3. Comparison
III. Work and indigenous people
1. South Africa
2. Australia
3. Comparison

C conclusion

A introduction

I. Research impetus and interest in knowledge

After attending the face-to-face event on the subject of Australia and doing a term paper on the subject of apartheid in South Africa, I was interested in the question of how the ideology of racial segregation and the supremacy of whites could be implemented in both countries. The history of South Africa is the story of a struggle for land and political power. In Australia, an imperialist great power decided that its value system, its culture, in short its “way of life” had to be imposed on a foreign world and its inhabitants. In the classification of colonies, South Africa and Australia can be found in the group of settlement colonies. Australia is the "New England" type, which aims to displace or annihilate the economically dispensable indigenous population, while South Africa is the "African" type, where the settlers were dependent on cheap local labor. Separately, the colonization of Australia falls into the beginnings of European territorial rule in Asia (and Australia), the colonization of South Africa into the new colony formations in the old world.[1]

This housework compares the beginnings of racial segregation in the two countries, in each case at different epochs. In South Africa, the first phase of segregation began much earlier, with the period from the establishment of the Union in 1910 to the end of the 1950s being included in the study. With the establishment of the Union, blacks lost the right to vote (initially in the Orange Free State and Transvaal) and thus any influence on the co-determination of their own fate. In the case of Australia, the decision fell on the phase from approx. 1800 to approx. 1915, since most parallels to the development in South Africa can be found at that time. In addition to many parallels, there are some differences in the development of the two countries that need to be identified. A reason is sought for the similar genesis of a racist politics.

II. State of research

The current state of research on the subject of apartheid offers a range of literature that deals with the problem in different ways. On the one hand, many authors deal extensively with the emergence of apartheid in the period before 1948 (see literature list). The works of Saul Dubow and Anton D. Lowenberg are outstanding. The other authors each open the view to a different perspective and add important details in the process of creating the policy of separate development. The historical journals that were available in the library of the University of Cape Town deal with specific topics of apartheid, their bibliographies mostly refer to the works that were also used for this work. The state of research on the subject of Australia is a bit more difficult, since most books basically deal with only a part of Australia. Dealing with the Aborigines is an important topic in the history of Australia, so topics such as the "stolen generations", the question of genocide or the sources of the settlers and their experiences with the first encounters with the Aborigines are dealt with in the literature. The book "For Their Own Good" by Anna Haebich is the only one that gives a comprehensive insight into the social relationships between Aborigines and the settlers, her findings refer to Western Australia. South Africa has been compared with America in many ways, and the comparison with the conflict in Palestine and with National Socialism in Germany were helpful as introductory literature to the comparative method. (The Highest Stage of White Supremacy, South African Naziism, White Supremacy). A direct comparison between South Africa and Australia has not yet been found in the literature. Based on territorial separation, social factors and the role of the indigenous population in the economy, the two countries are described and compared directly with each other in each chapter.

In terms of content, the thesis should tie in with the housework from the basic studies (“The Beginnings of Apartheid in South Africa”), the results of which are important for the comparison without having to use them repeatedly. Reading the term paper makes it easier to understand this work.

III. method

The comparison between two historical events will not provide an exact picture of the reality at that time. Although developments in Australia and South Africa were similarly delayed, there were considerable differences.

The problem with the comparison is that the two countries took measures to separate the population groups at different times. The decision to concentrate on the respective beginning of the high phase of racial segregation was made while the issue was being dealt with. The respective level of socialization, technical progress, social, cultural, political and religious life in South Africa and Australia differed extremely. Against this background, the comparative method should therefore be used with caution, even if other authors made use of the comparison in a similar way and arrived at important results for historical science (G. Fredrickson, J. Well, L. Thompson, see literature list) .

The term paper describes the beginnings of segregation politics in Australia and South Africa. The terms “apartheid” and “White Australia Policy” came about later. In addition to the repressive policy against Aborigines, the refusal and restriction of entry to Australia for certain population groups and the refusal and restriction of citizenship or other civil privileges as well as the restrictions on participation in "Australian Life" belonged to the official, later "White Australia Policy".

B. Comparison of the beginnings of apartheid in South Africa and the politics of segregation in Australia

I. Territorial separation: suppression of non-whites by restricting their living space

1. South Africa

In 1840 the first “Black Crown Reserves” were established in an area called “British Kaffraria” in the east of the Cape Colony. At the end of the 19th century, further reserves were added for the Zulu in Natal and for the Xhosa in Transkei.[2]

With the "South African Native Affairs Commission" (SANAC 1903-05) a public discourse began on how to deal with the black population. Under the chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Lagden, a compromise was sought between the various practices of the four South African colonies, a task that seemed to be a prerequisite for the establishment of the Union. At the heart of the discussion was the need to divide up the land. SANAC recommended territorial separation.[3] It was here that the word “segregation” appeared for the first time in a public report. It became a key concept in politics in South Africa in the early decades of the 20th century. Howard Pim constructed a model of racial segregation based on a reservation system. The tribal system should control the blacks within the reservations without incurring any costs for the whites. Pim attached great importance to the compatibility of advancing industrialization with his reservation policy.[4] This happened with the enactment of the Native Land Act from 1913. 8.9 million hectares of land, approx. 7% of the total area of ​​South Africa, was allocated to the blacks as settlement areas in the east and north of South Africa, most of it in arid areas (see Fig. 1). The law was also supported by whites who saw black farms as a threat to their own market opportunities.[5] So-called "homelands" were established, which were later settled depending on the tribal affiliation. Already existing "homelands" should from now on be monitored, entered in a place directory and protected against further attacks by whites.[6] Districts with residents of different skin colors had already formed in the cities beforehand. For fear of diseases (“sanitation syndrome”) and due to economic competition, the white government looked for a new legal regulation for the administration of blacks in the cities in the phase of urbanization after the First World War.[7] Urbanization was the result of the first settlement in some cities, caused by changes in the labor market and wage structures.[8] With the Urban Areas Act by 1923 the exclusion of blacks within the cities was regulated. So-called "townships" were set up outside the city limits, where blacks were housed. Only white workers or job seekers were allowed to stay in the city.[9] Between 1924 and 1937, 234 townships were built, which were positively accepted by blacks as an improvement in their own standard of living.[10]

In agriculture one was dependent on the black farm workers. The enactment of Native bills 1926 by Prime Minister Hertzog led to lengthy discussions among white farmers' associations about the effects of racial segregation. The farmers were not yet interested in this ideology.

First the Land Amendment Bill from 1923 as an extension of the Native Land Act of 1913 directly affected the white farmers. It stipulated that land that was outside the distributed areas could be purchased for black and white people as arable land ("released areas"). Prime Minister Hertzog was primarily concerned with making the land inaccessible to blacks - it was becoming too expensive - in order to free up workers for the farms of whites. A little later blacks were banned from buying, selling or leasing land.

In Natal, the Native Affairs Commission decided that no more land could be left for black people to use for agriculture. The whites in Natal justified this with the fact that comparatively most of the land was reserved there for blacks and that it would be their duty to make greater use of the land already available. The white farmers had political influence at the time and their votes were important. The term "segregation" was not yet a political slogan for or against which the farmers voted, it was rather an imprecise term for an ideological and legal framework in which the competing interests of the profit-oriented economy sought improvements.[11] In 1936 two laws were passed that were crucial to the retribalization of blacks and the success of segregation: The Representation of Natives Act and the Native Trust and Land Act. This gave them more land (a total of around 13% of the area of ​​South Africa) in the form of reservations, but in return they had to forego the right to vote in the Cape region and in Natal. With the demarcation of borders and the new right to vote, the foundation stone was laid for a segregationist policy for white Africans.[12] The Group Areas Act from 1950 regulated the spatial separation of blacks and whites and he gave the Minister of Native Affairs the right to expel blacks from certain regions without special justification. The Native Urban Areas Amendment Act from 1955 extended this right to the order to destroy black settlements after consultation with the government.[13]

The Passport Laws severely restricted the freedom of blacks. A residence permit in the white areas and cities was only granted to those who had work. Blacks looking for work were not allowed to stay in white areas for more than 72 hours. The passports had to be shown on request. In general, the growing conflicts and the increasing needs from the economy demanded clearer laws, more regulation and ultimately a more authoritarian state. The National Party insisted on its argument that apartheid politics also benefited blacks, since separate development in their own reservations and in the townships could help blacks' own problems solve many problems. The tribal identity of the individual tribes, their culture and their language were to be preserved and cultivated in the spirit of the NP. The party saw clear boundaries between the tribes as beneficial for the entire population.[14]

Figure not included in this excerpt

Fig.1: Homelands in South Africa around 1951[15]

2. Australia

A simple generalization covers almost all areas of relations between Europeans and indigenous people in the 18th and 19th centuries: the Europeans expropriated the indigenous people to the best of their ability and needs. They did not care about the rights of the indigenous people. Violence was considered normal, it wasn't the exception. This time was marked by the fact that Christianity was the only and true religion and that European society was the height of human progress. As early as 1806 it had become the common prevailing custom to let groups of Aborigines, where they became rebellious, be driven out by the army, for the benefit of the sheep farmers, as they roamed the crown land for annual rent, which was the safest and most profitable species, without much Investing to get money.[16]

In 1840 the Aborigines were legally registered for the first time and in the following years covered with a growing number of discriminatory laws. The British treated Australia as a country lacking government and sovereign state power. They ignored the special relationship the Aborigines had with their land. The settlers struggled to understand how the Aborigines viewed their land as "owners" in European parlance. Senior officers understood this better in the past. In 1807, Governor King recognized them as the real owners of the property. In 1825, a law protecting Aboriginal property was passed by the English state government, but it did not respect their original land ownership. Only they in their person and in the free handling of their belongings should remain protected. In 1838 separate administrators were set up for the hunter-gatherer societies. They were expected to administer an area of ​​227600 km² with 38334 inhabitants (1846).[17]

Alan Frost said in an influential article that Australia was a "terra nullius", an unoccupied country, the British claim to it was justifiable under current international law and the Aborigines have no right to this land.[18] The Australian Waste Land Act by 1846 gave the indigenous people the right to unrestricted hunting in the areas assigned to them. The reforms to protect the indigenous people were implemented from England by humanitarian interest groups, "down under" they were hardly observed. In the second half of the 19th century, when new settlements emerged, this jurisprudence was largely disregarded, few reserves were established in northern Australia, in the west and in the region around Queensland.[19] More and more conflicts arose as a result of the colonists' land acquisition, as they robbed the Aborigines of their food source, namely nature and the bush.[20] It quickly became common practice among the white settlers for Aborigines to claim the land they claimed for themselves from the British government. In 1849 the Colonial Office in London declared the entire continent uninhabited, so that at least a semblance of legality was preserved. Since reality was not enough for legal fiction, it had to be redefined accordingly and corrected forcibly.[21] With the domination of the Europeans, a policy of ethnic “segregation” began. The government of Victoria set up the "Central Board for Aborigines", which had the task of controlling all expenditures for Aborigines, establishing reservations and appointing "local managers" who took over the administration and supervision of the Aborigine reservations. The government thus found itself in a dilemma, since originally six reserves were planned, whose land on the one hand had a spiritual meaning for the Aborigines and at the same time was valuable arable land in the possession of European farmers and ranchers.[22] In Queensland in 1897 the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Bill enact.It marked a significant change in official policy on Aboriginal issues. The penalties and restrictions for the Aborigines were broader and harsher than any previous law. Queensland now had a state-run system of segregation, surveillance and control. Aborigines could be deported to reservations and missions, be forcibly and long-term imprisonment and they were deprived of their civil rights. A ministry was set up, headed by a chief protector and overseeing four administrative districts. In 1886 it was established by definition who was an Aborigine: Aborigines and Half Castes, who:

[...]



[1] Osterhammel, Jürgen: Colonialism, p. 17

[2] Lester, Alan: South Africa- Past, Present and Future, p. 223

[3] Cell, John: The Highest Stage of White Supremacy, 192

[4] Dubow, Saul: Racial Segregation and the Origins of Apartheid in South Africa, p. 23 ff

[5] Feinberg, Harvey: The 1913 Natives Land Act in South Africa, in: International Journal of African Historical Studies, 1993, Vol. 26/1 p. 65

[6] Lester, Alan: South Africa-Past, Present and Future, p. 197

[7] Lester, Alan: South Africa-Past, Present and Future, p. 217

[8] Bonner, Phillip: Urbanization on the Rand in: Journal of South African Studies, Vol. 21/1, p. 115

[9] Omer-Cooper, J.D .: History of South Africa; P.163-169

[10] Lester, Alan: Past, Present and the Future, p. 158 ff

[11] Dubow, Saul: Racial Segregation and the Origins of Apartheid: p. 60 ff

[12] Lester, Alan: Past, Present and the Future, p. 152 ff

[13] Mzimela, Sipo: South African Naziism, p. 54

[14] Lester, Alan: Past, Present and the Future, p. 172

[15] http://www.dadalos-d.org/deutsch/Menschenrechte/Grundkurs_MR5/Apartheid/apartheid/habenteile/homelands.htm

[16] Markus, Andrew: Australian Race Relations; P. 18

[17] Markus, Andrew: Australian Race Relations; P. 21

[18] Haebich, Anna: For Their Own Good; P. 47

[19] Markus, Andrew: Australian Race Relations; P. 24

[20] Woolmington, Jean: Aborigines in Colonial Society, p. 34

[21] Supp, Eckhard: The End of Dream Time, p. 218

[22] Broome, Richard: Aboriginal Australians, p. 188

End of the reading sample from 35 pages