Shepstone And Milner Provided The Basis Of What Became Apartheid

The feeling amongst British officials when they commenced control of Natal after 1843 was that Africans should not be able to wander around and settle anywhere they chose. Henry Cloete suggested the establishment of reserves or locations. Lieutenant Governor Martin West agreed with the idea and, in 1846, appointed a commission to make the location policy practicable. Theophilus Shepstone, who was the dominant voice in the Commission and served as Secretary for Native Affairs until 1875, proposed that the locations could be active agencies of instruction in what were called ‘useful arts,’ mechanics, and agriculture. But the utter lack of resources and finance saw those proposals scrapped. Instead, Shepstone promoted the tribal system within each location. In that way, African customs and culture survived and enjoyed autonomy. But at the same time, they were subject to a duality of government: colonial laws and taxation.

The imposition of reserves or locations came in the wake of the disrupted state of tribal organisation following the Shaka-Dinga era, which had shattered and scattered tribal settlements. Although the intention was to demarcate ten locations, only seven were initially gazetted: Zwartkops [near Pietermaritzburg], Umlazi, Umvoti, Inanda, Umzinyati, Tugela and Kahlamba.

Collectively, those seven did not constitute more than 10% of the land area. But under Governor John Scott, further location districts and mission reserves were added so that by 1864, there were 42 areas set aside exclusively for Africans, occupying 2,067,057 acres.1

Shepstone’s location policy prevailed throughout the Natal Colonial period. It was incorporated into the Union dispensation after 1910 and formed the basis of the Union Native Administration Act of 1927.

Other footprints of racial segregation and discrimination:

The practice of territorial exclusion by white settlers in the Cape began during the first decade of settlement after 1652. The indigenous Khoi-San were progressively forced further into the hinterland as a consequence of white settler encroachment.

As regards slavery, which was practiced in the Cape until it was abolished in 1834, it did not apply to the indigenous population. Slaves were imported from territories around the Indian Ocean area.

  • 1809: the Caledon Code, introduced by the British, required all KhoiKhoi to carry passes. However, that legislation was repealed in 1828.
  • 1857: Kaffir Employment Act: prohibited Africans entering the Cape Colony except to work.
  • 1875-1902: Residential segregation of whites, Africans, coloureds and Muslims was a growing feature of Cape Town.
  • 1902: Native Reserve Location Act passed by the Cape Parliament.
  • 1885: The Transvaal Government applied discriminatory legislation against Indians.
  • 1891: The OFS Government outlawed Indians from living and trading within its boundaries.

1890-1910: 46 laws/regulations discriminating against non-whites were passed by the Natal Parliament. Indians in particular were subjected to several punitive laws. Act 17 of 1896 imposed an annual residential tax of £3 on those who failed to return to India after completing their indenture contracts.

Milner’s influence and legacy:

The South African Native Affairs Commission (SANAC), also known as the Lagden Commission as it was chaired by Sir Godfrey Lagden, was appointed in 1903 by the High Commissioner of Southern Africa, Lord Alfred Milner. Its task was to provide comprehensive answers to the “native question.” Its report in 1905 proposed territorial separation of black and white land ownership, systematic urban segregation by the creation of black townships, the removal of black “squatters” from white farms, and their replacement by wage labourers.

Milner was opposed to providing voting rights to blacks and noted that the Cape Colony’s policy of limited franchise for blacks was opposed by whites in the rest of South Africa.

In the Milner Papers, he stated that white supremacy should prevail.

“It was the only possible means of raising the black man to a higher level than that which at present he occupies.” 2

Some key racially discriminatory legislation enacted between 1910 and 1948:

  • 1911: Mines & Works Act: aimed at safeguarding jobs for whites in mining and the railways.
  • 1913: Land Act: embodied the recommendations of the SA Native Affairs Commission of 1903-1905; increased the allocation of land for Africans from 7% to 13% of the land surface; prohibited Africans from buying or renting land in areas designated for whites.
  • 1923: Native Urban Areas Act: empowered local authorities to establish separate residential areas for Africans and to regulate their presence in urban areas by tightening pass laws.
  • 1926: Industrial Conciliation Act: secured employment for whites while excluding black workers from the wage-bargaining process.
  • 1926: Mines and Works Amendment Act: Known as the ‘Colour Bar’ Act, it solidified the reservation of jobs for whites effectively excluding blacks, coloureds and Indians from skilled work.
  • 1936: Representation of Natives Act: removed Africans from the voters’ roll in the Cape.
  • 1936: Native Trust and Land Act: Granted a further 6 million hectares for black occupation.
  • 1937: Native Laws Amendment Act: Reinforced urban segregation and influx control.
  • 1946: Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act: Known as the ‘Pegging Act,’ it confined Asian ownership of land to certain defined areas. Permits were required if property rights were sought in land not previously occupied by Indians.

Conclusion:

The policy of apartheid initiated by the National Party government of South Africa after 1948 was a fine-tuning extension of legislation and regulations already in existence to which more encompassing dimensions were added.

1 E Brookes and C De B Webb, A History of Natal (Pietermaritzburg, University of Natal Press, 1965), pp. 58-60.

2 Milner Papers, II, p. 467, cited in Five Hundred Years: A History of South Africa, edited by CFJ Muller (Pretoria, Academica, 1969), p. 362.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *