Friday, 16 May 2014

The Origins of Apartheid

We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.
Cecil John Rhodes

image
The rise of apartheid in 1948 was a complex phenomenon. Some historians view it as a 20th-century development, closely linked to the peculiar evolution of South African capitalism, with its strong reliance on cheap black labor as advocated by Cecil Rhodes in the quote above. Other scholars believe apartheid was a product of earlier racial prejudices and policies imposed by Dutch and British settlers. Recent explanations point to a combination of several factors ─ colonial conquest, land dispossession, economic impoverishment, and exclusion from citizenship of Africans ─ that paved the way to apartheid. This unit explores the historical roots of apartheid, from the colonial occupation of the Cape in 1652 through the creation of the Union of South Africa and the segregation period (1910-1948). The emphasis is on patterns of economic and political transformation and how racism and segregation increasingly restricted the lives of black South Africans.

Three main, interrelated forces influenced the nature of South African society and economy: colonial conquest, the expansion of mining, and the actions ─ also known as “agency” ─ of individuals. Colonial conquest by the Netherlands and, after 1795, by Britain, stimulated limited if uneven capitalist growth. The Dutch East India Company established a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, which gradually expanded along a frontier at the expense of the KhoikhoiXhosa, and other indigenous peoples, a process similar to the one that unfolded in North America, Australia, and New Zealand. In South Africa, destruction of Khoi societies produced an underclass of domestic and farm workers, but their ability to earn a decent wage was severely curtailed by the Dutch East India Company's use of slaves imported from Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, and South East Asia.

image
We know little about the lives of ordinary people of these times, but archival evidence reveals glimpses of slaves’ struggles against harsh conditions imposed by their white oppressors. Krotoa (known to the Dutch settlers as “Eva”) was a Khoi woman caught in the identity crisis of colonization: used by Dutch leader Jan van Riebeeck as an interpreter against her own people in the mid-1600s, she married a European but was rejected by white society. Sarah Baartman was taken in 1810 from Cape Town to Europe and displayed in exhibitions like an animal. Katie Jacobs, interviewed in 1910 as one of the last surviving ex-slaves, told of her harsh life, of a master who even refused to baptize her. Inhuman treatment sometimes led to resistance. For example, the slave woman Dina escaped during the Boers’ (or Afrikaners') Great Trek of the 1830s. In another instance in 1825, after suffering repeated floggings, Galant van der Caab, a slave on a farm northeast of Cape Town, led a small-scale revolt of slaves. Eventually, Great Britain pronounced the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony in 1833, but slavery was replaced by draconian Master and Servant laws that preserved a social hierarchy in which race closely corresponded to class.

The discovery of diamonds in Kimberley in 1867 and of gold on the Witwatersrand (centered on the city of Johannesburg) in 1886 transformed South African from an agrarian society at the edge of world trade into a globally integrated industrial economy. The mineral revolution led to the quick spread of European colonization into the interior. By the end of the 19th century, all the indigenous peoples of South Africa had lost their political and economic independence. 

Racist laws enabled the white-owned mining companies to control workers, keep wages very low, and gain immense profits from the diamonds and gold that black miners extracted from the earth. Many African men worked on the mines and farms under dangerous conditions for wages that could not sufficiently feed and clothe their families. The diamond and gold mines also imposed pass laws, a humiliating means of control (that was to continue under apartheid), which required black men to carry documents that identified where they could and could not work and live. 
image
Most African miners became migrant laborers, spending nine to eleven months of the year in the mines while their wives and children remained in the countryside. Racial discrimination in the pre-apartheid era also kept the few Africans who received training as apprentices from finding suitable employment. Furthermore, enterprising kholwa (Christian) Africans often were forced out of their jobs, even though they were qualified. By 1920, Silas Modiri Molema of the Barolong people wrote that the African “istabooed all round to force him to unskilled work.” Such informal “job color bars” ─ limitations on what jobs one could work based on one’s race or ethnicity ─ were a blueprint for later apartheid laws like the Job Reservation Act.

image
Industrialization and British imperialism in South Africa, driven by economic and political ambitions, and the individual actions of mining magnates like Cecil John Rhodes, resulted in a slow but steady expansion of manufacturing and transport infrastructure. The British government fashioned a more uniform policy after the South African War of 1899-1902 (also known as the Anglo-Boer War, or Boer War), when the Act of Union of 1910 brought together the previously separate colonies of the Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, and the Cape to form the Union of South Africa—which later became a white dominion of the British Empire. In response, a group of black South Africans traveled to London to petition Parliament to reject the denial of the vote to Africans in the 1910 Act of Union, but their voices went unheard. In the end, the British and the Boers (Afrikaners) put aside the bitterness of war in order to entrench white power and privilege at the expense of the black South Africans’ civil and human rights.

In the first two decades of Union (1910-1930), the governments of Louis BothaJan Smuts, and J. B. Hertzog promulgated a barrage of discriminatory laws and regulations that tightened state control over blacks. The most important law passed was the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. This law reserved 93 percent (revised to 87 percent in 1936) of the land in South Africa for whites; it prevented Africans—two-thirds of the population at the time—from freely buying land. The small African “reserves” created by the Land Act were a forerunner of the apartheid-era “Bantustans” or “homelands.” Life in the rural reserves was harsh, with illnesses and malnutrition rife. For many Africans, especially young men and women, migration to wage-earning jobs in cities and mines became one of the only ways to pay colonial taxes and survive.

Massive urbanization was the most important social development between World War I and World War II. The number of city-dwelling Africans more than tripled in thirty years from 1904 to 1936. This urban growth occurred in a context of intensifying segregation. Africans in the cities lived in terrible conditions, with inadequate housing, poor health and transport services, and no electricity for many decades. Along with poverty came crime and fear for personal safety. Segregation also caused unprecedented gender imbalance, with more men working in urban areas than women. However, from 1921 to 1936 there was a 142 percent increase in the number of urban African women, many of whom came to the cities to be with their husbands but often lived a precarious life without legal residence rights. As more blacks moved to urban areas, whites came to view the city as “a European area in which there is no place the redundant Native,” in the words of the Native Affairs Commission of 1921. The 1923 Natives (Urban Areas) Act restricted African migration into towns, laying the foundations for urban residential segregation. Whites also sought to tighten control of black workers by passing laws in the 1920s that severely curtailed black economic freedom, including a prohibition on forming unions. 

By the 1930s, the government’s segregationist stance hardened further. Amendments to the Masters and Servants’ Act, for instance, legalized whipping. Repressive legislation was also aimed at Indian and Coloured uth Africans. Then, in 1936, the Hertzog Bills removed from the voting rolls the few Africans who were still enfranchised in the Cape. This move signaled the evisceration of black political rights. Despite intensifying racism, respect for British legalism and liberalism and contact with British and American missionaries inclined many early black leaders to use petitions, delegations, and other polite methods of protest against segregation. But Africans often invoked British values in a subversive manner intended to improve their lot by asserting their equality with whites and demanding freedom and social justice. With the hardening of white racism and segregation, more and more blacks began to identify themselves as "Africans." While the segregation period saw ambiguity in the black response, protests against discriminatory policies laid an important foundation for later resistance against apartheid.

There were important continuities between segregation and apartheid: in both eras, black people faced condescending and restrictive policies, discriminatory residence and labor laws, and denied voting rights. The pre-apartheid period saw considerable enforced racial separation in economy and society. In both periods, the ideology of white supremacy prevailed. These similarities have led some scholars to see apartheid simply as an intensification of segregation. Under apartheid, however, racism and segregation became thoroughly rigid and institutionalized; they permeated all aspects of life, and government repression became more ruthless. Moreover, the world historical context was changing. While white supremacy was common in European colonial empires and the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, after 1945 colonialism and racism were in retreat. This period witnessed the independence of ex-colonies in Asia and Africa and the rise of the American civil rights movement. 

Saturday, 22 March 2014

Immigrant America on the Eve of the Civil War

NEWS

This year Marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War. The Immigrants’ Civil War is an ongoing series that will examine the role immigrants played in the conflict, how immigrants responded to the war both individually and as communities, and how the place of immigrants in America changed dramatically during the Civil War era. The first installment looks at America’s immigrants in 1861. Join The Immigrants’ Civil War on Facebook
At the start of the Civil War in 1861, the United States was no longer the homogeneous Anglo-America that the Founding Fathers may have believed they had left as an inheritance to their descendants.
The 1850s had seen a vast influx of new immigrants from places outside the traditional English and Scottish wellsprings of American ancestry. The “new immigrants,” as they were called, would form the demographic basis for modern America.
The foreign born-population of the United States had nearly doubled between the 1850 and 1860 censuses. This was the largest percentage increase of immigrants in American history.
Immigrants now comprised 13 percent of the population, a larger percentage than they had ever made up previously in the history of the Republic. And this wasn’t a gradual change – the overwhelming majority of these foreign-born had entered the US within the decade preceding the war.
It was not just the number of immigrants, but their countries of origin, which would radically change America. Before 1850, the foreign born population was largely from England, Scotland, and Wales. Those three regions began to be overshadowed in the new immigration era of the Civil War years.
Irish immigrants, considered unassimilable by many Americans because of their Catholic beliefs and peasant origins, made up nearly four in ten of all foreign-born people in 1860. The 1.2 million Germans were almost a third of the immigrants living here at the start of the war.
In 1850s, the US also experienced its first large migration of Czechs, Hungarians, Swiss, and Scandinavians. In addition, 35,000 Chinese immigrants settled in the Pacific Coast region, moving to Chinatowns on the edges of white communities, and 27,000 Mexicans were living in the Southwest.
Before this period of immigration, the majority of immigrants weren’t so much different from those who preceded them, emigrating from the same English villages as the Pilgrims and the Jamestown settlers.
Now, new immigrants seemed to flood in from every part of the earth, each group bringing their own strange folkways, religions, and political views, whether espousing Buddhism or monarchism. The new immigrants refused to give up their native languages and many never really learned to speak English comfortably.
The newcomers tended to concentrate certain states while avoiding others, and nine out of ten new immigrants went to live in the North.
Where were immigrants settling? In South Dakota, 37 percent of the population was foreign born; in Wisconsin, 35 percent, in Minnesota, 34 percent, and in New York, 26 percent, to give you an idea.
In contrast, states in the southern heartland had almost no immigrants at all. For example, South Carolina, where the war began at Fort Sumter, had only 2 percent foreign-born residents, and Georgia had 1 percent.
The South’s slave-based labor system was the key factor in keeping newcomers out.
Immigrants, whatever their views on the abolition of slavery, didn’t want to live in slave states since in those states, they would have to compete with unpaid African American labor. In addition, they would find little hope for social advancement amid the hereditary aristocracy that dominated the South.
So the immigrants went north, pioneering the upper Midwest and recreating the urban centers of the East. Immigrants in the 1860s were also drawn to areas that had already been settled by people from their native countries, finding cultural support systems in certain villages and neighborhoods.
Big cities were among the most profoundly transformed by this concentrated migration. In 1860, New York City was 47 percent foreign born,and Philadelphia was 30 percent. Half of Chicagoans were born abroad, as were half of those living in San Francisco, the biggest city on the West Coast.
Cincinnati and Milwaukee were virtually German cities, with almost half the population of each being German speakers.
In fact, Cincinnati, on the banks of the Ohio River, was referred to as Over the Rhine, because it was so German in character. British reporter Edward Dicey wrote in 1862 that it was hard to believe that you were not in some city in the German fatherland when visiting it because of the “German air of the people and the place.”
In Milwaukee, a person could walk through the large German district in the city without seeing a sign in English or hearing English spoken on the streets.1
But immigrants did not just settle in urban centers. Economically hard-pressed farming communities from Europe tried to establish colonies in America for their land-starved young people.
Groups of a hundred or more immigrants from a rural district in Europe would often journey together to found farming villages in the United States. These villages would sometimes receive names transplanted from the homeland, like Erin or Connaught from Ireland, or Tell (remember William Tell?) from Switzerland. Swiss colonies, as they were called, were particularly successful in transplanting their old-country culture from Europe to America.
In the New York City of the 1850s, the Five Points slum in Lower Manhattan was the first stop for Irish and Chinese immigrants.


In these transplanted villages, the immigrant settlers would establish a church from their home country where they could worship in their native language according to their old customs. In the secular realm, they would conduct business, teach the young in local schools, and even carry out governmental functions like court hearings and town meetings in the language of their native land. The immigrants would appeal to friends who stayed in Europe to come over and join them in the New World, starting a wave of chain migration for cultural and demographic replenishment.
Thus, America of the 1850s was populated and reborn.
Ella Lonn, the seminal historian of immigrant America in the 1860s, wrote more than half-a-century ago that on the eve of the Civil War, immigrants still preserved the customs and ideas of the homeland, despite their new place of residence:
In many villages and in many sections of our cities, a visitor could readily believe that he was in a Rhenish [German] city or had dropped into a Dutch village, so faithfully was the atmosphere of the homeland reproduced. Many tongues were spoken here, and many persons neither spoke nor understood any tongue other than their native speech.2
The newness of the immigrant populations, their resistance to assimilation, and the areas where they chose to live would all have a profound effect on the strategy and outcome of the Civil War.
But before we get to all of that, we’ll first look further backward. In the next installment of “The Immigrants’ Civil War, I’ll travel back to the revolutionary year of 1848, where events abroad set the stage for future waves of migration.
Read the second installment of The Immigrants’ Civil War.
Footnotes
1 Civil War Citizens: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity in America’s Bloodiest Conflict edited by Susannah J. Ural NYU Press (2010) p.13
2 Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy by Ella Lonn LSU Press (1951) p. 39-40
Statistical Sources
“Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990”Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon
Population Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233-8800 
February 1999 
Population Division Working Paper No. 29
Foreign-born population in the US in 1860
*The census in 1850 was the first time a census asked whether or not a person was foreign born.
In 1850, the US had 2.2 million foreign-born residents. By 1860, there were 4.1 million, nearly twice as many. The 4.1 million made up more than 13 percent of the total population.
Foreign-born population by country of birth in 1860
Ireland- 1.6 million
Germany- 1.2 million
Other Western Europe- 900,000
China- 35,000
Mexico- 27,000
Canada- 250,000
Eastern Europe
States with highest percentage of foreign-born in 1860
California- 38%
South Dakota- 37%
Wisconsin- 35%
Minnesota- 34%
Utah- 31%
Nevada- 30%
Washington- 27%
New York- 26%
Nebraska- 22%
Massachusetts- 21%
Rhode Island- 21%
Michigan- 20%
Illinois- 19%
New Jersey-18%
Connecticut- 17%
Iowa- 16%
Pennsylvania- 14%
Missouri- 14%
In 1860, the only southern state with a large immigrant population was Louisiana with 11 percent. South Carolina had 2 percent foreign-born and Georgia had 1 percent.
Overall, 3.6 million foreign-born lived in the North and 400,000 lived in the South.
Cities with largest immigrant populations in 1860
New York City- 47%
Philadelphia- 30%
Boston- 36%
New Orleans- 38%
Cincinnati- 46%
St. Louis- 50%
Chicago- 50%
San Francisco- 50%
Milwaukee- 53%
The Immigrants’ Civil War is a series that will examine the role of immigrants in our bloodiest war. Articles will appear monthly between 2011 and 2015, the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. Here are the articles we have published so far:
1. Immigrant America on the Eve of the Civil War - Take a swing around the United States and see where immigrants were coming from and where they were living in 1861.
2. 1848: The Year that Created Immigrant America - Revolutions in Europe, famine and oppression in Ireland, and the end of the Mexican War made 1848 a key year in American immigration history.
3. Carl Schurz: From German Radical to American Abolitionist- A teenaged revolutionary of 1848, Carl Schurz brought his passion for equality with him to America.
5. ...And the War Came to Immigrant America -The impact of the firing on Fort Sumter on America’s immigrants
10. Immigrant Day Laborers Help Build the First Fort to Protect Washington-The Fighting 69th use their construction skills.

12. Immigrants Rush to Join the Union Army-Why?- The reasons immigrants gave for enlisting early in the war.

17. Immigrant Regiments on Opposite Banks of Bull Run -The Fighting 69th and the Louisiana Tigers
39. A German Regiment Fights for “Freedom and Justice” at Shiloh-The 32nd Indiana under Col. August Willich.
40. The Know Nothing Colonel and the Irish Soldier Confronting slavery and bigotry.
43. Union Leader Ben Butler Seeks Support in New Orleans-When General Ben Butler took command in New Orleans in 1862, it was a Union outpost surrounded by Confederates. Butler drew on his experience as a pro-immigrant politician to win over the city’s Irish and Germans.
49. The Irish Brigade Moves Towards Richmond-The Irish brigade in the Peninsula Campaign from March 17 to June 2, 1862.
50. Peninsula Emancipation: Irish Soldiers Take Steps on the Road to Freedom-The Irish Brigade and Irish soldiers from Boston free slaves along the march to Richmond.
54. Making Immigrant Soldiers into Citizens-Congress changed the immigration laws to meet the needs of a nation at war.
60. Emancipation 150: “All men are created equal, black and white”- A German immigrant reacts to the Emancipation Proclamation
Cultural
Blog Posts
Book Reviews
Jews and the Civil War: A Reader Edited by Jonathan Sarna and Adam Mendelsohn
Civil War Citizens edited by Susannah Ural Bruce
Germans in the Civil War: The Letters They Wrote Home edited by Walter Kamphoefner and Wolfgang Helbich
Immigration Vacation -Civil War Sites
Fort Schuyler- Picnic where the Irish Brigade trained