Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 27, No. 2. 1964.

Holyoake Muddled Over Apartheid

page 4

Holyoake Muddled Over Apartheid

Discussion of the recent protests against acceptance of apartheid in N.Z., both that in newspaper columns and that in less formal channels, has usually been illfounded. But from this discussion some worthwhile points have arisen.

Those activities organised by the Students' Council Against Racial Discrimination (S.C.A.H.D.) were aimed directly at the acceptance of a team of South African Europeans as representatives of cricketers of all races of South Africa. Scard was concerned with N.Z. attitudes rather than with the situation in South Africa iself.

Nevertheless some discussion of the situation in South Africa is desirable. It was certainly no coincidence that the two Wellington newspapers gave unusual prominence to headlines such as "Science Destroying Myth that all Races Identical" (Ev. Post 21/2/64) during the period concerned. It appears from the body of the report that Marsden was discussing educational policies and that the comment headlined was very much an aside. Nevertheless, it can be reasonably assumed that the papers concerned gave it prominence because it appeared to endorse their policy of tolerating the acceptance in New Zealand of a team selected on the principles of apartheid.

But opposition to apartheid is not based on any hypothesis of an essential identity between races. Such opposition is aimed against any subordination of one race to another as a mailer of policy. The Africans in South Africa may require special educational facilities, special welfare services and similar amenities:—In view of the policies pursued in recent years, this is highly likely. But it does not justify the subordination of one race to another.

There can be no doubt that the policies of the South African government do involve such subordination. The value of such things as the Johannesburg slum clearances should be recognised but the essential government policy is "separaleness"—self government "eventually" in regions such as the Transkei. Even if the allocation of land to such African territories had been scrupulously fair, and even if we accept the South African government's assurances that such territories will be fully internally self-governing, the policy would be morally abhorrent.

Africans will not be able to share in any of the wealth of South Africa to which they and their ancestors have contributed. The South African economy will require African labour but those Africans who supply this will be treated as dispensable labour units and shuffled backwards and forwards to the tribal terminus so that they cannot fully enjoy the wealth to which they have added. And even the South African government does not claim that tribal territories will be fully self-governing. There is explicitly no intention to hand over control of foreign affairs and defence.

No differences that the various sciences could conceivably establish between races could justify such treatment.

The concentration of discussion on any one issue does not Imply that other issues are ignored. In this discussion from S.C.A.R.D. was centred on N.Z. acceptance of apartheid and this does not imply that issues such as the treatment of the N.Z. Maori, or the fate of the Watutsi tribe in Ruunda-Urundi are not worthy of consideration. But it is legitimate and useful to focus attention on one particular issue.

Much confusion arose from failure to follow S.C.A.R.D. in distinguishing between opposition to apartheid itself and opposition to the acceptance of apartheid in N.Z. The second may follow from the first but not necessarily so. Making this distinction, SCARD did not coniine its protests to the N.Z. Cricket Council but extended it to all organizations which accepted the cricket team as representative of South Africa.

The P.M. was thus confused when in reply to a request that a parliamentary reception be given only to a "South African European XI," he declared that the extension of social courtesies to visitors should not be withheld because of governmental dispute. This conclusion may or may not have been deliberate.

It has been contended that the presence of the P.M. al any function does not imply governmental approval of the policies of the organisers. This is fair but irrelevant comment because his pressence as P.M. implies government recognition of the claim of the organisers to whatever status they claim. Nobody would suggest that because the P. M. attends a Trade Union function, the government supports the policies of the T.U. But the official acceptance of an invitation, or an invitation Issued by Government to T.U. does imply recognition of the claim of a T.U. to speak for some part of the labour force of N.Z.

Similarly a reception organised by Government for the louring cricket team implied recognition of that team's claim to be representative of South African cricketers. It was against such recognition that Scard directed its protests.

It has been contended that the activities of sporting bodies lie outside the sphere of Government function. It would be impossible to define this sphere to universal satisfaction but I would contend that it includes intervention whenever the activities of a sub-group of society adversely affect the interests of a wide section of society.

The Government's opposition to take-over bids for the Dominion is probably bused on some such consideration as this and this view would justify any legislation aimed at racial prejudice. Sporting groups are one sub-group of society and it is impossible to keep politics out of the relations of this sub-group with society' as a whole.

I would personally go further than the policy adopted by Scard and in consideration of the situation in South Africa, advocate the abandonment of all sporting relations with that country, except in the unlikely situation of arrangements through non-racial organisers.

There have been various suggestions for bringing pressure on the S.A. government such as expulsion from U.N.O. and an economic boycott. Neither of these is suitable.

The U.N. is intended to be a world discussion forum. Nations should not be excluded from these discussions because of any policy, however distasteful, they may pursue. The U.N. may criticise the government concerned and even adopt some measures designed to persuade their abandonment. But expulsion is not one of these measures.

Just as the U.N. is not, as sometimes conceived, a weapon in the U.S. fight against Communism, so it should not be a weapon in the fight of Afro-Aasian countries against South Africa. It should be a forum for discussion of all countries.

An economic boycott by a group of countries including N.Z., even if it involved S.A. in a loss of foreign exchange earnings, would bear on the African population at least as heavily as the apartheid-favouring Europeans. There may be a case for boycott of any goods used exclusively by Europeans but not for a total economic embargo.

But the cessation of sporting relations with S.A. would not materially affect the African population. And it would be compliance with a request from the Non-Racial Sports Organisation of South Africa. Those European opponents of apartheid affected by the ban would presumably approve of any compliance with a request from this organisation. The "sacrifice" involved for N.Z. would be well justified, even if by no more than the reaction to such action in the countries of Asia and Africa.

Such action would presumably not please the present govemment of South Africa, but it is not of such a nature as to drive that government into even greater intransigence. At the same time, any such action should be accompanied by continuous efforts at all levels to persuade the S.A. government of the undesirable nature of apartheid and that the position of South African Europeans is understood.

But just as the Maoris of N.Z. are expected to conform to a predominantly European civilisation, the South African Europeans must be prepared to participate in a mixed culture deriving from both European and African sources. Only in this way can a blood-balh be avoided.