HistoryExtrahttps://www.historyextra.comHome of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast2023-10-16T13:32:38.000Zhourly12000-01-01T12:00+00:00Your guide to apartheid in South Africahttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/apartheid-facts-history-south-africa-dates-when-start-end-laws-nelson-mandela-affect-impact/2021-05-17T14:01:00.000ZWhat is apartheid? And what does apartheid mean?
An Afrikaans word for ‘separation’ – literally, ‘separateness’ – apartheid was used to describe the discriminatory political and economic system of racial segregation which the white minority imposed on non-whites. It was implemented by the governing party, the National Party of South Africa, from 1948 until 1994.
When did apartheid start?
Segregation according to race wasn’t new to South Africa, as racial legislation in the country can be seen as early as 1806. But it was greatly extended with the Population Registration Act of 1950, which divided South Africans into four categories: Bantu (black South Africans), Coloured (those of mixed race), White and Asian (Indian and Pakistani South Africans). The Act was designed to preserve white supremacy in the country.
What was living under apartheid like?
The effects of apartheid touched every aspect of daily life. By 1950, marriage and sexual relations between white and non-white South Africans were banned, while a series of Land Acts meant more than 80 per cent of the country’s land was set aside for the white minority. Black men and women were forced to live in ten so-called ‘black homelands’, where they were permitted to run businesses. To live and work in designated ‘white areas', they required permits. Hospitals, ambulances, buses and public facilities were all segregated, and non-white participation in government was denied.
The impact on South Africa’s non-white population was horrific. Families were often split by the laws (if parents were black and white, their children were classed as ‘coloured’) and, between 1961 and 1994, 3.5 million people were forcibly removed from their homes. Their land was sold for a fraction of its price, plunging non-whites into severe poverty and despair.
What happened to those who broke the laws of apartheid?
South Africans caught disobeying apartheid could be imprisoned, fined or whipped, while those suspected of being in a racially mixed relationship were hunted down under the Immorality Acts of 1927 and 1950. Most ‘guilty’ couples were sent to prison. If a black man or woman was found without their ‘dompas’ – a passport containing fingerprints, photograph, personal details of employment and permission from the government to be in a particular part of the country – they could be imprisoned as well. More than 250,000 black South Africans were arrested each year under these Pass Laws.
Who fought apartheid?
In 1952, the first significant, non-violent political campaign took place – the Defiance Campaign. For four months, more than 8,000 volunteers deliberately flouted the laws of apartheid by refusing to carry passes, violating curfews and using public places and facilities designated for white-use only. The campaign, run by the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Indian Congress, generated a mass upsurge for freedom within South Africa itself, and attracted the attention of the United Nations.
Other episodes of resistance took place throughout the period, including demonstrations, protests, strikes, political action and eventually armed resistance. In 1960, one act of protest saw at least 69 unarmed black people killed and 180 wounded when the police opened fire at a protest in the poor black township of Sharpesville.
What was Nelson Mandela's role in resistance to apartheid?
Nelson Mandela - President of the ANC Youth League – was Volunteer-in-Chief of the 1952 Defiance Campaign. He went on to play a leading role in generating large-scale resistance to apartheid and, in 1961, introduced a controversial, armed wing of the ANC – ‘Umkhonto we Sizwe’ (Spear of the Nation).
Mandela’s involvement in both peaceful and armed resistance led to a 27-year prison sentence where he was subjected to appalling and inhumane conditions. His story became famous around the world.
When did apartheid end?
In 1973, the UN had denounced apartheid, but things came to a head in 1976, when police opened fire with tear gas and bullets against school children in Soweto. The violence caused outrage and a UN embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa was introduced, followed, in 1985, by economic sanctions by the UK and US.
With mounting international pressure, some apartheid laws were revoked. In 1990, the world watched as Nelson Mandela was released from prison, whereupon he continued to campaign. Four years later, on 26 April 1994, more than 22 million South Africans took part in the first multiracial parliamentary elections, voting in the ANC with Nelson Mandela sworn in as the country’s first black president.
This article was first published in the November 2015 issue of BBC History Revealed
]]>Peter Hain on Nelson Mandela: “A symbol for good leadership in the world”https://www.historyextra.com/membership/peter-hain-on-nelson-mandela-south-africa-symbol-good-leadership-world/2018-07-20T14:06:37.000Z“I was with him on the eve of his election,” says Peter Hain, talking about the time he spent with Nelson Mandela on the night of the landslide victory for the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994. “He was very subdued in a way. He said he felt an awful responsibility hanging on his shoulders. He knew the task ahead.”
The historic vote which brought Mandela to the presidency had overturned the white minority government, the first non-racial election a symbolic end to the policy of apartheid (separateness) which had been set in South African law since 1948. Mandela became the first black president of South Africa and the country began a new era, attempting to move forward while making sense of its recent, brutal past.
On the centenary of Mandela’s birth, we spoke to Peter Hain about the South African leader’s remarkable achievements in the face of tremendous adversity Listen now
Peter Hain has recently published a biography, Mandela: His Essential Life, which explores Mandela’s life, as well as sharing his own experiences of the struggle. The son of anti-apartheid activists Walter and Adelaide Hain – who campaigned against the regime in South Africa before they were politically banned by the government, forcing their move to the UK in 1966 – Hain later became a UK member of parliament and a senior minister in Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments. As a young activist, he was instrumental in the ‘Stop the Seventy Tour’ campaigns, which disrupted South African cricket and rugby tours in protest against the policy of apartheid.
Apartheid had been introduced in South Africa by the Afrikaner part of the white population, derived from Dutch and Flemish settlers who came to South Africa from the 17th century. Hain calls apartheid “the worst system of racial tyranny the world has ever seen”, sharing how the regime “regulated every nook and cranny of life, from the bed to the schools to the hospitals”.
“But it’s a mistake to say that apartheid only began under the Afrikaner white minority government,” Hain says, explaining how the roots for the system were sown under British colonial rule.
It speaks to one of Mandela’s many strengths as a leader, says Hain, that while imprisoned, Mandela studied Afrikaner history, wanting to understand the roots of the oppressive system.
During his very tough existence imprisoned on Robben Island – “on the boat to Robben Island, his warders urinated down the only air vent into the room where Mandela and his fellow prisoners were confined” – Mandela began thinking about how he could relate to his warders.
“He understood that the warders were all poorly educated, they were all Afrikaners and spoke Afrikaans, so he started to learn the language fluently. He never lost this belief that there would, in the end, be negotiations, that his white oppressors would be forced to come to him and his comrades in prison and help negotiate a transition to a non-racial society.”
“He decided he would learn Afrikaner history, which is a very interesting and quite a tragic one. Afrikaners were themselves oppressed by the British: remember that the first ever concentration camps were not in Nazi Germany; they were actually during the Boer Wars, when the British fought the Afrikaner whites for dominance and control of the gold fields and the mines. The traditional colonial objective of plundering the assets of the country resulted in two bloody wars. And in these concentration camps, 25,000 Afrikaans women and children were killed or died in these miserable, horrible, insanitary conditions. That’s very much a part of Afrikaner folklore, the idea that ‘this will never happen to us again.’”
Mandela understood, Hain says, that “it’s no good just seeing [your enemies] as – in Mandela’s case, anyway – the oppressors, the bad people. He knew he had to understand why are they acting in that way, how can you reach out and understand, while not conceding your ground.”
By the time Mandela walked free after 27 years in prison – “a moment which we had all campaigned for, but which we never quite believed would happen” – his warders and oppressors had come to see him “not as a prisoner, as a terrorist ogre, but as a person, a formidable person who could save them from the fate that beckoned to South Africa.”
“I think he can stand as a benchmark for what I call good, principled, decent leadership. But not soft, as it were, vacillating leadership, because there’s nobody stronger that I have ever studied or met. There are far too many strong leaders – strong men, as they like to see themselves – of an authoritarian kind, who really appeal to people’s base instincts. Mandela always appealed to people’s higher instincts, to the better side of all of us.”
Peter Hain was speaking on the History Extra podcast. To listen to the full interview, click here. Mandela: His Essential Life by Peter Hain, is published by Rowman and Littlefield and is out now.
]]>Nelson Mandela’s extraordinary lifehttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/nelson-mandelas-extraordinary-life/2018-07-19T15:41:34.000Z On the centenary of Mandela’s birth, we speak to the politician and author Peter Hain about the South African leader’s remarkable achievements in the face of tremendous adversity.
]]>Mandela: the 20th century’s greatest leader?https://www.historyextra.com/membership/mandela-the-20th-centurys-greatest-leader/2018-07-18T07:05:22.000ZTo what extent did Mandela's aristocratic upbringing help prepare him for a future leadership role?
David Killingray: Mandela was born in the rural eastern Cape, a Xhosa speaker (as were his later political colleagues Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu) and a member of the Tembu ‘royal’ elite. This privileged economic background helped smooth his way to primary and secondary schools and then on to Fort Hare University. Early on Mandela learned English. Chiefly status (which meant more in the 1920s–40s) seems to have given Mandela confidence, although his status was not always acknowledged in urban areas.
Keith Shear: Rather more may have been made of this point than it can bear, but if it had any relevance then it was in contributing to an ability to interact confidently and composedly with people of every station in life. More relevant, perhaps, was that this upbringing took place in an African ‘reserve’, where Mandela was not constantly confronted with the awful spectacle of seeing his elders behaving submissively towards whites.
Read more:
- Nelson Mandela: “a symbol of the struggle against racism"
- When I met Mandela: 1995 Rugby World Cup final
What incidents in Mandela's life were most important in propelling him towards activism?
Matthew Graham: Mandela has argued that there was no single revelatory moment that pushed him towards a life of struggle; rather it was the culmination of the daily injustices and brutality of apartheid. Yet, there were clearly important stages towards a life of activism, particularly during the early 1940s: Mandela’s close friendships with Walter Sisulu, Anton Lembede and AP Mda were crucial influences, which drew him into increasing contact with the ANC. Furthermore, while studying for a law degree at Wits University, Mandela met many ‘radical’ anti-apartheid activists such as Joe Slovo and Ruth First, who introduced him to a world of non-racial political activism.
Saul Dubow: As a youth and as a student, Mandela was not especially radical. His political trajectory was relatively gradual and he emerged as a leader only in his mid-30s. It was the invigorating cosmopolitan environment of wartime and postwar Johannesburg, the daily realities of oppression, and the need to resist the imposition of apartheid, that increasingly drew Mandela into active politics.
What enabled him to stand out as a leader among his fellow ANC activists?
KS: Mandela had the style, stature and bearing that appealed to the popular constituency the ANC sought to mobilise from the late 1940s. As importantly, he possessed the self-discipline and organising skills that ensured his appointment to lead efforts at popular mobilisation such as the 1952 Defiance Campaign, which directly and visibly challenged apartheid laws.
Finally, his legal training, which was rare among black South Africans of the era, gave him a strategic knowledge of where the ANC might confront the white authorities and just how far it could go in doing so.
MG: It must be remembered that the organisation had a number of talented leaders working together as a collective. However, Mandela clearly stood out, due to his commanding and authoritative presence.
Through strength of conviction and force of personality, he was able to influence and coalesce activists behind his ideas. Unlike some of his peers, he had a pragmatic and far-sighted approach to the struggle, beyond narrow nationalistic confines. What truly set him aside was his willingness to take bold, decisive and often radical steps, such as his role in the Youth League and the decision to embark on the armed struggle.
During the ANC's armed struggle, was it appropriate to describe Mandela as a terrorist, as some did?
MG: Did Mandela advocate the overthrow of the government by violence? Yes. Strictly speaking, under the guise of international law, Mandela could certainly be described as a terrorist. However, in 1966 the UN General Assembly decreed apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’, perhaps mitigating the argument against terrorism. I wouldn’t describe Mandela as a terrorist – he regarded himself as a freedom fighter.
DK: Under the apartheid regime non-Europeans lost their citizenship, and were denied most human rights. South Africa had become “a vicious despotism,” said Mandela in his defiant speech of June 1964. Passive resistance availed little. An armed state that used violence against its own people invited violent response.
The ANC was reluctant to use violence, the initial targets being infrastructural property, not people. The South African state terrorised its opponents irrespective of their colour. ‘Terrorism’ was a convenient Cold War label directed at the ANC by the South African regime and its right-wing allies abroad.
SD: No. As far as we know, he never fired a shot in combat or primed a device. Like most of his compatriots in the early Umkhonto we Sizwe [the armed wing of the ANC], he was an amateur. For Mandela, armed resistance was only ever an adjunct to political struggle, with the possible exception of his period as leader of the underground, when he helped to formulate the fanciful and ill-fated revolutionary strategy, Operation Mayibuye, for which he was found guilty of high treason. The big unresolved historical question is whether his championship of the armed struggle hastened or delayed a political solution in South Africa.
How did his long imprisonment shape Mandela?
KS: It reinforced an already strong sense of determination, discipline and duty with qualities of resilience, patience and pragmatism. It enhanced his negotiating skills, both with his captors and with his fellow political prisoners, not all of whom were from the ANC. And combined with the legendary status that the campaign for his release endowed him with, it gave him the moral authority to adopt unpopular positions among his comrades and take difficult decisions in dealing with his opponents following his release.
Read more:
- In their own words: 6 of history’s most fascinating letters
- Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom reviewed
Why do you think he became such a potent symbol of resistance around the world, during his time in prison?
SD: Mandela’s standing was enhanced by his absence. He was spared mistakes and absolved of blame for the many failures of the ANC in exile.
By the early 1970s, Mandela was largely forgotten outside South Africa and only dimly remembered inside. The ANC and the Communist Party deliberately projected him as a leader of the struggle, but not always as the leader. In the aftermath of the Soweto uprising of 1976, Steve Biko, leader of the Black Consciousness Movement, was for many people the foremost symbol of resistance. Partly in reaction, the international Anti-Apartheid Movement, in consultation with the ANC, began to promote Mandela as the personification of the struggle. This campaign turned him into a political celebrity for a world hungry for a redemptive hero. Only after 1980 did Mandela become internationally accepted as a potential leader-in-waiting.
MG: One of the greatest successes of the ANC’s struggle, with the assistance of the anti-apartheid movement, was the global PR campaign that turned Mandela into this symbol of resistance. He was a figure with an almost impeccable background – apartheid was a rare, cut and dried moral cause, and being a key imprisoned leader made Mandela a natural focal point.
Why did apartheid South Africa feel able to deal with Mandela to a greater extent than some other black leaders?
KS: In part it was because the domestic and global anti-apartheid movements had created in Mandela a figure with the stature to deliver on commitments that he made in the name of the ANC. The regime may have begun with the hope of separating him from his movement, but in the end they gained by Mandela’s determination to seek a proper mandate from the ANC, and his personal qualities undoubtedly assisted in making the ANC’s negotiating positions more palatable to white South Africans and their leaders.
SD: For a long time, apartheid South Africa did everything possible to avoid dealing with Mandela. When, eventually, more farsighted members of the government realised that the ANC could not be isolated forever, efforts were made to deal with Mandela and to split him from the ANC mainstream. FW de Klerk [president from 1989–94] was the first apartheid leader who realised that nothing short of Mandela’s unconditional release was politically practicable. He also hoped to wrong-foot the ANC.
Why was Mandela so willing to work with his former oppressors?
MG: Mandela understood that hatred only fuels further hatred, resulting in violence and the possible disintegration of the country. Importantly, the white population controlled the levers of the economy and, already fearful of the ‘communist’ ANC, would have needed little excuse to emigrate en masse.
Having witnessed the decolonisation process across Africa, Mandela appreciated the need to appease the white minority and keep them onboard to ensure a smooth transition to democracy.
DK: This has two sides to it: Mandela’s willingness and also the regime’s willingness. A good deal of talking had gone on before he emerged from prison. The elections of 1987 strengthened the right wing. However, defeat in Angola, retreat from Namibia, increased violence within South Africa, international condemnation, and particularly US refusal to invest in South Africa are all significant.
The Christian influence among black and white South Africans should not be ignored. And was Mandela, aged 71, conscious of his iconic position in the world? The reconciler sounds so much better than the wrecker.
Without Mandela, would South Africa have succumbed to civil war?
SD: South Africa was in a virtual state of civil war when Mandela was released in 1990. The ANC and its internal wing, the UDF, were engaged in continuous acts of political violence with Inkatha, the Zulu nationalist political movement. Elements on the far right, including in the military, were stoking the situation and positioning to stage a coup.
The killing by right-wing militants of legendary ANC leader Chris Hani in 1993 brought the country to the brink; Mandela’s personal intervention helped calm the situation at a critical juncture. But Mandela was not alone. The negotiating skills of Cyril Ramaphosa for the ANC and Roelf Meyer for the government helped to keep the political process alive. The moral authority of Desmond Tutu was highly significant. De Klerk’s ability to neutralise the state’s securocrats was key.
MG: Mandela and De Klerk realised that compromises had to be reached to avert continued conflict. This was a radical change of mindset for both sides, which prevented the full blown escalation of hostilities. Mandela’s appeal to ANC supporters to put down their weapons in Natal, the agreement to halt the armed struggle, and his call for calm after Hani’s assassination all proved important.
How successful was Mandela as a president of South Africa?
DK: The ANC won the 1994 election, and Mandela was president for a single term, perhaps a lesson to other African rulers. His great success is surely as a reconciler.
South Africa’s acute socioeconomic problems, the legacy of two centuries of wrong, could not be resolved in the short term. Black aspirations were raised, but barely met. Nevertheless, an independent ‘free’ South Africa gave a new sense of pride and accomplishment to many people who 10 years before had not been ‘citizens’.
SD: Mixed. Mandela left much of the day-to-day running of government to his deputy, Thabo Mbeki. He was an effective delegator and concentrated instead on keeping alive the idea of the `miracle’ of South Africa’s political transition, by promoting reconciliation at home and building political support abroad. Under his leadership the ANC moved from programmatic socialism to a ramshackle form of corporatist social democracy. Mandela did little to promote economic redistribution or rein in big business. He was more effective as an international statesman than as a leader of transformation.
What do you see as his legacy today?
KS: For countless people worldwide, Mandela symbolises the virtues of an indefatigable struggle against the evils of racism and oppression. Rising above discords, bigotries and inequalities – those of his own country and of others – he became a unifying figure inspiring and eliciting our common humanity.
MG: It has to be his unfaltering commitment to forgiveness and reconciliation. South Africa in the early 1990s was close to breaking point, yet Mandela courageously rejected any notion of revenge or retribution, by offering an olive branch of clemency in order to prevent the country descending into anarchy.
Mandela didn’t just speak of reconciliation, he acted upon it, serving as a shining example for others. The reconciliation and forgiveness he promoted (while not always popular) kept South Africa together, and allowed for democracy to be realised.
Could Mandela be described as the greatest leader of the 20th century?
MG: Mandela is one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. He sacrificed his own life in selfless service against the brutality of apartheid, fighting for justice, democracy and freedom for all. By becoming the living embodiment of reconciliation he began healing the wounds of a deeply divided society. However, there is a danger of rewriting history and creating a myth around Mandela. While he was undoubtedly a great leader, he was no ‘saint’ and his flaws must be recognised.
DK: Mandela was undoubtedly a remarkable man – particularly in later life. Now that he has died, expect the counter-saint stories of the ANC in exile and opposition, the ‘real’ Mandela. This invariably follows when there is no longer any urgency to praise famous men.
SD: In an age of postmodern cynicism Mandela reminded the world of the untainted moral vision and hopes of the early post-colonial era. He did not himself bring freedom to South Africa, but he did more than anyone else to bear the country over the threshold. Despite his long political life, Mandela’s active political career as a stand-out leader was remarkably short. He was the political hedgehog who did one very great thing rather than the political fox who sets his mind on a great number of things.
KS: South Africa is a relatively small country in the scheme of things, so it is unlikely that any leader it produced could measure up to, for example, Franklin Roosevelt. For a time, however, South Africa uniquely embodied the evils of racism in a world that officially at least no longer tolerated racism, and Mandela’s example in drawing attention to these evils, and then destroying the order that symbolised them, will always be cited admiringly.
The panel
David Killingray is emeritus professor of modern history at Goldsmiths, London and an honorary professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Among his recent publications is an article on early members of the African National Congress, in the South African Historical Journal, a ‘special issue’ on the ANC, 2012
Saul Dubow is professor of African history at QueenMary, University of London. His book Apartheid, 1948–1994 will be published by Oxford University Press later this year
Keith Shear is senior lecturer in African studies at the University of Birmingham, specialising in postwar South Africa
Matthew Graham is a lecturer in history and politics at the University of Dundee, specialising in sub-Saharan Africa. His book The Crisis of South African Foreign Policy and the ANC will be published by IB Tauris later this year
Professor Saul Dubow and Dr Aron Mazel discuss Nelson Mandela’s legacy on our podcast. Click here to listen.
This article was first published in the January 2014 issue of BBC History Magazine
]]>Explore Cape Town: Africa’s ‘Mother City’https://www.historyextra.com/membership/cape-town-africa-history-visit/2017-02-14T15:40:23.000ZThere’s only really one place to start exploring the dramatically situated ‘Mother City’ – from the top of Table Mountain. From here, visitors can gaze down on the safe harbour that made this spot the perfect toehold on the continent, and look beyond to see Africa spread before them.
The Cape Peninsula, stretching south towards the Cape of Good Hope, may not truly be the southernmost point on the continent – that honour goes to Cape Agulhas – but for centuries it has symbolised the uttermost end of Africa in the minds of travellers. For now, whether you’ve taken the cable car or walked up, breathe in the fresh mountain air and savour a world-class panorama charged with stories. To reach the summit mountain, follow the signs to Maclear’s Beacon, 5km from the cable-car station.
With your bearings established, it’s time to hit the streets of Cape Town, which tell the story of the city’s development. The settlement that would become Kaapstad (Cape Town) was established in 1652 as a refuelling point, providing water and food for ships travelling to Asia, by the Dutch East India Company (abbreviated as VOC) – the world’s first multinational corporation, and the first to issue shares. The star fort called the Castle of Good Hope, built between 1666 and 1679, is the oldest building in South Africa and is still the headquarters of the army in the Western Cape. Clamber up onto the bastions for the perfect view of the fort’s interior and surroundings.
It’s a short walk from the castle to Company’s Garden, planted as the VOC’s vegetable patch in 1652 and now fragrant with the scents of the city’s finest rose garden. You’ll also find here the Delville Wood Memorial, honouring South African soldiers who fought in the First World War. As a British Dominion, South Africa stood alongside Britain in the conflict, and nearly 150,000 of its troops served in the Middle East, in east Africa and on the western front. This memorial specifically commemorates the 1916 battle of Delville Wood, part of the Somme offensive, in which some 2,500 South African soldiers were killed.
Stroll north-east to Strand Street, one of the oldest in the city, where many townhouses of Cape Colony merchants were built during the centuries of Dutch and British rule, including Koopmans-de Wet House, constructed for a wealthy Capetonian family in the late 18th century. Now a museum, it showcases the wealth of the city in an era when it was known as the ‘Tavern of the Seas’ – a party town for sailors revictualling, trading and carousing here.
The city’s story isn’t all big houses and barracks, though; for centuries, ordinary people arrived as traders, refugees, slaves and soldiers. To discover one facet of this, amble along Strand Street and turn onto Chiappini, Rose and Wale Streets to explore the most picturesque parts of the Bo-Kaap suburb on the lower slopes of Signal Hill. These colourful low-rise buildings and cobblestone streets have long been home to the city’s Cape Malay (often also referred to as Cape Muslim) population, originally freed slaves from south-east Asia, Madagascar and elsewhere. On Wale Street you’ll find the Bo-Kaap Museum, an interesting stop where you’ll learn more about this area’s heritage. The Auwal Mosque is nearby; South Africa’s first, it dates from 1794.
Cecil Rhodes dominated the final years of British rule in South Africa; his memorial, standing at his favourite viewpoint on the east side of Table Mountain, is viewed by some as bombastic and grandiose. The simple wooden bench nearby was his own, and is the perfect place to ponder his controversial legacy.
- The battle for the US Constitution: how the 14th Amendment is under threat
- The global legacy of Martin Luther King
The darkest stain on South Africa’s history is, though, the segregation of the apartheid era (1948–91). For a deeper understanding of the issues and events of that time, join the crowds at the site of Nelson Mandela’s incarceration on Robben Island, and visit the District Six Museum in East City, which explains how this multicultural area was dismantled and sets the scene for the many township tours that stop here.
Cape Town in eight sites
- 1: Table Mountain - Panoramic views across old Cape Town - www.tablemountain.net
- 2: Castle of Good Hope - 17th-century fort, oldest in South Africa - castleofgoodhope.co.za
- 3: Company’s Garden - The VOC’s vegetable patch
- 4: Koopmans-de Wet House - Beautifully preserved 18th-century home - 35 Strand Street - www.iziko.org.za
- 5: Bo-Kaap district and museum - Colourful houses of Malay settlers, and museum showcasing Islamic heritage - www.iziko.org.za
- 6: Rhodes Memorial - Monument on Table Mountain
- 7: Robben Island - Infamous apartheid-era jail - www.robben-island.org.za
- 8: District Six Museum - More apartheid history - 25A Buitenkant Street - www.districtsix.co.za
Tom Hall is a travel writer and editorial director of Lonely Planet publications
]]>My history hero: Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)https://www.historyextra.com/membership/my-history-hero-nelson-mandela-1918-2013/2014-07-16T22:59:07.000ZThis article was first published in the July 2014 issue of BBC History Magazine
Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) was an anti-apartheid activist, revolutionary and president of South Africa from 1994–99. After rising to prominence in the ANC’s 1952 Defiance Campaign – a protest against the country’s apartheid laws – the young lawyer was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the Treason Trial (1956–61). However, in 1964 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for his opposition to the regime. He was to serve 27 years in prison, most notably on Robben Island. On his release, after being elected his country’s first black leader, Mandela’s government focused on tackling the legacy of decades of apartheid.
When did you first hear about Nelson Mandela?
I first heard about this black man who was incarcerated in a prison in South Africa when I was growing up. A lot of people talked about apartheid being wrong and that he should be freed, but in those days some people still labelled him a terrorist – incredible though it may seem today. As a child, I didn’t fully understand the background to his imprisonment, but hearing the story of this black man who’d been caged for so long intrigued me – and the more I learnt about him, the more I admired the man.
What kind of person was he?
He was a strong individual mentally – and physically – and it was that which of course enabled him to survive all those years in prison, be it on Robben Island or the mainland. He was also intelligent, showed real humility (it’s telling how he made his own bed even as president) and possessed enormous patience.
He understood that it sometimes takes times to change things. But just as importantly, he had great courage and was prepared to take on the authorities. In short, he was a class act.
What made Mandela a hero?
For me, it was above all his determination to ‘fight’ for what he believed in. The South African authorities treated him brutally, locking him up for nearly 30 years and in effect throwing away the key. So this is a man who really had to fight for everything. And he had the willpower, stamina and self-belief to keep on fighting for all those years until he achieved his goal of ending apartheid.
But he fought his fight primarily with words – he understood their power – and the sense of moral outrage at his imprisonment finally helped force the racist South African regime into submission. He also had the intelligence to harness power for the greater good and not to abuse it, as so many leaders do when they reach office. Finally, you’ve got to admire his quiet dignity, come what may, and his inspirational leadership.
What was Mandela’s finest hour?
Firstly, the moment he finally walked to freedom after all those years in prison – a moment that will be imprinted on my mind forever. Secondly, his realisation after taking power that he needed to get the entire country behind him, regardless of colour or creed, and the forgiveness he showed to all those who had treated him so shabbily over the years.
Is there anything you don’t particularly admire about him?
I’ve read up on him, and while no one is perfect, I’ve learnt nothing that would change my perception of him as a great man.
Can you see any parallels between his life and your own?
How could I match up to him? It would be impossible! That said, I think I’ve been strong and understanding at the same time, and I’ve never forgotten where I’ve come from. I’d like to think that in my own small way I too have been something of a role model for kids from the wrong side of the tracks, be they black, white or Asian.
If you could meet Mandela, what would you ask him?
I would ask him how the hell he did it. Just how did he get through all those years of imprisonment? For me, doing what he did after three decades in prison is still almost beyond belief.
Sol Campbell was talking to York Membery. Sol Campbell played for clubs including Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal and Portsmouth during a footballing career spanning two decades. He also won 73 caps for England. Sol Campbell: The Authorised Biography was published by Spellbinding Media in March
]]>Historian at the Movies: Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom reviewedhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/historian-at-the-movies-mandela-long-walk-to-freedom-reviewed/2014-01-06T17:06:18.000ZQ: Did you enjoy the film?
A: I really enjoyed the film. Watching Mandela on a screen only a few weeks after his death reminded me that we had already thought of his legacy before his death. Many books, films or documentaries had already portrayed the life of the first black South African president, but the coincidental release of Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom with his death gave a particular dimension to this film.
I have taught the history of South Africa with the help of Nelson Mandela’s autobiography for quite a few years now, and I can see how much work was put into this film. I particularly liked how the film director made a conscious effort to show a multi-faceted Mandela. I also liked this film because Idris Elba was able to show how determined Mandela remained throughout his life.
This film is also a perfect example of the construction of an icon. Mandela’s image has been carefully shaped by his political party and by the Nelson Mandela Foundation for the past 30 years. We can clearly see that this film is no exception, as it contributes to the ever-growing body of books or films praising Mandela’s actions.
Q: Was the film historically accurate?
A: The film was mainly based on Nelson Mandela’s autobiography. So, yes, it clearly depicted Mandela’s understanding of the apartheid years. Or, at least, what he wanted to let us know. As the film is not based on Mandela’s life but on Mandela’s own words, criticism levelled at Mandela’s autobiography can also be directed at the film.
For example, the film, as Mandela’s autobiography, intends to justify the choices made by Mandela to use violence against the apartheid state. In 1961, with other members of his political party, the African National Congress (ANC), Mandela organised a paramilitary group, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), which bombed public buildings in South Africa in order to destabilise the government. The film, like the book, does not shy away from what can be described as terrorism, but the film director chose to follow the arguments provided by Mandela himself in his book.
We can observe the same phenomenon happening for the 1976 Soweto uprising. When watching the film, we can only see that the riot was led by a new generation of South Africans who were not in direct contact with the older generation of ANC leaders. The film did not spend much time evoking this pivotal event, because Mandela did not say much about Soweto in his book. The Soweto uprising was, however, instrumental in creating a new political climate in South Africa that directly led to the politicisation of many young South Africans.
Q: What did the film get right?
A: The film clearly showed that Mandela was a man of action before being sent to prison for 27 years. He was no theorist; he did not write books about guerrilla warfare or nonviolent resistance. Constantly on the move in the 1950s, Mandela was a radical politician who wrote speeches, organised the ANC and prepared plans to face the government. Hardly seeing his family, he devoted his life to politics.
Mandela was not afraid of making difficult political choices. This is exactly what the film shows when, without the consent of many ANC members, he opened negotiations with the Apartheid government in the late 1980s. A few years later, Mandela was not afraid of telling South Africans that they needed to forgive each other. Mandela was a statesman with a strong sense of duty, and the film clearly depicted it.
Q: What did it miss?
A: The film hardly mentioned the role played by women during the apartheid years. By focusing only on Winnie Mandela, the film suggested that other women’s role was rather limited. For example, it might have been worth showing the 1956 anti-pass march co-organised by the Federation of South African Women and the ANC Women’s League.
The film also missed the evolution of Mandela’s political views throughout his life. In the 1940s and 1950s, Mandela was a radical who adopted a multi-racial view for the future of South Africa – an opinion which was publicised in the 1955 Freedom Charter and the 1956–61 Treason Trial.
After 27 years in prison, Mandela arguably adopted a more conservative political stance. For instance, contrary to what he campaigned for in the 1950s, Mandela changed his economic policies and no longer supported the nationalisation of key industries in the 1990s.
Stars out of five
For enjoyment: ***** For historical accuracy: ***
]]>When I met Mandela: 1995 Rugby World Cup finalhttps://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/when-i-met-mandela-1995-rugby-world-cup-final/2013-12-20T17:05:44.000ZEd shares his memories of that famous day with us
Q: Can you run us through what happened that day?
A: Well I had become interested in what was happening in the case of Mandela – I read books on his life, and became fascinated by him.
But what I had never done was link rugby and Mandela. What became apparent quite quickly was how clever and wise he was in the way he brought white and black together in a rainbow nation.
When Mandela came down the incline and onto the field wearing his cap and rugby shirt that day, I realised “this is something a bit different”. It was almost fantasy really.
What struck me was how small [Mandela] was. But you could not help but feel completely overwhelmed by his stature. His presence was quite extraordinary.
You look back on it and you just think “that was fate”.
Q: How did you feel? Were you nervous about how the crowd would react?
A: Any major sporting occasion is tense. You would not be human if you did not have some ‘fear factor’.
But I remember thinking “I cannot worry too much about Mandela being here, or I will fail.” I had to be a little bit selfish.
The crowd went bonkers. I was gobsmacked – he just smiled knowingly. I remember he had piercing brown eyes. He just looked at me and smiled.
Q: When did you realise you had witnessed a huge moment in history?
A: I’m not sure, but I feel incredibly privileged to have been there. I realised at the time I was in the presence of someone very different – he was unlike anyone I had ever met in my lifetime.
He thanked everyone – it struck me how frail he was, even at that time.
And you would expect a guest at a sporting event to be formally dressed, but there he was in his rugby shirt and cap, just like everyone else.
Q: What do you think will be Mandela’s legacy?
A: There are still massive issues in South Africa, as there are in other countries, but he had a huge influence.
When I left the stadium I saw white faces and black faces celebrating their victory. If you had said to me when I was first refereeing in South Africa that I would one day see that, I would have thought you were on another planet.
He was an extraordinary guy – a one-off.
I just hope South Africa can carry on moving forward. Mandela has given the country a huge opportunity.
Ed Morrison was a referee at international level for 12 years, and adjudicated five matches in South Africa between 1991 and 1999.
]]>Nelson Mandela specialhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/nelson-mandela-special/2013-12-12T17:33:00.000ZFollowing the death of Mandela, Saul Dubow and Aron Mazel consider his remarkable political career and his role in ending Apartheid
]]>Nelson Mandela: “a symbol of the struggle against racism”https://www.historyextra.com/membership/nelson-mandela-a-symbol-of-the-struggle-against-racism/2013-12-06T11:40:27.000ZImprisoned for 27 years, Mandela went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, and establish himself as the country’s leading political figure.
We discussed Mandela’s legacy with Dr Vincent Hiribarren, a lecturer in world history at King's College London, who specialises in African history.
Q: What, do you think, is Mandela’s legacy?
A: Mandela had a very long career, from the 1940s to the 1990s. It is important to remember that.
He fought against the apartheid state, leading different campaigns against it.
Along the way, he had to make some difficult choices. After a long trial from 1956 to 1961, he chose to create what was effectively a terrorist group. [In 1961 Mandela and other African National Congress (ANC) leaders formed a militia movement called Umkhonto we Sizwe, with Mandela as commander-in-chief.]
It’s very interesting that he chose to use violence. He later tried to explain why he chose this path. [Mandela told the Pretoria Supreme Court during his second trial in 1964: “I do not… deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence.
“I planned it as a result of a calm and sobre assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the whites.”]
The Cold War context is also very important – just a few years earlier the focus was on Cuba, and then you had Mandela choosing to use violence, which explains why so many people in South African and abroad were reluctant to help Mandela in the 1960s.
It was also striking how Mandela then disappeared. For years, no one knew what he looked like. But then, in the 1980s, he became one of the world’s most famous prisoners.
He was made into a charismatic prisoner, who managed to internationalise the struggle. This was one of his main feats – he came to symbolise the struggle [against the apartheid regime]. From that point on, we all knew his story.
What is also impressive is how he managed to avoid civil war in South Africa. Many at the time would have argued there would be a civil war, but through his charisma and ability to negotiate, this was evaded.
He became South Africa’s main political figure. He became an icon, who symbolised the struggle against the racist, apartheid state.
He managed to bring people from different religions and ethnic backgrounds together. We are today witnessing the process of this nation building in South Africa – thanks to Mandela, 21st-century society knows it can be achieved; knows humanity can produce someone like Mandela.
Q: Do you think there will ever be anyone like Mandela again?
A: That is a very good question. We will need someone like him again – out of chaos and racism he emerged. But you cannot compare.
Q: What else did Mandela achieve during is life?
A: It’s important to note that as a young person he was very much for a black South Africa. But he changed his views in the 1950s, saying ‘we should embrace all races’.
And between the 1950s and 90s he became heavily involved in political activity.
Despite what happened to him, he was able to reconcile different views of the world.
Many people around the world knew who he was – when you think about the conflicts around the globe today, do we know as much about, say, Syria?
People everywhere knew about him and why the government was not releasing him. That was the result of work undertaken by him.
Q: How did you react when you heard last night that Mandela had died?
A: I have been teaching about his life for many years – you feel like you have a special link with him.
When you talk about South Africa, Mandela was the person holding everything together.
There are so many books, films, museums about him – the path was prepared for us. We have long been talking about him and his legacy.
I hope we learn from his story, and follow his path.
]]>