ÁREA DE INFLUENCIA DEL CENTRO FUNCIONAL JEBEROS

What is present-day South Africa was first settled by communities of African peoples thousands of years ago6 (Thompson 1990: 6). These peoples were the ancestors of the Khoekhoen herders7 and San hunter-gatherers, who are believed to have settled the land nearly 2,000 years ago (Rhode and Hoffman 2008: 189). Historian Leonard Thompson argues that the history of the first communities is as intricate as they were dynamic: “People interacted, cooperating and copulating as well as competing and combating, exchanging ideas and practices as well as rejecting them” (1990: 11). Moreover, Thompson argues against racial ideologies that were (and still likely are) held about black South Africans. He contends, “Until recently, white South Africans in particular assumed that ‘Bushmen,’ ‘Hottentots,’ and ‘Kaffirs’ were pure racial types and that the basic process that lay behind the outcome was migration…They portrayed the ‘Bushmen’ as aboriginal hunters and gatherers who had been subjected to two great waves of migration from central Africa: first ‘Hottentot’ pastoralists and then ‘Kaffir’ mixed farmers” (1990: 10-11).

Colonization in South Africa began in 1652 with the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, whose quest was to create a trading post for the Dutch East India Company. Van Riebeeck began by building a border through the planting of wild almond hedge. This border would serve to mark the area of the company’s station, protect the station from invaders, block the route used by Khoekhoen herders, and create an environment similar to that of Europe (Mountain 2003: 48-49). Parts of the original barrier can still be seen at Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden in Cape Town. Van Riebeeck’s border enclosed

6 _{For practical purposes, this dissertation will not delve into the rich pre-colonial history of southern Africa.} 7 _{The Khoekhoen are also known as the Khoikhoi, meaning “men of men” and Khoena, which is gender}

the settlement, creating distinctive boundaries that separate the white colonists from the native “Hottentots8” (Grove 1995: 136). The fence would become a great symbol of what would eventually lead to segregation and then apartheid.

The Dutch brought slaves from faraway places such as South and Southeast Asia and other parts of Africa such as Madagascar and Mozambique (Thompson 1990: 36). This frequent import of slaves in the early 1700s resulted in a slave population that was greater than that of free burghers (Thompson 1990: 36). Slavery was justified through the belief that Africans were sons of Ham and thus they were savages and barbarians unlike the civilized men of Shem and Japheth. As George M. Frederickson explains,

The notion that degeneration into savagery was the result of an inherited curse that God had placed on at least some non-European or nonwhite peoples may be placed alongside [Juan Ginés de] Sepúlveda’s association of natural slavery with ‘inborn rudeness’ and ‘barbarous customs’ as an early anticipation of the racist doctrines that would later emerge as a justification for slavery and colonialism. (1981: 10)

Yet this was not always logical for some Christians who believed that all men, regardless of “degeneracy,” were children of God and thus, in lieu of enslaving they must civilize Africans (1981: 10-11). Both arguments placed Europeans as higher, civilized beings; therefore, they took the authority to create a hierarchal order of beings.

8 _{It is noteworthy that some of the sources I scanned regarding this story made use of the derogatory word}

In addition to mainly British and Dutch colonizers, European settlers were from Germany, Scotland, France and other European countries that came for various economic and religious reasons, and their laws and ideologies were based on European laws and values that reinforced European dominance.9 Slaves were controlled through violence and threats, and some women were forced into prostitution, with owners reaping the profits (Thompson 1990: 42-43). One reason for forced prostitution was the high male to female ratio. For example, as V.A. February notes, in 1663 there were only 17 white females in the Cape (1981: 12). As the Cape was a major trading post, sailors would patronize prostitutes. Such interaction, along with sexual relations between burghers and slaves, sometimes led to the fathering of biracial children who were born slaves. Thompson explains:

As a result of relationships, the ‘black’ population of the colony became considerably lightened, and the ‘white’ populations became somewhat darkened. It has been estimated that approximately 7 percent of the genes of the modern Afrikaner people originated outside Europe and that this occurred mostly during the [Dutch East India Company] period. (1990: 45)

9 _{These laws, for example, ensured slaves could not make legal contracts nor have property, the right to}

marry or rights over their children (Thompson 1990: 42). Additionally, laws were created against miscegenation such as the banning of interracial marriage in 1685, under the influence of the Dutch Calvinist Church. These laws created a further racial divide with the strong belief by Calvinist settlers that they were from the Chosen People (Bloom 1967: 140-141).

The Dutch East India Company was responsible for the continual importation of slaves from Asia, Madagascar and Mozambique. Furthermore, in addition to taking land and livestock from the indigenous people, they also used natives as slaves (1990: 45).

Although, as Thompson suggests, the coloured population and Afrikaners often lived together in the same terrestrial spaces, the Dutch Reformed Church decided to separate the congregations and created a “subordinate mission church” for coloured people in the late 1850s (1990: 66). Moreover, in 1861, coloured children were prohibited from attending public schools although some children of mixed descent were accepted into the Afrikaner community (1990: 66). These actions from the church helped steer Afrikaners away from racial cohabitation and toward separation.10

For the British settlers, colonization and separation were not as religious issues as they were for Afrikaners. Martin Legassick argues the basis for segregation was created between the South African War and World War I (1995: 44).11 In “British Hegemony and the Origins of Segregation in South Africa, 1901-1914,” he contends that the prominent

10 _{In his essay “The Chastening of the English-Speaking Churches in South Africa,” John W. De Gruchy}

boldly states, “The extent to which the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) helped give birth to the ideology of apartheid and supported its implementation has undoubtedly severely tarnished the image of Christianity” (2000: 37). His essay explores what he calls differing Christianities such as those English-speaking churches that found a common aversion to Afrikaner nationalism and apartheid, despite whether or not they were active in their contention. De Gruchy argues the failure to be “clear, unanimous or active in their opposition…[reflects] the reality that their white members were as much beneficiaries of apartheid as other white members of society” (2000: 38). Furthermore, he explains that the uniting of the Church of England with the Dutch Reformed Church was based on the idea that it would bring together Christians with European descent, and that although there were church leaders who were against the exclusion of black people, primary importance was placed on creating a single, white Christian nation (2000: 42-43). He writes, “Racial segregation was regarded as preordained by virtually all whites, whether Afrikaans or English, so national unity and reconciliation certainly did not embrace more than those of European lineage…[and] accepted the new white Union of South Africa as a divine blessing and participated in its celebration” (2000: 42).

11 _{The South African War (1899-1902) is also known as the Boer War or the Second War of Freedom.}

Although the Afrikaners had an advantage through knowledge of the land, the British had more reinforcements and used scorched earth tactics. In addition to some Africans, approximately 28,000 Afrikaner women and children were sent to concentration camps (Marx 1998: 86). Blacks, coloureds and Asians were among the southern Africans that supported the British in hopes of reforming the country; however, the finalizing peace treaty did not grant franchise. Instead, the British extended a hand to the Afrikaners and strengthened the white community (1998: 88-89).

goal of British authority in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State starting in 1900 was to end the feudalist system and create an environment based on cheap black labor that would sustain the mining industry (1995: 45-46). Legassick’s paper explores the idea of creating a “native policy” that would include segregation policies in land, labor and representation and guidance in “civilization.”

In a similar notion regarding segregation in South Africa, Saul Dubow asserts that it was the somewhat liberal, English-speaking theorists who set the foundations of segregationist policies rather than the Afrikaans speakers (1995: 147). He explains that as opposed to an Afrikaner platform, Prime Minister Hertzog endorsed white supremacist ideologies and approaches through strategists such as J. Howard Pim and Maurice S. Evans who based their critiques of segregationist “native policy” on social Darwinism, eugenics and fears of racial degeneration (1995: 148-151). Dubow explains Pim recommended keeping Africans in reserves, as a form of disciplinary control that might furthermore help with industrial development; however, he denied the creation of a native policy that would exploit Africans (1995:148-149). Moreover, Evans argued for white governance over segregated races, yet heeded caution against greed in land settlements and use of Africans as a cheap source of labor (1995: 151).