Reality: a Journal of Liberal Opinion
- Date: 1969-1972
- Subjects: South Africa -- Politics and government -- Periodicals , Politics, Practical -- Periodicals , Political rights -- Periodicals
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/76071 , vital:30499
- Description: Here the agreement between these two Ministers comes to an abrupt end. For while Dr. Koornhof says categorically that the only honourable way in which to do this, is by developing the resources of the homelands, Mr. Froneman states equally categorically that it is no part of the white man's duty to do so. Dr. Koornhof speaks of the moral and altruistic elements in the policy of separate development. Mr. Froneman speaks in the harshest and most callous terms of millions of "surplus" Africans, who must be sent back to their homelands, no matter what awaits them there. He says that African labourers in "white" areas must not be burdened with "superfluous appendages", such as wives, children, and dependents who could not provide service. These two men are in the same Cabinet. If one has been rebuked, it was done in private. And if it was done, it was no doubt done in a semi-jocular manner — "Fronnie, old boy, we all know what you mean, but you must learn to talk prettily." These two men do not represent two irreconcilable wings of the Nationalist Party, they represent the two essential elements of the policy of separate development. And these two elements are essential to each other. Either by itself would be dangerous. Either by itself would be unacceptable. Neither Mr. Froneman nor Dr. Koornhof has reached the stage when one cannot bear to be in the same Cabinet as the other. Although each of these two elements and each of these prototypes, is essential to the other, they do not co-exist in perfect harmony. The one is a naked baas, the other is a bass clothed in soft raiment. The first thinks the second is a sissy, the second thinks the first is a barbarian. They do not say so publicly, but their newspapers do, and that is not good. In the absence of any official pronouncement we must assume that they have been told that the sissy and the barbarian are essential to one another. The sissy will get the barbarian into nice company, the barbarian will protect the sissy if the nice company turns nasty. Why is it that although the barbarian and the sissy do not co-exist in harmony, they are (in spite of the dreams of rift-seekers) essential, the one to the other? Why do the callousness and the altruism not go to civil war? The answer is that neither of them is a fundamental. They are both imposed on something that is fundamental, and that is the preservation of white supremacy (which can be more gently called self-preservation, a soft word that turns wrath in some circles). Neither the callousness nor the altruism is part of the deep monolithic core. The cracks can show, the paint can peel, the fragments can flake off, but the core remains untouched. In times of ease (such as the present), one sees and hears and reads much of the cracking and the fragmentation. In times of danger (which will come), one is conscious of the monolithic core, which is like an ironwood heart in a softwood tree. If we accept the view that Mr. Froneman and Dr. Koornhof have something deep and fundamental in common, is there therefore nothing to choose between them? Or are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? For Mr. Froneman and his kind certainly are not. Their dream of the total separation of the races, if one chooses to dignfiy it by the use of such a term, is a dream which must be realised at whatever cost, and the cost will be the bitterness, and inevitably the hatred, of millions of Africans towards the white masters who make such heartless use of their power. It is claimed by our rulers that such bitterness does not exist except in the imaginations of sentimentalists and agitators, and it is true that the patience of Africans appears to be infinite. It takes a train disaster to strip the mask from the smiling face. Are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? Like Mr. Froneman, Dr. Koornhof believes in the policy of separate development. He does not attempt to conceal that this is to be done in the interests of self- preservation. If the homelands are developed, then more and more Africans will leave "white" South Africa to return to the places from which they were driven by the need for work, money, and food. Although Dr. Koornhof did not say so, it is justifiable to infer that he believes that white South Africa will be more secure if it sheds itself of its Africans, surplus or otherwise. There will be no competition in the labour market, no crime by rootless young black men in the beautiful white suburbs, and most important of all, no night of the long knife. But Dr. Koornhof wants this transformation to be made with justice. There must be work and food and hope in the homelands, and they must be helped to achieve autonomy, political and cultural and economic. It is the economic autonomy that poses the greatest difficulty. Even if it does not mean economic independence, it should mean a healthy economic relationship with "white" South Africa. This is where Mr. Froneman parts company with Dr. Koornhof. And this is where REALITY parts company with Dr. Koornhof too. The recognition that there can he no political and cultural autonomy unless there is at least a healthy relationship with “white” South Africa, is for REALITY a recognition by its political opponents that there are moral considera' tions which transcend those of naed self-preservation. These considerations were blue-printed (inadequately) by Professor Tomlinson in the ninteen- fifties, inexplicably ignored by Dr, Verwoerd (his biographer may one day explain why), and are now, in 1969, alternately honoured and dismissed by a two-tongued Cabinet. In any case REALITY rejects the Tomlinson or any other similar blueprint. The wealth of “white” South Africa was created by all of us jointly, and it belongs to all those who created is. , Journal includes vol. 1 no. 2 to vol. 1 no. 6 ; vol 2 no. 1 to vol. 2 no. 6 and vol. 3 no. 1 to vol. 3 no. 6 , Vol. 2 no. 3 is missing
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1969-1972
- Date: 1969-1972
- Subjects: South Africa -- Politics and government -- Periodicals , Politics, Practical -- Periodicals , Political rights -- Periodicals
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/76071 , vital:30499
- Description: Here the agreement between these two Ministers comes to an abrupt end. For while Dr. Koornhof says categorically that the only honourable way in which to do this, is by developing the resources of the homelands, Mr. Froneman states equally categorically that it is no part of the white man's duty to do so. Dr. Koornhof speaks of the moral and altruistic elements in the policy of separate development. Mr. Froneman speaks in the harshest and most callous terms of millions of "surplus" Africans, who must be sent back to their homelands, no matter what awaits them there. He says that African labourers in "white" areas must not be burdened with "superfluous appendages", such as wives, children, and dependents who could not provide service. These two men are in the same Cabinet. If one has been rebuked, it was done in private. And if it was done, it was no doubt done in a semi-jocular manner — "Fronnie, old boy, we all know what you mean, but you must learn to talk prettily." These two men do not represent two irreconcilable wings of the Nationalist Party, they represent the two essential elements of the policy of separate development. And these two elements are essential to each other. Either by itself would be dangerous. Either by itself would be unacceptable. Neither Mr. Froneman nor Dr. Koornhof has reached the stage when one cannot bear to be in the same Cabinet as the other. Although each of these two elements and each of these prototypes, is essential to the other, they do not co-exist in perfect harmony. The one is a naked baas, the other is a bass clothed in soft raiment. The first thinks the second is a sissy, the second thinks the first is a barbarian. They do not say so publicly, but their newspapers do, and that is not good. In the absence of any official pronouncement we must assume that they have been told that the sissy and the barbarian are essential to one another. The sissy will get the barbarian into nice company, the barbarian will protect the sissy if the nice company turns nasty. Why is it that although the barbarian and the sissy do not co-exist in harmony, they are (in spite of the dreams of rift-seekers) essential, the one to the other? Why do the callousness and the altruism not go to civil war? The answer is that neither of them is a fundamental. They are both imposed on something that is fundamental, and that is the preservation of white supremacy (which can be more gently called self-preservation, a soft word that turns wrath in some circles). Neither the callousness nor the altruism is part of the deep monolithic core. The cracks can show, the paint can peel, the fragments can flake off, but the core remains untouched. In times of ease (such as the present), one sees and hears and reads much of the cracking and the fragmentation. In times of danger (which will come), one is conscious of the monolithic core, which is like an ironwood heart in a softwood tree. If we accept the view that Mr. Froneman and Dr. Koornhof have something deep and fundamental in common, is there therefore nothing to choose between them? Or are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? For Mr. Froneman and his kind certainly are not. Their dream of the total separation of the races, if one chooses to dignfiy it by the use of such a term, is a dream which must be realised at whatever cost, and the cost will be the bitterness, and inevitably the hatred, of millions of Africans towards the white masters who make such heartless use of their power. It is claimed by our rulers that such bitterness does not exist except in the imaginations of sentimentalists and agitators, and it is true that the patience of Africans appears to be infinite. It takes a train disaster to strip the mask from the smiling face. Are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? Like Mr. Froneman, Dr. Koornhof believes in the policy of separate development. He does not attempt to conceal that this is to be done in the interests of self- preservation. If the homelands are developed, then more and more Africans will leave "white" South Africa to return to the places from which they were driven by the need for work, money, and food. Although Dr. Koornhof did not say so, it is justifiable to infer that he believes that white South Africa will be more secure if it sheds itself of its Africans, surplus or otherwise. There will be no competition in the labour market, no crime by rootless young black men in the beautiful white suburbs, and most important of all, no night of the long knife. But Dr. Koornhof wants this transformation to be made with justice. There must be work and food and hope in the homelands, and they must be helped to achieve autonomy, political and cultural and economic. It is the economic autonomy that poses the greatest difficulty. Even if it does not mean economic independence, it should mean a healthy economic relationship with "white" South Africa. This is where Mr. Froneman parts company with Dr. Koornhof. And this is where REALITY parts company with Dr. Koornhof too. The recognition that there can he no political and cultural autonomy unless there is at least a healthy relationship with “white” South Africa, is for REALITY a recognition by its political opponents that there are moral considera' tions which transcend those of naed self-preservation. These considerations were blue-printed (inadequately) by Professor Tomlinson in the ninteen- fifties, inexplicably ignored by Dr, Verwoerd (his biographer may one day explain why), and are now, in 1969, alternately honoured and dismissed by a two-tongued Cabinet. In any case REALITY rejects the Tomlinson or any other similar blueprint. The wealth of “white” South Africa was created by all of us jointly, and it belongs to all those who created is. , Journal includes vol. 1 no. 2 to vol. 1 no. 6 ; vol 2 no. 1 to vol. 2 no. 6 and vol. 3 no. 1 to vol. 3 no. 6 , Vol. 2 no. 3 is missing
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1969-1972
Anniversary bulletin, 1943-1993: Unity Movement 50th year of struggle-and the struggle continues
- Authors: New Unity Movement
- Date: 19--?
- Subjects: New Unity Movement (South Africa) -- Periodicals , Labour -- South Africa -- Periodicals , South Africa -- Social conditions -- Periodicals , South Africa -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/75906 , vital:30481
- Description: The Unity Movement was established in 1943 after long and hard struggles of the disfranchised oppressed people in South Africa against foreign domination by first the Dutch and then the British ruling classes. The Non-European Unity Movement (NEUM) as it was named was the first National liberation movement to base itself upon several most important principles and policies: (i) That there could be only ONE SOLUTION for all the people in South Africa to bring freedom, justice and peace. Thus the UNITY of the oppressed and exploited who were denied all citizenship rights was a vital necessity.(ii) That the ruling class and all its agents among us had done everything possible to prevent the oppressed from uniting in their struggles. They had used the tactics of divide-and-rule as a major weapon against our struggles. The struggle for UNITY was always to be one important answer to these divide-and-rule tactics.(iii) That the ruling class used the myths of "race" and the "inferiority" of persons of colour, language, "culture" and separate schools, housing areas, hospitals, churches, jobs, etc., etc., to divide people. The Unity Movement declared war on racism, tribalism and all forms of discrimination. It strove to educate and organise the oppressed to UNDERSTAND WHY AND HOW WE were oppressed. It also strove to teach the oppressed that only a united people could win the freedom struggle; the ruling class were always united; as a disunited people we could never win our liberation struggle. (iv) That our democratic rights had been known for centuries. But we must know them and demand ALL of them. Democracy could not exist if people had some democratic rights and lacked others. We had to know this because dishonest political activists used the masses to get privileges (concessions) for themselves while they pretended to struggle on behalf of the masses. There was a minimum we must always demand, but we could and must strive for even more. (v) That the oppressed were robbed of their land and their possessions (mainly livestock); their homes were destroyed. They were driven into labour camps and mission stations after these wars of dispossession. They were forced to work as cheap labour in the mines and on the farms and in the factories and homes of the conquerors. Landlessness was a feature of all colonies conquered by the warring colonial powers. Today these colonial powers form the basis of World Imperialism. This World Imperialism is the main enemy of every oppressed nation with a history of colonial conquest. It is imperialism that paid for and bought over the collaborators who have been in government since April 1994. But now that they are part of government the collaborators are paid out of the taxes they collect from workers and others they now help to oppress. (vi) That the struggle for the land by the combined unified efforts of workers, landless peasants and the rural poor was a vital part of our struggles. Victory here would help to root out unemployment, homes broken up by the migrant labour system, by a lack of education and necessary skills, poor health, starvation and lack of simple things like drinking water and proper sewage. Thus the struggle for the land (point 7 of our programme) and all the other 9 demands belonged together as part of ONE struggle. That in our struggle the interest of the workers, the landless peasantry and the millions of rural poor are our first concern. And that the struggle against foreign domination (that is, against World Imperialism) was part of our struggle for total liberation. In the light of these founding principles and policies it is clear that a "government of National Unity" set up by the de Klerk Government and World Imperialism (that is, the USA, Canada, Britain, Japan and the European Community) cannot bring liberation peace and justice to us. , Abantu bebanye abasoze boyiswe! = Abantu bemunye abasoze behlulwe!
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 19--?
- Authors: New Unity Movement
- Date: 19--?
- Subjects: New Unity Movement (South Africa) -- Periodicals , Labour -- South Africa -- Periodicals , South Africa -- Social conditions -- Periodicals , South Africa -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/75906 , vital:30481
- Description: The Unity Movement was established in 1943 after long and hard struggles of the disfranchised oppressed people in South Africa against foreign domination by first the Dutch and then the British ruling classes. The Non-European Unity Movement (NEUM) as it was named was the first National liberation movement to base itself upon several most important principles and policies: (i) That there could be only ONE SOLUTION for all the people in South Africa to bring freedom, justice and peace. Thus the UNITY of the oppressed and exploited who were denied all citizenship rights was a vital necessity.(ii) That the ruling class and all its agents among us had done everything possible to prevent the oppressed from uniting in their struggles. They had used the tactics of divide-and-rule as a major weapon against our struggles. The struggle for UNITY was always to be one important answer to these divide-and-rule tactics.(iii) That the ruling class used the myths of "race" and the "inferiority" of persons of colour, language, "culture" and separate schools, housing areas, hospitals, churches, jobs, etc., etc., to divide people. The Unity Movement declared war on racism, tribalism and all forms of discrimination. It strove to educate and organise the oppressed to UNDERSTAND WHY AND HOW WE were oppressed. It also strove to teach the oppressed that only a united people could win the freedom struggle; the ruling class were always united; as a disunited people we could never win our liberation struggle. (iv) That our democratic rights had been known for centuries. But we must know them and demand ALL of them. Democracy could not exist if people had some democratic rights and lacked others. We had to know this because dishonest political activists used the masses to get privileges (concessions) for themselves while they pretended to struggle on behalf of the masses. There was a minimum we must always demand, but we could and must strive for even more. (v) That the oppressed were robbed of their land and their possessions (mainly livestock); their homes were destroyed. They were driven into labour camps and mission stations after these wars of dispossession. They were forced to work as cheap labour in the mines and on the farms and in the factories and homes of the conquerors. Landlessness was a feature of all colonies conquered by the warring colonial powers. Today these colonial powers form the basis of World Imperialism. This World Imperialism is the main enemy of every oppressed nation with a history of colonial conquest. It is imperialism that paid for and bought over the collaborators who have been in government since April 1994. But now that they are part of government the collaborators are paid out of the taxes they collect from workers and others they now help to oppress. (vi) That the struggle for the land by the combined unified efforts of workers, landless peasants and the rural poor was a vital part of our struggles. Victory here would help to root out unemployment, homes broken up by the migrant labour system, by a lack of education and necessary skills, poor health, starvation and lack of simple things like drinking water and proper sewage. Thus the struggle for the land (point 7 of our programme) and all the other 9 demands belonged together as part of ONE struggle. That in our struggle the interest of the workers, the landless peasantry and the millions of rural poor are our first concern. And that the struggle against foreign domination (that is, against World Imperialism) was part of our struggle for total liberation. In the light of these founding principles and policies it is clear that a "government of National Unity" set up by the de Klerk Government and World Imperialism (that is, the USA, Canada, Britain, Japan and the European Community) cannot bring liberation peace and justice to us. , Abantu bebanye abasoze boyiswe! = Abantu bemunye abasoze behlulwe!
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 19--?
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »