Apartheid South Africa - Protests and action Questionbank

Source M

Statement from a police officer involved in the Sharpeville events, from an interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), March 1960.

“On that day, we were surrounded by thousands. The protestors were shouting, some throwing stones. We were armed, yes, but we were also afraid. Orders were not clear. We didn’t know if we should wait or act. Then shots were fired, not from my rifle, but from someone nearby. The crowd panicked, and so did we. The firing didn’t stop for what felt like forever. I regret what happened, but at the time we believed we were defending ourselves.”

Source N

A political cartoon published in an anti‑apartheid newsletter, 23 March 1960.

Source O

Statement by Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial, 1964.

“The decision to adopt armed struggle was not made lightly. For years we tried every peaceful method, petitions, protests, strikes. But the state answered with violence: Sharpeville showed us that unarmed protest could mean death. The formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe was a direct response to this brutality. We sought not chaos, but justice. Our sabotage aimed at property, not people. It was apartheid that left us no other choice.”

Source P

Editorial from the British newspaper The Guardian, published 23 March 1960.

“The events in Sharpeville should shock the conscience of the international community. The South African government claims it is maintaining order, yet its methods are those of tyranny. Shooting down unarmed demonstrators, many in the back, cannot be justified under any law. If apartheid continues to rule through fear, the world must consider sanctions and isolation as tools of justice.”

Source M

Nelson Mandela, speech to the Treason Trial defendants, 1958

“We believe that the struggle against apartheid is fundamentally a struggle for justice and equality for all South Africans. The African National Congress, under my leadership, seeks to unite all races in a common front to dismantle the oppressive system of racial segregation and discrimination.

Up until now, our approach has firmly remained non-violent, inspired by principles of justice and moral persuasion. However, the increasing brutality of the apartheid regime, including the banning of our leaders and suppression of protests, has forced us to rethink our methods. We are now compelled to consider more assertive forms of resistance, including the possibility of armed struggle, to secure freedom and dignity for our people.”

Source N

Source O

Albert Luthuli, speech to ANC supporters, 1962

“We have consistently sought peace through dialogue, patient persuasion, and mass non-violent resistance. Yet, the government’s continued response—marked by arrests, brutality, and oppressive legislation—has left our people suffering indignities without recourse.

While I remain committed to peace and urge all to seek nonviolent paths, I acknowledge that when all peaceful means have been exhausted and dignity denied, our people may need to explore alternative methods of resistance. However, as long as there remains hope for peace, that must remain our preferred course.”

Source P

Statement from the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), 1961

“The African National Congress has failed to adequately represent the true voice of the African people. Their emphasis on peaceful protest and negotiation has only delayed real progress. The time for passive resistance is over. The African people demand immediate and forceful action to end apartheid, including armed struggle and mass mobilization. We reject the moderation of leaders like Albert Luthuli and call for a more militant and radical approach to liberation.”

Source M

Excerpt from a speech by South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd to Parliament, 1958

“The European has for centuries advanced culturally and economically. The Native has not. Apartheid seeks not to oppress, but to allow each to develop along his own path, without disruption or interference. Petty Apartheid measures, such as the separation of facilities, are necessary to protect the dignity and standards of the White man while safeguarding the identity of the Bantu. If Africans are allowed unrestricted access to White areas, our civilization will erode. The goal of separate benches, buses, entrances, and schools is not humiliation, but harmony. Only through order and separation can peace be preserved. Integration, as proposed by liberal voices, will not uplift the Native. It will simply destroy the foundations of our society.”

Source N

Source O

Extract from the Group Areas Act (Act No. 41 of 1950), passed by the South African Parliament.

“In the interests of public order, racial purity, and the development of distinct communities, it is hereby enacted that every racial group shall reside, trade, and operate only within areas assigned to that group by the Minister. The Mixed Use of urban space is deemed unlawful. *

Any contravention, including the occupancy, lease, or ownership of property across racial lines, shall be met with legal expulsion, fines, or imprisonment. These measures are essential for preserving the European character of South African cities and ensuring the safety and development of all races.”

Source P

Excerpt from a speech delivered by Albert Luthuli, President of the African National Congress, at a community rally in Durban, July 1960.

“Apartheid is not just the division of land or the passing of cruel laws - it is the daily insult that reminds every African that he is a stranger in his own country. A sign that says ‘Whites Only’ on a bench or a bus is not petty; it is a wound repeated each day. Our people are told where to walk, where to live, where to die. The Group Areas Act tears apart families; petty apartheid mocks their dignity. Both are crimes against our humanity. To the world, we say: this is not a misunderstanding. This is a deliberate policy of exclusion. And to our oppressors, we say: no nation can endure forever when it is built on humiliation.”

Source M

Extract from the South African Government Gazette, July 1952.

The so-called Defiance Campaign is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to undermine law and order in the Union of South Africa. Volunteers are being instructed to break laws that have long ensured the orderly coexistence of our different racial groups. The Native population has been misled into thinking that they can defy Parliament without consequence. The government will not tolerate anarchy or the deliberate provocation of the police. Harsh penalties, including imprisonment, will be applied to all who seek to disturb the peace and stability of this nation.

Source N

Extract from a speech by Albert Luthuli, president of the ANC, December 1952.

We launched the Defiance Campaign because we could no longer accept the injustices of apartheid legislation. Our volunteers, both African and Indian, have been trained in nonviolence. They march into railway stations, post offices, and other segregated places to demand dignity for all South Africans. This campaign is not born of hatred, but of a desire for equality and freedom. We know there will be arrests, and we are ready to fill the prisons if necessary, for we believe that suffering willingly for justice is more powerful than the might of an unjust state.

Source O

Photograph of Defiance Campaign volunteers entering a “Europeans Only” entrance in Johannesburg, 1952.

Source P

Excerpt from historian Gail Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa (1978).

The Defiance Campaign of 1952 represented a turning point in South Africa’s liberation struggle. While the immediate impact on apartheid laws was minimal, the campaign was significant in other respects. It demonstrated that the ANC could mobilise thousands in coordinated, disciplined protest. It also built unprecedented cooperation between Africans and Indians, uniting previously separate struggles. The campaign revealed both the possibilities and the limits of nonviolent resistance under a repressive regime: while it raised the ANC’s profile, it also provoked harsher laws and strengthened the security state. Above all, the campaign convinced a new generation of activists, including Nelson Mandela, that mass action could challenge apartheid, even if change would be long and difficult.

Source M

Statement from the South African Minister of Justice, published in the Rand Daily Mail, March 1960.

The gathering at Sharpeville was not a peaceful demonstration, as some have falsely claimed. It was an unlawful assembly designed to provoke disorder and challenge the authority of the state. Thousands of Africans surrounded the police station, shouting and threatening our officers. Our police showed admirable restraint under extreme provocation. When the crowd surged forward, force had to be used to protect the lives of our men. Any casualties that occurred are the responsibility of the agitators who incited the mob, not the police who were defending themselves. South Africa is a land of law and order, and we will not allow Communist-inspired chaos to undermine our society. The government will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain peace and protect our people from intimidation.

Source N

Excerpt from a statement by Robert Sobukwe, leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), April 1960.

We called upon our people to present themselves peacefully at police stations, unarmed, and without passes, in order to show the world the injustice of the pass laws. In Sharpeville, men and women came in their thousands, singing freedom songs, with no weapons in their hands. They were met not with dialogue but with bullets. Sixty-nine of our brothers and sisters were killed, many shot in the back as they fled. This was not an accident; it was the deliberate use of terror by the state to crush our movement. Sharpeville has revealed to all who doubted that apartheid is maintained not by consent but by violence. We remain committed to the struggle, but let the world know that the days of pleading for justice may be coming to an end.

Source O

Photograph of police examining bodies after the Sharpeville shootings, March 21, 1960.

Source P

United Nations Security Council Resolution 134, April 1960.

The Security Council, having considered the situation arising from the shootings at Sharpeville, expresses its deep concern at the situation in the Union of South Africa. The Council deplores the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa which have led to international friction and the loss of life. It recognizes that the situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The Council calls upon the Government of South Africa to abandon apartheid and racial discrimination, to initiate measures of conciliation, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all its people. The Security Council affirms the need for the United Nations to remain seized of the matter until the situation is resolved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Source M

Excerpt from the Rand Daily Mail, June 1955

The so-called Congress of the People is nothing more than a gathering of agitators determined to sow discord in South Africa. Under the pretense of representing “the people,” the African National Congress and its allies have drawn up a document that would destroy the foundations of our society. The so-called Freedom Charter calls for equality of races, land redistribution, and the nationalization of industries, proposals inspired by foreign socialist doctrines. It is clear that this charter is a blueprint for chaos, intended to undermine our traditions and hand power to those who would ruin South Africa’s stability and prosperity. Loyal citizens must reject this dangerous propaganda before it poisons the minds of the gullible.

Source N

Excerpt from the Freedom Charter, adopted at Kliptown, June 26, 1955

We, the People of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know: South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white. No government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people. The people shall govern! All national groups shall have equal rights! The land shall be shared among those who work it! The people shall share in the country’s wealth! All shall be equal before the law! All shall enjoy human rights! These freedoms we pledge to strive for, side by side, until they are won.

Source O

Photograph of the Congress of the People at Kliptown, June 1955.

Source P

Excerpt from historian Tom Lodge, Sharpeville: An Apartheid Massacre and Its Consequences (2011).

The Freedom Charter was a milestone in the evolution of the liberation struggle. For the first time, a broad coalition of South Africans articulated a shared vision of a democratic, multiracial society. Its radical demands for political equality, land redistribution, and economic transformation inspired generations of activists. Yet the Charter also provoked fierce controversy. The government denounced it as Communist propaganda, while within the liberation movement, some nationalists in the Pan-Africanist Congress rejected its emphasis on nonracialism, insisting that “Africa belongs to Africans.” Although its immediate impact was limited, the Freedom Charter became the ANC’s foundational programme, influencing its policies for decades to come.

Source M

Excerpt from the prosecution’s opening statement at the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria, December 1963.

The accused men stand charged with acts of sabotage and conspiracy against the state. Documents seized at Liliesleaf Farm prove beyond doubt that the African National Congress and its associates plotted to wage guerrilla warfare. These men are not freedom fighters; they are terrorists, intent on overthrowing the government by violent means. Their so-called struggle for equality is nothing more than a cover for Communist domination, threatening peace and stability in South Africa. The government has a duty to defend its citizens from chaos, and those who seek to destroy our nation through violence must face the full weight of the law.

Source N

Excerpt from Nelson Mandela’s “Speech from the Dock,” April 1964.

I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not do this because I love violence, but because our people’s voices were silenced. After years of peaceful protest, after being banned, arrested, and beaten, we were left with no alternative. The ANC adopted sabotage as a last resort, chosen so as to avoid loss of life. I have dedicated my life to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity. It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Source O

Photograph of Nelson Mandela and other accused at the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria, 1964.

Source P

Excerpt from The Times (London), June 1964, reporting on the verdict.

The sentencing of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues at the Rivonia Trial has sent shockwaves around the world. International opinion had feared that South Africa would impose the death penalty, but the decision to sentence the accused to life imprisonment is seen as both severe and strategic. The government has effectively silenced the leadership of the African National Congress, removing its most prominent voices for change. Yet, by allowing Mandela to speak before sentencing, the court has given his words a permanence that may outlast the regime itself. Already, his statement has been reprinted across Europe and the United States, transforming him into the symbol of black South Africans’ struggle. The Rivonia Trial, intended to demonstrate the strength of the apartheid state, may instead have created a martyr and international icon for the cause of freedom.