Apartheid South Africa - The role and significance of key actors/groups 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.”