The Hearts of Darkness: How European Writers Created the Racist Image of Africa
Part Four
by Milton Allimadi
Mr. Allimadi is CEO and
Publisher of The Black Star News, based in New York City. He has graciously given BAR
permission to serialize his work.
The New York Times as Apartheid's Apologists
In documenting the early history of apartheid, the system of
institutionalized racism in South Africa, Western media, including The New York Times often acted as accomplices
and apologists.
In 1910, the Union of South Africa was formed, comprised of
the Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. The past
rivalry and competition for mineral wealth between the competing European
nations - England and Holland - in South Africa was subsumed by their common
desire to subjugate the African majority in order to exploit the territory's
vast wealth.
Blacks were disenfranchised and by the end of the second
decade of the 20th Century, South Africa was regarded by Europeans
as a "white" country even though whites comprised a minuscule minority. The
ruling class of transplanted Europeans treated Africans as sub-human beings, as
did the white writers who went there to chronicle events for their readers.
"The reporter wrote, 'modern European civilization is apt
to be to the semi-civilized native of much the same use as a razor in the hands
of a monkey.'"
An article in The New
York Times, on May 26th 1926, under the headline "Colors Clash
in South African Union," with the byline of Wyona Dashwood, reflected the
racist attitude toward Blacks that prevailed in the United States. Dashwood's article discussed a proposal by
James Barry Hertzog, leader of the National Party in South Africa, to segregate
and disenfranchise Blacks in the Cape Province as a way of dealing with the
"native factor" as the writer put it.
The writer's views were indistinguishable from those of
Hertzog's. "The idea behind it," Dashwood wrote, referring to Hertzog's
proposal, "is to give the native a
chance to develop along his own lines and afford him the opportunity to lay a
sound national foundation on which to ground the more advanced economic, social
and political systems of the white man's civilization." There was not a single official or document
or any other source to which Dashwood attributed these views - not even the
ubiquitous "an official who declined to be identified," that many writers now
like to use. "Without this
intermediate step," Dashwood continued, "it is held, modern European civilization is apt to be to the
semi-civilized native of much the same use as a razor in the hands of a
monkey."
The writer stated as a matter of fact that the so-called
"reservations," the barren lands where many Black families were forcefully removed
to and confined after their lands were stolen by the Europeans, was for their
own good. So reservations such as Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland, were
formed to stop "tribal fighting"; while Transkei was formed to "clear other
land for mining and farming," according to Dashwood. The fact that Africans had
lived on the lands that the apartheid regime now had to "clear" did not weigh
heavy on this journalist's conscience.
Dashwood's article went on to enumerate some of the
"problems" presented by the "natives," using some of the well-established
racist views towards Blacks; she must have been aware that readers in the
United States would relate to them. To begin with, they had a problem of rapid
"multiplication" of their numbers and a tendency to work "reluctantly."
Nonetheless, Dashwood asserted, native labor had become a "necessity" in South
Africa, not just a "convenience." This was because, according to Hertzog's
preposterous philosophy, which Dashwood evidently believed, native laborers "undermine the energy of the white youth" who saw no need to work in a land
blessed with abundant free "native" labor.
So, on the one hand, Africans were accused of being lazy, and, on the
other hand, they were accused of corrupting white youth by working too
efficiently, for free, and making whites dependent on Black labor. Heads they
lost; tails they lost.
"In Dashwood's eyes
the Africans were not trustworthy and could do nothing right without white
supervision."
Segregation of the native, Dashwood's article explained, was
therefore the solution for preventing them from "undermining" the vigor of
white laborers. Dashwood followed with
a statement that literally advocated genocide: "So South Africa begins to feel the menace of its indolent, ignorant,
five and a half million upon the wise disposal of whom depends the prosperity
of its future."
It was not in Dashwood's interest, or that of her editors,'
to explain to the Times' readers that
South Africa would never have developed its colossal wealth had it not been for
the backbreaking slave labor of the Black populace, as was the case with the
United States, the beneficiary of centuries of uncompensated labor. Dashwood
was not impressed by this reality. Instead, she preferred to document the clash
between alleged African "barbarity" and the civilizing mandate of the whites.
In her eyes the Africans were not trustworthy and could do nothing right
without white supervision. She informed her readers that when a Black worker's
contract at the mine expired, he was kept under watch and guard for five days "because of his propensity for stealing, and
is allowed to only take soft clothing away with him: even his footwear must be
left behind, for he is clever at secreting diamonds in his boot-heels."
Dashwood's article would not have been complete without
demonstrating how the Africans were ill suited for the trappings of white
civilization. After leaving the mines, according to Dashwood, the African has
"scarcely resumed his life in the shaggy huts before he strips off every stitch
of the white man's garb. Presently he shows no trace of even having tasted the
life of the town." In other words, the
native could not wait to return to the savage life-style, which he was
accustomed to and yearned for. One can visualize the Times' readers howling in derisive laughter.
"At Cape Town, the first landing
you make, you look everywhere for the native," Dashwood added, still
elaborating on the natives' discomfort with the finer things in life, "You realize at last that these fellows in
wide trousers and straw hats are native grandees. You feel it is too bad to see
the clothes of Western civilization on them. They do not compare in interest
with the dashing young men who parade the streets of Johannesburg on Sundays in
red blankets, tinkling and jingling with metal and ivory ornaments."
So then, as of 1926, what did the future hold for this great
"white" country in Africa? Here's what Dashwood surmised: "Segregation is the first definite policy
advanced toward the solution of the South African dilemma." She added, "History keeps ominous records of what has
happened whenever the native and colonists have been brought together - one or
the other inevitably succumbing. In
America it was the native, in ancient Africa the colonist. In Asia, Europeans have never established
themselves except as a small ruling caste. In South Africa it remains to be
seen."
Of course Dashwood could not have dreamed that there was a
young boy named Nelson Mandela, who was already alive and who would, very much
later, together with his compatriots have much to say about the course of this
history.
Finally, in 1948 South Africa's system of racial segregation
and inequity in all aspects of social, economic and political life became
official policy. During the 1950s the white minority regime began to codify the
laws and statutes that would buttress apartheid. The Population Register, which
was intended to classify every individual in the country into specific racial
groups in order to apportion the national pie (in favor of whites) and assign
one's lot in life, was introduced under prime minister Johannes G.
Strijdom. The Register was the
cornerstone of apartheid and was intended to make it impossible for
"borderline" cases to escape into a higher racial classification and to enjoy
the benefits and privileges it entailed.
The officially designated races were: Blacks, who were
consigned to the lowest rung of the racial hierarchy; the so-called coloreds,
offspring of white and Black parentage, who were above Blacks; and, then the
whites, at the apex. Asians were considered by the white regime as "foreigners"
with no local roots and were not classified. The classification scheme drew its
lessons from Nazi Germany and sometimes the tragic repercussions even had comical
qualities. Consider this non-bylined article from The New York Times on August 21st, 1955, which read in
part like a government press release. "In
one half hour yesterday six Kimberley men, who regarded themselves as colored -
mulatto - were reclassified as negroes, thrusting them back to the bottom of
the social ladder up which they had attempted to climb," the article
reported.
South Africa's director of the Census at the time, J.I.
Raats, told the reporter that 7,000 people of "doubtful racial origin" had been
classified and 260 of them had said they would appeal. This system of
categorization engendered inferiority complexes since Blacks had to literally
renounce their race in order to improve their lot in life. The law placed a
premium on lightness of skin; the legacy of this policy has outlasted apartheid
and even today Black people in South Africa are the highest per capita
consumers of skin-bleaching creams.
Yet, according to the Times
article, there was no need for people to worry about the racial categorization.
"The classification is being done by
specially selected officials," the
article in the Times reported, in a
matter-of-fact manner, "picked for
their impartiality, integrity and humanity." It's unclear whether the writer relied on a government press
release or words whispered into his ears by census director Raats to arrive at
this absurd conclusion.
"The reporters and the editors surmised that American
readers could relate to and identify with racial separation in apartheid South
Africa."
In May 1957 the South African Parliament approved a "native
law amendment bill," empowering the minister of Native Affairs, Hendrik
Verwoerd, to ban Blacks from churches, clubs, hospitals, schools and other
places if he believed they would "cause a nuisance." This is how the Times' Richard Hunt summed the law in
the paper's May 26th, 1957 issue: "The sitting minister holds that these powers are needed to insure that
the relations between black and white here be those of guardian and ward, and
consistent with the policy of rigid racial segregation."
The introduction of these racist laws were reported in a
detached and even sympathetic manner in the newspaper, which was not
surprising, considering how racial segregation and prejudice towards Blacks was
prevalent in the United States. The reporters and the editors surmised that
American readers could relate to and identify with racial separation in
apartheid South Africa; the racist policies mirrored the segregationism in the
United States. Moreover, the views or opinions of Africans were never
solicited, since Blacks merely formed the backdrop to social and political
events, as they often still do.
When Strijdom died, the extremist, Verwoerd became prime
minister on September 2nd, 1958.
This former professor of applied psychology at Stellenbosch University,
with a specialization in social services, could not wait to apply his theories
in South Africa. He was the chief architect of apartheid and was instrumental
in passing many of the racialist policies that institutionalized racial
segregation and preference through parliament. Under Verwoerd's regime, the
country's segregationist policies were vigorously enforced, as was made clear
in a New York Times article by Albert
Hunt, published on April 1st 1959, under the headline "Arrests
Abound in South Africa."
More than 1.25 million Africans were arrested every year for
violations ranging from carrying the detested passes, the internal passports
issued to Blacks, to violations of labor regulations, curfew and residency
requirements. Practically every Black
man in every major South African city was arrested on average once a year, Hunt
reported in his article. "The negro
walks in constant danger of arrest for some technical offense," the Times article explained. "Thousands who have never so much as stolen
a loaf of bread have records of ‘previous convictions' that would make a
hardened criminal in any other country shudder."
The arrests were absolutely arbitrary and dependent upon the
mood of the police officer enforcing the law. These men had life and death
powers over Blacks, as Hunt made clear in his article in the Times, dealing with the arrest of an
elderly man: "One warm summer evening,
while cooking his supper on a kerosene stove, he stepped outside in his
shirtsleeves to knock out his pipe on a curb. A pick-up van stopped and a young
policeman demanded to see the old man's pass. The old man argued in vain that
the document was in his jacket, hanging inside the door. He was bundled into
the van and taken to the nearest police station. The policeman refused even to
allow him to enter his cottage to turn off the stove. Next day he was fined 1
pound for ‘being without a pass.' If he
was a younger man and was not able to pay his fine, (in fact, his employer paid
for him), he would have been given the choice of serving ten days in jail or
two weeks in a potato farm and no one would have known what had happened to
him."
By 1959, apartheid was so sufficiently entrenched that
foreign investors were confident enough to support the system in order to
exploit the country's riches. On February 11th, 1959, a wire story
appeared in the Times under the
headline "New Interest in Africa." The article discussed the opening of the
Chase Manhattan bank branch office in Johannesburg by its vice-chairman, David
Rockefeller. "Mr. Rockefeller said the
opening of the branch here was an indication of the ‘confidence we feel in the
economic potential of South Africa,'"
the article reported.
One year later, the apartheid regime was still oblivious to
the wrathful rumblings of discontent stirring among the oppressed Black
majority; equally clueless were the American media stationed there. On January
7th, 1960, a New York Times article by Leonard Ingalls
appeared under the headline "South Africa Business Men Plan to Win World's
Goodwill." According to the article 25 prominent businessmen and industrialists
had formed the South African Foundation to increase the "selling" of the
country's image in Europe and the United States. The businessmen included Harry
F. Oppenheimer, chairman of the Anglo American Corporation and Charles W.
Engelhard, who headed a Newark, New Jersey-based company that bore his name. "They are concerned over foreign reactions
to the Government's policies, particularly those dealing with matters of race," was how Ingalls euphemistically
described apartheid. "Boycotts of
South African goods have been threatened abroad and it has been difficult to
obtain investment capital from abroad," he explained, not once using the
term apartheid.
"The headline was patently false, reflecting South
African propaganda."
However, the restless masses that nobody ever bothered to
consult did not cooperate with the grand plans by the Rockefellers and the
Oppenheimers to exploit the country's wealth. The eruption finally occurred on
March 21st, 1960 with the Sharpeville massacre. "50 Killed As Police
Fire on Rioters," declared the headline of a Times article published on March 22nd, 1960. The
headline was patently false, reflecting South African propaganda. The
demonstration had in fact been peaceful until panicky policemen started firing
into the unarmed crowd. "The police
opened fire today on thousands of Africans besieging a police station in
Sharpeville, thirty miles south of Johannesburg," the article stated, still blaming the victims for their deaths. "The Africans were demonstrating against
South Africa's laws requiring Africans to carry passes at all times," it
explained.
The crowd stoned the police and the armored cars around their
station, then the police, hiding behind a wire fence, opened fire into the
crowd, according to the article. Initial reports placed the dead at 25 and 50
wounded; the figure was later upgraded to 72 dead and 184 wounded. A senior
police official was quoted in the Times
article stating, in a matter-of-fact manner: "I don't know how many we've shot. If they do these things they must
learn the hard way."
In the days following the uprising, foreign investors fled
and share values on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange plunged precipitously, with
losses amounting to $300 million in only one week. For a short period, the
regime was staggered by the defiance of the Africans who had confronted the
police, the enforcers of apartheid. "The
racial differences that have plagued South Africa throughout its history,"
the Times article observed, with the
euphemistic reference to apartheid, and again apportioning the blame equally
between victims and oppressors, "have
finally plunged the nation into a terrible convulsion." Still,
apartheid endured for more than three decades after the Sharpeville massacre;
and more blood was yet to flow.
The Times'
apologetic coverage of South Africa was duplicated in Mozambique, a Portuguese
colony in Southern Africa. Consider Times
reporter Albion Ross's interview with Gabriel Teixeira, the Governor General of
Mozambique, published on April 22nd, 1954, under the headline
"Portugal Accepts African Equality," with the even more promising sub-headline
"Mozambique Governor Sees no Reason to Bar Advance of Natives to Citizenship."
The headline alone betrayed the slant of the article. If the
Portuguese accepted "African Equality" why were the Europeans the ones who were
the rulers? If the "natives" were not considered good enough to be "citizens" how
could they be considered equal?
"Gabriel Teixeira, Governor
General of Portuguese Mozambique, sees nothing wrong with a future united
Portugal in Europe and Africa in which negroes would be a majority," Albion
Ross wrote. "He does not believe there
is any such thing as Negro nationalism."
Portugal's colonial philosophy rested on four major
foundations, the governor told Ross: Racial superiority was "nonsense" and did
not exist; however, rushing the development of "primitive men such as Africans
would destroy them," the governor said; Christianity offered salvation to
Africans; and, Africans would eventually become "full-fledged Portuguese."
"The Portuguese Governor's views were delivered to the
Times' readers as statements of fact."
What made Ross's article valuable is the honesty with which
he reveals his own bias, by his failure to challenge any of the good governor's
preposterous statements, or to offer any counter-balancing information or
opinion from any of the Africans whose fate was being discussed. Teixeira's
views were delivered to the Times'
readers as statements of fact. "We
do not believe in superior and inferior races," the governor is quoted
telling Ross. "The black man in Africa
is simply where the white man began thousands of years ago. You cannot rush that sort of thing."
Governor Teixeira in a philosophical manner outlined to Ross
how the Portuguese were toiling to "civilize" the natives and turn them all
into full-fledged Europeans. "You must
have a balance between a moral advance and a material advance," the
governor explained. "Too sudden
contact of advanced material civilization with primitive peoples destroys
primitive people." The
governor of course made no mention of the massacres of the "natives" when the
Portuguese were securing the territory before they started their civilizing
mission, and whenever there was an uprising.
"On the other hand, if the
material advance falls behind the moral advance, you have hatred and disorder," the
governor is quoted as saying. "The
problem is to keep a balance between the moral advance and the material
advance. The end result which we seek is Brazil," he added, without
noting that Blacks in Brazil were at the bottom of the racial hierarchy then,
as they are now. The governor also made it clear to Ross that the Africans in
Mozambique did not have any aspirations or plans that were at odds with any of
the designs prepared by the Portuguese on their behalf. "A native vote is absurd,"
he told Ross. "These people's grandfathers were sometimes
cannibals. How do they vote? What do they vote for?"
One can only imagine the governor's as well as the
reporter's demeanor during this interview. Are they occasionally smiling? Are they occasionally nodding in agreement?
Are they occasionally somber? Does the reporter pause while taking notes to
intellectually digest the Portuguese's profound philosophy?
Pro-Apartheid
Press
In 1984 the intensified coordinated challenge to apartheid
led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the white regime in South
Africa the following year. In the absence of the banned African National
Congress (ANC) a multi-racial coalition developed comprising the United
Democratic Front and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). It
spearheaded the onslaught through strikes and demonstrations and calls for
international boycotts.
The white regime employed the time-tested strategy of
divide-and-rule. Members of the collaborationist Inkatha Freedom Party of Chief
Gatsha Mangosuthu Buthelezi were provided with weapons and paid to attack
supporters of the UDF and by extension the ANC.
"U.S. media representations endorsed the apartheid
regime's contention that South Africa would descend into total mayhem once the
ANC formed a predominantly Black government."
Nelson Mandela was released in February 1990. Soon
thereafter, violent confrontations between ANC supporters and Buthelezi's
intensified. During a nine-day period between August 17th-26th,
1990, 500 people were killed in Soweto alone. Mandela publicly insisted that
there was a "hidden hand" fueling the killings but major Western media
preferred to write about "factional fighting," "tribal battles," and
"black-on-black" violence. The killings were presented as pathological
behavior, with no context or underlying causes. These representations endorsed
the apartheid regime's contention that South Africa would descend into total
mayhem once the ANC formed a predominantly Black government.
Ironically, Mandela was later exonerated when an independent
investigation he demanded confirmed that the apartheid regime's secret police
had financed and trained the death squads.
By characterizing conflicts as "tribal," the implication is
that they are irrational and have no logical or legitimate contributing
factors. Western media have historically used the word "tribal"
disproportionately to characterize confrontations involving Africans and other
non-Europeans, as Lisa Brook, professor of African history demonstrated in
"Africa's Media Image" (1992). "I found the words tribe or tribal employed to
describe native Americans, Africans, Asians and other peoples of non-European
descent in 235 out of a total of 250 times that it was used between January
1989 and April 1990," she wrote. "Thirteen of the other fifteen
times it was used to describe the British rock band ‘The Tribes.'" Brock had
surveyed articles in The New York Times,
The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Constitution Journal, The Boston Globe,
The Christian Science Monitor and The
Los Angeles Times.
In neighboring Zimbabwe, only three years after its own
liberation from an apartheid regime, Western media eagerly chronicled the
anticipated mismanagement of the country by its new African rulers. An article
appeared under the headline "The Plague of Tribal Enmity," in Time magazine on January 17th,
1983. After describing a "spree of violence" near Bulawayo, the
country's second largest city, the writer observed: "The latest streak of
violence is a disquieting sign that the fragile tribal coalition that turned
white-ruled Rhodesia into black-governed Zimbabwe in 1980 is crumbling."
A casual reader in the West - as most are especially when it
comes to matters related to Africa - could be forgiven for believing that the
country's woes began once the Africans were in control of government. Time
magazine disingenuously equates majority rule with apartheid by contrasting
"white-ruled" Rhodesia and "black-governed" Zimbabwe. As if whites had also had
their lands brutally seized; as if whites also had been massacred during the
conquest of the territory; as if whites too had been confined to concentration
camps called "protected villages"; as if whites too had been subjected to media
propaganda extolling their alleged inherent intellectual inferiority; and, as
if whites too had been statutorily excluded from participating in the economic,
political and social fabric of the country in nearly 100 years of colonial and
white settler rule.
"Nearly three years after taking office," the writer
continued, without even appreciating the irony, "Mugabe now faces his biggest
challenge yet, one that threatens to force more whites to flee the country
while shaking international confidence in Zimbabwe's future. Says a businessman
in the capital city of Harare ‘It's tough, tough, tough here.'"
So once again, as Time
magazine had found in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising nearly 40 years
earlier, the welfare and stability of an African country was to be measured by
the comfort level of the Europeans there. "The tribal rivalries stretch
back to the early 19th century, when Ndebele warriors plundered the
camps of the Shonas," Time magazine
explained, "British settlers combined the hostile tribes into one nation in
1890, but the antipathy remained." Now again we encounter a clever way of
re-writing history to make it appear as if the benevolent British had traveled
to this part of Africa to suppress "tribal" warfare and rescue the "natives."
Suddenly the lynchings, massacres, land seizures and exploitation of minerals
have vanished from history.
"Caught in the web of the tribal conflict are the country's
170,000 whites, less than 3% of the 7.5 million," Time magazine's writer continued. "Zimbabwe depends heavily on its
skilled white workers, especially in farming and mining."
"Time
magazine assured readers that things had deteriorated when the 'natives' took
control."
The transformation was now complete: The colonists who had
stolen the entire country were suddenly the innocent blameless bystanders. In
fact, Time magazine assured readers that things had deteriorated when
the "natives" took control. "The situation is much more worrisome than it was
during the war," the magazine declared.
Mugabe, a Shona who had commanded the Zimbabwe African
National Liberation Army (ZANLA) had teamed up with veteran nationalist Joshua
Nkomo's ZIPRA to form the Patriotic Front. After the defeat of Ian Smith's
illegal British-supported regime in 1979 the parties contested separately for
the elections and Mugabe became prime minister after his party's victory.
Nkomo, who considered himself the senior nationalist by virtue of age, later
lost out on a power struggle with Mugabe after their armies fought a short but
ferocious war.
The type of coverage of Zimbabwe in Time magazine was typical of the major Western media since most
operate with a herd mentality. Zimbabwe officials became frustrated with the
coverage and eventually issued the Kadoma Declaration, barring visiting Western
reporters from covering Zimbabwe unless the correspondent was based there. The New York Times protested against the
Kadoma restrictions in a June 11th, 1985 letter from the newspaper's
foreign editor Warren Hoge to Nathan Shamuyarira, Zimbabwe's information
minister.
Hoge argued that even though the Times' correspondent Alan Cowell was based in South Africa, his
coverage would not be distorted in any way. "The premise itself, I feel, is
tantamount to a slur on his objectivity," Hoge protested. Moreover, a
better way to combat or eliminate any distortion or perceived bias was "by
opening, not closing, the doors of Southern Africa nations to correspondents,"
he wrote. The New York Times based
its correspondents in South Africa - as did other major Western media - because
of the volume of news from that country, Hoge insisted.
Shamuyayira would not budge. "My personal conclusion, and
that of equally experienced staff with journalistic training in my Ministry,
was that there was an undeniable bias against us in the reports emanating from
South Africa-based correspondents," he wrote in a letter dated August 13, 1985
to Hoge. "This may not apply to your man, Mr. Alan Cowell, but it certainly
applied to the others." Shamuyayira also added: "I agree that the bulk
of the news stories emanating from this region originate from the Republic of
South Africa. The position is likely to remain like that until the attainment
of majority rule and true independence there. In the circumstances, we would
prefer not to be reported upon at all than to be reported badly from South
Africa."
It is obvious that some of the subsequent hostility towards
Mugabe's government in the Western media originated from the Kadoma
Declaration. Mugabe is also not given credit for the conciliatory policy his
government pursued after the end of apartheid in Rhodesia. Ian Smith, the
racist prime minister still lives, unmolested, in Zimbabwe and even owns a huge
estate.
Next week,
Part Five: The Mahdi Defeats Gen.
Charles Gordon
Part One in the January
24 issue of BAR
Part Two in the January
31 issue.
Part Three in the February 7 issue.
The Hearts of Darkness: How European Writers Created the
Racist image of Africa
Published by The Black Star Publishing Co.
P.O. Box 64, New York, N.Y., 10025
www.BlackStarnews.com
To order copies call (212) 481-7745
TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM,
click here to visit its page on the Black Agenda Blog.