group areas act grade 9 essay

Group Areas Act No. 41 of 1950

South Africa's Apartheid Segregation Act

 William Campbell/Getty Images

• American History
• African American History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History
• Postgraduate Certificate in Education, University College London
• M.S., Imperial College London
• B.S., Heriot-Watt University

On April 27, 1950, the Group Areas Act No. 41 was passed by the apartheid government of South Africa. As a system, apartheid used long-established race classifications to maintain the dominance of the colonial occupation of the country. The primary purpose of apartheid laws was to promote the superiority of whites and to establish and elevate the minority white regime. A suite of legislative laws was passed to accomplish this, including Group Areas Act No. 41, as well as the Land Act of 1913 , the Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 and the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950 : all of these were created to separate the races and subjugate nonwhite people.

South African race categories were set up within a few decades after the discovery of diamonds and gold in the country during the mid-19th century: native-born Africans ("Blacks," but also called "kaffirs" or "Bantu"), Europeans or European-descended ("Whites" or "Boers"), Asians ("Indians") and mixed raced ("Coloured"). The 1960 South African census showed that 68.3% of the population were African, 19.3% were White, 9.4% Coloured, and 3.0% Indian.

Restrictions of the Group Areas Act No. 41

The Group Areas Act No 41 forced physical separation and segregation between races by creating different residential areas for each race . Implementation started in 1954 when people were first forcibly removed from living in "wrong" areas, leading to the destruction of communities.

The Act also restricted ownership and the occupation of land to groups as permitted, meaning that Africans could neither own nor occupy land in European areas. The law was also supposed to apply in reverse, but the result was that land under Black ownership was taken by the government for use by whites only.

The government set aside ten "homelands" for relocated non-white residents, mostly scattered bits of unwanted territories, based on ethnicity among the Black communities. These homelands were granted "independence" with limited self-rule, the main purpose of which was to delete the homeland residents as citizens of South Africa, and cut back on the government's responsibility for providing housing, hospitals, schools, electricity, and water supplies.

Implications

However, the Africans were a significant economic source in South Africa , in particular as a labor force in the cities. Pass Laws were established to require non-whites to carry passbooks, and later "reference books" (similar to passports) to be eligible to enter the "white" parts of the country. Worker's hostels were established to accommodate temporary workers, but between 1967 and 1976, the South African government simply stopped building homes for Africans at all, leading to severe housing shortages.

The Group Areas Act allowed for the infamous destruction of Sophiatown, a suburb of Johannesburg. In February 1955, 2,000 policemen began removing Sophiatown residents to Meadowlands, Soweto and established the suburb as an area for whites only, newly called Triomf (Victory). In some cases, the nonwhites were loaded onto trucks and dumped into the bush to fend for themselves. 

There were serious consequences for people who didn't comply with the Group Areas Act. People found in violation could receive a fine of up to two hundred pounds, prison for up to two years, or both. If they didn't comply with forced eviction, they could be fined sixty pounds or face six months in prison.

Effects of the Group Areas Act

Citizens tried to use the courts to overturn the Group Areas Act, though they were unsuccessful each time. Others decided to stage protests and engage in civil disobedience, such as sit-ins at restaurants, which took place across South Africa during the early 1960s.

The Act hugely affected communities and citizens across South Africa. By 1983, more than 600,000 people had been removed from their homes and relocated.

Colored people suffered significantly because housing for them was often postponed because plans for zoning were primarily focused on races, not mixed races. The Group Areas Act also hit Indian South Africans especially hard because many of them resided in other ethnic communities as landlords and traders. In 1963, approximately a quarter of Indian men and women in the country were employed as traders. The National Government turned a deaf ear to the protests of the Indian citizens: in 1977, the Minister of Community Development said that he wasn't aware of any cases instances in which Indian traders who were resettled that didn't like their new homes.

Repeal and Legacy

The Group Areas Act was repealed by President Frederick Willem de Klerk on April 9, 1990. After apartheid ended in 1994, the new African National Congress (ANC) government headed by Nelson Mandela was faced with an enormous housing backlog. More than 1.5 million homes and apartments in the urban areas were located in informal settlements without property titles. Millions of people in rural areas lived in terrible conditions, and urban Blacks resided in hostels and shacks. The ANC government promised to build one million homes within five years, but most of them were of necessity located in developments on the outskirts of cities, which have tended to sustain existing spatial segregation and inequality.

Great strides have been undertaken in the decades since apartheid ended, and today South Africa is a modern country, with an advanced highway system and modern homes and apartment buildings in the cities available to all residents. While nearly half of the population was without formal housing in 1996, by 2011, 80 percent of the population had a home. But the scars of inequality remain. 

• Bickford-Smith, Vivian. " Urban History in the New South Africa: Continuity and Innovation since the End of Apartheid. " Urban History 35.2 (2008): 288–315. Print.
• Christopher, A.J. " Apartheid Planning in South Africa: The Case of Port Elizabeth ." The Geographical Journal 153.2 (1987): 195–204. Print.
• ---. " Urban Segregation in Post-Apartheid South Africa ." Urban Studies 38.3 (2001): 449–66. Print.
• Clark, Nancy L., and William H. Worger. "South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid." 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2016. Print.
• Maharaj, Brij. " Apartheid, Urban Segregation, and the Local State: Durban and the Group Areas Act in South Africa ." Urban Geography 18.2 (1997): 135–54. Print.
• ---. " The Group Areas Act and Community Destruction in South Africa ." Urban Forum 5.2 (1994): 1–25. Print.
• Newton, Caroline, and Nick Schuermans. " More Than Twenty Years after the Repeal of the Group Areas Act: Housing, Spatial Planning and Urban Development in Post-Apartheid South Africa ." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 28.4 (2013): 579–87. Print.
• What Was Apartheid in South Africa?
• The End of South African Apartheid
• Understanding South Africa's Apartheid Era
• A Brief History of South African Apartheid
• South Africa's Apartheid Era Population Registration Act
• Women's Anti-Pass Law Campaigns in South Africa
• The Origins of Apartheid in South Africa
• The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act
• Grand Apartheid in South Africa
• Pre-Apartheid Era Laws: Natives (or Black) Land Act No. 27 of 1913
• Apartheid Era Signs - Racial Segregation in South Africa
• South Africa's Extension of University Education Act of 1959
• South African Apartheid-Era Identity Numbers
• What Is a Literacy Test?
• Pass Laws During Apartheid
• Quotes From PW Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa

Group Areas Act 1950 Essay

Group Areas Act 1950 Essay:

The essay titled “The Group Areas Act of 1950: A Tool of Apartheid” explores the origins, impacts, and enduring legacy of one of South Africa’s most impactful legislations during the apartheid era. The Group Areas Act of 1950, was not just a law, but a tool of systematic oppression designed to institutionalize racial segregation and propagate white minority rule over the majority black population. By scrutinizing this law in detail, the essay presents a comprehensive understanding of the vast repercussions this act had on the South African socio-economic landscape, which is still palpable today, even decades after its repeal.

Quick Points Highlights

• Origins: The essay commences with an examination of the genesis of the Act, enacted by the National Party government in 1950, with the purpose of maintaining racial segregation to sustain white minority rule.
• Impact and Consequences: The essay then delves into the immediate and long-term effects of this Act on South African society. It illustrates how the forced relocation of people led to fragmented communities, severe psychological trauma, and vast economic disparities.
• Case Study – District Six: The essay presents a case study of the District Six area in Cape Town, illustrating the harsh reality of the Act’s implementation, where over 60,000 inhabitants were displaced, and the community was demolished.
• Legacy and Aftermath: Lastly, the essay reflects on the enduring legacy of the Group Areas Act. Despite its repeal in 1991, the socio-economic disparities and spatial divisions established by the Act continue to shape modern South Africa.

By presenting these key points, the essay gives a comprehensive overview of the Group Areas Act of 1950, highlighting the damaging effects of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination, and the challenges of redressing these impacts in post-apartheid South Africa.

Table of Contents

Title: The Group Areas Act of 1950: A Tool of Apartheid

In the history of global legislations, few laws have been as systematically repressive or as divisive as South Africa’s Group Areas Act of 1950. This act, implemented during the apartheid era, was a strategic tool used by the government to enforce racial segregation, leading to a sustained period of socio-economic inequalities, human rights violations, and conflict. To understand the full impact of the Group Areas Act, it is crucial to examine its origins, its effects on South African society, and its enduring legacy.

The Genesis of the Act

The Group Areas Act of 1950 was implemented by the National Party government, which came into power in 1948. This was a party founded on the principles of apartheid, an Afrikaans term that means ‘apartness’ or ‘separateness’. Their agenda was simple yet destructive: maintain white minority rule over the majority black population by institutionalizing racial segregation.

The Group Areas Act was one of the first major apartheid laws enacted by the National Party, only two years into their reign. Under the guise of promoting social stability, it aimed to partition urban and rural regions into distinct racial group areas. The primary targets of this law were the majority black population, along with ‘Coloureds’ (a term used to describe individuals of mixed-race descent in South Africa) and Indians. Whites, who made up a significant minority in the country, were allocated the most resource-rich and desirable areas.

Impact and Consequences

The immediate impact of the Group Areas Act was severe. Hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly removed from their homes and relocated into separate ‘group areas.’ In reality, these areas were little more than ghettos, characterized by inadequate infrastructure, limited resources, and poor living conditions.

One of the most egregious examples of this was the District Six area in Cape Town, where more than 60,000 inhabitants were displaced, and their homes razed to the ground. This area was declared ‘white only’ despite being home to a vibrant and diverse community. The forced removals inflicted profound psychological trauma and disrupted social networks, fragmenting families and communities.

The act also had profound economic implications. White-designated areas enjoyed disproportionate economic development, while non-white regions languished in poverty and underdevelopment. The forced removals led to a significant decline in non-white business ownership, as individuals were dislocated from their customer base. The restrictions on movement also made it difficult for non-white individuals to seek employment opportunities, contributing to high levels of unemployment and deepening poverty among these communities.

Legacy and Aftermath

The Group Areas Act was repealed in 1991, in the twilight of apartheid, but its effects remain ingrained in South African society. The forced removals and segregation created deep-seated socio-economic disparities that are still apparent today. Despite various post-apartheid governments’ efforts to address these inequalities, the legacy of the Group Areas Act remains etched into the landscape of South Africa’s cities and the lives of its citizens.

The spatial divisions established by the act continue to shape urban planning and social relations in South Africa. Townships, once the product of forced segregation, still exist as largely non-white, economically deprived areas on the outskirts of major cities. The socio-economic disparities are evident in the contrasting living conditions and levels of service delivery in different areas. Despite the progress made since the end of apartheid, residential patterns still reflect the racial categorizations of the Group Areas Act.

The Group Areas Act of 1950 was a powerful instrument of racial segregation and socio-economic disparity. Its impacts are still seen in modern South Africa, more than three decades after its repeal. The law serves as a chilling reminder of how state policies can be manipulated to infringe upon human rights and institutionalize inequality. As South Africa continues to grapple with the legacy of apartheid, the story of the Group Areas Act serves as a warning against the dangers of systemic racial segregation and discrimination.

South Africa’s Group Areas Act and Quotidian Resistance in a Small South African Town

The Group Areas Act, passed in 1952, was one of the main pillars of the apartheid project in South Africa. The Act gave life to the notorious Group Areas Board (GAB), which presided over the forced removal of people from racially mixed districts in large cities and tiny rural towns across the country. In the ensuing decades, the GAB created racially segregated residential districts, which reserved the central business districts and modern infrastructure of urban areas for whites. Forced removals, which occurred in earnest during the 1970s and 1980s, were notoriously brutal and deeply intrusive into the lives of ordinary people. But in the small town of Mokopane, which lies in the Limpopo province of South Africa, the forced removals and racial segregation of the central business district did not occur. In this post I argue that even the best organised empirical researcher needs to be prepared to change tack in the course of fieldwork and remain tenacious in their dedication to answering the questions they have posed.

The Indian merchant population (people of Indian origin, which the apartheid government referred to simply as “Indian”) that populated small towns in the Northern Transvaal, first traversed the region as itinerant merchants during the late 1800s. The Group Areas Act was, as historian Dan O’Meara writes , used as a tool to reduce the commercial threat Indian traders posed to the aspirant Afrikaner middle-class, by removing Indian traders from thriving commercial centres in urban areas to dedicated shopping centres at the urban peripheries. This forced removal famously occurred in Johannesburg where Indian traders were removed from their stores in Fourteenth Street, Vrededorp to the Oriental Plaza. But in Mokopane, the GAB did not forcibly remove Indian traders from their stores in the centre of the town. I was preoccupied with finding the reason for this when I began fieldwork.

My fieldwork produced conflicting and much more nuanced accounts than I had predicted. In interviews, some Indian traders, who owned stores in the town and who had lived through this period, said their stores remained in their historic sites because of the traders’ resistance to the GAB officials. Another affected storeowner, however, told me that he remained mystified about the reasons that the GAB abandoned its plans. He had launched legal action against the GAB and voiced his discontent at a consultation meeting convened by GAB officials. But on the face of it, neither of these actions proved conclusive and the authorities did not explain, to him or anyone else, their ultimate decision to refrain from forced removals. It became clear that I needed to look elsewhere to answer my research question.

I then thought that perhaps the historical immersion of Indian traders in the socioeconomic fabric of the town was an important factor. In a letter to the government, which I found at the National Archives of South Africa, a white resident of Mokopane voiced his opposition to the removals because of his longstanding relationship with Indian traders. During times of drought, which periodically struck the district, they had extended long lines of credit to struggling farmers, and so over the years had become a part of the social life of the town. While this letter indicated the existence of less racial hostility than in the imaginary of apartheid planners, its influence on the decision-making of the GAB was unclear.

Eventually, I found the official explanation in the archives of the Mokopane municipality. The plan to move Indian traders had come to a halt because of the imperatives of a concomitant prong of the apartheid project: that of improving the economic prospects of the African homelands to facilitate their transformation into self-governing entities. The Lebowa homeland bordered the town of Mokopane and government officials believed that Indian traders would best serve shoppers from the homeland by remaining in their historic stores in the centre of town. The demarcated shopping area where the GAB planned to move the traders was too far removed from this consumer traffic.

While I was pleased at the discovery of an official explanation, I was disappointed that in the end, the machinery of the GAB remained decisive in determining action. In other words, the resistance of ordinary people was not enough to counter its might. It was nonetheless clear that the commercial success of Indian traders played a role in the government’s decision and their agency could thus be located in an area outside of outright protest; one in which their relative economic prosperity helped to overcome their political precarity in unexpected ways. This complicated the image of resistance I had at the commencement of the research, one that situated resistance exclusively within the sphere of protest politics. In order to understand the importance of residents’ quotidian activity and the social history of the town, I had to revise my initial assumptions and pursue the reason for the absence of forced removals through diverse historical sources.

About the Author

Dr. Faeeza Ballim

Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Historical Studies, University of Johannesburg, University of Johannesburg

Faeeza Ballim is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Johannesburg. She has a special interest in science and technology studies and economic history. Her book, Apartheid's Leviathan: Electricity and the Power of Technological Ambivalence, was published by Ohio University Press in April 2023.

• More Networks

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

Grade 9 - Term 4: Turning points in modern South African History since 1948

For this complex period to be studied, the Sharpeville massacre, Soweto uprising and the release of Nelson Mandela and unbanning of liberation movements have been selected to gain a deeper understanding of South African History. These key turning points in South African history are a depiction of the conflict between the Government and the Black/ African population of the country, where the Sharpeville massacre occurred due to the resistance by the black population against pass laws that were implemented by the government; the June 1976 student uprisings were against the introduction of the Bantu Education Act and 1990 provided a significant turning point with the release of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of liberation movements.

Sharpeville massacre

At the annual conference of the African National Congress (ANC) held in Durban on 16 December 1959, the President General of the ANC, Chief Albert Luthuli , announced that 1960 was going to be the "Year of the Pass." Through a series of mass actions, the ANC planned to launch a nationwide anti-pass campaign on 31 March - the anniversary of the 1919 anti-pass campaign.

A week later, a breakaway group from the ANC, the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) held its first conference in Johannesburg . At this conference, it was announced that the PAC would launch its own anti-pass campaign.

Early in 1960 both the ANC and PAC embarked on a feverish drive to prepare their members and Black communities for the proposed nationwide campaigns. The PAC called on its supporters to leave their passes at home on the appointed date and gather at police stations around the country, making themselves available for arrest. The campaign slogan was "NO BAIL! NO DEFENCE! NO FINE!" The PAC argued that if thousands of people were arrested, then the jails would be filled and the economy would come to a standstill.

Although the protests were anticipated, no one could have predicted the consequences and the repercussions this would have for South African and world politics. An article entitled "PAC Campaign will be test," published in the 19 March 1960 issue of Contact, the Liberal Party newspaper, described the build up to the campaign:

The Pan Africanist Congress will shortly launch a nationwide campaign for the total abolition of the pass laws. The exact date on which the campaign will start is still unknown. The decision lies with the P.A.C. President, Mr. R.M. Sobukwe. But members say that the campaign will begin 'shortly - within a matter of weeks.'

At a press conference held on Saturday 19th March 1960, PAC President Robert Sobukwe announced that the PAC was going to embark on an anti-pass campaign on Monday the 21st. According to his "Testimony about the Launch of the Campaign," Sobukwe declared:

The campaign was made known on the 18th of March. Circulars were printed and distributed to the members of the organisation and on the 21st of March, on Monday, in obedience to a resolution they had taken, the members of the Pan Africanist Congress surrendered themselves at various police stations around the Country.

At the press conference Sobukwe emphasized that the campaign should be conducted in a spirit of absolute non-violence and that the PAC saw it as the first step in Black people's bid for total independence and freedom by 1963 (Cape Times, 1960). Sobukwe subsequently announced that: 

African people have entrusted their whole future to us. And we have sworn that we are leading them, not to death, but to life abundant. My instructions, therefore, are that our people must be taught now and continuously that in this campaign we are going to observe absolute non-violence.

On the morning of 21 March, PAC members walked around Sharpeville waking people up and urging them to take part in the demonstration. Other PAC members tried to stop bus drivers from going on duty and this resulted in a lack transport for Sharpeville residents who worked in Vereeniging. Many people set out for work on bicycles or on foot, but some were intimidated by PAC members who threatened to burn their passes or "lay hands on them" if they went to work (Reverend Ambrose Reeves, 1966). However, many people joined the procession quite willingly.

Early on the 21st the local PAC leaders first gathered in a field not far from the Sharpeville police station, when a sizable crowd of people had joined them they proceeded to the police station - chanting freedom songs and calling out the campaign slogans " Izwe lethu " (Our land); " Awaphele amapasti " (Down with passes); " Sobukwe Sikhokhele " (Lead us Sobukwe); "Forward to Independence,Tomorrow the United States of Africa."

When the marchers reached Sharpeville's police station a heavy contingent of policemen were lined up outside, many on top of British-made Saracen armored cars. Mr. Tsolo and other members of the PAC Branch Executive continued to advance - in conformity with the novel PAC motto of "Leaders in Front" - and asked the White policeman in command to let them through so that they could surrender themselves for refusing to carry passes. Initially the police commander refused but much later, approximately 11h00, they were let through; the chanting of freedom songs continued and the slogans were repeated with even greater volume. Journalists who rushed there from other areas, after receiving word that the campaign was a runaway success confirmed "that for all their singing and shouting the crowd's mood was more festive than belligerent" (David M. Sibeko, 1976).

By mid-day approximately 300 armed policemen faced a crowd of approximately 5000 people. At 13h15 a small scuffle began near the entrance of the police station. A policeman was accidently pushed over and the crowd began to move forward to see what was happening.

According to the police, protesters began to stone them and, without any warning, one of the policemen on the top of an armoured car panicked and opened fire. His colleagues followed suit and opened fire. The firing lasted for approximately two minutes, leaving 69 people dead and, according to the official inquest, 180 people seriously wounded. The policemen were apparently jittery after a recent event in Durban where nine policemen were shot.

Unlike elsewhere on the East Rand where police used baton when charging at resisters, the police at Sharpeville used live ammunition. Eyewitness accounts attest to the fact that the people were given no warning to disperse. Eyewitness accounts and evidence later led to an official inquiry which attested to the fact that large number of people were shot in the back as they were fleeing the scene. The presence of armoured vehicles and air force fighter jets overhead also pointed to unnecessary provocation, especially as the crowd was unarmed and determined to stage a non-violent protest. According to an account from Humphrey Tyler, the assistant editor at Drum magazine :

The police have claimed they were in desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them. Yet only three policemen were reported to have been hit by stones - and more than 200 Africans were shot down. The police also have said that the crowd was armed with 'ferocious weapons', which littered the compound after they fled.

I saw no weapons, although I looked very carefully, and afterwards studied the photographs of the death scene. While I was there I saw only shoes, hats and a few bicycles left among the bodies. The crowd gave me no reason to feel scared, though I moved among them without any distinguishing mark to protect me, quite obvious with my white skin. I think the police were scared though, and I think the crowd knew it.

Within hours the news of the killing at Sharpeville was flashed around the world. 

On the morning of 21 March Robert Sobukwe left his house in Mofolo, a suburb of Soweto , and began walking to the Orlando police station. Along the way small groups of people joined him. In Pretoria a small group of six people presented themselves at the Hercules police station. In addition other small groups of PAC activists presented themselves at police stations in Durban and East London. However, the police simply took down the protesters names and did not arrest anyone.

When the news of the Sharpeville Massacre reached Cape Town a group of between 1000 to 5000 protestors gathered at the Langa Flats bus terminus around 17h00 on 21 March 1960. This was in direct defiance of the government's country-wide ban on public meetings and gatherings of more than ten persons. The police ordered the crowd to disperse within 3 minutes. When protesters reconvened in defiance, the police charged at them with batons, tear gas and guns. Three people were killed and 26 others were injured. Langa Township was gripped by tension and in the turmoil that ensued, In the violence that followed an employee of the Cape Timesnewspaper Richard Lombard was killed by the rioting crowd.

The Langa March, 30 March 1960

On 30 March 1960, Philip Kgosana led a Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) march of between 30.000-50.000 protestors from Langa and Nyanga to the police headquarters in Caledon Square. The protesters offered themselves up for arrest for not carrying their passes. Police were temporarily paralyzed with indecision. The event has been seen by some as a turning point in South African history. Kgosana agreed to disperse the protestors in if a meeting with J B Vorster , then Minister of Justice, could be secured. He was tricked into dispersing the crowd and was arrested by the police later that day. Along with other PAC leaders he was charged with incitement, but while on bail he left the country and went into exile. This march is seen by many as a turning point in South African history.

On the same day, the government responded by declaring a state of emergency and banning all public meetings. The police and army arrested thousands of Africans, who were imprisoned with their leaders, but still the mass action raged. By 9 April the death toll had risen to 83 non-White civilians and three non-White police officers. 26 Black policemen and 365 Black civilians were injured – no White police men were killed and only 60 were injured. However, Foreign Consulates were flooded with requests for emigration, and fearful White South Africans armed themselves.

The Minister of Native Affairs declared that apartheid was a model for the world. The Minister of Justice called for calm and the Minister of Finance encouraged immigration. The only Minister who showed any misgivings regarding government policy was Paul Sauer. His protest was ignored, and the government turned a blind eye to the increasing protests from industrialists and leaders of commerce. A deranged White man, David Pratt , made an assassination attempt on Dr. Verwoerd , who was seriously injured.

A week after the state of emergency was declared the African National Congress (ANC) and the PAC were banned under the Unlawful Organisations Act of 8 April 1960. Both organisations were deemed a serious threat to the safety of the public and the vote stood at 128 to 16 in favour of the banning. Only the four Native Representatives and members of the new Progressive Party voted against the Bill.

In conclusion; Sharpeville , the imposition of a state of emergency, the arrest of thousands of Black people and the banning of the ANC and PAC convinced the anti-apartheid leadership that non-violent action was not going to bring about change without armed action. The ANC and PAC were forced underground, and both parties launched military wings of their organisations in 1961.

Soweto uprising

The June 16 1976 Uprising that began in Soweto and spread countrywide profoundly changed the socio-political landscape in South Africa. Events that triggered the uprising can be traced back to policies of the Apartheid government that resulted in the introduction of the Bantu Education Act in 1953. The rise of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) and the formation of South African Students Organisation (SASO) raised the political consciousness of many students while others joined the wave of anti-Apartheid sentiment within the student community. When the language of Afrikaans alongside English was made compulsory as a medium of instruction in schools in 1974, black students began mobilizing themselves. On 16 June 1976 between 3000 and 10 000 students mobilized by the South African Students Movement 's Action Committee supported by the BCM marched peacefully to demonstrate and protest against the government’s directive. The march was meant to culminate at a rally in Orlando Stadium.

On their pathway they were met by heavily armed police who fired teargas and later live ammunition on demonstrating students. This resulted in a widespread revolt that turned into an uprising against the government. While the uprising began in Soweto, it spread across the country and carried on until the following year.

The aftermath of the events of June 16 1976 had dire consequences for the Apartheid government. Images of the police firing on peacefully demonstrating students led an international revulsion against South Africa as its brutality was exposed. Meanwhile, the weakened and exiled liberation movements received new recruits fleeing political persecution at home giving impetus to the struggle against Apartheid. 

Bantu Education Policy

The word ‘ Bantu ’ in the term Bantu education is highly charged politically and has derogatory connotations. The Bantu Educational system was designed to ‘train and fit’ Africans for their role in the newly (1948) evolving apartheid society. Education was viewed as a part of the overall apartheid system including ‘homelands’, urban restrictions, pass laws and job reservation. This role was one of labourer, worker, and servant only. As H.F Verwoerd, the architect of the Bantu Education Act (1953) , conceived it:

“There is no place for [the African] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. It is of no avail for him to receive a training which has as its aim, absorption in the European community”

Pre-apartheid education of Africans

It is mistaken however, to understand that there was no pre-apartheid educational marginalization of black South Africans. Long before the historic 1948 white elections that gave the Nationalist Party power, there was a system of segregated and unequal education in the country. While white schooling was free, compulsory and expanding, black education was sorely neglected. Financial underprovision and an urban influx led to gravely insufficient schooling facilities, teachers and educational materials as well as student absenteeism or non-enrolment. A 1936 Inquiry identified problems, only to have almost nothing done about these needs.

Bantu education and the racist compartmentalizing of education.

In 1949 the government appointed the Eiselen Commission with the task of considering African education provision. The Commission recommended 'resorting to radical measures' for the 'effective reform of the Bantu school system'.

In 1953, prior to the apartheid government's Bantu Education Act, 90% of black South African schools were state-aided mission schools. The Act demanded that all such schools register with the state, and removed control of African education from the churches and provincial authorities. This control was centralized in the Bantu Education Department, a body dedicated to keeping it separate and inferior. Almost all the mission schools closed down. The Roman Catholic Church was largely alone in its attempt to keep its schools going without state aid. The 1953 Act also separated the financing of education for Africans from general state spending and linked it to direct tax paid by Africans themselves, with the result that far less was spent on black children than on white children.

In 1954--5 black teachers and students protested against Bantu Education. The African Education Movement was formed to provide alternative education. For a few years, cultural clubs operated as informal schools, but by 1960 they had closed down.

The Extension of University Education Act, Act 45 of 1959, put an end to black students attending white universities (mainly the universities of Cape Town and Witwatersrand). Separating tertiary institutions according to race, this Act set up separate 'tribal colleges' for black university students. The so-called 'bush' Universities such as Fort Hare, Vista, Venda, Western Cape were formed. Blacks could no longer freely attend white universities. Again, there were strong protests.

Expenditure on Bantu Education increased from the late 1960s, once the apartheid Nationalist government saw the need for a trained African labour force. Through this, more African children attended school than under the old missionary system of education, albeit grossly deprived of facilities in comparison with the education of other races, especially whites.

Nationally, pupil:teacher ratios went up from 46:1 in 1955 to 58:1 in 1967. Overcrowded classrooms were used on a rota basis. There was also a lack of teachers, and many of those who did teach were underqualified. In 1961, only 10 per cent of black teachers held a matriculation certificate [last year of high school]. Black education was essentially retrogressing, with teachers being less qualified than their students.

The Coloured Person's Education Act of 1963 put control of 'coloured' education under the Department of Coloured Affairs. 'Coloured' schools also had to be registered with the government. 'Coloured' education was made compulsory, but was now effectively separated from white schooling.

The 1965 Indian Education Act was passed to separate and control Indian education, which was placed under the Department of Indian Affairs. In 1976, the SAIC took over certain educational functions. Indian education was also made compulsory.

Because of the government's 'homelands' policy, no new high schools were built in Soweto between 1962 and 1971 -- students were meant to move to their relevant homeland to attend the newly built schools there. Then in 1972 the government gave in to pressure from business to improve the Bantu Education system to meet business's need for a better trained black workforce. 40 new schools were built in Soweto. Between 1972 and 1976 the number of pupils at secondary schools increased from 12,656 to 34,656. One in five Soweto children were attending secondary school.

Oppression through inferior education and the 1976 Soweto uprising

An increase in secondary school attendance had a significant effect on youth culture. Previously, many young people spent the time between leaving primary school and obtaining a job (if they were lucky) in gangs, which generally lacked any political consciousness. But now secondary school students were developing their own. In 1969 the black South African Student Organization (SASO) was formed.

Though Bantu Education was designed to deprive Africans and isolate them from 'subversive' ideas, indignation at being given such 'gutter' education became a major focus for resistance, most notably in the 1976 Soweto uprising. In the wake of this effective and clear protest, some reform attempts were made, but it was a case of too little, too late. Major disparities in racially separate education provision continued into the 1990s.

When high-school students in Soweto started protesting for better education on 16 June 1976, police responded with teargas and live bullets. It is commemorated today by a South African national holiday, Youth day, which honors all the young people who lost their lives in the struggle against Apartheid and Bantu Education.

In the 1980s very little education at all took place in the Bantu Education system, which was the target of almost continuous protest. The legacy of decades of inferior education (underdevelopment, poor self-image, economic depression, unemployment, crime, etc.) has lasted far beyond the introduction of a single educational system in 1994 with the first democratic elections, and the creation of the Government of National Unity.

Strikes in the Schools

Presumably, not all students of the earlier generation 'worshipped the school authorities'! The first, recorded stoppages of lessons, (always called strikes in the South African newspapers), and the first riots in African schools occurred in 1920. In February, students at the Kilnerton training centre went on a hunger strike 'for more food'... read on

Cape Schools Join the Revolt

The school students in Cape Town reacted to the news they heard of events in Soweto. A teacher at one of the Coloured schools was later to write: 'We haven't done much by way of teaching since the Soweto riots first began. Kids were restless, tense and confused. 'There is no similar record of what the African children thought, but it is known that they were aware of the extra police patrols that were set up in the townships following June 16. After the first shootings in Cape Town, a teacher at one of the schools recounted... read on

The NUSAS Issue

Throughout the 1960's black students campaigned for the right to affiliate to the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS) and just as steadfastly, the move was vetoed by the campus authorities. NUSAS was also keen to welcome the colleges into their fold. Not only would this make it the largest student organisation in the country, but it would also bring into the liberal ''old all student opponents of the government's apartheid policy.... read on

Down with Afrikaans

Countdown to conflict: The main cause of the protests that started in African schools in the Transvaal at the beginning of 1975 was a directive from the Bantu Education Department that Afrikaans had to be used on an equal basis with English as one of the languages of instruction in the department's secondary schools... read on

The introduction of Afrikaans alongside English as a medium of instruction is considered the immediate cause of the Soweto uprising, but there are a various factors behind the 1976 student unrest. These factors can certainly be traced back to the Bantu Education Act introduced by the Apartheid government in 1953. The Act introduced a new Department of Bantu Education which was integrated into the Department of Native Affairs under Dr Hendrik F. Verwoerd. The provisions of the Bantu Education Act and some policy statements made by the Bantu Education Department were directly responsible for the uprisings. Dr Verwoerd, who engineered the Bantu Education Act, announced that “Natives (blacks) must be taught from an early age that equality with Europeans (whites) is not for them”.

Although the Bantu Education Act made it easier for more children to attend school in Soweto than it had been with the missionary system of education, there was a great deal of discontent about the lack of facilities. Throughout the country there was a dire shortage of classrooms for Black children. There was also a lack of teachers and many of the teachers were under-qualified. Nationally, pupil-to-teacher ratios went up from 46:1 in 1955 to 58:1 in 1967. Because of the lack of proper classrooms and the crippling government homeland policy, students were forced to return to “their homelands” to attend the newly built schools there.

The government was spending far more on White education than on Black education; R644 was spent annually for each White student, while only R42 was budgeted for a Black school child. In 1976 there were 257 505 pupils enrolled in Form 1 at high schools which had a capacity for only 38 000 students.

To alleviate the situation pupils who had passed their standard six examinations were requested to repeat the standard. This was met with great resentment by the students and their parents. Although the situation did not lead to an immediate revolt, it certainly served to build up tensions prior to the 1976 student uprising.

In 1975 the government was phasing out Standard Eight (or Junior Certificate (JC)). By then, Standard Six had already been phased out and many students graduating from Primary Schools were being sent to the emerging Junior Secondary Schools. It was in these Junior Secondary schools that the 50-50 language rule was to be applied.

The issue that caused massive discontent and made resentment boil over into the 1976 uprising was a decree issued by the Bantu Education Department. Deputy Minister Andries Treurnicht sent instructions to the School Boards, inspectors and principals to the effect that Afrikaans should be put on an equal basis with English as a medium of instruction in all schools. These instructions drew immediate negative reaction from various quarters of the community. The first body to react was the Tswana School Boards, which comprised school boards from Meadowlands, Dobsonville and other areas in Soweto. The minutes of the meeting of the Tswana School Board held on 20 January 1976 read:

 "The circuit inspector told the board that the Secretary for Bantu Education has stated that all direct taxes paid by the Black population of South Africa are being sent to the various homelands for educational purposes there. 

"In urban areas the education of a Black child is being paid for by the White population, that is English and Afrikaans speaking groups. Therefore the Secretary for Bantu Education has the responsibility of satisfying the English and Afrikaans-speaking people. Consequently, as the only way of satisfying both groups, the medium of instruction in all schools shall be on a 50-50 basis.... In future, if schools teach through a medium not prescribed by the department for a particular subject, examination question papers will only be set in the medium with no option of the other language".

Teachers also raised objections to the government announcement. Some Black teachers, who were members of the African Teachers Association of South Africa, complained that they were not fluent in Afrikaans. The students initially organised themselves into local cultural groups and youth clubs. At school there was a significant number of branches of the Students Christian Movements (SCMs), which were largely apolitical in character. SASM penetrated these formations between 1974 and 1976. And when conditions ripened for the outbreak of protests, SASM formed an Action Committee on 13 June 1976, which was later renamed the Soweto Student Representative Council (SSRC). They were conscientised and influenced by national organisations such as the Black Peoples' Convention (BPC), South African Student Organisations (SASO)and by the Black Consciousness philosophy. They rejected the idea of being taught in the language of the oppressor.

The uprising took place at a time when liberation movements were banned throughout the country and South Africa was in the grip of apartheid. The protest started off peacefully in Soweto but it turned violent when the police opened fire on unarmed students. By the third day the unrest had gained momentum and spread to townships around Soweto and other parts of the country. The class of 1976 bravely took to the streets and overturned the whole notion that workers were the only essential force to challenge the apartheid regime. Indeed, they succeeded where their parents had failed. They not only occupied city centres but also closed schools and alcohol outlets.

June 16 Soweto Youth Uprising

The release of Nelson Mandela and unbanning of liberation movements The announcement by President FW de Klerk to release Nelson Mandela and unban the African National Congress (ANC), Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), the South African Communist Party (SACP) and other liberation movements was  received with mixed feelings inside and outside Parliament. Black and White South Africans celebrated the news as they were optimistic that the country was taking a turn for the better.  In Cape Town , Archbishop Mpilo Desmond Tutu was at St George's Cathedral with his congregation ready to celebrate an event he considered as the Second Coming.

It is believed that de Klerk’s decision to release Mandela and to unban political parties was the result of the following factors. Firstly, South Africa had been isolated through international trade sanctions to the extent that the South African economy was severely handicapped.  Coupled with this, the multiple States of Emergency measures enacted by the Apartheid State had consistently failed to quell the uprisings. Lastly South Africa was almost totally isolated from the international community in terms of cultural and sporting events.

This milestone was followed by tension-driven negotiations aimed at transferring power from white minority to the majority of South Africans. Though it brought about democracy, this journey was not totally without obstacles. These ranged from intensification of political violence in some parts of South Africa to unilateral declarations by some groups to break away from South Africa and form their own homelands. Some scholars have argued that de Klerk narrowly avoided a civil war that would have been severely detrimental to the country and the region as a whole. The decision taken by de Klerk was not an easy one, as he faced opposition not only from the political opponents, but also from his own party ( National Party ).

https://mg.co.za/article/2015-03-21-south-africa-remembering-the-sharpeville-massacre | http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/sharpeville-massacre-21-march-1960 | http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/langa-march-30-march-1960 | http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/june-16-soweto-youth-uprising | http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/fw-de-klerk-announces-release-nelson-mandela-and-unbans-political-organisations

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history