oRACE R E L A T I O N S

Official Journal of the South African Instituti of Race Relation!

P.O. Box 1176, Johannesburg

Vol. I II . NOB. 2. and 3. Published quarterly May and Auguit 1936

FREE TO MEMBERS

CONTENTS — INHOUD

The Approach to the Native ProblemBy the Honourable Jan H. Hofmeyi, M. P. 27

Education and Race Attitudes"~ By J. D. RheTnallt Jones ... ... ... ... 38

The Institute in Council ... '... ... ... ... 46

Direct Taxation of Natives •By A. Lynn Saffery ... ... ... ... ... 53

Mixed Marriages and 'the Immorality Act.. . 56

Recruitment of Labour ... ... ... ... ... 57

RASSEVERHOUDINGSOffisiile Joemaal van die Suid-Afrikaarae Initituul vir Kamvrrhoudingl

Posbus 1176, Johannesburg

Deel I I I . Nos. 2. en 3. Uitgegee elke kwartul Mei en Augustus 1936

(JRATIS AAN LEDE

N O T E

The purpose of this journal in to make availableto the members of the South African Institute ofRace Relations facts and authoritative statementshaving significant bearing upon the racial situationin Southern Africa.

Except where expressly stated, views advocatedin articles published in Race Relation! do not necess-sarily express the views of the Institute.

Articles are published in whichever of the twoofficial languages (English and Afrikaans) of the Unionof South Africa they are submitted for publicationby the authors.

Communications in connection with the journalshould be addressed to the Editor, Pact Relation),P.JO. Box 1176, Johannesburg.

The membership of the Institute consists mainlyof

(a) Affiliated Bodies, making minimum annualgrants to the Institute of £10.0.0.

(b) Donor Members, making minimum annualdonations of £10.0.0.

(c) Ordinary Members, paying minimum annualsubscriptions of £1.0.0.

Extension of the membership b muchdesired.

Communications should be addressed to theSecretary, South African Institute of Race Relations,f. O. Box 1176, Johannesburg.

N OT IS I E

Die doel van hicrdie Tydskrif in om aan dielede van die Suid-Afrikaanse Instituut vir Rasse-verhoudings feite en gefiaghebliende vcrklarings voorte le wot van groot betekenis is vtr die rasse potisiein Suid Afrika.

Uitgesonder waarMit spuiaal verkhar word, isdie menings wat in artikels in Raiitverhmdingtuitgedruk word, nie noodsaaklik die menings vandie Instituut.

Die artikels word gepubliseer in waiter een vandie twee offisi&le tale (Engels en Afrikaans) van dieUnie van Suid Afrika hulle deur die skrywera wordisngebied.

Kommunikasies in verband met die Tydskrifmoet geadresseer word aan die Redakteur Rant-verhmdingt, Posbus 1176, Johannesburg.

Die Lede van die Instituut bestaan hoofsaaklikuit

(a) Geaf filieerde Liggame.wat 'n minimum jaar-likse bydrae van £10.0.0. aan die Instituutmaak. /

(b) Skenkerlede wat 'n minimum jaartikseskenking no £10.0.0. maak.

(c) Gewone Lede, wat 'n minimum jaarliktaintekensom van £1.0.0. betaal.

Ultbreidlng Tan die Ledetaal b hoogs wen-allk.

Kommunikasies moet geadresseer word aan dieSekretaris, Suid-Afrikaanse Instituut rlr Ratwrer-houdings, Posbus 1176, Johannesburg.

THE APPROACH TO THE NATIVE PROBLEM*

by the HON. JAN H. HOFMETR, M. P.

The Academic SpiritAt the risk of frightening some members of my

audience, let me say that I am going to be franklyacademic to-night. It is a terrible admission, 1 know,for a politician to make, especially for one who hasbeen a professor and who has spent a large part ofhis political life trying desperately to live it down.But for to-night I shall glory in what some of mypolitical colleagues regard as my shame, feeling asI do that our politics would be all the better for alittle more of the unprejudiced thinking and the

f- ruthless analysis which are the essence of the academicspirit. After all there is no greater fallacy than thatthe academic man is necessarily unpractical. TheScotch are sometimes said to be lacking in a senseof humour — I am not sure that the truth is not thatthey have a sense of humour so intense as to preventthem from appreciating the quips and oddities thatappeal to the rest of us who are less gifted than theyare. And similarly I am not sure that, very often, thesupposedly unpractical academic man doesk not seemore deeply into the most important practical issuesof a problem than does the bluff, contemptuous po-litician, who proudly claims for himself that blessedmodern attribute of being realistic. And I am alsonot sure that, in our handling of this very Nativeproblem, of which I am to speak to you, we would nothave been all the better for a little more academicanalysts and a good deal less muddied thinking and

. blatant prejudice-mongering.It is, as everybody knows, customary among

politicians to take exception to the views expressedin our Universities in regard to Native affairs, whenthose views do not happen to accord with the pre-dominant political conception. It is true of coursethat it is from our Universities and from men connectedwith them or imbued with the University spirit thatmuch of the support for the more liberal view hascome. But it is surely an insufficient answer to retortwith the cheap gibe which the word academic conveysto the unenlightened mind. What after all is the con-ception which really underlies that word ? It impliesopen-minded consideration; it implies balancedjudgment; it implies the fearless pursuit of rectitudeand truth. Surely it ii primarily to the end that thenation may secure the benefit of these things that we

have set up our Universities, and have made Urgesums of public money available for their needs.Why then should we reject that benefit in regard tothe greatest of all our problems, that which isfundamental to the survival of European civilizationin this land ? For my part I rejoice with all my heartthat our Universities have, to an ever-increasingextent, been applying those academic qualities tothe consideration of that problem. And it is thereinchiefly that I find hope for the future. For I refuseto think of our Universities as the homes of lostcauses. I regard them rather as the vantage pointsfrom which are caught the first gleams of the comingdawn.

Importance of Fundamentals

Perhaps I should emphasize the terms in whichI have defined the subject on which I am to speakto you. I would not have you expect me to propounda solution of the Native problem, or to advance somenew theory in regard to it. It is not with the solutionof the problem that I am concerned, but with theapproach to it, with, if I may revert to academiclanguage, some of the prolegomena of the problem.I ahall not attempt to mark out the actual path upthe steep and rocky hillside which we have to climb.All that I want to do is to clear away some of thedense undergrowth which at present prevents usfrom seeing which is the natural line of ascenl.I think that there is value in such an attempt. Un-doubtedly there is to-day a great lack of precisionof thought in most men's approach to the Nativeproblem — the catchword and the slogan exercisealmost unchallenged dominion — and most of uswould be all the better for getttngback to fundamentals,for making a conscientious and determined effort to-see straight and to think straight in regard to it.My aim this evening is no higher than to give suchassistance as I can towards that end.

You will also have inferred, both from my titleand from what I have already said, that I do notshare the facile optimism of those who claim thatthe Native problem has been solved by the legislationenacted during the last parliamentary session. Atthe best, that legislation dealt only with certain aspects

• Addreti before Btntu Studici Society of the Student! of1936.

Iht Univentty of the Witnttettrend. Johannesburg, on Augutt 13.

27

of the problem, with what measure of finality timealone will show. Hut the problem in its totality isnot one that can be solved by a couple of legislativeacts nor even in a measurable period of lime. It isone of those problems the solution of which dependson growth — the growth of atti tudes of mind, thegrowth of interacting spiritual forces, the growth ofeconomic processes. Faith and patience, the willing*ness, sometimes,in Carlyle's phrase.to "let time work",are among thr first requisites in the approach to it. .We of this generation will look foolish indeed in thejudgment of history if we claim that in our time wecan solve it or have solved it. We cannot hope formore than that, in honesty of mind and sincerity ofpurpose, we should make an enduring contributionto the completion of the main account.

Nature of the Problem

And so it is as well that I should commence by•sking what » this Native problem of the approachto which I am speaking. It is a point on which allmy subsequent remarks will have a bearing, to which,therefore, I shall needs have to return. Let me saythis much at this stage. To different people the Nativeproblem quite obviously means different things.It is a problem which arises from the juxtapositionof white man and black man in the same country.That much is common cause. Out for some theproblem would appear to be how, in such a country —in this case it is South Africa — the white man bto ensure his position of dominance for the future;how South Africa is to be made safe for the European.Those who so view the problem would proclaim theirideal as being that of "t White South Africa". Forothers, however, (he problem is one of the adjustmentof the inequalitites in the position of the black manconceived as a fellow-citizen along with the white manof a common country — and of these the ideal brather that of "equal rights for every civilized man".For my partt 1 can conceive of no better descriptionof the problem than that it U an aspect of what Dr.J. H. Oldham has described as the ultimate politicalproblem of the world — "the problem of how thedifferent races which inhabit it may live together inpeace and hirmonv". And, of that description ofthe problemt the essence Menu to be the notion ofliving together, of joint participation in the life of asingle community.

The Linn of Cleavage

I do not propose to enlarge on that point now.I.want rather to pass on to another observation ofa preliminary character, which will however also lead

me on towards my main theme. When we think ofthe history of South Africa we think of it very largelyin terms of a conflict between men of English andmen of Afrikaans speech. It is that conflict, and theconsequences of it, that have most vividly forcedthemselves upon our notice within the recollectionof our own generation. But that has not been thetrue drama of our history : we shall find that drama,rather, in the struggle to avoid the occurrence ofa tragic clash of colour. In most of the scenes inthat drama which have so far been enacted, the pro-tagonist! have not been white men and black — letus hope that in the future also it will not be so ; —the conflict has rather been one between white menof varying outlooks and schools of thought, on thequestion of the relations that should subsist betweendifferent races. Sometimes the conflict has marched 'with that other conflict of which I (poke, the conflictbetween Dutch and British; very often it has beenan element incidental to the phases of that conflict.But, happily, there has never been a complete co-incidence between the lines of Britbh-Dutch cleava-ge and the lines of cleavage on the Native question.The essential issue has not been racial in the sensein which we usually, but of course wrongly, use thatterm in South Africa : it has rath er been an issuebetween two different points of view: the point ofview, on the one hand, of the man on the spot, whoclaims that only those who are in daily contact withNatives can understand them, and who tends inevitablyto be influenced in his approach to the problem byhb economic necessities; and the point of view, onthe other hand, of the idealist at a distance, whoatarts out with the conception that every man, behis akin black or white, b an end in himself, andwho will not admit that there can be any departure ^from the principles which follow from that concep-tion in their application to any race, whether he hasknowledge of the distinctive characteristics of thatrace or not The first has been the point of view ofthe pioneer, whose contact with the black man hasnecessarily been constant, and it hai been held in-dependently of race ; it has been the point of viewnot only of our old Dutch Republics, but also ofBritbh Natal, which has on occasion been preparedto. break even the Britbh connection in its defence.The other was the point of view for the most part ofthe British Government in relation to South Africa— the point of view also which largely impresseditself upon the old Cape Colony. And the issue ofwhich I have been speaking finds itself reflected Inthe difference between the Northern and the Southerntraditions, which is so often evidenced in the dis- .cussion of Native questions to-day.

The second of the points of view to which I havereferred may naturally enough be described broadlyas liberalism — one must be more careful in describingthe other. It is easy to think of it in terms of mereopposition to liberalism, as a narrow oppressionismadeniatof the rights of humanity to men of a differentcolour, a ruthless subjugation to the position of merechattels of less favoured human beings. That would,however, give an entirely wrong impression of theorigin of thb point of view, or of the attitude of mindtowards the black man of the older European in-habitants of South Africa. Let it be admitted that theinfluence of the slave economy which once prevailedat the Cape was a constitutive force in this regard ;yet, in the treatment of their slaves, our early South A-

k fricans attained a relatively high standard ofhumanity.Moreover, the frontiersman may, in his dealings withthe Native, have been concerned almost entirely withthe assurance of his safety and hb economic interests,yet, if his pragmatism was hard, it was not in essenceunkindly. The true origin of thb point of view isindeed rather to be sought in patriarchalism; in thewide conception of the family, with the servants aspart of it. Of that the admission of the black servantsto family prayers, a custom which still prevails inmany South African homes, b a survival1 and anevidence. The fact of the continued survival inincreasing numbers of the black men in South Africa,as contrasted with what has happened in othercountries where men of different colours have met,has often been remarked upon. To some extent nodoubt it reflects the superior physical qualitites ofthe Bantu — but it does also show that there has beennothing deliberately inhumane about the policy and

k attitude of the white man in South Africa in relationto the black. That policy, it may be, does not showmany traces of liberalism or of idealism, but it was

. none the less, in its original conception at least, apolicy by no means divorced from the notions offair play, of live and let live.

But in its later manifestations there are definitelydisquieting elements about this policy. These arederived from trie fact that there has come to beassociated with it what can only be described as afear-complex. In the old days — the days of thefrontiersman and the pioneer — there was of coursean element, a very justifiable element, of fear in thewhite man's attitude towards the Native. When themilitary power of the Native was broken, that elementfell into the background. Out it survived subcon-sciously, and remained susceptible toa fresh stimulus.Such a stimulus has been provided in our own timeby the penetration to the consciousness of the white

manof the essential insecurity of his economic position.The white man may have no ground to fear physicalattach from the black man — but he has becomeacutely conscious of the influences from that quarteron the conditions of his life, and as his economicworld tends to be increasingly straightened about him,he conceives of himself as engaged in a new strugglewith the Native, a deadlier struggle than the physicalstruggle ever was, and so his dominant thoughtshave come to be thoughts of fear.

What are the essential elements in th: whiteman's attitude to-day? Perhaps they may be deacribedin this way. The white man is conscious of culturalsuperiority over the Native — he is conscious alsoof numerical inferiority. And so he is afflicted withthe haunting fear that his present position of ascend-ancy may be weakened and destroyed. Does not theNative outnumber him by three to one ? — andnearly always when he speaks of it he exaggeratesthe ratio. Is not the Native's rate of natural increasehigher than his own ? — and usually he forgets thefactors which to-day tend to limit that increase. Hehas asserted his mastery over the Native in the past;to-day he has all the material resources for the en-forcement of his will — but what of the subtlereconomic struggle of the future ? To whom in thatday will the battle be >

The Element of Fear

It is hardly necessary to remark on the factthatoflate this fear complex haspowerfullyinflucncedthe Union's handling of its Native problem, and thatagainst it the old liberalism of the Cape has beenfighting a losing battle. At the time of Union therewere those who hoped that Cape ideas of politicalequality as between white men and black would cometo prevail throughout the Union. They have beendisappointed. At the Albany by-election in .May ofthis year Natives for the last time voted on a commonelectoral roll with Europeans. And, while in Nativeadministration there has, especially in recent years,been a good deal of paternal solicitude for Nativewelfare, legislation dealing with Native affairs hasfor a considerable period now, ta!:en its form largelyfrom the prevailing desire to kcop the Native "inhis place", a place of permanent subordination tothe white man and of subservience lo his interests.

Now, for my part, 1 have no hesitation in sayingthat, in sn far as our present approach to the Nativeproblem is based on a fear complex — I am notsaying that it U exclusively so based — but in so faras it is so based, it has an entirely false foundation.

29

and considerations both of national honour and ofnational security demand that we should not leavesuch a position unchanged. Certainly, while fear isat the root of public opinion, it is no easy matter tobuild up a Native policy on the foundations of justiceand fair dealing. There is, ns my earlier remarkshave implied, a fundamental desire in the minds ofthe South African people to net justly towards theNatives in their rnidsl, but that desire fights a difficultbattle for expression against the power of fear. SarahGertrude Millin has told us how once she put thispoint in a conversation with an American Negro."You know", she said, "the relative numbers ofblack and white in South Africa. Well, consider theblack people as a big man struggling in a swamp,and the white people as a little man standing on theedge of the swamp. The little man wants to help thebig man. Out how far dare he t Isn't it more possiblethat the big man will pull in the little man, than thatthe little man will pull out the big man ? That bthe question we are always asking ourselves in SouthAfrica."

I have indicated that the fear complex which iiat the root of some at least of the present tendenciesin Native policy is to be deplored. There are, howevertwo things that I would emphasize as arising fromthat statement. The one is that we would be foolishto lose sight of the psychological justification of thatfear complex. Psychologically, aa Mrs. Millin haspointed out, there are ample grounds for it. There bthe black man's numerical superiority and our coun-try's apparently low absorptive capacity, in presentcircumstances, in the matter of immigration — andthese are considerations which tend to vitiate manyof the comparisons with the United States which areso frequently drawn. There is the menace presentedby the black man's lower standards of living to thewhite man's economic position. There are the eviden-ces of his constantly accelerating advance under theimpact of European civilization. There is the revoltingpossibility of ultimate social equality and the mixtureof the races. It would be strange indeed if the Euro-pean in South Africa were not apprehensive as to hiachildren's future. It needs something in the natureof an act of faith for him to be otherwise — and inthese days faith is perhaps not the facile thing thatonce it was.

The Old and the New Liberalism

The other point that 1 want to make at thbstage is that you are not going to defeat the fearcomplex merely by advancing the ideab of the old

Cape liberalism. I would be the last to wish to givethe appearance of seeking to belittle the liberalismof the Cape. I am deeply conscious of the richnessof its tradition, of the great men whom it nurtured,and who gave expression to its spirit. But I wouldsuggest that in later yearB that liberalism tended tobecome too largely a thing of sentiment, too readilyfound satisfaction in warning itself at the fire of theold idealisms, paid too little heed to the need for find-ing in changing times a new basis for those idealisms.That, I think, is why the old Cape liberalism has, onthe question of the Cape Native franchise, sufferedso resounding a defeat. For, in fighting a fear-complex,ideilum is not enough — it must be grounded inknowledge and nurtured in understanding. It is anew liberalism that South Africa needs — the accept-ance of, in essence, the same broad principles as 'those for which the old liberalism has stood, togetherwith the application, to the working-out of thoseprinciples, of sympathetic first-hand acquaintancewith the Native peoples — or, to put it differently,eager study and thorough-going investigstion, witha view to giving form and substance to the otherwisepossibly dry bones of idealbm. Of such a kind mustbe the new liberalism — a restrained liberalism, ithas recently been described, which is content tohasten slowly. And, to my mind, the hopeful thingabout our approach to the Native problem to-dayis just this, that, although the old traditional liberalismhas in recent years steadily been repelled in ourParliament, there has been none the less, outsideParliament, abundant evidence of the swelling ofthe tide of that new liberalism of which I have beenspeaking,

"For though the tired waves, vainly breaking, ^Seen here no painful inch to gain,Far back, through creeks and inlets making.Comes silent, flooding in, the main."

May I repeat that the bases of knowledge andunderstanding are essential for this new liberalismIt must be a liberalism of the mind as well as of theheart. It b that as much as anything that gives signi-ficance to the development of departments of BantuStudies at our Universities, to the part that societiessuch as this play in University life, to the revoltamongst so many of our University students againstthe narrowness of the doctrine of keeping the Native"in hb place", and to the ever growing evidence ofthe desire and the capacity in our academic worldto express distinctive opinions on various aspectsof Native affairs. Moreover, whatever may be saidin criticism of thb year's Native legislation, at leastit has revealed to the country just exactly where It

i

JO

stands in this matter, and so provided the necessarystarting point for a new advance. '

(Perhaps it is necessary that, before I go anyfurther, I should here make one point clear, lest I bemisunderstood. It is natural that at this time themention of the word liberalism brings up in men'sminds the idea of the Cape Native Franchise. I wouldexplain that, as I use the term, franchise rights makeup only a part of the conception of liberalism andcertainly not the most important part. For my partI regard the question of the Cape Native Franchiseas an issue which has been adjudicated. I certaintyhave no intention of reviving it. All that I am sayingthia evening is based on the assumption that the pre-sent position in regard to the representation of Na-tives b to continue.)

So far I have been emphasizing the necessitythat our approach to the Native problem should bemade in the spirit of what I have called the newliberalism. Let me pass on from the spirit of approachto the method of approach. Again I would proceedby way of analysis. Let us examine some of the chieflines of approach that seem to offer themselves.

l

The Two Extremes

The two extreme methods of approach —oneon either side — may be ruled out without very muchdifficulty. There is first of all the policy which wouldregard the Native merely as a means to an end, achattel in the white man's economy, ministering tohb needs, building up his wealth, but, for the rest,to be kept "in his place" by sheer physical force, if

L need be, and to be restrained from any advance inthe scale of civilization, lest thereby he should add tothe gravity of the "black menace". I have stated thepolicy in its crudest form, a form in which perhapsnot many would admit their adherence to it yetnone the less, considered in its collective aspect, animportant factor in our present national approachto the problem. What does such a policy imply forthe white man and for the black ? Take the case ofthe latter first. I shall put it, as I heard it put a fewyears ago by an educated Native at a meeting in theTranskei: "The white man came to us, and told usthat we must throw oil our barbarism, we must beeducated, we must advance. We have obeyed hiswords, and now because xve have done so, because wehave advanced, he tells us that we are a menace anda danger." It was a statement to which one felt thatit was impossible to find an answer. But from thewhite man's point of view too the policy is indefensible.Look at it in this way. The white man has come in

amongst the Natives and has changed their world;he has in large measure broken down the sanctions ofthe kraal and left them.many of them, exposed withoutprotection to the freakish currents of thought of ourmodem world ; he has awakened in them a self-consciousness, a race-consciousness, new wants, newdesires ; he has aroused in them the stirrings of adivine discontent. And, having done all that, hecannot, save at great peril to himself, and to thosewho will come after him, seek to block the stream inthe channel into which he has himself led it, whilehe provides for it no other outlet. One thinks ofthe Natives on this Witwatersrand, of the impactupon them of our civilization, of the constantlymultiplying manifestations of their response to thatimpulse. It is amazing how little the white manhere on the Witwatersrand really knows of the stirringof this new life in the Native peoples living in hismidst. But whether he knows of it or not, whetherhe likes it or not, the bare logicof facts will compel him,as he is brought to face up to it, to admit that the dayof repression as a basis of Native policy is past, ifindeed there ever was such a day. The white manhis awakened the Native, he has ended his savage life,he has set his feet upon the long road which leads tocivilization. It is a path on which there can be noretreat. And the white man has no option save toadjust his thinking and his policy to the realization ofthese facts.

But the other extreme policy — the policy whichaims at complete equality, at the identity of blackman with white, social no less than political andeconomic — is no more possible of acceptance. Forthe pure idealist the notion of racial equality has ofcourse a large measure of attractiveness. Moreover,it is an ideal which is consciously being put intooperation to-day on this African continent of ours."France", it has been said, "is not a nation of thirty-nine million inhabitants, but one of a hundred millionsubjects." French policy postulates the identy of allsubjects of France whatever their colour or race.To the South African of course the notion is repugnant.We are revolted in particular by the notion of socialequality, with its corollary, as it seems to us, of inter-marriage and miscegenation. Racial antipathy, basedon colour prejudice, or by whatever nam- we maycall it. is for us a real thing. It may of course be argued,that such antagonism is not really innate or instinc-tive, that it is communicated by social suggestion,that an Englishman for instance, who comes to SouthAfrica from an environment in which he would havewelcomed a black man unhesitatingly to his home,assumes, usually within the briefest of periods, the

31

prevailing tone and sentiments, in this regard, ofthe country of his adoption. All that may be true; andyet the racial antipathy is too real a fact in our lifefor it to be brushed aside, either by the enunciationof the idealof equality or even by the logic of argument.Moreover, it has its foundation in real differences,differences not just in the appearance of individuals,but difference? rather in social tradition and in outlookon life. The United States was founded with the 'declaration of the "self-evident truth" that all men arecreated equal. Yet it was the President of the UnitedStates who in 1919 resisted Japan's claim for theinsertion in the Covenant of the League of Nationsof an acknowledgement of the principle of racial equa-lity. There are some differences too deep-seated to bebrushed aside by high-sounding declarations. Thereit a diversity between the races of men, there artfacts of inequality which cannot be ignored. Andalthough there is a fundamental equality in principleof men as men alongside of those facts of inequality,we must be careful in our definition of what thatfundamental equality implies. Dr. ). H. Oldham hasput it in this way. "Men are not equal in their capacityto serve the community, nor arc the; equal in theirneeds. But they are equal in the possession of apersonality that is worthy of reverence. They areequal in the right to the development of that person-ality, so far as may be compatible with the commongood." There is a special significance for us in SouthAfrica in those concluding words : "So far as may becompatible with the common good." For, certainly,things being as they are in South Africa, we could notaccept a policy of complete equalization of black manwith white to the point of identity as being for thecommon good, or indeed for the good of either blackman or white. That racial antipathy with which westarted out as a fact would only be immensely magni-6ed thereby.

Facts of Difference

We have then rejected the two extreme lines ofapproach. We have ruled out the permanent subjectionof black man by white, and a fortiori of white manby black. We have ruled out also the equality, theidentity of the two races. Obviously, we must seekour line of approach in another category. And weshall best find it, perhaps, if we take as our starting-point the recognition of the differences betweenwhite man and black — if we leave out of accountquestions of relative status, and concern ourselves in 'the first instance with the facts of difference. Whiteman and black man are not, probably never will be,the same : — they have different social traditions.

they have different media of self-expression, theyhave different ideas of social welfare—should notthose differences be the basis of a differentiation inpolicy and administration ?

Meaning of Segregation

That statement will at once suggest the term"segregation", and it is here that the clearing awayof undergrowth of which I spoke is particularly ne-cessary. For segregation has come to be a potentword in South Africa. It is potent almost in thesense of being cabbalistic. Many of those who utterit as a charm would be hard put to it to say what theymeant by it. The explanations which would in factbe given would be most di. erse in their nature. Butthe number of those men, to whom it means no morethan Mesopotamia with all its soothing qualitiesmeant to the old lady, would still be legion.

In its strict and original sense, in the sense inwhich it was first conceived by Shepstone, segregationmeans the complete territorial separation of whiteman and black man, and the barest minimum ofintercourse between them, it means the distinctivedevelopment of the Native peoples on lines of theirown, and in such manner as not to impinge onEuropean interests, it means the growth of a blacknation and a white nation side by side in SouthAfrica. This ideal has the merit of being logical andol springing from a sound conception of inter-racialrelationships. It suffers, however, from the fault ofbeing entirely unpractical. In that respect it is in thesame category as the solution, sometimes advocatedin the United States for its colour problem, of dumpingits twelve million Negroes holus bolus into Liberia, oras the proposal advocated in South Africa, chiefly atelection times, for solving our Asiatic problem bywhole-sale repatriation. The Native EconomicCommission a few years ago went so far as to eay thatno one any longer advocates this view of segregation.

What then does segregation really mean in theminds of. those who to-day support it as a policy ?There are, as I have suggested, several shades ofmeaning, but for the most part they group themsetvearound two very distinct conceptions. There is onthe one hand a crude segregationism, which is theform in which the doctrine is held by roost of thosewho have not thought it out, and by some few ofthose who have. For them it means the extrusion ofthe Native from the white man's life, save in so faras he is necessary for ministration to the white man'sneeds, the setting aside, for his occupation, of land soinadequate that dire necessity will drive him out to

•.-THi.1.-.'.l•*i<jO

labour at low wage-rates for the white man, and,for the rest, the refusal to regard him as other thana. means to an end, or effectively to encourage hisdevelopment in the areas reserved for him. Thatconception links itself up with that repressive policywhich I dismissed as one of the extremes — it needsno further consideration than we have already givento that policy.Constructive Segregation

But there is also a constructive segregaiioniamwhich merits much closer attention. Let us start withthe description which General Smuts gave of it, withreference to the wider Africa, in his Rhodes Lectures:"A policy which will not force her (i. e. Africa's)institutions into an alien mould, but which will pre-serve her unity with her own past, conserve what isprecious in her past, and build her future on dis-tinctivelyAfrican foundations". Such a policy meansthe distinctive development of the black peoples ; itmeans the encouragement of, and the provision offacilities for, that development; its aim is that theblack man should not merely advance towards pros-perity for himself, but should also make a specificcontribution to the good of the whole community.But — and this is important — it does no{ neces-sarily mean the complete territorial separation ofblack man from white ; it faces up to the presentterritorial and economic intermingling of the tworaces as a factor which may be reduced, but cannotbe eliminated ; it regards labour for the white manas a necessary element in the economic structure ofBantu life. It is, however, on distinctive Native de-velopment that the emphasis is laid — that is theessence of what I have called constructive segregation.

For the consideration of segregation in thisform, it becomea necessary to ask what measure ofseparation of the races is essential if that end ofdistinctive Native development is to be attained. Forthe answer it will probably be best to refer to thatpart of South Africa where this constructive policyof segregation has in fact been most successfullyapplied. In the Transkei we have a territory of sixtee nthousand square miles, of which all but a thousandare reserved for Native ownership. It carries a popu-lation of a million Natives, who have been providedwith the machinery of self-government in respect oftheir own specifically local concerns. In its adminis-tration the development of the Native has beenthe primary aim. He has been encouraged todetermine the lines of his own progress, and therehave been stimulated in him a feeling of pride in hisown institutions, a sense of responsibility, and agrowing experience of administrative affairs. And yet,

to its Native inhabitants, even the Transkei securesonly a marginal subsistence. It is of the essence ofits economic life that a large number of them shouldgo out at regular intervals to work in the white man's,industries, beyond the borders of the Territoriesin order to satisfy their expanding wants and desires.There is, therefore, no attempt to secure a completeseparation between white man and black. Onecardinal thing alone is secured — and it u of thefirst importance that this should be noted —thehome of the Transkeian Native remains in the Transkeiand to that home he normally returns.

So then we may define the aim of the constructivesegregationist, in relation to the Union as a whole,in some such way u this — the reservation for theNative peoples of sufficient land to make possiblethe maintenance of their family and tribal life, nosubstantial restriction on their going out to work forthe white man for definite periods, but the retentionof the reserve as their home and the centre of theirlife and of their distinctive advancement.

Now, stated in this form, the policy has obviousmerits. It will achieve a considerable reduction inthe intermingling of black and white, it will ensurea large measure of recognition for the factsof differenceand yet it does not postulate either the setting aside,for the black man's occupation, of land sufficient toprovide for all his needs independently of the whiteman's wages, or the administration to the white man'sindustry of the shock which would be caused by thewithdrawal of the black man's labour. It does,however, require, and this is the bare minimum, theprovision of adequate reserves to ensure at least amarginal subsistence for all Native families, andthe removal to those reserves of all such families asdwell in the white man'a towns or on the white man'sfarms to-day. That, it seems to me, the provision ofsufficient land, to provide a bare subsistence for allthe families that dwell to-day in the white man'stowns or on the white man's farms, is the minimumessential if the use of the term segregation is to bejustified. On the basis of that minimum a constructivepolicy of segregation can be evolved, and there isno reason why such a policy should not satisfy thedemands set at once by logic and justice for a solutionof the problem. Rut if that minimum is not attained,then segregation offers no solution ; and, the morewe fall short of it, the greater is the danger of itbecoming a mockery and a sham.

The Land is the TestIt is clear, then, that \vc must test the value of

segregation as a line of approach by asking whether33

(he minimum condition precedent to its success canbe satisfied to-day. Fifty years ago, no doubt, it couldhave been satisfied. Natal,the Transkei. Rechuanalandoffered i fair field for such 3 policy. But (he po-sition is very different to-day, and it is so chieflybecause of the laisiex fairr which characterizedRepublican and Ciskeian Native policy: because ofthe failure to make adequate provision for the Nativeas an independent agriculturist, and of the desire toenjoy lo the full the reputed advantage of cheapNative labour. Away back in 1882, President Krugerspoke with enthusiasm of the time when the Nativetribes would reap the prosperous fruit of the oldprinciple of the Republic, in terms of which everytribe of any importance bad a fixed territory appointedfork. Unfortunately, not many years after 1882 thatprinciple began lo be honoured in the breach —andthe result of its desuetude is that to-day somethingvery different from prosperous fruit is being reapedby many Natives of the Transvaal. The failure ofthe South African Republic lo deal with the problemof Native land in its latter years has made a verysubstantial contribution to our Native problem aswe know it fo-day.

It is the laiiiei-fairr in the Transvaal and else-where in South Africa at that time which makes sodifficult lo-day the task of re-creating Native familyand tribal life, and, let me insist again, the re-creationof Native family and, in some measure at least,Native tribal life is essential for the success of anypolicy of constructive segregation. For, as a resultof that Iaissc3-/airet the Native has in fact gone outfrom his tribal home, to an ever increasing extent wittlhit family to make his home in the white man's towns;he has, also with his family, made his home on thewhite man's farms, arid it has been in the interest ofthe European farmer to encourage him to do so."The whites", said General Smuts at Oxford, "liketo have the families of their Native servants with them.It means more continuous and less broken period*of labour, and it means more satisfied labourers.It means moreover the use of the women and childrenfor such work as they are fit for." Over half of theNative population of the Union is to-day living out-side of the reserves : that is > fact of the very firstimportance in the testing of the segregationist theory.There are well over two million Natives in ruralareas outside the reserves ; there are about a millionin the towns — and, though our European urbanpopulation has been growing disproportionately 11compared with our^European rural population, ourNative urban population is growing far more rapidlylhan our European urban population. Not all these.

of course, represent Native families, but it is clearthat the task of re-establishing Native family life inthe reserves is one of very considerable magnitude.The segregationist labours under what is indeed adamnosa hertJitas from the policy of drift of the past.

I think it \\-ill be clear by no\v, that, for anypolicy of segregation which would merit considerationas a solution of our problem, there will be a very heavyprice for the white man to pay. There is a price tobe paid in respect of labour — less continuous, asthe Native family is moved back to the reserve ;less abundant, as Native development proceeds, andabsorbs more of its own labour ; less cheap, as theNative, in the building up of his own life, becomesmore independent of the white man's wages. There iaa price also in respect of land, for it means settingapart for Native ownership considerable areas whichare open to the European to-day, and which havecome to be regarded as eminently suitablefnr Europeanexploitation and settlement, areas moreover in whichEuropeans have already established themselves. Letit not be forgotten that, for the success of this policy,there must be postulated the setting aside of enoughland to give effect to a policy of building up Nativehomes for all the Native peoples of South Africa andfor the natural increase of the future — lind sufficientto provide them at once with a safeguard againsteconomic exploitation, an inducement to retain theirdomicile, and the facilities for effective development.And,-even after all possible allowances are made foran increase in the productivity and carrying capacityof the existing reserves, that represents a very heavydemand.

That is the price to be paid; and, if the questionbe put whether the white man is willing to pay thatprice for segregation, there can, I fear, be only oneanswer — that the chances of his paying a price,sufficient to secure anything that indeed would beworthy of that name, are exceedingly remote. Aafar as labour is concerned, the European farmer whocries out for segregation certainly does not envisage itas implying the end of the labour-tenant system, theremoval of all Native families from his farm to thereserves, and the necessity of paying wages sufficientto attract Natives from the reserves for the carrying onof his operations — and, just because he does notenvisage that, one is justified in saying that for himsegregation is only really a blessed word after all.Or, take the question of land. The Natives Land Actof 1913 was designed to give effect to the policy ofsegregation. To that end it first of all scheduled atNative land the reserves then existing. Those schedu-led areas amounted to I0| million morgen, 7.3 per

34

cent of the total area of the Union. In Natal, with apopulation 80 per cent Native, 28.2 per cent of theland was scheduled as Native reserve, — the Capehas a60 per cent Native population and 7.3 percentreserve area ; the Transvaal has 70 per cent Nativesand 3.7 per cent reserve ; the Free Stale 70 per centNatives and 0.5 per cent reserve. But secondlythe Natives Land Act, while prohibiting the sale ofland to Natives outside the scheduled areas, fore-shadowed the demarcation of additional areas forNative ownership. We all know the painful historyof the attempt] of successive Governments to giveeffect to the implied promise and we know how greathave been the difficulties caused by the white man'sunwillingness to make any sort of payment that would

) really hurt as the price of segregation. It is onlythis year — after 23 years of frustration and delay —that, by the Natives Land and Trust Act, the promisehas been redeemed.

Thai Act I think we can claim as, on the whole,.a really valuable constructive measure. It does more

than redeem the promise of 1913, in so far as it notmerely releases areas for Native occupation andownership, but also provided, through the Trust, themeans for the acquisition of those areas. Moreover,if we read, in conjunction with the Act, the PrimeMinister's promise that the necessary funds for suchacquisition will be provided, we can appreciate thefact that we are indeed making a very importantadvance, an advance along the lines of that policyof constructive segregation of which I have spoken.But we have still to ask whether the advance actuallycontemplated is sufficient for the effective application

^ of that policy, having regard to the fact that to-dayround about half our Natives have their homesouuide the reserves. The Natives Land and TrustAct provides for the acquisition of a maximum areaof 7} million morgen. This will bring the total amountof Native land up to a morgenage of rather less than18 millions, that is, 12.3 per cent of the area of theUnion. In assessing this figure we must of coursetake account of the facts that the standard of livingof the Native is very much lower than that of thewhite man, and that, on the average, the quality of•he land in the present reserves is high relatively loSouth African land in general; but when all allowanceshave been made, it is hard to see how the land to beprovided can in fact meet the needs of all Nativefamilies at present living in the white man's townsand on the white man's farms. And indeed it has neverbeen claimed for the Natives Land and Trust Aclby those responsible for it that it will have that effect.All that has been claimed for it is that it will provide

for some of those families. It is right that we shouldwelcome and acclaim this legislation, but let no onethink that it is realty going to satisfy what I describedas the minimum condition precedent to the solution ofthe Native problem by a policy of segregation whichwould logically merit that name. For such a policythe white man hai given no indication of preparednessto pay the price.

Out, even if he were prepared to pay it, there wouldremain a further question — whether in fact it is notalready too late for him to do so. Constructivesegregation, as I have sought to describe it, impliesthe maintenance and, so far as need be, the re-creationof Native family and tribal life ; the distinctive Nativesystem which it envisages must draw iu inspirationvery largely from tribalism ; and in (he way of thatthere is a very serious obstacle, the fact that, as far asa considerable number of Natives are concerned,the policies of the past have led them very far awayfrom tribalism. Sarah Gertrude Millin has used theapologue of a journey. The black man has beencalled by the white man to accompany him. He hasarisen. He has left his savage life behind him. Nowhe is on the road, travelling in the shadow of thewhite man, carrying his chattels. And for a time thewhite man has been glad to have the black manwith him, glad to have him carrying his burdens whilehe is left free to exult in the air and lun of Africa.But the time comes when the difficulties of the.journeyincrease, and food runs short, and the white man come*to be resentfully conscious of the creature with himwho is making demands on him for sustenance,conscious also of the possibility that he may demanda still larger share of the available provisions, and inthe end attack his master in order to obtain it. Atthe last he would fain be rid of his companion, forcehim back upon dependance on himself, despatch himagain to the home from which he called him. Butthe breach with the old life is too complete, the roadalready traversed is too long, and, for all the wishing*of the white man that he had never called the blackman, there is now no going back upon the road —white man and black man must needs travel alongtogether. Put concretely, the position is just thisThere is lo-day a considerable class of educated andsemi-educated Natives. Many of them have risen to.or at least made advances tDwurds, a Lurcipeanstandard. They have been educated on Europeanlines, they have been trained !•> think and feel likeEuropeans. Here on the Witwntcrsrand. at least,there is no need to stress the fact. And tu-day it isno longera question of a fcwcducatcJ Native agitator*.It is a large and rapidly increasine class with which

35

••.-i'li'^ • '

we hare to deal, a class permeated with ideas of life —and that because of our own direct or indirect en-couragement in the past — ideas of life which make itimpossible to fit them into the scheme of the segrega-tionist by forcing them back upon the life of the kraal.If the policy of differential development had beenfollowed logically and completely from the outset,these men would to-day no doubt be taking theirplace as leaders in the distinctive development oftheir people. Hut, as things are, in this respect also,the time is past for the full application of that policy :it is now too late.

The policy of constructive segregation may havebeen a practicable one for (he last generation. In ourown we can only apply it in bits and fragments : thechance of using it is (solution of the problem is lost.

Conclusions

The time has come for me to sum up the con-clusions to which our process of analysis has led us.We have rejected identity and repression as lines ofapproach to the Native problem ; we hive choseninstead the category of difference, starting out withthe necessity for the frank acceptance by both sidesof existing differences as facts. That is after all theessence of segregation, and so we have sought tofollow up the segregationist line of approach. Andthe result has been that, on the basis even of the mostmodest form of that policy that can still be calledsegregation, we have found our advance impeded, oarroad blocked, as a result of the policies and the lackof policy of the past. We have found that, naturaland logical and right though the policy ofdifferentiationmay be, we cannot give it full application. We havefound that there are obdurate facts of which we musttake account — the unwillingness of the white manto pay the price of 'segregation, and the existence of agreat company of Europeanized detribalized Nativesin our midst.

What then follows > I think our analysis hasshown us, that there is in fact no clear-cut approachto the Native problem, leading to a definite anddeterminable solution. And that being so, we mustbe content with a partial vision of the goal, followingin fsith and patience such gleams of light as are atpresent vouchsafed to us, hoping that fuller enlighten-ment nil) in time reward our faith. And if we areindeed satisfied with that limited objective, thenI think the analysis of the more ambitious solutionsthat I have made this evening will be of value to us,as suggesting two wayi in which some measure ofprogress can be attained.

Development in Native AreasFirst there is the conception of distinctive Native

development in Native areas, which is fundamentalto the policy of constructive segregation. It is only,as we have seen, of partial applicability, but it nonethe less merits application in so far as it is possibleto do so. It was the emphasis on Native developmentthat gave its chief value to the report of the NativeEconomic Commission to which I have alreadyreferred —and perhaps I should here interpolate that* great deal more is being done to-day, unobtrusively,unspectacularly, by the administrative action of ourNative Affairs Department, to promote that work ofdevelopment than is commonly realized. The Com-mission emphasized the desperate urgency of thelaunching of a progressive policy for the saving ofthe Native reserves from the imminent danger ofthe creation of desert conditions, and in this connectionused graphic language in regard to the race betweenthe enlightement of the Native and the completedestruction of his land. And, at the same time, itdwelt with all the force at its command on the factthat there is no threat to the white community inthe development of the Native ; that indeed theorderly march of the Native population to civilizationwill be to the benefit, not to the detriment, of theEuropean. The Commission indeed went so far as tospeak of a South African "nation, white as well asblack" — i phrase which is strong meat indeed tomost South Africans. But whether we like the phraseor not, the essential point of the inter-dependence ofEuropean and Native economic interest remains. Weshall never permanently secure the wealth and pros-perity of the white nun by keeping the black man poorand depressed. That is a lesson that cannot be em-phasized sufficiently in South Africa. And perhapswhen we have learnt it, the prevalent fear-complexwill begin to disappear.

Permanency of Urban NativesThe second point that emerged from our analysis

is the necessity of recognizing the class of detribalisedurban Native as a permanent factor, of acceptingthe members of that class as co- workers in the building-up of South Africa's economic life, and of showingpractical sympathy with their aspirations for condi-tions in which better living is possible. It is, of course,to be anticipated that the operation of the NativeTrust created by this year's legislation, and thedevelopment of reserves and other Native areas, willhelp toward the realization of those aspirations,that they will draw off from the towns those casualworkers, whose competition to-day tends to depress

J6

the conditions of work and pay of the urbanizedNative, who has no marginal subsistence in thereserves to fall back upon. But it still remai ns necessaryto regard those Natives of this class who will remainin the towns as permament participants in the whiteman's economy, to promote their development andadvance no less than that of the tribal Natives, andto envisage their training in methods of greaterefficiency with, as an inevitable result, the paymentof higher wages. This last, let it not be overlooked,will be to the interest and not to the detriment ofthe white man, for it is the low scale of Native wageswhich is helping to depress the economic status ofmany Europeans to-day.

Harmonising of InterestsI have emphasized these two things — develop-

ment of Native areas, sympathy with the economicaspirations of the residual urban Native — as waysin which some measure of progress towards thesolution of the Native problem can be made. May Inow recall the way in which I formulated that problemat the outset — how best European and Native maylive together in peace and harmony in the samecommunity. And the conclusions at which we wouldteem to have arrived this evening may, I think, besummarized as being that, if we would rightly approachthe Native problem, we must first conceive of it as aproblem of living together in a single community,and then advance toward! it along the path in whichit will be easiest to overcome the economic andpsychological obstacles which hamper progress. Andif the conception of living together in this sense isadopted, it will tend to take our minds away from

| questions of rights, questions of superiority andinferiority : it will enable us rather to concentrate onthe thought of the contributions which the two elementscan severally make to the welfare of the communityas a whole. Dr. Aggrey once used the simile of thewhite notes and the black notes on the piano to em-phasize the point that each of the two races has itscontribution to make to the world's harmony. Andthat is certainly applicable also in. respect of SouthAfrica's economic progress.

Progress and Racial IntercourseI would not appear to minimize the difficulties,

the obstacles in the line of approach of which I havebeen speaking. There are those who will ask thequestion : but will not the development of the Native,the encouragement of his economic advance, leadinevitably to social equality ? ; and what of the inter-marriage and race-mixture which may be expectedto result ? In relation to this last specific point there

b, I think, little real ground for fear. A competentobserver has recently declared after a visit to theUnited States that "it was instructive to find somany signs that repression is being more and moreabandoned, that it is becoming more generally realizedthat the only way to avoid or delay intermixture —and intermixture seems very definitely on the declinein America — is to help the Negroes develop theirown race-consciousness, and to do everything possibleto make it attractive for them to stay Negro". Thereis statistical evidence from our own land which pointsin the same direction. It is in the Cape Provincethat Native policy has been most broadly sympatheticand that, on the whole, most has been done forNative development. I have taken out some figuresin respect of the last available three year period whichI ask you to consider. In the Cape the number ofoffences against the Immorality Act was 3.2 perhundred thousand of the Native population. In therest of the Union there were 6.4 such offences perhundred thousand—twice as many. In the Cape thefigure for crimes of violence with sexual intent cora-committed by Natives against Europeans was .6 perhundred thousand. In the rest it was 2.4 per hundredthousand—four times as high. The danger, on theaocial side, is decreased, not increased, by the pursuitof a policy calculated to stimulate the pride, the self-esteem, and the race-consciousness of the Nativepeoples.

There is, then, as far as this matter of race-mixture is concerned, little ground for fear in respectof the policy of Native development. But apprehensionin other respects may well be regarded as not withoutjustification. Certainly the approach to the Nativeproblem which I have been adumbrating does callfor vision, and imagination, and faith in no smalldegree. Whether in fact it will ensure the white man'sposition in South Africa, will make Suuth Africa safefor European civilization, who shall say ? This atleast one can say, that there is no Native policy ofwhich that can be predicted with confidence, andthat, to the only logically complete alternative policywhich to-day could really be described as practicable,the policy of repression, there attach danger? whichwill almost certainly be far greater. There can beno certainty, no assurance for the future, but if weneeds must be content to regard our Native problemas one in which finally is not yet possible of attainment.one in regard to which we can but advance one stepat a time, as the light may lead us, if in other wordsit is in faith that we must go forward, at least we haveground enough to "hold fjst the profession of ourfaith without wavering".

37

Triumph of Faith over Fear

It is on the note of faith and confidence thaiI would close. The problem of which I have been•peaking presents to this snull nation of ours a cruellysevere test. But when I have regard to our nation'spast history, when I see in that history proof at once

of the fundamental soundness of its instinctivereactions in time of crisis and of its genius for con-structive statesmanship, 1 have confidence that itwill in this matter also, in the long nin, not be foundwanting. And the measure of its success wilt be itscapacity to make faith triumph over fear.

EDUCATION AND RACE ATTITUDES*by ]. D. RHEINALLT JONES

The growing intensity of our racial problems hasin recent years forced public attention upon them,and there has been in consequence more generaldiscussion of these problems than in curlier years,and also there has been more extensive study of them.Not the least of these problems is the question of thepsychological relations between the various groups.More extensive racial contact has led to uncertainty,as to the proper behaviour between group and group,and between individuals from different groups,(e. g. Should a white man shake hands with a Native r)and also uncertainty as to what should be the attitudeof the ruling white group towards the Non-Europeangroups — in political, social and economic relation-ships. This uncertainty has led to friction, not onlybetween the European and Non-European groups,but also between sections of the White group whoseoutlooks and traditions differ in regard to racialquestions.

From time to time statements are made declaringnot only what the correct attitudes should be but alsowhat they actually are, but hitherto there have notbeen available any reliable data in regard to thelatter. Bruno Lasker's Race Attitudes in Children,which embodied the results of a study made in theUnited States, has had no counterpart in SouthAfrica, and consequently every statement describingthe racial attitude of any group has been based upongeneral rather than specific evidence. And yet noattempt at the harmonising of the racial situation inSouth Africa can go very far without sound knowledgeand understanding of the situation itself, and espe-cially a properappreciation of the psychological factor*in that situation.

A beginning in this direction has been made byDr. I. D. MacCrone of the Department of Psychologyof the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,who has recently conducted investigations with a viewto testing the reactions of the South African-bornWhite group to the Bantu. The results are presentedin a typescript volume which 1 sincerely trust willfind publication shortly, and Dr. MacCrone hasgenerously placed the volume at my service for thisaddress, in which I propose to make use of Dr. Mac-Crone'* findings to assist me in considering the partwhich education should play in the harmonising ofrace relations in South Africa.

Dr. MacCrone conducted five separate enquiries,and these are described by him in close detail andtreated mathematically. In this address I can onlydeal with the material sufficiently to bring out thefact* a* to racial attitude*.

The first enquiry was directed to measuring, bymeans of a graduated scale, the varying degree* ofracial feeling, favourable and unfavourable, amongEuropeans toward* Natives. The second wa* aneffort to examine the attitudes of certain White group*towards other groups, both Whites and Non-Whites,and to see to what extent the result* could be correlatedwith the attitudes towards the Native group revealedin the first study. The third was a test of fair-minded-ness in relation to attitude towards the Native. Thefourth study wa* a preliminary survey of the factor*which, either at the conscious or the near-consciouslevel of the mind, affect the beliefs and reaction* ofWhites in respect of Native*. The last was a wordassociation test. '

* An *.ddre» delivered before the Annuel Conference of the NiUl Teschen Sodetf it Durbtnon July 31 it, 1936. The iddfeMU hued upon the unpublhhed result! of • itudy on Rice Attitude* by Dr. I. D. MacCrorw. Profator of Psychology «t tt»Univeriity of the Witwitenrend, Johinnerimrf. It ti hoped thsl Dr. MtcCrone*« theit* win be pubtbhed *>hort1v»

38

R.$*i.

It should be realised that the tests were imposedupon Whites only, and that no tests have so far beenapplied to Non-Whites.

I. SCALE MEASUREMENT

As a result of fairly exhaustive preliminary tests,a series of 30 questions, covering, as far as the in-investigatorcouldjudge.the whole gamut of favourableand unfavourable attitudes, arranged haphazardly butdesigned to bring into grades the feeling for or againstthe Native in the minds of the subjects, the gradingbeing effected by classifying the replies in accordancewith the following step intervals or scores :CT8F INTERVAL CLASS ATTITUDE TOWAHDS THE NATIVE

9 2—3 1. Very strongly favourable3—4 2. Strongly favourable4—5 3. Favourable5—6 4. Ambivalent6—7 S. Unfavourable7—8 6. Strongly Unfavourable8—9 7. Very strongly unfavourable

The following were some of the statements: —1. / consider that Ike Native it only fit ta do the

"dirty" oork of the While community.2. The idea of contact with the black or dark thin

of the Native excites horror and. disgust in me.5. I think Ike Nittia:, if he were given the chance,

would prove to be just at good as the \Vhite man.13. / do not think that we ought to help the Native

until all the White people who are in need havebeen helpei.

B 18. / consider that the Nitive his been unjustly de-deprived if hit country by the White man.

28. / admire the Native for his many good qualitiesand would tike to see him given an opportunityof developing them.

30. The fad thit the Native had developed no civili-sation on his own to speak of before the White manarrhed in this country, is to my mind mire thansufficient pr.ttf of his inmte inffrioritv.

The first groups examined consisted of thefollowing first ye-ir S'j'.it'i African born students atthe University of the Witw.Uersrand, Johannesburg: —

TOTALEnglish-speaking South Africans M. 141 F.64 205Afrikaans •• • - M. 74 F.26 100Jewish •• • •• M. 77 F.34 111

-<!>'•>>

i. e. between 60 and 70% of the total number offirst year students, and including those taking coursesin the faculties of Arts, Science, Engineering andMedicine.

At this predominantly English-speaking Uni-versity, the Jewish student body represents a largerproportion than the Jewish population of the Union,while the Afi ikaans-speaking students represent asmaller proportion than the Dutch section of thepopulation uf the Union. To restore the balance tosome extent, and also to provide groups whoseresults would serve as a control over those obtained atJohannesburg, it was considered advisable to go out-side the University and apply the teat to studentselsewhere. For that purpose the test was also appliedin Afrikaans to the students of the PotchefstroomChristian University College, where there are noJews, and which is almost entirely if not wholly anAfrikaans institution. The test was also applied tostudents at the Rhodes University College,Grahams-town, where there are only a few Jews and which isalmost, though not quite, English-speaking. Potchef-stroom draws its students largely from the ruralAfrikaans-speaking population of the Transvaal, whilethe students at Grahamstown come mainly from theEastern Province of the Cape, which, in view of itslong tradition of Kaffir wars and close contacts betweenEuropean and Dantu at the present time, might beexpected to provide some interesting results.

Now, at Johannesburg, the students were all inthe first few weeks of their first year, before they hadbeen influenced greatly by the teaching and life atthe University. They were thus the products ofthe schools, and their reactions might be held toreflect the results of the education in the schools.On the other hand, they could not be regarded astypical of the population as a whole, since theyrepresented a portion of a selected section whichreceives University education. Their attitudes how-ever, have special significance, since from amongthem are likely to be drawn those who will influencethought most in the future.

The students at Potchefstroom and Grahamstownwho took the lest included second and third yearstudents, whose views may have been modified by,and could perhaps be said to reflect the currentfeclins, at the University concerned. The numbersdealt with were : —

Potchefstroom M. 72 F.48 Total 120Oraharmtown M. 33 F.M Total 9n

Total : 416 Total 216

39