gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 370
CONFIRMING PAGES
C H A P T E R
23
African Struggles
for Independence
After World War II Africa moved from a collection of colonies to a diverse group of
AFRICAN NATIONS
GAIN INDEPENDENCE
370
independent states. As in Asia, most European colonial nations, their strength eroded
by two world wars, no longer had the military or economic power or even the will
to hold on to their empires in the face of mounting nationalist pressure. In Africa,
nationalist struggles for independence were usually impeded or undercut by the complex mosaic of differing ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities, which made
unification difficult. Frequently, as in West Africa, differing ethnic and religious groups
had been grouped together under one imperial power. The artificial national boundaries drawn by the European powers, often without regard to local populations,
became the borders of newly emerging nation-states whose fragile governments then
had to deal with the problems of unification and cooperation among heterogeneous
populations. For example, in Nigeria and the Sudan, two of the largest African nations,
regional differences between the largely Islamic north and Christian or animist south
caused resentment, threatened to destroy the federated structure of the republic, and
sometimes led to civil wars.
During the years of imperial domination rapid industrialization, urbanization,
and increased contact with Western technology and culture caused radical alterations
in the traditional patterns of African society; these changes accelerated the various
movements toward independence. Members of most African nationalist movements
came from diverse social and economic groups, including professionals such as
lawyers, doctors, and teachers; urban workers; and peasant farmers. Although these
groups had different economic goals, they were unified by their common desire for
independence and greater roles in the political and economic sectors of their nations.
As the peoples of Africa loudly demanded control over their own political and economic destinies, it became evident that the small number of Europeans living in northern and eastern Africa could not hold back the forces favoring national self-determination.
By 1963 virtually all of the northern two-thirds of Africa was independent. In southern
Africa, however, white minorities still clung to power (see Chapter 30).
The struggle for independence took different forms throughout Africa. In some
cases, as in Tunisia, Morocco, and Uganda, the imperial powers granted independence
under predetermined conditions. In Libya the United Nations played a key role in establishing an independent political entity. In these instances, Africans secured independence with a minimum of bloodshed. In other areas, where there were well-entrenched
European white settlers or where the imperial powers were determined to maintain
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 371
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
CONFIRMING PAGES
Mediterranean Sea
TUNISIA
MOROCCO
(1956)
Suez Canal
(1956)
ALGERIA
Occupied by
Morocco
(1962)
EGYPT
LIBYA
(1922)
(1951)
WESTERN
SAHARA
MALI
(1960)
SENEGAL (1960)
THE GAMBIA
ea
(1960)
dS
MAURITANIA
NIGER
(1960)
(1960)
BURKINA FASO
(1960)
ERITREA
(1993)
CHAD
(1965)
GUINEA
(1960)
Re
Aswan Dam
SUDAN
(1956)
NIGERIA
DJIBOUTI
(1979)
(1960)
SIERRA
LEONE
BENIN
CENTRAL
IVORY
(1960)
AFRICAN
COAST GHANA
(1961)
(1957)
R E P . (1960)
LIBERIA (1960)
TOGO
CAMEROON
(1960)
(1960)
GUINEABISSAU
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
(1974)
(1968)
CONGO
RWANDA
REP.
GABON
SÃO TOMÉ AND PRINCIPE
(1962)
(1960)
(1960)
(1975)
ZAIRE
(1960)
CABINDA
(Angola)
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
ETHIOPIA
SOMALIA
UGANDA
(1962)
(1960)
KENYA
(1963)
BURUNDI
(1962)
TANZANIA
(1961)
ANGOLA
(1975)
MALAWI
(1964)
Date of independence
E
ZAMBIA
U
(1964)
Scene of civil war
BOTSWANA
(1966)
A
Z
(1990)
O
ZIMBABWE
(1980)
NAMIBIA
MADAGASCAR
(1960)
M
Guerrilla warfare to
achieve independence
(1 M
97 B
5) I
Q
(1960)
COMOROS
(1975)
Africa after World War II
Border in dispute
S W A Z I L A N D (1968)
Nations suffering from
drought, 1970s onward
500
1000 Miles
KENYA
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
MAURITANIA
(1960)
(1976)
(1961)
COMOROS
(1975)
SENEGAL
(1960)
T H E G A M B IA
zam
biq
ue
l
Ch
MOZAMBIQUE
(1975)
Mo
SIERRA LEONE
(1961)
INDIAN
OCEAN
MAYOTTE
(Fr.)
(1965)
GUINEA-BISSAU
(1974)
GUINEA
(1960)
Chagos
Archipelago
(U.K.)
SEYCHELLES
TANZANIA
ne
CAPE
VERDE
ISLANDS
(1975)
(1963)
an
0
INDIAN
OCEAN
L E S O T H O (1966)
REPUBLIC
OF
SOUTH AFRICA
MADAGASCAR
(1960)
RÉUNION
(Fr.)
MAURITIUS
(1968)
371
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 372
372
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
CONTRASTING FRENCH
AND BELGIAN POLICIES
CONFIRMING PAGES
WAR IN ALGERIA
control, the struggles for independence were protracted and often violent. In Algeria
and Kenya, and later throughout much of southern Africa, African nationalists were
forced to resort to guerrilla warfare and armed attacks against the imperial powers.
These guerrilla wars, or “wars of liberation,” as they were often known in the Third
World, followed the same pattern as that in Vietnam (see Chapter 28).
Just as the imperial powers had differed in their approaches to their African
empires, so, too, did they adopt contrasting policies toward the newly independent
nations. Some, in particular France, attempted with notable success to maintain close
cultural and economic ties. Indeed, former French colonies remained economically
and linguistically tied to France decades after independence had been secured. Former
British possessions tended to adopt more independent approaches to economic and
cultural development. Others, most notably Belgium in the Congo, abdicated responsibility for their former holdings. A selective look around the African continent will
reveal in more detail how most of the colonies finally secured independence and how
the various European imperial powers approached their former colonies.
NORTH AFRICA: INDEPENDENCE
THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS AND WAR
In North Africa nationalist sentiments had gained enormous popular support by the end
of World War II. Libya secured its independence under King Idris through the auspices
of the United Nations. The traditional monarchy of King Idris was overthrown by a military coup led by Muammar al-Gadhafi in 1969. By the end of the 1970s, huge petroleum
revenues transformed Libya from one of Africa’s poorest nations into one of its richest.
Neither Tunisia nor Morocco was considered an integral part of France, and few
Europeans had settled in either country; consequently, France was much more willing
to grant these colonies independence than neighboring Algeria. In the face of a
groundswell for national liberation, France in 1956, after limited struggles, granted independence to Tunisia under Habib Bourguiba and to Morocco under King Mohammad
V. Both Bourguiba and Hassan II, Mohammad’s son, continued to rule into the 1980s.
In contrast, in order to obtain their independence, the Algerians, led by the
National Liberation Front (FLN), fought a bloody war (1954–1962) against the French,
who were unwilling to give up what the government had for a century considered an
integral part of France. The French colons, who were about 10 percent of the Algerian population, were particularly vociferous and determined to keep Algeria as part
of France. They even went so far as to establish their own secret army to fight the
Algerians and those French who supported independence. The FLN used attacks on
urban centers populated by the colons and other guerrilla warfare tactics similar to
those employed in Vietnam; these included hit-and-run tactics and what has been
called the “bombs in a basket” approach, whereby women and children would carry
out attacks on the colons and the French military. The French retaliated by bombing
villages, removing families from the countryside, and in some instances torturing
Algerian suspects. General de Gaulle, who came to power in France in 1958, concluded that France could not win the struggle and should negotiate a settlement. After
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 373
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
protracted negotiations, continued violence within Algeria, and assassination attempts
on de Gaulle, Algeria finally achieved independence in 1962. After independence most
of the colons left Algeria and settled in France or Spain. The Algerian war cost a million Algerian deaths and thousands of French casualties. In many ways, it divided
French society much as the Vietnam War later divided U.S. society.
Following independence, Algeria was in the vanguard of the revolutionary Arab
states, but it later established friendlier relations with the United States. Although Algeria had substantial revenues from its petroleum resources, it also faced enormous economic problems. Unemployment was high among its youth, who, as in many of the
newly independent nations, formed a large sector of the total population. All of France’s
former North African imperial holdings retained close economic ties with the former
imperial power, with the majority of their imports and exports coming from and going to
France. By the 1970s Algeria had become a leader of the Third World, and it often played
a key role in mediating disputes between Third World nations and Western powers.
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
DECOLONIZATION IN WEST AFRICA
As indicated previously, western Africa, particularly the Gold Coast (Ghana), had been
in the forefront of African national movements. In 1949 Kwame Nkrumah formed his
Convention People’s Party (CPP) to demand “self-government now.” Strikes and boycotts, accompanied by some violence, were directed against the British administration.
As a result, Nkrumah was imprisoned, but internal unrest persisted.
Great Britain was willing to give both Ghana and Nigeria independence because
(1) there were few or no white settlers in either country and (2) the British hoped
that the trained civil elite would retain close economic and political ties with the
former imperial power. Thus, in 1957 the British agreed to grant Ghana independence
under the leadership of Nkrumah; in the view of many African nationalists, Ghana’s
independence was the first step toward independence for all of black Africa, but by
1960 the Ghanaian constitution had become authoritarian. Along with seeking further
economic and educational development within Ghana, Nkrumah also portrayed himself as the leader of the Pan-African movement. As a result he incurred the enmity of
rival African leaders and, more important, alienated other Ghanaians who were more
concerned with economic development. Consequently, Nkrumah was overthrown by
a military junta in 1966. Attempts to return Ghana to stable civilian government met
with varying degrees of success, and as in so many newly independent nations in the
twentieth century, the army remained an important force. As a result of poor management and political instability, Ghana was plagued with economic problems, smuggling,
and profiteering.
In Nigeria, one of the largest and most populous African nations, the British
attempted to solve the problem of ethnic and cultural heterogeneity by forming a federated system that, in theory at least, was to give full local rights to the three main
ethnic groupings within the nation. However, riots in 1953 demonstrated the major
differences between the predominantly Muslim north and the predominantly Christian
Igbos in the southeast. Attempting to reconcile these differences, the British declared
373
INDEPENDENCE
FOR GHANA
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 374
374
CONFIRMING PAGES
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
After independence, Ghanaians proudly wore clothes
imprinted with pictures of their nationalist leader,
Nkrumah.
BIAFRAN CIVIL WAR
Nigeria an independent nation in 1960. The carefully prepared constitution called for
a federated nation, but the basic ethnic hostilities remained.
In 1967 the Igbos attempted to secede and to establish their own nation, which
they called Biafra. The civil war that followed was characterized by bloody violence
and extreme hardship; thousands died of starvation. The war dragged on until 1970,
when war-weary and often starving Biafrans surrendered and the military regime of
Colonel Yakubu Gowon reunited the nation. The Nigeria case demonstrated that
African leaders recognized the difficulties posed by national boundaries that often
grouped together under one government different and sometimes antagonistic ethnic,
linguistic, or religious communities. However, they also realized that redrawing
national borders could create even more complex and potentially violent problems.
As a result, the borders generally drawn by the Western imperial powers continued
as the borders of the independent nation-states.
In contrast to the British approach, the French tried to retain a close union with
their West African empire. As early as 1944, General de Gaulle had promised a French
union that would respect indigenous societies while creating a more highly centralized
version of the British Commonwealth. However, de Gaulle’s attempt to keep some degree
of French control over its empire failed to fulfill the national aspirations of West Africans.
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 375
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
B
I O G R A P H Y
Nigerian Women and Unions Demand Change
The meetings of the women . . . became galvanized by a new sense of urgency. Leaflets were
printed almost every other day on one subject
or the other.
Several women had spoken of their experience with the Tax Officers. The women’s
original resolution had been turned down, it
seemed, or simply ignored. At every meeting a
report was given about the course of the No
More Taxation demand. It was hardly necessary; reality was manifested in their continuing
harassment on the roads, in the markets, in
their petty businesses. These were recounted in
great detail, to cries of indignation. New texts
were drafted. New delegations were chosen.
The District Officer was bombarded with petitions, demands and threats. Mrs. Kuti had travelled to Lagos countless times and toured the
country to gain support for the women’s demands. At some point, much later, we heard of
the formation of the Nigerian Women’s Union.
The movement . . . begun over cups of tea and
sandwiches to resolve the problem of newlyweds who lacked the necessary social graces,
was becoming popular and nation-wide. And it
became all tangled up in the move to put an
end to the rule of white men in the country. . . .
Some young, radical nationalists were
being gaoled for sedition, and sedition had become equivalent to demanding that the white
man leave us to rule ourselves. New names
came more and more to the fore.
A new grouping was preparing to visit
England. . . . They would demand, not just
higher institutions for all the colonial countries, but an end to the white man’s rule.
Their people were going around the whole
country to collect money for this purpose.
The Women’s Union threw its forces behind
the efforts. Concerts were held. We surrendered our pocket monies, knowing somehow
that even our half-pennies mattered in the
great cause.*
...
In his account of growing up during the years of
mounting nationalist demands for independence,
the Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka describes the
optimism and nationwide support the independence movement in the 1940s and 1950s enjoyed
from all levels of society. In Nigeria women were
often traders and merchants, and, as indicated
here, they were in the forefront of the struggle for
economic and political changes. Nigerian unions
and students also played particularly important
roles in the nationalist struggle. After independence was achieved in 1960, Soyinka became an
outspoken critic of the military officers who took
control of the nation (see Chapter 32). Soyinka
was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in
1986, but in spite of his international renown he
was forced into exile during much of the 1990s.
*From Aké: The Years of Childhood by Wole Soyinka,
Copyright © 1981 by Wole Soyinka. Reprinted by permission
of Random House, Inc.
In spite of the considerable financial benefits they received from the French government, nationalists continued to press for independence. After World War II, Felix
Houphouet-Boigny played the leading role in forming a political alliance to fight for
the independence of the Ivory Coast. Joined by nationalists from other French colonies
in West Africa, the move triggered a series of violent confrontations. When de Gaulle
IVORY COAST
AND FRANCE
375
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 376
376
CONFIRMING PAGES
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
CLOSE TIES
WITH FRANCE
returned to power in 1958, he proposed holding a referendum whereby West African
nations could choose either to participate as autonomous units within a French union
or to achieve complete independence. In the 1958 referendum only Guinea, led by
Ahmed Sékou Touré, voted for complete political and economic separation from
France. Sékou Touré ruled Guinea until his death in 1984; subsequently, as in most
of West Africa, military officers took over the government but failed to restore civil
liberties or to revive the nation’s faltering economy.
By 1960, France had granted the rest of its West African colonies full independence. Some, such as Senegal under the noted poet Léopold Senghor, proved
remarkably stable. In the Ivory Coast, one of the most prosperous West African
nations, a lively artistic heritage, particularly in the fields of ceramics, weaving, and
metalsmithing, was continued and expanded. Other West African nations were
plagued by a spiral of military coups and countercoups. Indeed, military dictatorships
became the predominant political force in most of West Africa and in some ways
reflected traditional African respect for the “big man.” As Yukubu Gowan, the military president of Nigeria, emphasized, “The trouble with military rule is that every
colonel or general is soon full of ambition. The navy takes over today and the army
tomorrow.” Throughout Africa, military regimes were often able to put down regional
disputes and tribal conflicts, but the costs were high. Many smaller ethnic groups
were largely decimated by military leaders representing larger or more powerful forces.
Military rule also meant that disproportionate amounts of already strained budgets
were spent on armaments, high salaries for officers, and perks for the military.
Importantly, most former French colonies maintained fairly close economic and
cultural ties with France. In contrast, the former British colonies often went their own
ways and established economic ties with other outside nations. Through organizations
such as the Ghana-Guinea Union, some West African nations attempted to form a
nucleus for Pan-African unity on a continental scale. Nkrumah and Sékou Touré were
both champions of this ideal.
CHAOS IN ZAIRE
DIVISIONS IN
THE CONGO
All of the general patterns of African struggles for independence were apparent in the
Belgian Congo (later Zaire). There was some violence and bloodshed; the superpowers became involved, and the United Nations attempted to mediate the conflict.
Although both the British and the French had tried to prepare and to educate at least
an elite to take over the governments of new independent states, the story was quite
different in the Congo because Belgian paternalism had kept the Congo under rigid
controls. Much as they tried, however, the Belgians could not isolate the Congo from
the nationalist fervor of its neighbors. A number of local nationalist movements developed, including one based in Katanga led by Moise Tshombe and another led by
Patrice Lumumba.
In the face of growing nationalist sentiments, the Belgian government abruptly
announced Congolese independence in 1960. The new state was immediately threatened
by conflicting local rivalries. Tshombe announced the secession of the mineral-rich
Katanga province, and Lumumba called for the intervention of the United Nations.
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 377
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
Lumumba’s commitment to full political and economic independence alienated many
Western businesses and governments (including the United States), all of which
opposed his leadership. As a result, the Congo became the arena for some private companies and the superpowers to meddle in African affairs. Hired mercenaries further
complicated the situation. Finally, UN police actions in 1963 reunited Katanga with
the rest of the Congo, but the fighting continued even after the UN troops left in 1964.
After Lumumba’s assassination in 1961, the Congolese government was undermined
by military threats and political instability.
Following a coup supported by the United States and others, General Joseph
Mobutu, who had adopted a staunchly anti-Communist stance, became head of the
government in 1965. Mobutu proceeded to change the nation’s name to Zaire. He
increasingly ruled Zaire as his private fiefdom. Zaire used part of the capital earned
from the nation’s tremendous mineral wealth to build roads, lines of communication,
and educational facilities. However, Mobutu also allocated substantial portions of
Zaire’s economic wealth to the large army to quell rebellions by groups opposed to
his dictatorship. He also amassed a huge personal fortune. Thus Zaire remained more
divided and less wealthy than ever before.
MOBUTU TAKES OVER
PEACE AND WAR IN BRITISH EAST AFRICA
As in West Africa, the British moved toward granting uhuru (freedom) in East Africa
after World War II. Unlike West Africa, however, East African nations came to independence through war as well as through peace. Tanganyika, economically the least
developed of the British possessions in East Africa, secured its independence in 1961
after a decade of gradual steps toward autonomy. Unified with neighboring Zanzibar
in 1964, it became the Republic of Tanzania. Tanzania emerged as a one-party nation
led by Julius Nyerere’s Tanganyika African National Union (TANU). Nyerere, one of
Africa’s leading champions of state socialism, promptly initiated a series of grassroots
development projects aimed at increasing agricultural output and providing better
social services. China provided much technical and financial assistance for development, but most of the rural population remained poor.
In Kenya the move toward independence was complicated by the presence of
a white minority, mostly farmers in the Kenyan highlands. These white settlers, like
the colons in Algeria, were determined to keep their dominant position. In contrast,
the British government had embarked on a gradual program of increased selfdetermination based on multiracial cooperation that would also include the Indians,
Kenya’s other minority. These concessions failed to alleviate African grievances,
particularly among the Kikuyu, one of the largest of Kenya’s ethnic groups. The
Kikuyu had been the major victims of European colonizers, who had confiscated large
tracts of Kikuyu farmland in the highlands.
As white salaries and standards of living continued to rise, the economic
position of blacks deteriorated. The Kenya African Union under Jomo Kenyatta persistently demanded that these inequities be eradicated and that black people be given
a larger proportion of the important government positions. When these demands were
ignored, the independence movement became more radical.
377
CONFLICT IN KENYA
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 378
378
CONFIRMING PAGES
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
KENYATTA’S
LEADERSHIP
In 1952 the Kikuyu organized a national resistance group to fight for “land and
freedom.” Many of the attacks were directed against African collaborators with the
British and white settlers. Popularly known in the West as the Mau Mau, the organization was centered mainly in the countryside. Guerrilla warfare lasted from 1952 to
1956, but the actual number of assassinations and violent acts perpetrated against
Europeans by the Mau Mau was widely exaggerated in the Western media.
In an effort to destroy the Mau Mau, the British imprisoned Kenyatta. At least
10,000 Kikuyu died in the ensuing struggle. Once the British believed they had
militarily defeated the Mau Mau, they then moved to negotiate a political settlement
with Kenyatta, and Kenyan independence was proclaimed in 1963.
Kenyatta quickly emerged as the leader of a single-party state. Through a series
of political maneuverings, and with the advantages of relative economic prosperity
and his own charismatic appeal, he managed to unify the various Kenyan groups into
a fairly cohesive nation. While many of the white settlers left Kenya, some remained
as new Kenyan citizens. Under Kenyatta’s leadership, the Kenyan government
remained relatively stable and survived his death in 1978. Although the majority of
political power rested in the executive branch, Kenya was unusual in that it managed
to retain civilian government and a cohesive national identity even after the demise
of its first generation of nationalist leadership.
THE BLACK STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM
IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
Nationalism in Southern Rhodesia and the Portuguese Colonies
WHITE MINORITY
REGIME IN RHODESIA
In southern Africa, the Portuguese, led by the dictator Salazar, and the whitedominated regimes elsewhere in the area were far more determined to maintain their
supremacy than were the colonial powers in the rest of Africa. In Southern Rhodesia
(present-day Zimbabwe), for example, the white settlers announced their determination to retain their dominant political and economic position. On the other hand, the
British government sought to avoid problems in southern Africa by agreeing to grant
independence to Southern Rhodesia along the lines of equal representation. As British
prime minister Harold Macmillan noted on a visit to South Africa, “The wind of
change is blowing through [Africa], and whether we like it or not this growth
of national consciousness is a political fact . . . and our national policies must take
account of it.” Such an approach meant that the small white population would no
longer enjoy the position of privilege it had had under the old regime. The white
minority bitterly opposed the British plan and, in open defiance, unilaterally declared
its independence as the state of Rhodesia in 1965. With the exception of the whitecontrolled Republic of South Africa, no nations recognized the new Rhodesian
government under Ian Smith, and the United Nations declared an economic boycott
of Rhodesia. However, Rhodesian tobacco and minerals continued to be channeled to
Western markets, and the economic boycott seemed to have little effect.
As the pressure mounted, African states surrounding Rhodesia became involved.
South Africa assisted the Smith regime, while black African nations supported the
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 379
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
growing forces of revolutionary black Rhodesians. Armed insurrections became commonplace throughout the Rhodesian countryside. Great Britain, and later the United
States, tried to mediate the dispute and to reach a settlement based on equal black
participation in the government, with no success.
At the same time that Rhodesia was falling under siege, blacks in the Portuguese
colonies of Mozambique and Angola increased their pressure for independence.
The Portuguese dictators Antonio Salazar and Marcello Caetano refused to grant
independence or greater autonomy to the last vestiges of Portugal’s 400-year-old
colonial empire. In 1955 the Salazar regime actually attempted to extend its centralized control by referring to the colonies as “overseas provinces,” an approach that was
similar to the French concept of Algeria as an integral part of France. Just as the
concept of Algeria as French had failed, so, too, did the Portuguese attempts to incorporate its African colonies. Condemnations of Portuguese policies in Africa by the
United Nations were ignored. As a result of nationalist sentiments and Portuguese
repression, rebellion broke out in Angola and Mozambique in 1961 and 1964, and a
decade of war followed.
Racial Repression in the Republic of South Africa
Much of the struggle for independence in the southern third of Africa focused on the
Republic of South Africa. One of the richest and most strategically important African
nations, its society was still dominated by the conservative Dutch Afrikaners. During
World War II, many Afrikaners, who had long chafed under British domination and
attempts to liberalize the society, openly favored the Nazi regime. The Dutch Reformed
Church reinforced the Afrikaners’ philosophy of racial supremacy.
After the war, the Afrikaners in the Republic of South Africa enacted the policy
of apartheid, a system of strict racial segregation endorsed and enforced by the
government. By the early 1980s the apartheid system had legalized the dominance of
4.5 million white Africans over 800,000 Asians (mostly Indian shopkeepers), 2.8 million “colored” people (those of mixed racial origin), and 22 million black Africans,
restricting their civil rights and allowing them no political power. In addition, the
apartheid system called for complete segregation of the races in housing, education,
religion, and government. It separated black Africans from Asians, both of these from
colored Africans, and all three from the white population. In many cases it forced
families who lived in areas designated as white, colored, or black to move if they were
of the wrong color. Huge largely black townships developed around the outskirts of
largely white cities. Black people were permitted into these cities to work in industry or in white homes during the daytime, but they had to leave the cities during the
evening hours. They had to carry identification cards at all times; to be caught without a card or after curfew in areas designated as white meant possible imprisonment
or the loss of a pass to work in the cities, which meant unemployment and further
impoverishment. The Afrikaner government justified these repressive measures on the
grounds that they helped to suppress Communist activities.
In the decades after World War II, black society and white society moved further
and further apart. Landless black Africans began to seek jobs in the growing industrial
APARTHEID SYSTEM
379
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 380
380
CONFIRMING PAGES
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
B
I O G R A P H Y
Resisting Apartheid
A short while later [1953] my first ban was
served on me in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In comparison with my later bans
it was a mild affair. I was debarred from
entry into all the larger centres of the Union.
I was not allowed to attend public gatherings anywhere.
This last provision at once raised the
question of attendance at public worship.
My church took up the matter with the
Department of Justice and told me that while
they did not think that the police would interfere with my religious activities, I should
apply for permission to be present at public
worship.
ANC RESISTS
MANDELA’S
LEADERSHIP
In the winter of 1954, when the new
battery of ruthless laws was freshly in place
on the Statute Book, my ban expired. It was
not immediately reimposed. I suppose I was
being given a chance to go straight. I immediately misbehaved.*
...
Albert Luthuli, the grandson of a Zulu chief,
describes an episode in his struggle against
apartheid in South Africa. He was president of
the African National Congress and a leader in
the Pan-African movement. He was awarded the
Nobel Prize for Peace in 1961.
*From Let My People Go by Albert Luthuli. Copyright ©
1962 by William Collins Sons & Company, Ltd. Reprinted by
permission.
centers, which were profiting from South Africa’s great natural wealth in diamonds,
uranium, and gold. Here, too, skilled white workers held the highest-paying positions; black workers were given the lowest-paid jobs as manual laborers. Gradually,
all white Africans, even in unskilled jobs, were paid a higher wage simply because of
skin color.
The apartheid policy and the repressive tactics that accompanied it provoked
nonwhite leaders to resist. Initially, they stressed nonviolence after the pattern set by
Gandhi, who had spent part of his early life in South Africa. Numerous black leaders, including the Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Luthuli, were imprisoned. Others,
such as the white novelist Alan Paton, who was outspoken in his opposition to the
regime, were censored and placed under virtual house arrest. The African National
Congress (ANC), under Luthuli’s leadership, sought a unified and racially integrated
society in South Africa and led the struggle for nonviolent tactics and passive resistance against apartheid.
Black nationalists also initiated a series of strikes and demonstrations. These
culminated in the 1960 Sharpeville incident, in which police opened fire on the
unarmed crowd, killing dozens and wounding many. Condemning the ANC as
revolutionary, the white South African government declared the organization illegal in 1960. Nelson Mandela, one of the leaders of the ANC, evaded arrest but
was ultimately caught and tried under the Suppression of Communism Act. Mandela,
who was not a member of any Marxist party, and seven other nationalist leaders
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 381
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
were sentenced to life imprisonment. Mandela was finally released from prison in
1990, by which time he had become the symbol of black nationalism in southern Africa. When Great Britain and other members of the Commonwealth criticized apartheid and the repression of black nationalist leaders, the white South
African government retaliated by dropping its membership in the Commonwealth
in 1961.
To alleviate growing internal and international criticism, the South African government in 1966 announced the creation of Bantustans, or black states, within South
African territory. The Bantustans of Bophuthatswana and Transkei were, in fact, large
black reservations. Permits were required for black Africans to leave the Bantustans
and to go to any area designated as white. White South Africans argued that the
Bantustans were created as a logical extension of the apartheid principle of separate
development. However, the Bantustans were on only 13 percent of the total land area,
generally exceedingly poor, territorially fragmented, and dependent for communication and transport lines on white South Africa. Their foreign affairs were also
controlled by the South African government. In 1966, Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd,
a leading proponent of apartheid, was assassinated by a mentally disturbed Greek
immigrant, but his successors continued the system of government-sponsored racial
segregation. As hopes for concessions faded, black nationalists began to turn to
violence (see Chapter 30).
NEW MOVEMENTS TOWARD PAN-AFRICAN UNITY
Many African leaders, from Nkrumah to Nasser, saw Pan-Africanism, a concept born
between the wars, both as a means to improve standards of living and as a way to
give Africans more political and economic clout in the international arena. African
union was encouraged through various Pan-African conferences during the decades
of the 1950s and 1960s. The Bandung Conference in 1955 gave enormous impetus
to nonaligned movements in many African and Asian nations as they sought to steer
a neutral path between the Soviet Union and the United States in the midst of the
cold war. Similarly, the First World Congress of Black Writers and Artists, held in
Paris in 1956, was an important cultural event in bringing together English- and
French-speaking Africans. The next logical step was taken in May 1963, when representatives of the newly independent African states met in Addis Ababa and created
the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Much of northern Africa also considered
itself part of the Arab world, and leaders such as Nasser in Egypt argued that the
predominantly Muslim and Arab nations of Africa belonged to the circles of both
Arabism and Africanism.
However, in spite of their broad emotional appeal, both African and Arab unity
appeared to be a distant dream. African union was verbally championed by most
African leaders, but concrete attempts for unity generally failed, for a variety of political and economic reasons. Personal rivalries for dominant positions among conflicting African leaders also drove wedges between African nations. Most of the educational
institutions and economic relations of African states were plugged into Western
nations; there was very little, if any, economic interdependence that would facilitate
BANTUSTANS
381
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/3/06 10:06 Page 382
382
CONFIRMING PAGES
Part III The Era of the Cold War and the Collapse of Empires
Black South Africans are massacred at Sharpeville in 1960; in the aftermath, horse-mounted
police patrol the carnage.
the movement toward political union. Thus, economic rivalries heightened political
differences. The Western powers aggravated the differences among African states by
economic and political interference and sometimes by direct or surrogate military
interference, as in Zaire.
SUMMARY
With the notable exceptions of Algeria and Kenya, independence came relatively
peacefully in northern and central Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1960s all
western and eastern African nations had become independent. Many of these new,
struggling nations experienced political upheavals, and military dictatorships often
became the norm. In Zaire the particularly bloody conflicts were exacerbated by
superpower involvement.
In southern Africa levels of violence rose as colonial and white settler regimes
in the Portuguese colonies and Rhodesia clung to power in the face of growing African
discontent. The institution of apartheid widened the gulf between the races in South
Africa. The white minority remained determined to keep the black majority out of
the political system. In reaction to Afrikaner refusals to allow equality, black Africans
first used nonviolent methods to force changes, but, as the white minority clung to
power, black activists turned to violence.
Independent African nations were troubled with economic crises and persistent political instability, which often led to military interference. Attempts at union,
gof0692X_ch23_370-383 12/08/06 21:13 Page 383
CONFIRMING PAGES
Chapter 23 African Struggles for Independence
either political or economic, were impeded by cultural differences, outside interference, and political weaknesses.
SUGGESTED
SOURCES
Achebe, Chinua. No Longer at Ease. 1963. A historical novel, a sequel to Things Fall Apart, in
which the hero returns to Nigeria after living in Britain.*
Beinart, William. Twentieth-Century South Africa. 2nd ed. 2001. Balanced study of the long
struggle against apartheid.*
Fage, J. D. A History of Africa. 4th ed. 2002. Solid overview of colonial period and independence
struggles.*
From Congo to Zaire. A 52-minute video with extensive and rarely seen archival footage on
Belgian policies in Congo and the nationalist fights against them.
Gatheru, R. Mugo. Kenya: From Colonization to Independence, 1888–1970. 2005. Fulsome historic
study of Kenya and its independence movement.*
Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954–1962. 1970. A moving description of the
Algerian Revolution.* Also see the classic Gillo Pontecorno film, Battle of Algiers, on DVD.
Spear of the Nation: The Story of the African National Congress. 1986. Films for the Humanities
and Sciences. Focuses on the background and policies of the ANC during the liberation
struggle.
WEB
SOURCES
www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index.shtml.
Two excellent sites, each offering numerous links to materials dealing with Africa. See
especially the sections on both sites dealing with independence.
*Paperback available.
383