LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3.5 Missionary Functions and activities in South Africa
3.5.1 The Confiscation of the Land
To the African people. land was the economic base. whereas cattle were the visible sign of wealth or capital accumulation. Land also formed an inherent part of the African social structure. Land represented health and food. It was an agricultural base where food and herbs were obtainable. and a place where people could hunt game for fresh and dry meat supplies. It also represented political pO'vver. To be without land meant the loss of political power and political identity. Cochrane quoted Wilson to show how Africans without land are regarded:
With the settler conquest of the territories and the later introduction of individual tenure (signaled by the Glen Gray Act of 1894). the stratification of African society was insured on the basis of relationship of land. Cleavages exist between landowners or those with organized land rights. and 'squatters': and people from reserves generally look do\oyn on farm labourers as landless wanderers (cf. Wilson 1971).
It is clear here that the African community was being divided. Those that were
·squatters·. people from the reserves looked down upon the farm-labourers. who happened 10 stay on the land owned by the farmer. Farm-labourers owned no land. The land belonged to the farmer and Black people would only provide cheap-labour and sometimes free-labour. In other words. to be without land in Africa is a disgrace and you will be scorned by the people around you. It is so because if you are without land you are considered to be among the poor of the poorest. It would also mean that you are too lazy to clear a piece of land so that you may own it. He continues to explain the role of missionaries confiscating land from the African people. when he said that:
In this regard. she describes the significant role of missionaries. as
well as of Sir George Grey and Rhodes, in motivating the allotment of land under individual tenure. a major structural factor in altering pre-colonial economy (cf. Wilson 1971).
Many scholars today accept the view that missionaries were the advance agents of White imperialism and that they were greatly used, perhaps more than any other agent, in the process of annexing the land from the Africans. The missionaries were willing to co- operate in the 'Christianisation' and pacification of the African chiefs and their people not to resist the confiscation of their God given wealth. the land. They were willing to be used officially and unofficially as representatives of the most evil systems of their governments. Majeke explained the missionaries' role and co-operation with the imperialists in stealing the land. She noted how they used the Bible and the name of God in committing this sinful act that today has enriched the whole of the West, while the whole of Africa is baptized in poverty:
At the outset, the missionary approaches the chief humbly. Bible in hand and asks for a small piece of land to set up his mission station. At his heels hastens the trader, the purveyor of cheap goods. Thus the Bible and the bale of the Lancashire cotton become the twin agents of a revolutionary change. The peaceful penetration by the missionary and the trade - sometimes the missionary turned trader - is followed in due course by an
"agreement" between the chief and the Governor whereby the British became the "hiend and protector" of the chief. But this 'agreement' is actually the precursor of British interference. of war and looting of cattle. and it end \vith a so called 'treaty" in V\hich the chief 'agrees' to seizure of a large piece of land belonging to the tribe. 1n return. he receives a magistrate as well as a missionary, who is much less humble than he was when he first arrived to beg land of the chief. ow other missions stations are set up in the still uncharted territory and in their train come still more traders. their tin shacks sitting like squat spiders throughout the land. The invaded tribes are split asunder; 'divide and rule' under the capable hands of the missionaries carries on its deadly work of disruption. In the already conliscated territory large tracts of land are handed out to Dutch farmers or British settlers: there is unrest on the so called frontiers: the hungry people try to retrieve theft plundered cattle and the thieves accuse them of cattle-theft and send out destroying commandos to raid the sleeping villages.
They are joined by the military, who scour the country to keep order among the ·treacherous· tribes as the ofticial phrase has it.
Before long, gunpowder. fire and famine mark the next stage of conquest. Still larger tracks of land seized: the farmers cry out of labour and it is there for the taking; destitute Africans. robbed of their land, are being turned into cheap labour force. It is remorseless process. If for a time the policy of the British Government seems to dictate a halt in the rather costly business of war - for through it is a assegai against gun, the Africans are hard to subdue - these are always the Dutch (Trek Boers) to carry on with their land - grabbing. until. as a matter of principle. the British find themselves "reluctantly compelled" to annex the new territory in order to "protect the atives'·. Hypocrisy has always been one of British's most useful weapons.
Throughout all this period. more than half a century, the missionaries are at hand. preparing the way. disarming the chiefs with message of God's peace - at the same time the God of an all- powerful nation prepare to be their ·friend'. Thus they make easy the negotiations between the Governor and the chief: they act as Governor's advisers and assist in dravving the terms of the 'treaties'. They become interpreters 'peace-makers' while at the same time they are military advisers to the invaders. For they know the geography of the land better than the commanders themselves; on receiving permission from the chief to set up a mission stations they make it one of the task to explore the surrounding territory. There after. when it is time to consolidate the conquest. they become magistrates and self-styled chiefs till in fullness of time the sons of the missionaries become governors, magistrates and ministers of 'Native' Affairs the inheritors of conquest into the third and fourth generation (Majeke 1952:7-8).
Missionaries were the most used agents in the process of land confiscation, both by the British settlers, the Dutch and the farmers. They were the key in the hands of both settlers and the Dutch in opening up the door to the land of the African people. At first.
the land was for the missionary reserves and later it \·vas turned to the empire of settlers or farmers. Matshikiza set this point straight \\'hen he said that.
A successful empire builder lays down laws. Strongly supported by the army, the missionaries become dogmatic and tough with us.
We were dispossessed of large pieces of land which become by law 'missionary reserves' where only faithful and the proved 'followers' were allowed residents at the discretion of the missionaries concerned (Matshikiza 1963: 18.
Mission stations were also used by the imperialists as important centers for the transference of traditional land from Black people to the dominant Whites. The missionaries and the mission stations did more than any other agent and institution to provide the settlers and the farmers with land in South Africa. Peires made this point clear when he says that:
More concretely, the mission stations were seen as an invasion of the sovereignty of the chiefs. The mission people considered themselves British citizens under the protection of the British Government (Peires 1981: 145).
One other interesting account about the missionaries and the mission stations in relation to the issue of land is that. a time came in the Transvaal v,hen African people were not allowed to purchase land in their own names. This was according to the law of the Raad.
Because of this law, the common procedure for Africans to purchase land involved the missionaries. The African people would have to make use of a missionary as a 'dummy' purchaser (Segundo 1973 :200). othing in the history of South Africa demonstrates more vividly the impact of the West than the massi\'e confiscation of the land. A further strain on traditional patterns of land usage was the confiscation of large tracts of land as Crown land. This land was subsequently redistributed to the land hungry settlers. In NataL for example. when the Crown lands were given. colonists were assigned the richer and more cultivatable portions of land. They were also given more land, which was uncultivated and unoccupied, whereas the use of native population got a much smaller portion of the land. This land consisted of broken tracts which were over crowded. This simply illustrates that as early as 1882 tifty-five percent of the African people in atal were already either tenants on pri\"ate land or squatters on Crown land owned by the settlers (Cochrane 1987:27).
Whatever the complexity of the causes, the consequences were obvious. The traditional.
communal life. the pastoral structure of African life. gave way to a life of dependency the majority of the Afl·icans. They were compelled to forever look up to the White bosses and ecclesiastical benefactors for survival in their own land. The acquisition of the imperialist's manufactured goods has become the accepted mark and measure of
civilization and progress.
This section will not be complete without the mention of the Group Areas Act. In the history of South Africa, the Group Areas Act has probably caused more uncertainty.
anxiety, hardship and resentment than any other Act of law.
In 1913. soon after the formation of the Union. the Native Land Act was passed. Areas predominantly occupied by Africans were scheduled. Whites were prohibited from acquiring land in these parts. They \,vould not. anyhO\\:. \vant to buy property in these places because they mainly had poor soil. Africans were forbidden to acquire land from European rural areas outside the scheduled reserves. unless the Governor-General gave consent.
Then in 1950. the Group Areas Act was passed. This Act introduced many far-reaching changes for the Black population of South Africa. The main feature of this Act was to control all inter-racial changes in O\vnership and occupation of property. This also meant the Government of South Africa was empowered to decide where members of all different colours and racial groups should live. This included the Black population that had no power of the vote (Honell 1956:25).
These terrible Acts were obviously backed by the White Church in South Africa. It is right for one to say so. because many of the White population of South Africa. Christians included, benefited from these Acts. They also justitied what the government was doing.
The Group Areas Act was followed by 'forced removal'. Forced removal is the whole process of dispossession of African people. 'vvhich is at the heart of the history of South Africa. Hard labour and migrant workers were created through the poverty. which resulted from their loss of land. Black people \-vere forced to leave their homes and work under harsh conditions dictated by the development of capitalism in South African which was driven and directed by the government and the Church (Unterhalter 1987:2).
3.5.2 The Economics of Segregation by Colour
Almost everywhere around the world Black people are suffering. What wrong have they done that White people have so perfectly done. Black people are poor in America. in Australia and in Africa. If they v.ere poor only in America one would argue that it is because they are in a foreign land. where they found themselves against their own will. It could be further said that they are also a minority group. But ",.. hen it comes to Africa, these arguments do not apply. Black people are the majority and they are in their motherland and not fatherland. It is 'motherland' because ifs the place of their origin.
Their fathers did not have to fight for the occupation of Africa. What makes one worried is that Blacks are poor in foreign lands and poor at home. When one looks at America and Africa both countries are rich with food. water and minerals. Also, in both countries in general. Black people live at a much lower standard of living than their White counterparts. Hutt opens his thesis by asking thought provoking questions:
Why do the non-White peoples of the world today enjoy a much lower average standard of material well-being than the White people? The answer is compounded of history. climate. custom.
powerful inertias. insecurity for investment. and legislative balTiers to employment. How far can their inferior economic status be said to be caused by natural handicaps and how far by injustice at the hands of White people (Hut! I 964:9)?
Hutt continues to say that he attributes 'injustice' to any policy or action which is intended to perpetuate the inferiority of material standards or status of any racial group.
The inheritance of inferior circumstances or status cannot be regarded as 'unj ust". except to the extent to which First World or developed countries deliberately withhold opportunities from the under-develop or Third World countries or economic colonized peoples.
It is interesting that he sees the church playing a significant role in perpetuating the inferior status of Black people. who are poor. not because they are lazy or because of a natural handicap with their land but because Whites have been privileged over their Black fellow citizens. One is right to argue along this line because South Africa is full of
resources. He says that we must be just in evaluating the .past" . Although we may deplore the era of slavery and colonization. we must al'vvays remember that it was not
"condemned by the religious" system or its representatives. who existed at that time and benefited from it (Hun 1964:9-10).
Black people's poverty is directly linked to their heritage of colonization. In his book . Who am J' Blackie Swartz makes a helpful comment showing that poverty is man-made or orchestrated, especially in the South African situation. Tt is interesting that Swartz in his comment also realizes the role of White Christians in perpetuating the Black people's poverty. Unfortunately many of those who are at an advantage fail to realize this.
As a result of these restrIctions. the majorIty of Black people became poor. Because of the sub - standard of Bantu Education they could not achieve the same level of education and today sixty percent of the older people are still illiterate. They could only work as labourers doing manual work. that is. if they were fortunate enough to get a job. Though facilities are open to all at present. most people of colour do not earn enough to send their children to good schools outside of the townships. The Apartheid system ensured that townships 'vvere always far removed from the White areas and this also from the economic hub of society. The Black people who earn the lowest income have to spend the most on transport just to get to their places of employment. Although the common argument is that times have changed, the legacy of poverty has been carried over to this generation.
I have ministered in churches in the townships where I knew that some members of the congregation had not even had a cup of coffee that morning and possibly no meal the previous evening.
Yet they came to rejoice and praise the Lord. When I preached about the goodness of God and His beautiful provision, I wondered how these poor hungry people could understand and accept the message. I realized that we, as whites. would have to begin to walk in our brothers' shoes to be able to bring the gospel across more effectively (Swartz 2001 :68).
Swartz is a White South AtI-ican Christian who sees and admits that the Church in South Africa has played a significant role in segregating the Black population from their White brothers. not only racially. but also economically. The legacy of poverty will sadly
influence the lives of Black people for many years to come. It is unfortunate that the majority of White South African Christians have not yet realized that they are living in better suburbs. occupying better positions. driving better cars and earning better salaries because of Apartheid laws that discriminated against the Blacks. If they have not realized this truth. how will they acknowledge their part as Swartz has done? How will they walk in their brothers and sisters' shoes of poverty?
Majeke add to what Swartz says by pointing out the missionaries' role in this regard:
Likewise the 'emancipation' of the colonial slaves, together with Christianizing him had nothing to do with his liberation, but on the contrary, his enslavement. It was part of a worldwide historical movement, the expansion of capitalism. . ..It is against this background of vast economic forces that the influx of missionaries to the colonies acquires meaning. The missionaries came from a capitalist Christian civilization that unblushingly found religious sanctions for inequality, as it does to this day, and whose ministers solemnly blessed its wars of aggression (Majeke 1952:4).
The missionaries' acceptance of inequality amongst the people of South Africa can explain a great deal about the origins of the discriminatory employment politics that developed in this country. This led to a situation where the South African labour market got split. The conditions under which the one group was working. that is the Black population became cheaper and easily exploited by the White minority population. [n that prevailing situation, the White workers fought to maintain their existing privileges within the industrial economy of the country. The end result of this was what is called a 'split labour market" by Bonacich. He said that:
... ethnic antagonism tirst germinates in a labor market split along ethnic lines. To be split. a labor market must contain at least two groups of workers whose price of labour differs for the same work.
or would differ if they did the same work. Racial or ethnic antagonism is thus aroused by a three - cornered struggle between capitalists desiring the cheapest possible labor. workers of dominant ethnic group who resist being undercut or displaced by cheap labor from minority or subordinate group. and the alien newcomers who are struggling to find a niche in the economy (Bonacich 2000:553 - 554).