19 April 1986: Pass Laws Abolished!

Note (20 May 2022):  During the Apartheid era, South Africa’s pass laws regulated the movement of black people within the country.  Although a succession of these laws dated back to the 18^th Century, the Natives Act of 1952 set up a national system requiring Black South Africans to carry a passbook, similar to a passport, but also including employment and criminal records.  Blacks needed a stamp in their passbook (similar to a visa) in order to work, travel through, or be present in a particular white area.  A black person caught without a passbook with the correct stamps was subject to arrest and jail time. 

 

19 April 1986, 8:20 AM, home of Mavis and Bill Urmson, Lombardy East, Johannesburg

News flash!  Bill Urmson just told me of the announcement that South Africa’s pass laws have been abolished!  The government had planned to scrap them in July but they moved up the date to yesterday.  Bill is pleased that the government is ahead of schedule because he feels this will get South Africa some badly-needed “good will” from the world community.  He is personally relieved because the Urmson’s maid, Chloe, had been here illegally without a pass.  As Chloe’s employer, Bill would have been subject to a 500 rand fine if she had been caught, and she probably would have been put in jail or sent back to Transkei (her “homeland”).  According to Bill, all pass law violators are being released from jail, and all pending pass law court cases have been dropped.  

                                  South African police inspect the passbooks of two black men, circa 1960.                                                                      Source:  https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/pass-laws-south-africa

What does this all mean for South Africa?  Can abolition of the Group Areas Act (which mandates racial housing segregation) be next?  The government must now realize they have no alternative to significant changes if continued violence or even revolution is to be avoided.  It was the mass handing in of passbooks at a police station that sparked the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960.  And now, 26 long years later, the hated passbook is gone.  Will this change take some of the wind out the sails of black protestors?  Will there be a right-wing backlash?  Is there a chance that this continuing liberalization, while denounced by many as token change, will enable whites to hold on to power a bit longer?   

In the meantime, I wish all the American students who are busy protesting against South Africa could meet the white South African university students I just spent four days with on a geography field trip.  They ranged from somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal based on what they said in our conversations.  They don’t seem all that different from their American counterparts; they are not any more racist than most Americans; they feel that change is morally right and necessary; they are confused; they are worried about the future.  They know that when really significant changes come (e.g., black voting rights), they will probably lose some of their privileges.  Their standard of living may suffer.  American students can arrogantly argue that young white South Africans deserve whatever is coming to them given the injustice here.  But I wish they would at least not be so fucking arrogant!  I wonder if American students would do any better if they were in the same situation.  They don’t seem to understand that it wasn’t today’s young South African whites that created Apartheid – it was their grandparents’ generation.

Students protest against apartheid, April 1985 (probably at the University of Michigan).  It’s not that I objected to student protests or boycotts of South Africa, per se.  I just wished that Americans would have taken the time to better understand the complexities of the South African situation.  Source:  Ann Arbor District Library, Image # N123_150_008, © The Ann Arbor News.

If American students are so fucking noble, why aren’t they joining the Peace Corps (or other international volunteer organizations) in droves upon graduation?  They could be making significant contributions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America helping to improve agricultural methods, food distribution, family planning, and education.  Instead, upon graduation, they throw out their protest banners and their ideals.  Off they go in suits and Volvos in search of IBM jobs, suburban homes, cocaine, and other yuppie status symbols.  Fuck them.  I’m sick of naïve Americans who think they know how the rest of the world should be conducting its business.  That goes for South Africa as well as Nicaragua.  If we’re going to be making decisions as Americans that profoundly affect other people’s lives, we have a responsibility to really understand what’s going on abroad. 

Sue, one of the women on the geography field trip last week, expressed anger that I was interviewing students.  She said she had no idea who I was and how I would use the material I was gathering.  She argued that I couldn’t write about South Africa without taking a stand.  There was no such thing as objective reporting about a situation like this one.  

I agreed that I would need to take a stand once I have spent several months here and am ready to write my stories.  I told her that I am not willing to take a stand at this time.  I explained my personal beliefs about civil rights and equal opportunities for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.  But, I find the South African situation very complex, so I choose to keep an open mind until I know more about it from personal experience.

She told me I am wasting my time talking to white middle class university students.  And unless, I am willing to take a stand and earn people’s trust, I will not be able to talk to the “right” people (whoever they are).  I explained that although I won’t currently take a stand, I am interested in meeting black South Africans to learn what they have to say.  She wondered why the American press wants articles from people like me instead of from South Africans.  Any conclusions I come to after a few months here cannot possibly be very accurate.  But what I get published in the American press can have a large impact on the lives of South Africans (She seems to have more confidence in the importance of my writing than I do!).  I should remember that people are going to jail and dying for what they say here, she added.   

I think Sue raised some good points.  Despite her overt hostility, I’m glad I didn’t get defensive or take it personally.  I probably knew more about South Africa than 99.9% of Americans before I came here.  But even that background combined with months of observations and conversations with a diversity of people won’t be enough.  And, how would coming here with a particular political axe to grind do me any good?  I pointed out to Sue that no one demands to know the personal stand of a New York Times reporter before they agree to speak with him or her.  Sue was pissed off because she wondered if American reporters would still be here after some sort of solution was imposed on South Africa from the outside.  For example, what interest are we Americans now taking in Viet Nam?  She feels I am examining people here as if they are guinea pigs because they are now newsworthy.  I am using them to make a few bucks.  For me, the greatest disappointment of this conversation was her refusal to let me tape it.    

Some other students who overheard this conversation or heard about it later agreed with some of Sue’s points but are glad that I am here trying to objectively learn about South Africa.  After all, the average American reporters who come to South Africa stay in fancy hotels like the Carlton in Johannesburg, eat in fine restaurants, and drive around in new rental cars.  They don’t get to really know local people or get outside newsworthy areas of the cities and townships.