The Africanders : $b A century of Dutch-English feud in South AfricaHooker, Le Roy
History
The Africanders : $b A century of Dutch-English feud in South Africa
Hooker, Le Roy
Afrikaners; South Africa -- Politics and government; Transvaal (South Africa) -- History
“And I further proclaim and make known that the Transvaal will remain a
separate government, with its own Laws and Legislature, and that it is
the wish of her Most Gracious Majesty that it shall enjoy the fullest
legislative privileges compatible with the circumstances of the country
and the intelligence of the people. That arrangement will be made by
which the Dutch language will practically be as much the official
language as the English. All laws, proclamations and government notices
will be published in the Dutch language; and in the courts of law the
same may be done at the option of suitors to a case. The laws so in
force in the State will be retained until altered by competent
legislative authority.”
Not one of these promises was ever fulfilled. The volksraad was never
convened. The promised constitution of local self-government was never
promulgated. Instead of redeeming these promises the Transvaal was put
upon the status of a crown colony in 1879, and the legislature proposed
for it was to consist of some crown officials and six members—all to be
the nominees of the governor.
Mr. Bryce, in his “Impressions of South Africa,” calls this failure to
redeem a promise authoritatively made as a concession to a people whose
independence was being arbitrarily subverted, a “blunder.” Canon Little
uses a still softer term, calling it a “mistake”; and adds, “It was
given in good faith, and in good faith was received. Sir Theophilus
Shepstone tried to fulfill it. He at once submitted his views as to the
necessary legislative arrangements. No action whatever was taken on it,
either by Conservatives or Liberals, and his dispatch is probably lying
uncared for in the Colonial Office now!”—(1899.)
And so, in the mutations of language as currently used in history and
in Christian ethics, it has come to pass that this piece of national
treachery—this treachery of the strong against the weak—this treachery
implicating both of the leading political parties of Great Britain and
their chiefs, is only a “blunder,” a “mistake”!
One real and very serious blunder was committed, if one judges of it
from the view point of the policy intended to be pursued in the
Transvaal by the British government. The Africanders had accepted,
under protest, the act of annexation mainly because they were in mortal
fear of the Zulus. That reason for submission the British proceeded to
remove by overthrowing the Zulu power.
In the northeast Sir Garnet Wolseley defeated Sikukuni and established
what promised to be a permanent peace. In 1879 Sir Bartle Frere
inflicted a like reverse upon Cetawayo, in the southeast, and so
completed the subjugation of the Zulus. The blunder in taking this
course declared itself when, after subduing the natives at great cost
of blood and treasure, the British found that in so doing they had
relieved the Africanders of the one fear that thus far had prevented
them from reasserting their independence.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account