(2 of 8)
The fact that the whites settled first in some empty parts of an overwhelmingly black continent is the kind of historic legalism that proves little in the real universe. It establishes their right to be in Africa (which virtually all blacks acknowledge), but not their right to exploit and humiliate the nonwhites. The fact that South Africa's blacks are better off than blacks in most of the continent's independent countries hardly proves very much either. Considering that South Africa is not a colony, and is to a large extent a modern industrial country, they should be better off. Comparisons should be made not with the rest of Africa, but with what the blacks' lot could be in South Africa. For all the progress achieved, the gap between blacks and whites remains staggering. Three-fourths of the total national income goes to whites, although they constitute only 17% of the population. White per capita income averages $240 a month, v. only $15 for blacks. Salaries for experienced black workers now average $220 a month, v. $500 to $1,750 for whites. Only the most progressive employers provide the kind of training that enables blacks to rise to skilled jobs, such as computer programmer or bank teller, that are not reserved for whites.
As for the double standard, South Africa almost demands to be judged according to higher criteria by the very assets it proclaims—a long history of parliamentary government, stable institutions, a thriving economy. Other African countries were ill prepared for independence; they are young and fragile, yet in South Africa's polemics they are expected to perform as if they were longestablished, industrial democracies. The white man, while complaining about the black man's lack of talent for democracy, largely denied him the training for democracy.
As for the tribal differences among blacks, they will probably last for generations, but must they be encouraged deliberately, and must an entire social and political system be built on them? Among blacks in the mines and factories, the differences are beginning to give way slowly to the same clothes, the same language —and the same anger.
As for the homelands, whatever sense they might make in theory is vitiated by the fact that they include only a fraction of the traditional tribal lands and are not viable economically. That is why the Zulu leader, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, far from a radical, calls the scheme a form of theft that would lead to the Balkanization of South Africa. Above all, the homelands are untenable because they represent an ingenious device to deny blacks an effective vote.