By 1960 violence was being increasingly used as a means of maintaining control by the Apartheid regime. The Sharpville Massacre of March 21, 1960 is a case in point. See the video below for more information about this heinous crime.
In his work Sharpeville Massacre and Its Consequence, author Tom Lodge "argues convincingly that the major effect of the Sharpeville massacre was international. It galvanized an international civil-society coalition against the white minority government in South Africa, leading directly to the regime’s first major diplomatic defeat: its exclusion from the British Commonwealth in 1961. Yet Lodge also observes that in the short term, the massacre consolidated minority rule. The South African government used the threat of black violence to bolster its legitimacy with whites and justify its repressive practices. " from: Foreign Affairs magazine Nov, 2011 reviewed by Nicolas van de Walle
By fall of 1961 leaders of the African National Congress had established an underground military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation.
In the fall of 1963, Nelson Mandela and nine other defendants were charged with sabotage and treason in attempting to overthrow the government through violence. Knowing that the guilty verdict came with a death sentence, the defendants pled guilty. Mandela spoke for three hours against the system of the unjust government. In essence he was relaying that since the government had failed in its social contract to protect and serve the people, the people no longer felt that the government had any legitimacy and therefore needed to be abolished.
Read and listen to the Text of Mandela's speech from Rivonia Trial.
"During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, my Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
The courts, well aware that the world was watching, chose to sentence the defendants to a lifetime in prison instead of imposing a capital punishment. Eight of the defendants were sent to Robben Island while Goldberg was sent to the Pretoria Central prison (a whites only facility)
A short term consequence of the Ravonia trial was that for a time the anti-Apartheid movement leadership was essentially taken out of commission in South Africa. While this sent both leadership and freedom fighters underground in South Africa and into exile into other nations, it did strengthened the organization and commitment to the movement around the world. The international community became more astutely aware of the plight the people of South African.
Denis Goldberg aka "accused No. 3" (bottom right photo) passed away last week in Capetown, South Africa. He was 87 years old and had spent his life in the fight for liberty and freedom for all.
Today's prompt: Do you think that violence was necessary to push the anti-Apartheid movement forward? Why or Why not.
Denis Goldberg aka "accused No. 3" (bottom right photo) passed away last week in Capetown, South Africa. He was 87 years old and had spent his life in the fight for liberty and freedom for all.
Today's prompt: Do you think that violence was necessary to push the anti-Apartheid movement forward? Why or Why not.
Yes, I think violence was necessary. They tried the whole non-violence acts, but all it did was inspire more violence from the white government leaders. The whites had been using violence for all the wrong reasons and the only way to get them to stop was to give them a "taste of their own medicine." Either way they were receiving punishment, so might as well get your point across and be punished.
ReplyDeleteImagine doing everything you can to stand up for yourself but needing to maintain peace. How would you keep that balance or would you keep it at all? The Anti-Apartheid Movement is an organization that support South Africa’s non-European population. The movement started in 1912 and continued to grow. The organization faced many problems and needed to take a new approach.
ReplyDeleteThe Anti-Apartheid Movement, was also known as the boycott movement, and opposed the South African apartheid system. The person who was founder of this movement is Trevor Huddleston. His most famous quote stating, “God bless Africa, guard her people, Guide her leaders, and give her peace.” The objective of this movement was to support South Africa’s non-European population who were oppressed and persecuted by apartheid system. The movement for the most part began with peaceful protests, as people became more impatient they protests were more aggressive and violent.
The movement starting in 1912 didn’t take any immediate and/or direct actions until 1950. Starting in 1950 they proceeded to use nonviolent direct action. As this movement was getting more power the Afrikaners developed a system of superiority and made clear that anyone who was not white had no power in the economic and legal system. Disappointed by lack of results from their nonviolent campaign, Nelson Mandela called for an armed uprising. The uprising failed but did push the movement further along.
The uprising was necessary for more immediate results. If they continued peaceful protests it may have taken longer for the apartheid system to negotiate with the people. If the uprising did not happen the people would continue to be powerless and ignored. As they were when the Afrikaner system enforced the philosophy of white superiority. For decades the people tried a variety of tactics to get their message across and avoid violent conflict. Years of not getting any positive results lead to discouragement and need a new approach.
In conclusion, the Anti-Apartheid Movement took well thought out actions to get their message across. The movement started out as a way to support non-European population. The movement started in 1912 and continued for decades. The uprising and violence was necessary for more immediate and direct results.
I believe that violence was necessary. The black population of South Africa had tried to protest peacefully for years during the apartheid movement to no avail. They were only ever met with violence. It may be true that if the Apartheid movement had continued to push peacefully, eventually there would be change, but that process would end up taking longer and most likely costing more lives. Violence was the only way for the black people's voices to be heard and to enforce change quickly.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was necessary because they could not let there voice be heard or make a change. Peace was not giving them justice so they had to approach it differently and let it be known that they deserve their voice to be heard.
ReplyDeleteI think that violence was necessary. Protest among the African American community remained peaceful for years on end with no progress. The community was only hit more more and more violence. I am strongly against violence in these sorts of situations, but for what they were fighting for, violence was the only thing that was working. In this case, violence was needed to proceed with the Apartheid.
ReplyDeleteIf non-violence protests just brings to more violence then I think it is necessary for violence to push the anti apartheid movement. Apartheid tried to bring peace to South Africa, but it didn’t do anything to help because this would help cause even more violence. Violence was the way that the blacks can get their land back in South Africa. There was punishment that did cost lives for the people.
ReplyDeleteI think that violence was necessary to push the Anti-Apartheid movement along. At first, black South Africans used non-violent civil disobedience to show the (white) government the unfairness of what they were doing, but the government didn't like them doing that, so the government responded with extreme violence. This happened again and again, until the black South Africans needed to use violence to get their point across and make the government feel what the black South Africans were feeling.
ReplyDeleteYes, because after time and time again of non-violence acts but with no reward, the only way to make a change is to fight back. South Africans wanted to make their point known they wanted to be free. They soon found they would have to fight back to get their attention even though it would cost many lives. Even with their non-violence acts they were met with violence, so they had to fight fire with fire.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was necessary to keep pushing for what they needed at that point in time and I respect every single one of them for what they did.
ReplyDeleteYes, violence was necessary because they had been peacefully protesting and breaking rules to get their point across but were still getting nowhere. Also they were receiving violence and in order to push forward for their goals they have to fight back. Using violence was the best way in this case to get their point across quickly and effectively.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe violence was necessary. They were civil disobedient and were not violent, but the whites began being more violent. I don't usually think violence is ever the solution, but it had to be done here. I think they showed the whites that this is not okay and that they will continue to fight for what's right and that pushed would push the movement further.
ReplyDeleteYes I think violence was necessary. When they did not use violence and were peaceful, the whites were very violent. In this case, the only way to fight violence was with violence. when they were only peaceful protesting, they were still getting killed, or put in jail.
ReplyDeleteyes i think violence was necessary. They tried to peacefully protest for years. Whites continued to be violent and didn't do anything to change their views on africans and how they treated them. They were trying to push the movement forward peacefully but that wasn't working. They couldn't stand there and let violence be done so they did what anyone would do in that situation. They fought violence with violence.
ReplyDeleteYes, it did help. They already tried using non-violence. But they all were about violence, so that never worked out. And they deserved to be punished, and it was the only way that they might have solved the problem.
ReplyDeleteViolence was absolutely needed because if civil protesting doesn't work then this was the last resort.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was fundamental since they couldn't let there voice be heard or roll out an improvement. Peace was not giving them equity so they needed to move toward it distinctively and let it be realized that they merit their voice to be heard.
ReplyDeleteyes. I do think it was necessary. Sometimes approaching things in non violent ways is the better answer but not always the most effective one. They tried peace but it still wasn't getting them equality so they learned that they were gonna have to fight.
ReplyDeleteI believe the violence was necessary. They had used non-violence civil disobedience and it was not working. They continued to put even harsher laws and punishments on the people of South Africa. I think they did it in the right way start by using non-violence and if that doesn't work use violence. They tried peace, so it gave a moral okay to start using violence, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI usually don’t agree with violence but I believe in these situations it might be necessary because the non violence approach wasn’t working when they tried it.
ReplyDeleteNo because they can still accomplished the same goal using different tactics
ReplyDeleteThe violence was necessary to prove a point and accomplish the goal in the end. The movement wasn’t moving forward as they intended with non-violent acts so violence was necessary in the end.
ReplyDeleteYes, I honestly think that at this point violence was necessary. I think this because none of their non violence acts of disobedience were working. The white South Africans still weren’t changing their minds or even thinking about it. I think the point they were trying to get across was very important and the only way to get it across was through violence. The way to get their message across was to use violence even if they were going to get punishment for it .
ReplyDeleteNo, they could have accomplished it without violence, it just would have taken longer. I understand why they used it, though. They had very little rights and wanted to protest in a noticeable way.
ReplyDeleteit was necessary because they had to defend themselves and gain rights
ReplyDeleteNo, I think violence was necessary because they tried non-violence and it only made white government leaders more violent!
ReplyDeleteViolence was necessary because it set off a domino affect that would later get the attention of others and show what's really gong on. If the acts continued to be non-violent, the events probably wouldn't be as know as they're today.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think violence was necessary because they did what they needed to be heard and speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteyes, because they needed to show that they can have their own opinion on things. And can have a say in it.
ReplyDeleteYes violence was necessary because non violence lead to white leaders being more violent towards them.
ReplyDeleteIn order to get the results they wanted, the anti apartheid group had to use violence. If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t have gotten the results that they wanted fast enough.
ReplyDeleteEven though most of us are against violence, sadly sometimes it's necessary to keep things going, to strengthen one's cause. I would rather it not happened, and it affected many people negatively, but it ended up positively influencing them and giving them the shove they needed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough violence is never necessarily good. There are points in time where nothing else will work. And this was one of those cases. They tried to use other tactics, but nothing had been working. It just came down to force.
ReplyDeleteViolence was necessary becuase they were being treates like lesser humans and the whites that they were violent against werent going to change their minds. Acts of violence against white people always catches the attention of the world.
ReplyDeleteyes, I think violence was necessary because in the beginning they were not being taken seriously and them being non-violent was taken as a weakness and I feel they needed to do something more to make their presence known and to gain some respect.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the violence was necessary but it did help push the movement forward faster. I do think that the movement would have happened without the violence, but it would have taken years for it to fully start happening. The violence induced panic which resulted in faster results.
ReplyDeleteYes I think violence was needed because it’s got suff done faster because they wanted the wanted people to stop. When they saw that they would fight back and they got scared.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was necessary because other nothing would of been done, and based off of previous effort peace obviously wasn’t the answer. The oppressors saw their non-violence actions as a sign weakness. Violence brought faster results.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was very much necessary because how much can someone try?! They stayed calm amd nonviolent for as long as they could fathom. After remaining peaceful for so long but to everyone else they looked weak and they weren’t being taken serious so it was only right for them to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think it was necessary since their options were run out that were non-violence, the only way they could make things happen is if they used force and showed how serious they were.
ReplyDeleteYes because all other options have run out. Apartheid was being pushed so heavily that they couldn't do anything else to get away from the discrimination. They needed to defend themselves somehow.
ReplyDeleteYes I think it was necessary for violence to be in the anti apartheid efforts because the people only respond when there is something at stake. They only respond if violence is happening, or if the people who are protesting have unnecessary violence was put on them.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion yes i think violence was necessary, because they were not being heard. There is no way you can come to a compromise when no one takes you seriously.
ReplyDeleteI think violence was necessary because, how else would they have been heard if nobody listened by ear.
ReplyDeleteThe violence to me was necessary because they feel with even the protesting it’s looking like it didn’t help for their voice to get heard.
ReplyDeleteWas violence necessary to push the anti-apartheid movement forward? Yes, yes it was. If the citizens didn't resort to violence their voice would have never been heard. I mean they separated the two races so much that they forced them to live in different communities. So doing things peacefully wasn't working, with nasty people like that you have no choice, but to resort to violence. Or else you're never gonna get freedom. Could they have used nonviolence, maybe but even if it did work it would have taken way longer than it already did to get freedom. But so many people lived and died in a world getting treated like garbage, and people wanted their children to grow up as equals, and violence was the quickest way to that.
ReplyDeleteI think brutality was important to continue pushing for what they required by then and I regard each and every one of them for what they did.
ReplyDeletethe violence was necessary because they needed to prove a point to others
ReplyDeleteThe violence was necessary cause when they tried to get things going peacefully nobody wanted to listen. Add violence then is that was unnecessary what are you ding. Like now they want to listen to what they had to say i think it was absolutely necessary. Cause they tried they tried it peaceful but it seems to get someone to listen and get your point across you need to add violence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that violence was necessary because peaceful protests were not working. The government met their nonviolent protests with guns and death. To get major reforms, some violence was needed. However, there are different kinds of violence. It cannot be simply categorized into good or bad. Peace or murder. Nelson Mandela largely used non-lethal tactics, such as sabotage. I don't believe that the type of violence needed was lethal force. However, the government was not listening or taking peaceful protests seriously, so some forms of violence was needed.
ReplyDeleteViolence was necessary because they would not listen to just a simple conversation or a piece of writing. Sometimes you need to use force.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that violence was necessary to push the anti-Apartheid movement forward. In all honesty Nelson Mandela tried to talk to the government peacefully and reason with them since they (the government) had failed in its social contract to protect and serve the people. However, the government refused to listen. In the end Nelson Mandela and the nine other defendants only choice was to overthrow the government through violence (sabotage). If they are not able to listen to commands on peaceful terms then you have to take action through some force of violence.
ReplyDeleteViolence was definitely necessary considering being non violent got them nowhere but hurt, the government continuously failed so I think it was necessary.
ReplyDeletemaylani hamler
DeleteThis case study follows the antiapartheid movement, with a particular focus on the role of philanthropy.Big steps backward preceded the positive leap forward. among white South Africans and what they needed for advancement became ... that nonviolent methods would not be effective against the apartheid regime. The Anti-Apartheid Movement was instrumental in initiating an academic boycott of South Africa in 1965. The declaration was signed by 496 university professors and lecturers from 34 British universities to protest against apartheid and associated violations of academic freedom.
ReplyDeleteYes because the non violence was working and they failed to protect the people so I think violence was necessary
ReplyDeleteYes i believe the violence was needed because they couldn’t get their point across and not being violent got them nowhere and no results
ReplyDeleteI think violence was necessary, because if the non violence wasn’t working they had to resort to there last approach.
ReplyDeleteNo because solving violence with violence wouldn't solve anything it would only cause a war or riot. People should learn how to protest peacefully to get their point across. "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind".
ReplyDeleteI think that violence would have been necessary for the people of South Africa to get some kind of leverage against their government. It was already shown that non-violent acts only led to a quick take down, so they would need to be more assertive against their white government to further get their message across.
ReplyDeleteI think violence is necessary, depending on the situation. Though non-violent protest gets a lot of attention internationally, violent resistance helps make it clear that people are unwilling to live without their rights. The anti-Apartheid movement was not being heard, so it had to make itself heard.
ReplyDelete