“FARM LABOUR SCANDAL”?

184 Pages·2011·7.2 MB·English

COERCIVE AGRARIAN WORK IN SOUTH AFRICA, 1948-1960:
“FARM LABOUR SCANDAL”?
by

CORNELIS HERMANUS MULLER (04233875)

Submitted as requirement for the degree

MAGISTER HEREDITATIS CULTURAEQUE SCIENTIAE [MHCS]
(RESEARCH) HISTORY

in the

Department of Historical and Heritage Studies
Faculty of Humanities
University of Pretoria
Pretoria
2011

Supervisors: Dr J.E.H. Grobler & Prof. K.L. Harris
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
CONTENTS PAGE

Acknowledgement s i
Abstract ii
Opsomming iii
List of illustrations iv
Abbreviations v

1. Literature survey of twentieth century South African
agrarian labour history
1.1. Cultivating “Agrarian History” 1
1.2. Survey of South African farm labour histories 2
1.3. Outline 20

2. The South African government and farm labour intervention,
1910-1948
2.1. Farm labour needs: The advent of the twentieth century 25
2.2. Laying the foundation: The Natives Land Act of 1913 33
2.3. Masters seeking Servants: The Pact Government’s policies 39
2.4. Divisions in the state: The Natives Service Contract Act of 1932 42
2.5. Squashing Squatting?: The 1936 Native Trust and Land Act 45
2.6. Missed opportunities?: The 1937 Farm Labour Committee 48
2.7. The belated changing of the tide: The 1940s 51

3. Cracking the whip: state farm labour policy, 1948-1960
3.1. Proposed solutions for solving the farm labour issue 56
3.2. The Native Labour Regulation Act (1949) 59
3.3. The establishment of labour bureaus 60
3.4. The eradication of squatters and labour tenants 66
3.5. The formation of harvesting teams 69
3.6. Prison labour 72
3.7. The “Petty Offenders’ Scheme” 77
3.8. Conclusion 92
4. Farm labour scandal: Accusations, exposure and repercussions
4.1. A history of abuse in Bethal: the “abode of God” 94
4.2. Media hype and parliamentary furore 105
4.3. The 1959 Potato Boycott 113
4.4. Investigations into the farm labour scandal 120
4.5. The Prison’s Act of 1959 130
4.6. Conclusion 132

5. Dealing with a hot potato: commemoration and reflection

5.1. The controversy of commemorating 134
5.2. Commemoration, corruption and confusion 136
5.3. Historical veracity and mythmaking: Reaction to the commemoration 144
5.4. Conclusion 148

6. Conclusion: context and continuity 151
7. Sources 155
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr J.E.H. Grobler, for his constructive criticism
regarding the content and technical aspects of my dissertation and giving me access
to his archive collection. My sincere gratitude also goes to my co-supervisor, Prof.
K.L. Harris. This study would have been so much poorer without her guidance and
support. I will forever be grateful for her enthusiasm and her dedication, which gave
me the courage and inspiration to complete this study. My appreciation also goes to
Ms K. Sevenhuysen and Prof. J.S. Bergh for their keen interest in my dissertation
and their encouragement. I would also like to thank Mr N.D. Southey, the external
examiner, for his constructive criticism and insight.
My gratitude is also bestowed on the various information specialists and staff of the
University of Pretoria’s Merensky Library, the National Archives of South Africa, the
Wits Historical Papers Archives and the National Library of South Africa.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank my family for their support during the
period it took me to finish this study. The encouragement and love of my parents,
Corrie and Magda, my grandmothers, Jessie and Anna and my siblings, Natasha
and Wikus, not only instilled within me a passion for the study of history, but gave me
the strength and motivation I needed to finish this project.
Lastly, I also want to thank all my friends for their support and the much needed
escapism they offered at times. Although, I do not want to single anyone out I must
thank Liesl du Preez for all her love and encouragement. My sanity, which is
arguable at the best of times, depended on our conversations and the bottomless
cups of coffee we consumed during the time it took me to finish this study.
This dissertation is dedicated to everyone who has played a part in my scholarly
education – the greatest gift anyone can ask for.

i
ABSTRACT

This dissertation puts into historical context allegations of farm labour abuse during
the period 1948 to 1960 on the eastern Transvaal Highveld. It not only gives an
exposition of these events, but importantly analyses these allegations of abuse in the
context of the South African government’s intervention into farm labour for this
period. The dissertation, however, first gives an overview of the government’s
policies of regulating and providing farmers with black labour in the period 1910 to
1948. It deals specifically with the dubious measures introduced and coercive
actions taken by the National Party government after 1948 to provide farmers with
“cheap and plentiful labour”. The reactions to the accusations of abuse by the South
African government, the farmers, the conservative, liberal and leftist press, and other
independent bodies, such as the churches, Black Sash and the South African
Institute of Race Relations, are also explored. The reaction of the African National
Congress and the Potato Boycott launched in 1959 by this organisation in response
to the mistreatment of farm labourers, also receives specific attention. It concludes
with a discussion of how the farm labour scandals and the reaction during the 1950s
and more specifically the Potato Boycott of 1959 are still relevant today by
considering the contested nature of the commemoration of this event in 2009.

Keywords

Agrarian History, Farm Labour, Potato Boycott; Apartheid, Pass Laws; African
National Congress; Gert Sibande; Bethal; Michael Scott; Ruth First;
Commemoration.

ii
OPSOMMING

Hierdie verhandeling plaas bewerings van die misbruik van plaasarbeid gedurende
die periode 1948 tot 1960 op die oostelike Transvaalse Hoëveld in historiese
konteks. Dit bied nie net ‘n uiteensetting van hierdie gebeure nie, maar ontleed dié
bewerings van mishandeling teen die agtergrond van die Suid-Afrikaanse regering
se ingryping ten opsigte van plaasarbeid vir dié tydperk. Die verhandeling bied ten
eerste ‘n oorsig van die regering se beleid van die regulering en voorsiening van
swart arbeid aan boere gedurende die periode 1910 tot 1948. Dit handel spesifiek
oor die twyfelagtige dwangmaatreëls wat deur die Nasionale Partyregering na 1948
geïmplementeer is om boere van “goedkoop en voldoende arbeid” te voorsien. Die
reaksies op die bewerings van mishandeling deur die Suid-Afrikaanse regering, die
boere, die konserwatiewe, liberale en linkse pers, as ook ander selfstandige
instansies, soos die kerke, Black Sash en die Suid-Afrikaanse Instituut van
Rasseverhoudinge word ook ondersoek. Die reaksie van die African National
Congress en die aartappelboikot wat deur die organisasie in 1959 van stapel gestuur
is in reaksie op die mishandeling van plaaswerkers, work ook ontleed. Die studie
sluit af met ‘n bespreking van hoe die plaasarbeidskandale, die reaksie in die 1950s
en meer spesifiek die aartappelboikot van 1959, steeds vandag relevant is teen die
agtergrond van die omstrede herdenking van die gebeurtenis in 2009.

Sleutelwoorde

Agrariese Geskiedenis, Plaasarbeid, Aartappelboikot; Apartheid; Paswette; African
National Congress; Gert Sibande; Bethal; Michael Scott; Ruth First; Herdenking.

iii
ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE
Figure 1:
An official from the NAD pointing out the names of farmers with
vacancies to two black work seekers at a labour bureau office. 61
Figure 2:
“Under the supervision of a ‘boss-boy’”. 99
Figure 3:
“Inside of a farm compound”. 103
Figure 4:
“Barbed wire and huge walls keep the workers in the compounds.” 104
Figure 5:
“Huddled in the rain under sacks these workers wait to go into the fields.” 104
Figure 6:
Blacks buying potatoes at the Newtown Market in Johannesburg after the
commencement of the Potato Boycott. 114
Figure 7:
ANC members in Langa location taking part in the Potato Boycott. 114
Figure 8:
“In sacks and with potatoes round their necks…” 127
Figure 9:
Cover page of Fighting Talk magazine showing farm labourers
dressed in hessian sacks. 128
Figure 10:
“Heroes for our Future: Gert Sibande 1901-1987”. 137

Figure 11:
The statue of Gert Sibande in Bethal. 140

iv
ABBREVIATIONS

ANC African National Congress
BADD Department of Bantu Administration and Development
DA Democratic Alliance
DCSR Department of Culture, Sport and Recreation
DNL Director of Native Labour
HANSARD Debates of Parliament
HPA Historical Paper Archives
JUS Department of Justice
ICU Industrial Workers Union
IFP Inkatha Freedom Party
INL Information
LKD Division of Commodity Services
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
MEC Member of the Executive Council
MP Member of Parliament
NAD Department of Native Affairs
NASA National Archives of South Africa
NCC Native Commissioner’s Court
NP National Party
SAAU South African Agricultural Union
SAB Central Archives Depot
v
SAIRR South African Institute of Race Relations
SALDRU South African Labour and Development Research Unit
SAP South African Police / Commissioner of the SAP
SNA Secretary of Native Affairs
TAU Transvaal Agricultural Union
UP United Party
WITS University of the Witwatersrand
ZAR South African Republic

vi
CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE SURVEY OF TWENTIETH CENTURY SOUTH AFRICAN
AGRARIAN LABOUR HISTORY

1.1 Cultivating “Agrarian History”

“Agrarian history” seemingly defies a singular definition in historical studies. In its
most basic form “agrarian history” can be defined as the history of farming. This
includes the study of arable and pastoral husbandry, diseases and pestilence in the
countryside, the marketing of produce, land ownership, and the structures of rural
society. All these aspects have merit for historical study, either in isolation or as part
of broader historical narratives. However, if one perceives of “agrarian history” as the
study of farming, which was at first subsistence orientated and subsequently went
through various stages of development, it acquires even greater significance.

The actual study of agrarian history as a specific genre only appears to have come
to fruition in the second half of the twentieth century. Since the emergence of the
Annales School in the 1930’s, there have been concerted attempts by various
historians to move away from the traditional top-down Rankean approach of
historical analysis. This new movement sought to focus on a broader approach to
historical investigation by incorporating contributions to the historical field by other
disciplines within the social and economic sciences. During the twentieth century,
two branches of theoretical interpretation emerged from this school: economic
history, with its focus on business history and the history of the macro economy; and
social history, which in the latter half of the twentieth century developed into a genre
of its own.1 John Tosh argues that a definition of social history is problematic, but
identifies three distinct fields that he believes have emerged. First there is the study
of the “history of social problems”, such as poverty and disease. Secondly, “the
history of everyday life”, which looks at the history of life in the home, the work place

1 J. Tosh, The pursuit of history, aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern
history (Harlow and New York: Pearson & Longman, 2006), pp. 126-131.
1