THE NATIVE PERIL IN SOUTH AFRICA.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
Sin,—Having spent several years in Rhodesia as a Wesleyan Methodist missionary, and returning home after the war, I wish to thank you for your exceedingly able, clear, and com- prehensive article on "The Native Peril in South Africa" in the Spectator of February 17th.
Those of us who have had dealings with the natives in that country have always regarded a native rising as possible, but not probable. If there are degrees of danger in this matter, then those people who are nearest the danger-point of actually rising In large numbers are possibly the Matabele, seeing that they were the last powerful native tribe—cousins of the Zulus—to be brought under British rule and authority. Since the rebellion
of 1896, however, they have quietly submitted. Whether such submission has been willingly or unwillingly given is, of course, very difficult to ascertain, seeing that to understand the native mind is one of the problems of South Africa. Your article will help to allay the unnecessary fears of the average man at home, who has had no experience of these people.
I wish the following passage could be indelibly impressed upon every man's mind in that country :—" A smattering of education and a nominal profession of Christianity will not keep him out of mischief, for it must be remembered that the natives whom the Natal Police are looking for are by way of being Christianised. In the long run, the only safeguard is to give him a share in a higher civi]isation. By this we do not mean the political franchise, or any such expedient. White must rule black for the present, and the sooner this is frankly rocognised the better. But we can give him an interest in the prosperity of the country by fitting him to take his place in our social fabric. By a proper system of technical instruction we can offer him an industrial future ; we can educate him in the wants of civilisation and give him the means of supplying them; we can raise his whole standard of comfort and self-respect." To my mind, this is one of the most luminous passages in the article. Those who have done missionary work in that country have always endeavoured to keep such an ideal before them. And yet one cannot close the eyes to the fact that such an ideal is not accepted by large numbers of people in South Africa. To express an ideal for the native is not infrequently to run the risk of considerable derision, often from people whose training and intelligence would lead you to expect something better. To be a missionary often means losing caste in the eyes of white people. We are told that, instead of trying to raise the moral life of the natives by teaching the Christian faith, it would be much better to teach them the dignity of labour. It does not seem to occur to such people that if a native is to learn the dignity of labour, he must first appreciate the dignity of character. One is thankful, however, to reflect that such a con- dition of public opinion is a transitory one. The time will come—must come, in fact—when a higher and more generous view concerning the natives will prevail. I am thankful to say that we are not without signs of an approximation to such an ideal as is set forth above, in those parts of the country which have been for some considerable time under the influence of Western civilisation and British rule.
You rightly say that "we must protect him [the native] against exploitation by doubtful fanatics, whether under the guise of 'Ethiopianism, or any such creed." I should like to add, Sir, that the native must also be protected from commercial enter- prises of doubtful character. I refer, of course, to Chinese coolies on the Rand. Chinese labour is not entirely an economic question, but very largely a moral one. The moral issues raised by that question will very seriously affect the settlement of the native problem. It does not require very deep moral insight to per- ceive that the presence of the Chinaman is bound to have a very bad effect on the native, and will certainly not help towards the realisation of the ideal set forth in your article. It seems almost a trite saying, yet necessity requires its constant repetition, to state that our treatment of these native races will be the test of our national character.
There is just another question I wish to point out, and it relates to your statement that "we have never raised native regiments as we have done elsewhere in Africa, and in a country so situated it was a wise refusal." I thoroughly agree with you that such a policy is by far the best one for South Africa. But why is it not carried out entirely ? Why is the British South Africa Company allowed to arm natives ? They have a native contingent, commonly known as the "Black Watch," which co-operates with mounted constabulary. Experience of these men, from the native point of view, has led one to believe that the natives very much dislike them. It was commonly under- stood that during the Matabele insurrection the best shots amongst the rebels were those who had been trained by Europeans in these native levies. I have frequently observed that the arming of natives has a bad effect on the native himself. It gives him a false idea of superiority, the superiority born of being allowed to swagger about with a "Martini-Henry" in his possession, and a superiority which is either actively or passively resented by his fellow-natives who do not happen to belong to such native levies. It seems to me to be very inconsistent, what- ever the professed utilitarian reasons may be, to adopt a policy of disarming the natives, even to the extent of depriving them of their assegais, and yet to collect and maintain an armed force of natives in that country.
Sedbergh, Yorks.
[Clearly one of the numerous objections to the use of Chinese labour is the injurious and unsettling effect pro. duced on the minds of the natives.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
