Comments on: Churchill and Racism: Think a Little Deeper

By: Robert J Davis

Robert J Davis — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:22:06 +0000

It is true that the British government did not cave to Jan Smuts, either under Labour or the Tories. By the Fifties, the National Party was in power in South Africa. I think there is a case to be made that the British government did cave to the NP, which, of course, had no legal power to annex what was at that time British protectorates. The Afrikaners believed that South Africa was sovereign, and that the sovereignty of her neighbors was a fit topic for discussion. That's why they considered the annexation of South West Africa, and sent troops into the Republic of Angola to fight for Jonas Savimbi. British policy on South Africa was to denounce Apartheid while cashing in on it. = I think those are valid points and thank you for making them, though Smuts was out of office after 1948. My point is that Churchill rebuffed Malan's and the National Party's efforts to annex Bechuanaland (and two other black protectorates) when he was in office (1951-55). South Africa never annexed South West Africa but illegally treated it as a province in the high-tide of Apartheid, and did send troops into Angola, but this was well after Churchill's time. My focus is on Churchill's actions while in power. These are discussed in more detail in "The Art of the Possible: Churchill, South Africa, Apartheid, Mandela." RML

By: Katherine L

Katherine L — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:04:46 +0000

I was also curious about this point in the film, and an alternative source states: Unmoved, the government announced its decision on 27 March I952. Ministers argued that their predecessors, having quite rightly concluded that Seretse was 'not a fit and proper person' to be chief, had then been guilty of ' a classic example of procrastination in public affairs'. Peace was hardly likely to be achieved by continuing uncertainty'; 'temporary exclusion' must therefore now be turned into permanent non-recognition. This was a line of argument the Labour opposition found hard to rebut. (THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SERETSE KHAMA: BRITAIN, THE BANGWATO AND SOUTH AFRICA, 1948-1952. Author: RONALD HYAM. The Historical Journal, 29, 4 (I986), pp. 92I-947) = Thanks, point taken. Hyam is a reliable historian. -RML

By: Richard Langworth

Richard Langworth — Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:43:00 +0000

As my correspondent noted, it is broadly true. I have not read the book and would be interested in your take on it. We do know that Smuts, a segregationist when young, extended old age and disability payments to native blacks and Indians, and lost the 1948 election (in which only whites voted) after supporting the Fagan Commission, which recommended relaxing segregation. But Smuts died in 1950, so he could not have influenced the 1951 Churchill government. South African ruling circle opinion may however have been a factor. As another scholar writes (last paragraph above), Churchill, like Lincoln, was a politician, needing the votes of a majority in an age of prejudice, and that has to be borne in mind.

By: phil lyons

phil lyons — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:46:02 +0000

Is it accurate that when running for office, WSC said he'd lift the ban, then, once elected as PM, the ban was extended to life? I have bought the book specifically to read about it, instead of just viewing the movie. A quick read of the pages with WSC's name connected, appears as though he "caved" to Smuts of South Africa. Will read more thoroughly when I have time but that's my quick read. Thus, questions aren't whether WSC was a man of his times and/or a racist, but, rather was he a person who took a very liberal position when running and then a horribly harsh one once elected?