“I Speak of Freedom, 1961”

“I Speak of Freedom, 1961”

Type of document           Essay

1 Page Double Spaced

Subject area       History

Academic Level Undergraduate

Style      APA

References         2

Order description:

Please use this two source to answer these two questions for this assignment. Thank you

Modern History Sourcebook: Kwame Nkrumah: “I Speak of Freedom, 1961”

Modern History Sourcebook: Desmond Tutu: “The Question of South Africa, 1984”

• How are the readings from Desmond Tutu and Kwame Nkrumah similar?
• The readings from Desmond Tutu and Kwame Nkrumah were written over 20 years apart. Comparing the two, does Desmond Tutu’s “The Question of South Africa” show that any progress has been made? Why or why not?

 

Modern History Sourcebook:

Kwame Nkrumah:

I Speak of Freedom, 1961

Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) was the leader of Ghana, the formerBritish colony of the Gold Coast and the first of the Europeancolonies in Africa to gain independence with majority rule. Untilhe was deposed by a coup d’état in 1966, he was a majorspokeman for modern Africa.

For centuries, Europeans dominated the African continent. Thewhite man arrogated to himself the right to rule and to be obeyedby the non-white; his mission, he claimed, was to “civilise”Africa. Under this cloak, the Europeans robbed the continent ofvast riches and inflicted unimaginable suffering on the Africanpeople.All this makes a sad story, but now we must be prepared to burythe past with its unpleasant memories and look to the future.All we ask of the former colonial powers is their goodwill andco-operation to remedy past mistakes and injustices and to grantindependence to the colonies in Africa….It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems,and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided we areweak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces forgood in the world.Although most Africans are poor, our continent is potentiallyextremely rich. Our mineral resources, which are being exploitedwith foreign capital only to enrich foreign investors, range fromgold and diamonds to uranium and petroleum. Our forests containsome of the finest woods to be grown anywhere. Our cash cropsinclude cocoa, coffee, rubber, tobacco and cotton. As for power,which is an important factor in any economic development, Africacontains over 40% of the potential water power of the world, ascompared with about 10% in Europe and 13% in North America. Yetso far, less than 1% has been developed. This is one of the reasonswhy we have in Africa the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty,and scarcity in the midst of abundance.Never before have a people had within their grasp so great anopportunity for developing a continent endowed with so much wealth.Individually, the independent states of Africa, some of them potentiallyrich, others poor, can do little for their people. Together, bymutual help, they can achieve much. But the economic developmentof the continent must be planned and pursued as a whole. A looseconfederation designed only for economic co-operation would notprovide the necessary unity of purpose. Only a strong politicalunion can bring about full and effective development of our naturalresources for the benefit of our people.The political situation in Africa today is heartening and at thesame time disturbing. It is heartening to see so many new flagshoisted in place of the old; it is disturbing to see so many countriesof varying sizes and at different levels of development, weakand, in some cases, almost helpless. If this terrible state offragmentation is allowed to continue it may well be disastrousfor us all.There are at present some 28 states in Africa, excluding the Unionof South Africa, and those countries not yet free. No less thannine of these states have a population of less than three million.Can we seriously believe that the colonial powers meant thesecountries to be independent, viable states? The example of SouthAmerica, which has as much wealth, if not more than North America,and yet remains weak and dependent on outside interests, is onewhich every African would do well to study.Critics of African unity often refer to the wide differences inculture, language and ideas in various parts of Africa. This istrue, but the essential fact remains that we are all Africans,and have a common interest in the independence of Africa. Thedifficulties presented by questions of language, culture and differentpolitical systems are not insuperable. If the need for politicalunion is agreed by us all, then the will to create it is born;and where there’s a will there’s a way.The present leaders of Africa have already shown a remarkablewillingness to consult and seek advice among themselves. Africanshave, indeed, begun to think continentally. They realise thatthey have much in common, both in their past history, in theirpresent problems and in their future hopes. To suggest that thetime is not yet ripe for considering a political union of Africais to evade the facts and ignore realities in Africa today.The greatest contribution that Africa can make to the peace ofthe world is to avoid all the dangers inherent in disunity, bycreating a political union which will also by its success, standas an example to a divided world. A Union of African states willproject more effectively the African personality. It will commandrespect from a world that has regard only for size and influence.The scant attention paid to African opposition to the French atomictests in the Sahara, and the ignominious spectacle of the U.N.in the Congo quibbling about constitutional niceties while theRepublic was tottering into anarchy, are evidence of the callousdisregard of African Independence by the Great Powers.We have to prove that greatness is not to be measured in stockpilesof atom bombs. I believe strongly and sincerely that with thedeep-rooted wisdom and dignity, the innate respect for human lives,the intense humanity that is our heritage, the African race, unitedunder one federal government, will emerge not as just anotherworld bloc to flaunt its wealth and strength, but as a Great Powerwhose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear,envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but foundedon hope, trust, friendship and directed to the good of all mankind.The emergence of such a mighty stabilising force in this strife-wornworld should be regarded not as the shadowy dream of a visionary,but as a practical proposition, which the peoples of Africa can,and should, translate into reality. There is a tide in the affairsof every people when the moment strikes for political action.Such was the moment in the history of the United States of Americawhen the Founding Fathers saw beyond the petty wranglings of theseparate states and created a Union. This is our chance. We mustact now. Tomorrow may be too late and the opportunity will havepassed, and with it the hope of free Africa’s survival.

From Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of AfricanIdeology (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1961), pp. xi-xiv.

 

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook.The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permittedtexts for introductory level classes in modern European and Worldhistory. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of thedocument is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,distribution in print form for educational purposes and personaluse. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997

Modern History Sourcebook:

Desmond Tutu:

The Question of South Africa, 1984

Bishop Desmond Tutu (1931-) was the first Black Archbishop of Capetown, the head of the Anglican Church in South Africa. Tutu used this position to speak out against Apartheid. In 1984 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Shortly afterwards he gave following speech, attacking South Africa’s racial policies, to the United Nations Security Council. Tutu is here pessimistic about the future. As events turned out, change came peacefully..

I speak out of a full heart, for I am about to speak about a land that I love deeply and passionately; a beautiful land of rolling hills and gurgling streams, of clear starlit skies, of singing birds, and gamboling lambs; a land God has richly endowed with the good things of the earth, a land rich in mineral deposits of nearly every kind; a land of vast open spaces, enough to accommodate all its inhabitants comfortably; a land capable of feeding itself and other lands on the beleaguered continent of Africa, a veritable breadbasket; a land that could contribute wonderfully to the material and spiritual development and prosperity of all Africa and indeed of the whole world. It is endowed with enough to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of all its peoples. And so we would expect that such a land, veritably flowing with milk and honey, should be a land where peace and harmony and contentment reigned supreme. Alas, the opposite is the case. For my beloved country is wracked by division, by alienation, by animosity, by separation, by injustice, by avoidable pain and suffering. It is a deeply fragmented society, ridden by fear and anxiety, covered by a pall of despondency and a sense of desperation, split up into hostile, warring factions. It is a highly volatile land, and its inhabitants sit on a powder­keg with a very short fuse indeed, ready to blow us all up into kingdom come. There is endemic unrest, like a festering sore that will not heal until not just the symptoms are treated but the root causes are removed. South African society is deeply polarized. Nothing illustrates this more sharply than the events of the past week. While the black community was in the seventh heaven of delight because of the decision of that committee in Oslo, and while the world was congratulating the recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, the white government and most white South Africans, very sadly, were seeking to devalue that prize. An event that should have been the occasion of uninhibited joy and thanksgiving revealed a sadly divided society. Before I came to this country in early September to go on sabbatical, I visited one of the trouble­spots near Johannesburg. I went with members of` the Executive Committee of the South African Council of Churches, which had met in emergency session after I had urged Mr. P. W. Botha to meet with church leaders to deal with a rapidly deteriorating situation. As a result of our peace initiative, we did get to meet with two cabinet ministers, demonstrating thereby our concern to carry out our call to be ministers of reconciliation and ambassadors of Christ. In this black township, we met an old lady who told us that she was looking after her grandchildren and the children of neighbors while they were at work. On the day about which she was speaking, the police had been chasing black schoolchildren in that street, but the children had eluded the police, who then drove down the street past the old lady’s house. Her wards were playing in front of the house, in the yard. She was sitting in the kitchen at the back, when her daughter burst in, calling agitatedly for her. She rushed out into the living room. A grandson had fallen just inside the door, dead. The police had shot him in the back. He was six years old. Recently a baby, a few weeks old, became the first white casualty of the current uprisings. Every death is one too many. Those whom the black community has identified as collaborators with a system that oppresses them and denies them the most elementary human rights have met cruel death, which we deplore as much as any others. They have rejected these people operating within the system, whom they have seen as lackies and stooges, despite their titles of town councilors, and so on, under an apparently new dispensation extending the right of local government to the blacks. Over 100,000 black students are out of school, boycotting-as they did in 197~what they and the black community perceive as an inferior education designed deliberately for inferiority. An already highly volatile situation has been ignited several times and, as a result, over 80 persons have died. There has been industrial unrest, with the first official strike by black miners taking place, not without its toll of fatalities among the blacks. Some may be inclined to ask: But why should all this unrest be taking place just when the South African government appears to have embarked on the road of reform, exemplified externally by the signing of the Nkomati accord and internally by the implementation of a new constitution which appears to depart radically from the one it replaces, for it makes room for three chambers: one for whites, one for Coloureds, and one for Indians; a constitution described by many as a significant step forward? I wish to state here, as I have stated on other occasions, that Mr. P. W. Botha must be commended for his courage in declaring that the future of South Africa could no longer be determined by whites only. That was a very brave thing to do. The tragedy of South Africa is that something with such a Considerable potential for resolving the burgeoning crisis of our land should have been vitiated by the exclusion of 73 percent of the population, the Overwhelming majority in the land. By no stretch of the imagination could that kind of constitution be considered to be democratic. The composition of the committees, in the ratio of four whites to two Coloureds to one Indian, demonstrates eloquently what most people had suspected all along-that it was intended to perpetuate the rule of a minority. The fact that the first qualification for membership in the chambers is racial says that this constitution was designed to entrench racism and ethnicity. The most obnoxious features of apartheid would remain untouched and unchanged. The Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, separate educational systems for the different race groups; all this and more would remain quite unchanged. This constitution was seen by the mainline English­speaking churches and the official white opposition as disastrously inadequate, and they called for its rejection in the whites­only referendum last November. The call was not heeded. The blacks overwhelmingly rejected what they regarded as a sham, an instrument in the politics of exclusion. Various groups campaigned for a boycott of the Coloured and Indian elections-campaigned, I might add, against very great odds, by and large peacefully. As we know, the authorities responded with their usual iron­fist tactics, detaining most of the leaders of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and other organizations that had organized the boycott-and we have some of them now holed up in the British Consulate in Durban, causing a diplomatic contretemps. The current unrest was in very large measure triggered off by the reaction of the authorities to anti­election demonstrations in August. The farcical overall turnout of only about 20 percent says more eloquently than anything else that the Indians and Coloureds have refused to be co­opted as the junior partners of apartheid-the phrase used by Allan Boesak, the founding father of the UDF and president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. But there is little freedom in this land of plenty. There is little freedom to disagree with the determinations of the authorities. There is large­scale unemployment because of the drought and the recession that has hit most of the world’s economy. And it is at such a time that the authorities have increased the prices of various foodstuffs and also of rents in black townships-measures designed to hit hardest those least able to afford the additional costs. It is not surprising that all this has exacerbated an already tense and volatile situation. So the unrest is continuing, in a kind of war of attrition, with the casualties not being large enough at any one time to shock the world sufficiently for it to want to take action against the system that is the root cause of all this agony. We have warned consistently that unrest will be endemic in South Africa until its root cause is removed. And the root cause is apartheid-a vicious, immoral and totally evil, and unchristian system. People will refer to the Nkomati accord, and we will say that we are glad for the cessation of hostilities anywhere in the world. But we will ask: Why is détente by the South African government only for export? Why is state aggression reserved for the black civilian population? The news today is that the army has cordoned off Sebokeng, a black township, near Sharpeville, and 400 or so persons have been arrested, including the immediate ex­moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa and Father Geoff Moselane, àn Anglican priest. As blacks we often run the gauntlet of roadblocks on roads leading into our townships, and these have been manned by the army in what are actually described as routine police operations When you use the army in this fashion, who is the enemy? The authorities have not stopped stripping blacks of their South African citizenship Here I am, 53 years old, a bishop in the church, some would say reasonably responsible; I travel on a document that says of my nationality that it is “undeterminable at present.” The South African government is turning us into aliens in the land of our birth. It continues unabated with its vicious policy of forced population removals. It is threatening to remove the people of Kwa Ngema. It treats carelessly the women in the KTC squatter camp near Cape Town whose flimsy plastic coverings are destroyed every day by the authorities; and the heinous crime of those women is that they want to be with their husbands, with the fathers of their children. White South Africans are not demons; they are ordinary human beings, scared human beings, many of them; who would not be, if they were outnumbered five to one? Through this lofty body I wish to appeal to my white fellow South Africans to share in building a new society, for blacks are not intent on driving whites into the sea but on claiming only their rightful place in the sun in the land of their birth. We deplore all forms of violence, the violence of an oppressive and unjust society and the violence of those seeking to overthrow that society, for we believe that violence is not the answer to the crisis of our land. We dream of a new society that will be truly non­racial, truly democratic, in which people count because they are created in the image of God. We are committed to work for justice, for peace, and for reconciliation. We ask you, please help us; urge the South African authorities to go to the conference table with the . . . representatives of all sections of our community. I appeal to this body to act. I appeal in the name of the ordinary, the little people of South Africa. I appeal in the name of the squatters in crossroads and in the KTC camp. I appeal on behalf of the father who has to live in a single­sex hostel as a migrant worker, separated from his family for 11 months of the year. I appeal on behalf of the students who have rejected this travesty of education made available only for blacks. I appeal on behalf of those who are banned arbitrarily, who are banished, who are detained without trial, those imprisoned because they have had a vision of this new South Africa. I appeal on behalf of those who have been exiled from their homes. I say we will be free, and we ask you: Help us, that this freedom comes for all of us in South Africa, black and white, but that it comes with the least possible violence, that it comes peacefully, that it comes soon.

 

From Bishop Desmond Tutu, “The Question of South Africa,” Africa Report, 30 (January­Febru ry 1985), pp. 50­52. Originally a statement to the United Nations Security Council, October 23, 1984.

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook. (c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997