J. B. M. Hertzog, Brief aan Clements Kadalie, 21 Julie 1921 [UCT, W. G. Ballinger
Papers, BC 347, A5. X. 1].1
Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union,
I have received yours of 19th inst., for which please receive my sincere thanks. My only regret is that I could not contribute more liberally.
The feelings expressed by you on behalf of your union, I much appreciate, in connection with my endeavours in Parliament; and I sincerely hope that they may contribute to a proper and true realisation of the intimate connection in which those stand who are represented by your union and myself in relation to the common cause of South Africa.
It is for us by our own common endeavours, to make this country, that we both love so much, great and good. In order to do that we must not only ourselves be good and great, but we must also see that there is established between the white and the black Africander that faith in and sympathy with one another which is so essential for the prosperity of a nation.
It is my sincere desire that that faith and sympathy shall exist and to that end I hope to exert all my influence.
With best wishes,
(Sgd) J. B. M. Hertzog
3.1.2 James Thaele, ‘The most comprehensive, the soundest and the sanest attempt to solve the problem’ (1924)James Thaele, Report on his speech, ‘Segregation Scheme: Native Deputed to Explain’, Umteteli wa Bantu, 5 July 1924, 2.
A meeting of Natives was held on the Capetown Parade last Sunday to provide an opportunity for the exposition of General Hertzog’s segregation theory by Professor James Thaele who, it would seem, was recently accorded an interview with the Prime Minister. Prof Thaele very strongly supported General Hertzog’s declared Native policy, and although in some instances his statements were a trifle unmeasured is address as reported by the ‘Cape Times’ was very interesting. It is remarkable, however, that General Hertzog should invest Prof Thaele with authority to say so much regarding his scheme that he has himself refrained from saying, and we should be glad to have the Prime Minister’s confirmation of the proposals so attractively outlined by his Native agent.
Professor Thaele said Smuts himself had said segregation must come. He (the speaker) would describe segregation from the white man’s point of view. Cecil Rhodes’ dictum was ‘Equal rights for all civilised South Africa’. It was impracticable for the white man who ruled as conquerors. The white man had a saying to the effect that ‘to the victors belonged the spoils.’
The white man ruled the Natives as a subject race. The Natives were in the majority and the whites in the minority. The white man saw [that] if he gave equal political rights to the Native they would very soon have a black Prime Minister.
So segregation in the white man’s view had become a necessity: to maintain the white man’s supremacy. It was natural. In ancient Egypt, the black man fought to keep his supremacy over the Jews. Each race fought for self-preservation.
Smuts segregated the Natives and said segregation was the law of the land. Why had Smuts made such a noise about Hertzog’s policy of segregation? Smuts worked by underhand methods to segregate and divide the Natives. Hertzog did not want to divide them. He wanted to give them land where they could develop their own civilisation in their own way. He recognised their tribal traditions and their distinctive nationhood.
He (Professor Thaele) liked Hertzog’s segregation policy, because it left the black man to govern himself. Smuts was afraid of this; he said it would mean that in 50 years the Native civilisation would be a terror to the whites.
In his (the speaker’s) view, Hertzog’s segregation policy was the most comprehensive, the soundest and the sanest attempt to solve the problem. There was philosophy underlying Hertzog’s policy. Hertzog said Africa first and Africa last.
Smuts had been playing up to Great Britain, signing secret treaties.