A/n ck(i^THL

r̂s

j i

TV

V).. YMj

/f̂ TTT) a r

0 i t !

/n m

The formation of a single

Congress has been prooosed by a

number of oeonlc recently, and

t’jo main arguments have been

brought forward to justify such

a step. Firstly, it 3s held

that it is wrrng t^ fight for a

non-racial society "ith racial

organisations. Secondly, it is

held that practical organisation­

al considerations require one

sJngle machinery rather than five

as at present*

On the first point it must be

admitted that the C.O.D. members

would rather belong to a multi­

racial organisation than remain

in an organisation for whites

only. Such an organisation

would be more in keeping with

for, and we -uld also be able to

experience more directly the stimu­

lation that contact with our non-

;.hitc fello' Congressmen gives.

The feeling of strength aroused

by a thousand voices singing

Kkosi Sikclele Afrika and the

heights of solidarity and heroism

that the African people have sho’Ti

under pressure has bound many a

white democrat closely to the

movement for liberation.

In general, such experiences

serve to confirm and reinforce the

theories and abstract values that

bring whites into the struggle.

Yet, despite this, white pro­

gressives ......(cont. on p. 2)

- V J )

Continuing

'Ni DEFENCE OF THE CONGRESS ALLIANCE

deoided to establish a separate organisa­tion. The decision was taken in 1953 after the suggestion of the A.N.C. that white democrats could best contribute to the struggle by forming their own organi­sation and by working amongst the whites. That this is still the position today is confirmed by the interview we publish be­low.

The reasons for the views held by the A.N.C., and S.A.I.C. are set out in an interview, and have also been dealt with at length in the current issues of :iLiber— ation" and "Fighting Talk" and need not be gone into here. Suffice it to say that an oppressed national group clearly has the right and even duty to form its own shield with which to defend itself.Coupled with this oonsideration, is the recognition that an organised body of white democrats can serve as a bridge over the colour bar, and concentrate on winning white support for the Congresses.

This is a specialised task in itself and there is in fact a danger that it might w*ll be neglected in a single Congress where the problem of organising the opp­ressed would be paramount. It is probable that even if there were a merger, a special committee or even organisation would have to be created in order to cater for this special task. For example, past practice has shown us that you cannot use the same propaganda appeal for whites as for non-whitess you cannot use leaflets asking people not to take our reference books among white housewives| nor can you oall on them to fight for £1 a day.

In addition, the problems facing each section of the population are different, and even with the loose Congress set up that exists, it is sometimes difficult to oorrelate a politioal campaign among the people. An example that comes to mind is the National Workers Conference, where in order to get maximum support for a single event different propaganda had to be print­ed for the Afrioan workers, Indian merch­ants and European democrats. This example illustrates the difficulties of co—ordina— ting and unifying the struggles of peoples who have differing disabilities.

basis of fear for the Black Menace. Thus

far they have failed partly because o f ’ the resistance of white democrats. But the need for more activity in this direc­tion will become more pressing and C.O.D. with its ready access to whites is well suited to this task. Here again, if there was a single Congress - it's white members would doubtless be asked to specialise in this work in any case.

Why then should there be such a clamour for one Congress when there is so much work to be done among the whites? Is this not indirectly an act of writing off the whites as a political force? Is it not the act of despair of the newcomer into the political field who feels that he is an exception among whites, and has persuad­ed himself that a substantial number of whites will never be won over from being hard hearted oppressors? If this is even a part of the motivation in calling for a Congress merger then it is clearly wrong and dangerous as well. We simply cannot neglect to do all in our power to win over or at the least neutralise a substantial number of white people if we are serioua in wanting change in this country. And, if we are convinced that a non-colour bar South Africa will be a happier place for all of us - white and non-white, then let us take our message to the former and win him to our point of view. After all,right,

•justice, decency, all the best human values are on our side.

However, whether we are in agreement with this view or not, we must nevertheless

recognise that attempts to force a change of structure upon the Congress movement are fraught with danger. If instead of

a modest, reasoned approach, barn storming campaigning at mass conferences is resorted to, not only will the move for a Congress merge be unsuccessful but ill-feeling will be created besides.

C.O.D, members would be ill-advised •to urge a change that the whole Congress leadership has now expressly opposed.

B. T.

In step with the growing strength and mili­tancy of the non—white Liberatory organisa­tions, more not less attention will have to be given to the whites in South Africa. The Nationalists have tried everything in their efforts to \B&*e the whites on the

by Vic Goldberg

Comment and criticism on the following points from Treason Trialer's article in the May 1959 issue of Counter Attack will not leave much space for advancing the "One Congress" point of view, but they do require answering if only to clear the decks for the placing of discussion in its proper settings- the nature and make-up of the forces in South African society upon which the liberatory movement bases its struggles, from which the movement draws its support.

1) "FOR SUCCESS, LEADERS NEED THE MASSES,ARE THE MASSES READY FOR A MULTI­RACIAL CONGRESS?"

The only occasion in recent years the point has been put to them - theanswer has been a resounding Yes ------or are 1,000 delegates (65O from outside Johannesburg) not representative of the Congress masses? I refer, of course, to the response R. Segal received at the Anti-Pass Conference. Representing 20,000 to 25sOOO people (1958 Durban National Conference ANC figures were +- 18,000), they were quite obviously the largest num­ber (mass) ever asked this question.

2) "BUT WE IN C.O.D. ARE PARTICULARLYCONCERNED WITH EUROPEAN SOUTH AFRICANS ... (AND) ... OUR AIM IS TO TURN WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS INTO PEOPLE WHO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO THEIR OWN CAUSE OF THE EUROPEAN IN SOUTH AFRICA, TO HIS SURVIVAL, HAPPINESS AND SECURITY."

Here is revealed the tragedy inher­ent to the separate organisational tactic. Here is revealed the illogical conclusion this whole insistence on "theirs" and "ours" must lead us to.

We are NOT particularly concerned with European South Africans. We are con­cerned with South Africa and her people.

We are concerned with oppression, or rather its elimination from our homeland: We want democracy, security, happiness, the dignity of man, the survival of man - as man - in South Africa. We want to break down the European-African-Coloured- Asian-Griqua-Malay-Xhosa-Zulu-Venda-Sotho' Jew-Shanghaan-Greek-etc.,etc., complex that plagues South Africa. Out of the diversity of cultures in South Africa we want to create a common South African out­look that still reflects that diversity yet presents a unity in conformity with all that is best in man. We want an Afri­can continent freed of this 'group' consciousness - a Free United States of Afrika (this after all is what our parti­cipation in Afrika Day was all about), so that one day when the international broth* hood of man is realised on a world scale, the southernmost tip of Afrika will not be in default.

We oppose the "ethnic grouping" of Bantustans; we call for African unity, for an African nation of which we must form a part; yet now we are told that we are dedicated to the cause of European survival.

ARE WE?

Perhaps the N.E.C. should issue a statemei on why C.O.D. was formed, what its tasks are, etc., so that we might know exactly what we stand for.

3) THE LIBERAL PARTY ; "THEIRS" AND "OURS" AGAIN.

The programme of the Liberal Party can ha1 no lasting appeal to the masses. That is why they stand "outside its ranks." And this is precisely as it should be. It is not the "non-theirness" or "non-ourness" of the Party, but its inability to presen a "people's programme" that keeps the masses out. IL is because its interests

Continuing

" O N E C O N G R E S S "by Vio Goldberg

are basically inimioal to those of the masses that it has so far been able to attract only the elements 'Treason Trialer' cites, who are not "fully urbanised." or "fully integrated" but intellectuals, traders - petit bourgeois elements who, fear- ing the masses, are unable, like the very same elements which have sided with the masses, and do not fear them, to join Congress.

WHY THEN DO I SAY "ONE CONGRESS"

The FREEDOM CHARTER insists that our aim is the creation of a common society. CAN WE REALISE SUCH A SOCIETY FROM BATTLE POSITIONS WHICH ARE INTERLOCKED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, BUT NOT AT THE RANK-AND-FILE LEVEL?

Are the weapons society has given u s 3 4 or more groups of people5 or those of our population pf 1 4,000,000 who suffer from oppression and those who ..have thrown in their lot with the opressed?

"SEPARATIONJ" the oppressor proclaims, bringing all within the compass of its terroristic rule?

"SEPARATION.'" we reply, "because there are different sections with different problems?"

But have the different sections, different problems? Is not our common problem fundamentally the abolition of oppression, the creation of a new South Africa in which "THE PEOPLE shall GovernJ"?

Are we organisationally stronger being in 4 organisations rathern than in 1? Are we not splitting and duplicating our forces in separate organisations with parallel committees, that only diverge to meet at the top?

Lutuli has saids "I may have more in common with you here than, possibly, with the less fortunate of my African brothers who are still in the Reserves,.... to me thatis a pointer to the fact that we can build a new type of homogeneous society......"what better place therefore to start that building than in the liberatory movement itself?

A N

A \ \ r m c m d p u c-\ S , • ! IU V

Question.Can the reaction of delegates at the recent anti-pass conference be interpreted as g.n^cceptanoe by the ANC membership of the idea of a multi-racial congress?

Answer.IN A CONFERENCE WHERE ALL RACIAL GROUPS WERE REPRESENTED AND M E R E WE WERE WORK­ING TO CONSOLIDATE OUR FORCES, CONGRESS MEMBERS WOULD NOT HAVE TURNED DOWN APPLI­CATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP BY ANYONE PRESENT SINCE SUCH A REFUSAL WOULD HAVE IMPLIED UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER. THEY APPLAUDED THE GESTURE NOT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT THINK, BUT BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS MADE. THERE IS ABSOLUTE­LY NO DOUBT THAT HAD THESE SAME DELEGATES BEEN PRESENTED WITH THE PROBLEM IN A DE­BATE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUGGESTION.

THE WHOLE LEADERSHIP OF THE A.N.C. IS CONVINCED THAT IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO CALL FOR A MULTI-RACIAL CONGRESS. The A.N.C. was formed to organise the African people from different tribal groups into one solid national movement to defend their interests. That process is not yet com­plete, but we have gone a long way towards our goal. Simultaneously, the Congress alliance is progressing and is achieving far greater unity than artificial sugges­tions could and preparing the people for this common society of the future.

Opening the membership of Congress would have the reverse effect. People would noia begin to argue that this was no longer the national movement representing the inter­ests of the African people, as was the aim of Congress, and the need had there­fore arisen for a new organisation to represent the interests of the African people.

Q.+

Have the A.N.C. and the S.A.I.C. a mass following?

A.Mr.Goldberg denies that they have, but he gives no facts or reasons for saying this. It is a fact that whenever there is a pro­blem in the reserves, in the dockss in the townships, the leaders come to the A.N.C. for help and advice. You do not determine the strength of an organisation purely by the membership figures, particul­arly if such figures were published in the World. The membership figures of 18,000 at the last conference was sub­

sequently corrected by the World when it was explained that it was taken from the credentials report, before delegates from branches had arrived at the confer­ence and talcing into account the fact that many branches had not paid their dues to head office in full and were not therefore entitled to representation up to their full quota.... Last year, for example, Port Elizabeth alone claim­ed 11,000 members and with the adjoining branch of Zalcile, 20,000.

As for the S.A.I.C., thousands of Indians attend its meetings whenever they called in Natal or the Transvaal. There is hardly a child who does not know about the SAIC and not a single adult who does not know the name of Dadoo or Naiker.The fact that not one Indian registered for the franchise some years ago because of the call of the Indian Congress is an indication of how much following the SAIC can claim. The representation of the Indian community before every hearing of the*t?roup Areas Board is furth­er proof. •

C.O.D. HAS ALWAYS SET A VERY HIGH STAND­

ARD FOR DEMOCRATIC EUROPEANS TO FOLLOW.

THIS ALONE IS .AMPLE JUSTIFICATION FOR

ITS EXISTENCE.

fiy AN ANC MEMBER.

Collection Number: AD1137

FEDERATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN WOMEN 1954-1963

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained

herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand

has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any

related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.