Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
02 September 2019 | Story Valentino Ndaba
Rebecca Swartz
Researcher delves into the complexity of the British colonial system’s influence on the education of indigenous South African children

Tracking how the government’s involvement in indigenous children’s education changed over time is the subject matter of Dr Rebecca Swartz’s new book, Education and Empire: Children, Race and Humanitarianism in the British Settler Colonies, 1833-1880. Dr Swartz, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the University of the Free State’s International Studies Group, published this monograph four years after completing her PhD.

As a historian of British imperialism in the 19th century and focusing on the intersections between childhood, race, and humanitarianism, Dr Swartz’s research is imperative in understanding the history of the South African education system. Her study draws on materials from the Caribbean and Australia, as well South African archives.

Education as a tool to carve equality
The book is a comparative study which addresses how the government, researchers, missionaries and members of the public viewed the function of education in the 19th-century British Empire. The book tackles a period during which changing conceptions of childhood, the functions of education, responsibilities of government, and the reach of governing indigenous peoples intersected.

Underlying the question of education’s function “were anxieties regarding the status of indigenous people in newly colonised territories: the successful education of their children could show their potential for equality”, says Dr Swartz. While the colonial government and missionaries often agreed that some education should be given to indigenous children, they  wanted to use this to further their own aims which included religious conversion and creating a labour force. Indigenous parents and children themselves were rarely consulted on what they wanted from schooling. 

Schools and race

According to the historical archives sifted through by Swartz, substantial data was gathered which point to the fact that schools played a major role in the production and reproduction of racial differences in the colonies of settlement. 

A shift in thinking took place between 1833 and 1880, both in Britain and the Empire. Education was increasingly seen as a government responsibility. With this new outlook childhood was approached as a time to make interventions into indigenous people’s lives. “This period also saw shifts in thinking about race,” says Dr Swartz. Remnants of that thinking can be seen in present-day South Africa. 

Considering the bigger picture

When Dr Swartz began her research at the University of London in 2012, her main focus was to provide a broader understanding which transcended histories of either the development of ‘white’ schooling for settler children or Marxist histories of education of the apartheid period. “I was interested in finding out more about education for indigenous children during the 19th century, often in the early years of colonial settlement, an area that had received fairly little attention in the literature.”

Interested in a copy of the book?
Click here for a discount flyer for the book. Copies are also available on Amazon.

News Archive

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy
2007-08-06

 

In her inaugural lecture Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Sciences, focused on the impact that Pan-Africanist sentiments have had on South Africa’s foreign policy. She also put the resulting contradictions and ambiguities into context. At her inaugural lecture were, from the left: Proff. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Heidi Hudson, Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean: Faculty of The Humanities) and Daan Wessels (Research Associate in the Department of Political Science).
Photo: Stephen Collett

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy

“We are committed to full participation as an equal partner … opposed to any efforts which might seek to project South Africa as some kind of superpower on our continent. … the people of Africa share a common destiny and must therefore … address their challenges … as a united force...” (Mbeki 1998:198-199).

Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Science referred to this statement made by president Mbeki (made at the opening of the OAU Conference of Ministers of Information in 1995) when she delivered her inaugural lecture on the topic: South African foreign policy: The politics of Pan-Africanism and pragmatism.

One of the questions she asked is: “Can the South African state deliver democracy and welfare at home while simultaneously creating a stable, rules-based African community?”

She answers: “South Africa needs to reflect more critically and honestly on the dualism inherent in its ideological assumptions regarding relations with Africa. South Africa will always be expected by some to play a leadership role in Africa. At the moment, South Africa’s desire to be liked is hampering its role as leader of the continent.”

In her lecture she highlighted the ideological underpinnings and manifestations of South Africa’s foreign policy. Throughout she alluded to the risks associated with single-mindedly following an ideologically driven foreign policy. She emphasised that domestic or national interests are the victims in this process.

Prof. Hudson offers three broad options for South Africa to consider:

  • The Predator – the selfish bully promoting South African economic interest.
  • Mr Nice Guy – the non-hegemonic partner of the African boys club, multilaterally pursuing a pivotal but not dominant role.
  • The Hegemon - South Africa driving regional integration according to its values and favouring some African countries over others, and with checks and balances by civil society.

She chooses option three of hegemony. “Politically correct research views hegemony as bad and partnership as good. This is a romanticised notion – the two are not mutually exclusive,” she said.

However, she states that there have to be prerequisites to control the exercise of power. “The promotion of a counter-hegemon, such as Nigeria, is necessary. Nigeria has been more effective in some respects than South Africa in establishing its leadership, particularly in West Africa. Also needed is that government should be checked by civil society to avoid it sinking into authoritarianism. The case of business and labour coming to an agreement over the HIV/Aids issue is a positive example which illustrates that government cannot ignore civil society. But much more needs to be done in this regard. South Africa must also be very careful in how it uses its aid and should focus potential aid and development projects more explicitly in terms of promoting political stability,” she said.

Prof. Hudson said: “It is also questionable whether Mbeki’s Afro-centrism has in fact promoted the interests of ordinary citizens across Africa. Instead, elite interests in some countries have benefited. But ultimately, the single most important cost is the damage done to the moral code and ethical principles on which the South African Constitution and democracy is founded.

“In the end we all lose out. More pragmatism and less ideology in our relations within Africa may just be what are needed,” she said.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept