Apartheid FAQ: Was Desire for White Bread the Reason for Apartheid?
Question: Apartheid FAQ: Was Desire for White Bread the Reason for Apartheid?
I read 'The Power of One' by Bryce Courtenay. I have a question about this quote from the book: "...In fact, the turning point came not because of an ideological clash between white and white, but because the Nationalists promised to bring back white bread to replace the healthier whole wheat loaf which had been introduced during the war". Can you verify if this really was one of the reasons that the Nationalists came into power in 1948? ~ Karen, USA
Answer:
It is true that during, and immediately after, WWII the Smuts government had banned the "sifting" of flour which would have allowed people to bake white rather than brown bread - I have heard the stories of inspectors who would come around your house to check for black market goods and to check that you were not sifting flour (it was still common practice, you ;just hid the sieve). So the lack of white bread was an issue, but not one which would have influenced the election too much.
It could be that Courtenay is introducing the concept of white versus brown as an analogy for what was happening in the country, at least according to the National Party, under the Smuts government - there had been increased migration of Blacks into urban areas, jobs traditionally reserved for whites were going to Coloureds and Blacks, and Blacks had even been allowed to serve with the army in North Africa - several won medals for bravery. The Nats played heavily on the "threat" to whites from non-whites in the economy, and promised that whites would be an elite within South Africa, whereas the Smuts government had acknowledged that Blacks and Coloureds were playing an increasing role in society and was edging towards relaxation of pre-Apartheid laws such as urban dwelling and carrying of passes.
In effect, I think he is commenting on the promise to make South Africa "white" again.
So I would have to say that it is poetic license rather than a true state of affairs when compared to the politics of the time - especially given the Sauer and Fagan reports which set out the parties political ideologies well ahead of the election - the changes to constitutional boundaries, which allowed the National Party to win without a majority of the vote, and the fact that Smuts was overly involved on the international arena rather than paying attention to what was happening in South Africa.
I read 'The Power of One' by Bryce Courtenay. I have a question about this quote from the book: "...In fact, the turning point came not because of an ideological clash between white and white, but because the Nationalists promised to bring back white bread to replace the healthier whole wheat loaf which had been introduced during the war". Can you verify if this really was one of the reasons that the Nationalists came into power in 1948? ~ Karen, USA
Answer:
It is true that during, and immediately after, WWII the Smuts government had banned the "sifting" of flour which would have allowed people to bake white rather than brown bread - I have heard the stories of inspectors who would come around your house to check for black market goods and to check that you were not sifting flour (it was still common practice, you ;just hid the sieve). So the lack of white bread was an issue, but not one which would have influenced the election too much.
It could be that Courtenay is introducing the concept of white versus brown as an analogy for what was happening in the country, at least according to the National Party, under the Smuts government - there had been increased migration of Blacks into urban areas, jobs traditionally reserved for whites were going to Coloureds and Blacks, and Blacks had even been allowed to serve with the army in North Africa - several won medals for bravery. The Nats played heavily on the "threat" to whites from non-whites in the economy, and promised that whites would be an elite within South Africa, whereas the Smuts government had acknowledged that Blacks and Coloureds were playing an increasing role in society and was edging towards relaxation of pre-Apartheid laws such as urban dwelling and carrying of passes.
In effect, I think he is commenting on the promise to make South Africa "white" again.
So I would have to say that it is poetic license rather than a true state of affairs when compared to the politics of the time - especially given the Sauer and Fagan reports which set out the parties political ideologies well ahead of the election - the changes to constitutional boundaries, which allowed the National Party to win without a majority of the vote, and the fact that Smuts was overly involved on the international arena rather than paying attention to what was happening in South Africa.
