B la c k o u t

A Commentary on the Education Policy

of the

Instituut vir Christelik-Nasionale Onderwys

Issued by :

THE ED U CATIO N LEA G U E

(O PVO ED IN SSBO N D )

Price 2 /6 .

% t o i 3 , 1

B la c k o u t

A Commentary on the Education Policy of the

Instituut v ir Christelik-Nasionale Onderwys w ith an

abridged translation of the pamphlet in which the policy is stated.

Issued b y :

THE EDUCATION LEAGUE (OPVOEDINGSBOND)

P.O. Box 6475 Johannesburg

F irst Published ................................ January, 1949

Second Im pression .................... February, 1949

Third Im pression ................................ March, 1949

Fourth Im pression ............................ April, 1949

F ifth Im pression ..................................... H ay, 1949

Second (Enlarged) Edition ............ July, 1949

B L A C K O U T

F irst Published .......................... September, 1959

“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.”

Lord Beaconsfield.

( J o n t z n t s ,

FOREWORD ....................................................... ................... 5

INTRODUCTION .............................................. ...... ...... 7

Abridged Translation of I.C.N.O. Pam phlet,............... . 14

ANALYSIS (a) CHRISTIAN ......................................... . 28

(b) N ATION AL.......................... _ ...... 29

(c) EDUCATION ................ ......______ 34

FOREWORD

In February, 1948, the Instituut vir Christelik- Nasionale Onderwys (I.C.N.O.), under the auspices of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings (F.A.K.), published a manifesto on Education which is of immediate importance to every citizen of South Africa, and especially to all teachers and parents. We believe th a t this C.N.O. manifesto represents the education policy of the Nationalist Government and tha t the Language Ordinance, University Apartheid and Bantu Education are merely examples of the extent to which this policy has already been put into practice.

The document outlines, sometimes in term s disturb­ingly precise, sometimes in term s which would perm it of any interpretation, a blueprint for South African education on the Christian-national plan. That its planners take every word of it seriously is indicated by the fact th a t they spent ten years on it. In spite of denials, their own words in the pamphlet and elsewhere, make it clear th a t they are determined to foist their system on the country. When he was Minister of Education, Mr. M. C. de Wet Nel acknow­ledged tha t the Government’s education policy is C.N.O. Even more recently Dr. Verwoerd’s announcement of a national education policy was the ominous foreboding of the struggle which lies before those who oppose a Christian- National regimentation in our education. A National edu­cation policy formulated by a Nationalist regime will be a Nationalist education policy.

We wish to make it clear a t the outset th a t we have no political allegiance as a g ro u p : our objection to the I.C.N.O. pamphlet is nowhere made on political grounds. We should oppose it no m atter _ what party, parties or groups supported it. We oppose it because, as school and university teachers and as parents, we are persuaded th a t the proposed system is unChristian; would be ruinous to South Africa as a nation ; and is blatantly aimed at defeat­ing, for narrow political purposes, the ends towards which

Western education has striven for many centuries. There is thus no question of political partisanship.

A glance at the pamphlet will be enough to convince anyone tha t we are not being alarmists when we say that these self-styled educationists aim a t cramping and enslav­ing the minds of pupil, student and teacher in order to serve narrow and crippling ends. And also, under this system, the teacher degenerates into a mere automaton. We quote. “All teaching must be Christian-Nationalist; in no subject may anti-Christian or non-Christian or anti-Nationalist or non-Nationalist propaganda be made” (Article 6).

In its earlier editions this booklet was entitled “Blue­prin t for Blackout.” Our change of title in this the third edition is a warning of what will be if we do not stand firm.

INTRODUCTION

The Institute for Christian National Education (I.C .N .O .)under the auspices of the Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Societies (FA.K .) published its manifesto on Christian Na­tional Education in 1948. A t least ten years of silent la­bour, we are told in the preface, went into its making, its sponsors were men of the greatest influence and power in our country. They included Dr. Donges, a Cabinet M inister; Dr. Jansen, the Governor-General; Mr. Justice de Vos Hugo, a former Chairman of the Group Areas B oard ; Mr. Greijbe, former President of the Transvaal Afrikaans Teachers’ Association; professors of Education from Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom and other men of influence.

As propaganda it is skilfully prepared. Its appeal to the ignorant and ill-informed is ominous, for God and the Fatherland are called upon in almost every paragraph. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS POLICY IS NOT CHRISTIAN AND AIMS AT DESTROYING ANY HOPE FOR A UNITED SOUTH AFRICAN NATION. IT IS NOT AIMED AT EDUCATION BUT RATHER AT INDOCTRINA­TION.

Our booklet, in its earlier editions, was entitled “Blue­print for Blackout”. How unhappily apposite th a t title has proved! In the eleven years th a t Nationalism has been enthroned in power in South Africa, the whole education system has been directed towards the furtherance of the Christian Nationalist doctrine. No longer are we dealing with a mere Blueprint. We are in the last stages of the construction of an educational system upon which it is hoped to base a South African state in which conformity to Nationalism’s version of Calvinism and a growing authori­tarianism will be the order of the day.

The names of the sponsors of the C.N.O. pamphlet forewarned us tha t it could not be lightly dismissed as the work of extremist cranks. The Cape Congress of the Nationalist P arty in October 1948 supported the policy in principle, while, one month later, the Transvaal Congress of

the Nationalist Party urged tha t the policy as outlined by the pamphlet should be given immediate effect. The Dutch Reformed Synod of the O.F.S. declared its support and the A frikaans Teachers’ Associations of all four provinces add­ed their “unshaken fa ith” in the policy. Prof. Chris Coetzee, the Rector of Potchefstroom University, in the Onderwys- blad of 1st January, 1949 claimed th a t C.N.O. ideals are already deeply rooted in all Afrikaans schools “in spite of the so-called conscience clause.”

In the clamour of public opposition tha t followed the publication of the C.N.O. pamphlet and particularly after the formation of the Education League with an avowed object of exposing C.N.O. to the public, there was a time when C.N.O. seemed the skeleton in the cupboard of Na­tionalism. The then Minister of Education ,the late Dr. Stals, and the then Adm inistrator of the Transvaal, Dr. Nicol, publicly repudiated the C.N.O. pamphlet, albeit in somewhat unsatisfactory terms.

The I.C.N.O. aims at the infiltration of the existing schools and then the subversion of the entire education sys­tem. “Our ideal . . . is the Christian National school, but we realise tha t for the time being our task lies in the satura­tion of the existing public schools with our Christian Na­tional sp irit.” (Article 8, vii).

The aim of C .N .O . is power over the minds of all Sout-h Africans, but in particular the Afrikaners who the I.C .N .O . hope will be their power-wedge. We were able in previous editions of “Blue­print for Blackout” to w rite that C.N.O. was merely an un­official policy. Today it is the education policy of the Na­tionalist Government.

When he was Minister of Education, Mr. de Wet Nel stated at the Technical High School a t Kroonstad tha,t “Christian National education should be the basis of all planning and the object should not merely be academical training.”

At the recent congress of the Nationalist party an M.P.C., Mr. Gerdener, denied tha t the C.N.O. manifesto had the support of the Government. This denial cannot be accepted in view of the extent to which the C.N.O. policy has already been put into practice.

Many Nationalists when challenged claim to support Christian National education but not as outlined in the C.N.O. brochure. In w hat way does th is vague C.N.O. dif­fer from the precise plan formulated in the C.N.O. bro­chure ?

When Dr. Verwoerd announces tha t he is preparing legislation for a national education policy for South Africa he is giving warning of the last stages of the construction of the administrative framework for Christian National Education in South Africa. By means of the Bantu Edu­cation Act the control of African education was transferred to the State. Now white education is to be state controlled to complete the pattern. Dr. Verwoerd is a man to be taken seriously. He says w hat he means and does not hesitate to put his beliefs into practice. A re there still those who are deluded enough to believe that Dr. Verwoerd will merely transfer the control o f all education to the State and make no further changes?

CONTROL has been the pattern of South African Nationalists. In no other sphere have they hesitated to use the power th a t is theirs by virtue of their CONTROL. They will not make education the exception, for it is the KEY TO CONTROL, the means by which all authoritarian regimes hope to perpetuate their power.

A NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY MEANS A NATIONALIST EDUCATION POLICY.

Do not allow the anomalies in our education system — the different standards of schooling in the various provinces— to tem pt you to accept a national education policy. Stan­dardisation, where desirable, can be effected without na­tional control. We can have a national matriculation through inter-provincial consultation without coercion.

Ours is not a homogeneous society. There is no inher­ent validity in Dr. Verwoerd’s repeated viewpoint th a t we cannot have one ideal in one part of South Africa and a different ideal in another. WHY NOT? Uniformity will mean the subjection o f the ideals o f all other sections of South African society to the ideals o f the Nationalists.

Decentralised, provincial control is a guarantee against the growing authoritarian nature of the State. The increas­ing centralisation in modern governmental systems in cer­tain countries has resulted in a loss of individual freedom w ithout a conspicious growth in efficiency.

Centralisation presupposes that the civil servant in Pretoria knows what is good for your child better than the teacher and parent on the spot in Johannesburg, C a p e Town and Pietermaritzburg.

In recent years the trend in many overseas countries has been away from centralised control of education. Many countries now encourage local authorities to play a key role in education.

THE NATURE OF C.N.O.C.N.O. IS A POLICY OF INDOCTRINATION. It

teaches the love of one’s own in a South Africa in which no one race or group can have the monopoly of our loyalty. I t is a policy of “moulding'’ the child in contradistinction to what we believe to be the aim o f true education — the develop­ment o f the personality o f the child to its fullest extent.

There is a shift from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the community in C.N.O. — “the parents collectively and not as individuals m ust determine the spirit and trend.” There is no mention of minorities who appar­ently must conform and like it.

C.N.O. IN PRACTICEHow can we substantiate our allegation that C.N.O.

has already been faithfully carried into practice in SOUTH AFRICA? An examination of the field of education in South A frica shows our view to be a self-evident truth.

NON-WHITE EDUCATIONIn essence C.N.O. gives a divine ordination to the pre­

sent position in South African society — or a t least Nation­alism’s picture of it. The fundamental belief underlying C.N.O. is tha t there are several distinguishable races in the Union, and the European, particularly the Afrikaner, is the guardian and the non-European the ward. Education must assist the overall policy of apartheid by ensuring the con­tinuation of the existing order (Articles 6 (vi) and 15).

The C.N.O. protagonists regard South Africa as a fixed racial hierarchy founded by GOD.

A STATE WHICH EDUCATES ITS CITIZENS TO FIT ITS PRECONCEIVED PATTERN OF SOCIETY, IN WHICH THE STATUS OF MEN IS PREORDAINED BY THEIR RACE, IS NEGLECTING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIGNITY OF MAN AND CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS TOTALITARIAN.

In 1951 the Eiselen Commission published its report (U.G. 53/51) on African education. This report has form­ed the basis of Government policy in the field of African education, and is in stric t conformity with the C.N.O. policy.

The Commission’s findings were pointed in the C.N.O. direction by the assumptions of its term s of reference . . . to report our education for Africans “as an independent race”, and to devise “syllabuses . . . to prepare natives more effectively for their fu ture occupations.”

The Eiselen Commission followed exactly the C.N.O. doctrine tha t each race or nation has separate gifts and abilities despite its finding th a t “the Bantu Child comes to School with a basic physical and psychological endow­ment which differs so fa r as your Commissioners have been able to determine from the evidence, so slightly, if a t all, from tha t of the European child th a t no special provision has to be made in educational theory or basic aims.”

Following on the Eiselen Report the control of edu­cation for Africans was transferred to the Dept, of Native Affairs by means of the Bantu Education Act. I t is true that the Act itself is merely a transfer of control — the key to the understanding of the policy must be sought in the Eiselen Report and the speeches made in Parliam ent in support of the Act.

Dr. Verwoerd explained in the Senate tha t school must equip the African to meet the demands th a t the economic life of South Africa will impose upon him . . .” what is the use of teaching a Bantu child Mathematics when it cannot use it in practice? . . . th a t is absurd. Education is not after all something tha t hangs in the air. Education must train and teach people in accordance with their opportunities in life . . . it is therefore necessary tha t native education should be controlled in such a way tha t it should be in accordance with the policy of the State.”

This outline by Dr. Verwoerd is a classic exposition o f C .N .O .Furtherm ore the C.N.O. brochure states tn a t “in ordinary circumstances the Church does not establish schools.” Under the Bantu Education Act with few exceptions Church schools have been taken over by the State or have closed down. C.N.O. does not favour the financing of education of Africans “at the expense of w hite”. The expenditure on African education by the central Government has been pegged by law and any additional expenditure must now be met by special taxation of the African people.

The Tomlinson Commission endorsed the findings of the Eiselen Commission and emphasised th a t “the education of the Bantu should have its own Bantu national character, so tha t its products will be capable of filling their places in their own society.” The Tomlinson Report regards education as one of the social services provided by the State for A fricans and thus it must fit the S tate 's plan for the socio-econom ic developm ent of the A frican Reserves.

The Coloured Education Commission also regarded an analysis of the occupations of the parents of the coloured school child as of prime importance in determining their educational needs. In our view this is a fallacious approach which would gear future coloured education down to the

inferior racial and economic position of the present coloured population.

UNIVERSITIESThe Government has now passed the university apart­

heid act which is psychotically called the Extension of Uni­versity Education Act. Non-whites are to be excluded from the open universities and confined to tribal colleges. Once the C.N.O. doctrine has been introduced as fa r as a racial test for admission, who would be foolish enough to believe tha t it will not insinuate itself into other fields of university life?

And indeed it has. Potchefstroom University has now omitted the “conscience clause” from its Charter and styles itself “Potchefstroomse Universiteit v ir Christelike Hoer Onderwys”. There is no “conscience clause” in the new tribal colleges.

The “conscience clause" is the popular name for the legislative protection of university staffs from religious tests in their appointment and teaching. I t prohibits a universi­ty from refusing to appoint a teacher to its staff merely because he is a Catholic, a Jew or even a member of the three Dutch Reformed Churches. Is is disappearing from our university life in accordance w ith the policy of C.N.O. (Article 11, ii).

WHITE EDUCATIONCompulsory mother-tongue education has been intro­

duced in the Cape, the O.F.S. and the Transvaal. Parental choice in the language medium of the child’s education has been abolished. Dual and parallel-medium schools, such as the Hendrik van der Bijl School, have been disestablished without regard to the wishes of the parents concerned.

The system of school board elections has been altered. Previously in the Transvaal all registered voters could par­ticipate in these elections. Now only the parents of children a t the provincial schools may do so.

Text-books have been prescribed in the Transvaal schools which are the subject of the greatest criticism, par­ticularly in the fields of race relations and history. Nation­alist propaganda is being spread through such text-books. Reading has been controlled by the introduction of the Book Guide. No teacher may allow a book on school premises unless it has been departmentally approved and placed in the Book Guide.

OVERALL AN ATMOSPHERE OF CONFORMITY HAS STIFLED INITIATIVE.

THE BLACKOUTC.N.O. is the education policy of the Nationalists. I t per­

vades the whole atmosphere of the African schools. I t is well developed in the white schools, it has entered our uni­versities. If we do not stand firm now will we not have contributed to the Blackout which awaits South Africa?

A NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY IS A NATION­ALIST EDUCATION POLICY.

ABRIDGED TRANSLATION OF I.C.N.O.

PAMPHLET.

The pamphlet was issued in Afrikaans by the Institute for Christian Nationalist Education (I.C.N.O.), under the auspices of the Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Societies (F.A.K.). The name of the printer does not appear any­where on the pamphlet. A list of the Directors of the Institute is given on the title page, as follows: Adv. G. F. de V. Hugo (Chairman), J. H. Greijbe (Vice-Chairman), Prof. J. G. Meiring, Dr. T. E. Donges, M.P., Prof. J. Chris. Coetzee, Rev. D. P. Laurie, Prof. H. P. Wolmarans, Dr. E. G. Jansen, M.P., Dr. E. Greyling and Rev. G. D. Worst. The address and date a re : P.O. Box 8711, Johannesburg, Feb­ruary, 1948.

Shorn of tautologies, the document reads as follows:

Abridged Translation of the Preface(extracts in quotation marks).

I congratulate the I.C.N.O. on formulating this policy as a guide in “our cultural struggle which is now also a school struggle.” We shall triumph in the end.

A fter the Boer W ar the well-known C.N.O. schools were set up to counter-act the anglicising of our children in the British Government schools. Impoverished by war, people had to make them over to the state in 1907, but by then a second Front for the preservation of our national identity was in full swing. This was the Second Language movement. It gained several hard-won victories:

(1) the admission of Afrikaans as a school subject in 1914;

(2) as a medium in about 1920;(3) as the second official language in 1925.

After that we had a decade of peace and steady growth in the field of language. “I t may be tru ly said tha t a couple of generations of children passed through our mother- tongue-medium schools without interference. They are a source of strength in our present language struggle. In 1937 and 1938 . . . the old outworn dual medium idea was seized upon once again in a renewed . . . attem pt to anglicise our children . . . "

The F.A.K. was on guard. A C.N.O. congress was held by the F.A.K. at Bloemfontein in July 1939. One of its resolutions was to found an institute to propagate con­tinually the historic ideal of C.N.O. This is now called the I.C.N.O. They decided to formulate a policy. “This task was then begun, and after nearly ten years of silent labour, the policy can go out into the world. Various drafts of the policy were considered by all the directing bodies of the F.A.K. and all the bodies and organisations on which the F.A.K. and the I.C.N.O. are represented, and that means by all Afrikaans bodies and organisations tha t have any interest in education. Therefore, the policy in its pre­sent form has been approved by the whole of Afrikanerdom in so fa r as it is represented by the F.A.K. Indeed, we have progressed.

“There is too much at stake for us to relax in the struggle. With the use of our language as medium we have not yet got everything. On the contrary, we have got very little. A frikaans as medium of instruction in a school atmosphere th a t is culturally foreign to our nation is like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. The true cultural stuff is not yet there. Our culture must be carried into the school and tha t cannot be done merely by having our language as medium. More is needed. Our Afrikaans schools m ust not merely be mother-tongue schools; they must be places where our children will be saturated with the Christian and National spiritual cultural stuff of our nation. The dual medium struggle has opened our eyes, and there is going to be a struggle about the realisation of these ideals. We want no mixing of languages, no mixing of cultures, no mixing of religions and no mixing of races. We are winning the medium-struggle. The struggle for the Christian and National school still lies before us.”

(Signed) J. C. van Rooy,Chairman of the F.A.K.,

Johannesburg, February, 1948.

AR TIC LE 1: Basis.All white children should be educated according to the

view of life of their parents. This means tha t Afrikaans­speaking children should have a Christian-Nationalist education, for the Christian and Nationalist spirit of the A frikaner nation must be preserved and developed.

By Christian, in this context, we mean according to the creeds of the three A frikaner churches; by Nationalist we mean embued with the love of one’s own, especially one s own language, history and culture.

Nationalism must be rooted in Christianity.

A R TIC LE 2 : Christian Education.The key subject in school should be religion (the study

of the bible and the 3 A frikaner creeds); and the religious spirit should permeate all subjects and the entire school.

ARTIC LE 3 : Nationalist Education.Teaching should also be nationalist, the child to become

an heir to and worthy carrier-on of the national culture.

AR TIC LE 4 : The Child and Christian — NationalistEducation,Owing to the Fall, all children are born sinful, but the

children of believers have inherited God’s promise through Christ of redemption. Children of Christian parents may not therefore be brought up as heathens. Man is distin­guished from all other creatures by having a soul capable of development: the necessity for education lies in the tact that the child’s soul is undeveloped, its opportunity in his soul’s capacity for development.

ARTIC LE 5: Formulation of the Aim of Education.It is God’s will tha t man should m aster the earth, and

rule over i t and He has given to each nation its own par­ticular national task in bringing about His will. Education should enable the young to take over from their cultural heritage everything th a t is good and beautiful and noble, and devolp it in accordance with their own gifts, lhey will thus be fulfilling their individual and nationa part in bringing about the will of God. This only a Christian- Nationalist school can teach them to do.

ARTICLE 6: Content of Education.(i) Introduction :

In order to achieve the above aim, all God’s creation and Man’s works must be studied. But the spirit of all teaching must be Christian-nationalist; in no sub­ject may anti-Christian or non-Christian or anti­nationalist or non-nationalist propaganda be made.

(ii) Religious teaching.This includes bible study and the study of the Chris­tian doctrine. Religious Teaching (key subject and permeating influence) m ust accord with the religious convictions of the parents as expressed in their church creeds. The recognised church song of the Afrikaans churches must be used in Schools.

(iii) Mother-tongue.This should be the most im portant secular subject, and the only medium of instruction except in teaching other modern languages. Bilingualism cannot be the aim of education, and the 2nd official language should not be taught until the child has a thorough know­ledge of his mother-tongue.

(iv) Civics.Civics should teach the child to preserve the Chris­tian and nationalist character of home, church, society and state.

(v) Geography.Every nation is rooted in a country (Landsbodem) allotted to it by God. Geography should aim at giving the pupil a thorough knowledge of his own country and the natural objects pertaining to it, in such a way that he will love his own country, also when com­pared and contrasted w ith others, and be ready to defend it, preserve it from poverty and improve it for posterity.

(vi) History.History should be seen as the fulfilment of God’s plan for humanity. The turning-point of history is Jesus Christ—history teaching m ust therefore include such facts as the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, Life and Death of Christ, the Second Coming and the End of the W orld; and history must be seen as the strugg­le between the Kingdom of God and the Empire of Darkness. Also, God has enjoined on each nation its individual task in the fulfilment of His purpose. Young people can only undertake the national task

fruitfully if they acquire a true vision of the origin of the nation and of the direction of the national heritage. Next to the mother tongue the history of the Fatherland is the best channel for cultivating the love of one’s own which is nationalism.

ARTICLE 1: Method and Discipline.(i) Method.

This should be based on thorough knowledge of the child and a historically-tested practice. The means used should bring about the Christian-nationalist end.

(ii) Discipline.All authority in school is borrowed from God. The Christian-nationalist end should be kept in view.

ARTICLE 8 : Control of Education.(i) No Mixed Schools.

There should be a t least two kinds of Prim ary and Secondary schools; one for the children of Afrikaans- speaking parents, with only Afrikaans as medium, and the other for children of English-speaking parents, with only English as medium. In each there should be the righ t relationship between home, school, church and state.

(ii) Home, School and Church.Each m ust supplement the other and get its proper share in the moulding of the child.

(iii) The Home.Education is the righ t and duty of the parents, who must decide, in collaboration with church and state, what spirit shall animate the school. The parents in community (not as individuals) must establish, main­tain and control schools which will foster their own view of life, they m ust appoint the teachers and keep a watch on the teaching.

(iv) The Church.The Church m ust exercise the necessary discipline over the doctrine and lives of the teachers. Tho vigilance m ust be exercised through the parents. The church must also stimulate all parents and give fin­ancial aid to needy ones to perform their educational task.

(v) The State.The state must ensure a proper scientific and moral standard in education, and therefore law and ligh t in

school life. I t may not, however, determine the direct­ing spirit of education providing that, as judged by God s law, it is not harm ful to the state. Where the child s natural guardians, the parents, neglect their educational duties, the state, as paramount guardian, should step in and establish schools until such time as the parents desire to exercise the ir own rights.

(vi) The School.The school receives its right to educate from the parents, and must therefore educate children in accordance with the parent community’s view of life, in its national context. But the school should be sovereign in its own sphere, namely, in method, syllabus, discipline, etc. Its aim should be Christian- nationalist.

(vii) Organisation of Education.Neither home, church nor state should dominate but all three should co-operate in school education, the parents contributing towards the cost, the Church helping needy parents to contribute, and the state defraying the main costs. Control should be in the hands of the p aren ts; through the parents the church too, should exercise control; and the state should hold the balance between parents, teachers, church and state.

Therefore there should be School Committees (parent councils) for the particular schools; above these bchool Boards (consisting of representatives of school committees or parents, state and teachers) and above both the Provincial Education Councils containing representatives of school boards, state and teachers as well as educationists and other subiect experts.

Our ideal is the Christian-nationalist school; but for the time being we must be content to leaven the exist­ing public schools.

ARTICLE 9 : The Teacher.(1) Being a substitute for the parent, the teacher does the

parent’s work as the parent himself would do it were he able. Unless, therefore, he is a Christian, he is a deadly danger to us.

(2) Our substitutes should be properly trained in Chris­tianity, and in the secular subjects, especially peda­gogy. Training College personnel should also be Chris­tian and Nationalist.

A R TIC LE 10: Nursery Schools.The parents must not shuffle off on to others the

dutv of bringing up their own children; but we realise th a t the poof K i e s are forced to send their children to n ™ y schools. These should have a religious centre! Christian-nationalist spirit and Pe^onnel appointments made and vigilance keI>t ^ ' “ <:? gbody chosen by the parents, and state suppoit.

ARTICLE 11: Higher Education.(i) The basis of this should be the same as for schools.

(ii) The content should be scientific, b«t founded on theW Christian Faith. The Christian doctrine and phi o-

sophy should be taught and practised. B utw e desire still m ore: the secular sciences should be taught according to the Christian and N ationalist view of life. University teaching should be thetic rather than anti thetic never purely eclectic and never recon- ciliatory. Science should be expounded in a positively Christian light, and contrasted with non-Christian science Universities should never give unintegrated instruction, merely choosing here and choosing th e re , there should be no attem pt to reconcile or abolish the fundamental oppositions; for Creator and created, man and beast, individual and community, authority and freedom remain in principle insoluble in es*ch other Especially in the universities do we need the rig h t’personnel; for professors and lecturers make the institution and determine its guiding spirit. I t is all-important therefore tha t the teaching staff sho be convinced Christian-Nationalist scientists.

fim Higher education should be so controlled that the Christian-nationalist view of life may come into its own.

A R TIC LE 12: Technical and Other Special Education.(1) The Christian-nationalist view of life can be applied

also to technical colleges, industrial schools, reforma­tories technical high schools and domestic science colleges, schools for the deaf, the blind and the mentally or physically defective.

(2) Christian-nationalist aim.(3) Separate mother-tongue medium institutions.

(4) All should open and /o r close with a religious exercise, and religion should permeate all activities.

(5) The secular content of the teaching should be adapted to our needs and circumstances.

(6) There should be integration with ordinary secondary schools and universities.

(7) The teachers should be Protestant Christians and bilin­gual South Africans.

(8) Trades unions should recognise for apprenticeship pur­poses the entire period of training a t industrial schools, reformatories, etc.

(9) Most of the pupils’ parents living elsewhere, the con­trolling bodies should be elected from the local A fri­kaans-speaking community for an Afrikaans-medium institution, and from the local English-speaking com­munity for the English-medium one. For the rest see Article 8 for the constitution and rights of controlling bodies.

ARTICLE IB : Adult Education.See Article 8 and apply the principles to White Adult education.

ARTICLE 14: Coloured Education.The education of coloureds should be seen as a sub­ordinate part of the Afrikaners’ task of Christianising the non-white races of our fatherland. I t is the Afrikaners’ sacred duty to see tha t the coloureds are brought up Christian-nationalist. Only when he is christianised can the coloured be truly happy; and he will then be proof against foreign ideologies which give him an illusion of happiness but leave him in the long run unsatisfied and unhappy.He must also be nationalist. The welfare and happi­ness of the coloured lies in his understanding th a t he belongs to a separate racial group (hence apartheid is necessary in education), and in his being proud of it.Coloured education must not be financed a t the ex­pense of white education.

ARTICLE 15: Native Education.The white South African’s duty to the native is to Christianise him and help him on culturally.

Native education should be based on the principles of trusteeship, non-equality and segregation; its aim should be to inculcate the white man’s view of life, especially th a t of the Boer nation, which is the senior trustee.The mother-tongue should be the basis of native edu­cation but the two official languages should be learned as keys to the cultures from which the native will have to borrow in order to progress. Owing to the cultural infancy of the native, the state, in co-operation with the protestant churches should a t present provide Native education. But the native should be fitted to undertake his own education as soon as possible, under control and guidance of the state. Native education should lead to the development of an independent, self- supporting Christian-nationalist Native community.Native education should not be financed a t the expense of white.

A N A L Y S I S

In order to understand C.N.O. let us examine what the I.C.N.O. pamphlet means by, Christian, National and Education.

(a) Christian

First, the word “Christelih” (Christian.)THE PAMPHLET IMPLIES THAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE TO REJECT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND POST-PTOLEMAIC ASTRONOMY. IT INVOLVES THE REPEAL OF THE “CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.” IT UNDERMINES THE TWO BASIC CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES OF CHARITY AND HUMILITY.

The word “Christian” is specifically confined in Article 1 of the pamphlet to the meaning, “adhering to the Articles of Faith of the three A frikaner churches.” Remember in reading the pamphlet tha t the word “Christian” in it does not mean “Christian” ; it means “according to the narrow­est interpretation of the dogmas of these three churches.” It means, in fact, Fundamentalist. This is clear from Article 11.

The language of Article 11 is dark and obscure. It say s: “there should be no attem pt to abolish the funda­mental oppositions: for Creator and created, man and beast, individual and community, authority and freedom remain in principle insoluble in each other.”*

“Man and beast,” we are told, are “irreconcilable oppositions,” in other words, all theories of evolution are false. Creation took place in six calendar days and fossils must be explained—presumably, as Professor Chris Coetzee explains them, as “examples of degeneration since the Flood” (Onderwysblad, October, 1948, p. 5). Fundamentalist “Science” would turn South Africa into an ignorant back­water. The C.N.O. policy must be exposed as a ludicrous inanity to all who doubt its danger for modern South Africa.

Now, all Afrikaners are by no means fundamentalist, even when they belong to the three ehurches. In the “heresy tria l” at Stellenbosch, in 1929, Professor du Plessis of the Theological Seminary there was accused of heresy because he said, in ter alia, th a t the Bible was inspired only in those m atters which concerned the soul’s salvation, and

was not to be regarded as a science or geography text-book. The judgment given in the du Plessis case reads as follows (we tran sla te ):

“The Synod decrees th a t both the Articles of Faith and the Word of God support a doctrine of plenary inspira­tion, according to which the Holy Scriptures are ?f divine origin, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, and are i‘nfallib and absolutely authoritative m all their p a r ts , ; nd for th s reason every conception of inspiration tha t teaches tha o y religious-ethical tru ths in God’s Word are inspired, and that God’s Word is in the Bible (and not th a t the Bible is God s Word) m ust be rejected by the Church as heresy.

Since Blueprint for Blackout first appeared there have been attem pts to deny tha t this doctrine reduces those who hold it to believing, for example, in Ptolemaic astronomy. The judgm ent of the Synod in the du Plessis case, as wellas Article 11, leave no doubt th a t there is to » eA H p 1 IV and choosing (“kiesend hier en kiesend daar, Article 11), if you insist upon believing in “Creation ra ther than 1 evolution, you do so on the grounds th a t the Scriptures are “infallible in all their parts ,” and not only m m atters which concern “religious ethical tru th s.” You must believe with Ds. Brink (speaking for C.N.O. at a symposium in Johan­nesburg) tha t the story of the Tower of Babel explains the origin of language, and you must also accept Jfterally the statement in Joshua, th a t when the sun stood still, the day­light was prolonged.

For Professor Coetzee to say, as he has done in print and a t a symposium, th a t we confuse Calvinism witl Fundamentalism, is an evasion. Professor Coetzee, though he shies from the word, is a s e l f - c o n f e s s e d Fundamentalist. So, of course, are the authors of the pamphlet.

Many people, including perhaps many thousands who “support C.N.O. in its broad general principles, try to argue th a t the fundamentalist attitude explicitly taken in Article 11 is not seriously meant. “No educated person,’ said Die Burger, “believes such nonsense. They should ask themselves, “How did this Article get into the pamphlet, which took ten years to prepare, was submitted to com­mittee afte r cormnittee, a c c o r d i n g t o the Preface and hasnn its title-paee the names of such educated people as Dr. D t o ? e s D r . t e e n and Professor M e irin g r If such thmgs get in by the back door, how does th a t happen.

Professor du Plessis was found guilty of heresy, but he had the support of many Afrikaners, and a year or two later a statue was erected to his memory m Stellenbosch itself. Professor du Plessis’ supporters would be forced, if this policy were carried out, to have their children brought up according to the doctrine which he opposed. We are

specifically told in Article 11 tha t “the secular sciences,’’ (i.e., ^presumably, history, geography, chemistry, physics, etc.) must be taught according to the Christian view of • t : V s ience should be expounded in a positively Christian

light. Remember tha t “Christian” means “according to fundamentalist creeds.” In other words, the Bible is to be regarded as a scientific text-book.4- uNo'r.’™th?r is n.° university in the country which teaches Chnstian-orientated science” except perhaps the small Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Edu­cation.

e n u a reTnoA ,here concerned with converting the P.U. or o.H.lij. Let those who take Genesis literally as a source

o1 geological or biological information attend their own church schools and enrol as students of Potchefstroom. But let them not feel tha t their security depends upon dominat­ing all academic life in this country. Their sect is not to be allowed to absorb by edict all Afrikaans-speaking public schools and all universities and colleges.

Let these people have private schools and universities where Fundamentalist teaching is given, but let them bear the cost themselves, and not rely upon the non-Fundamen- tahst taxpayer who disapproves of such teaching.•i , “Individua.1 and community” we are told, are “irrecon-

♦ K S , W sltlons ’ too. This implies (if it means any­thing) the dangerous doctrine,_ which has led to so much blood-sacrifice, th a t the state is an abstract Being, not a collection of individuals, but an abstract Being to which mere people may be sacrificed.

,, “Authority and freedom,” too, are “insoluble in each t accordln£ to Article eleven. I t is difficult to say

what this can mean, but since we are told in Article 7 ii tha t all authority in school is “borrowed from God,” this looks like a doctrine tha t can be used whenever convenient “ Am+w * we have any inborn right to freedom of opinion.^Authority and freedom, — consider the words a g a in_

are irreconcilable oppositions.” So say the I C.N 0 Opposing the Government policy of Apartheid is as trea­

sonable as to refuse to take up arms in defence of one’sSaii a S s Mr- Strijdom (Rand, Daily Mail,

17th November, 1948). There seems to be a connection.,<r,, A part from the peculiar way in which the word

n - ls usJrd’ thls P°hcy would do away entirely with the Conscience Clause”, for which teachers have fought for so many generations in South Africa.

An attem pt to exempt the University of the Orantre Free State (U.O.F.S.) from this clause failed, but the Potchefstroom University has removed the Conscience

i H P i i i f i stha t unless the teacher isis• J®^s colkgeSpersonnel

S S S s H S s(^M erve^h^English-speak^g^nstitutions are^^so^ vwlate

“ , s state defraying the main costs (Aiticle 8, 11 1).

f if ’A Tb(1 Hdiculous and intolerable state of affairs that w L d result, a sort of petty

S S S S ^ ^ T f S& , because we may get something ^ X t f c h e T m i t

f i a a T t ithe rights of minorities. mi]?,h® a^ v e them in our schools? “ who want0 denomhiational teaching may hav e tt, yes;

to demand

tha t f L X X V t h o l e .spirit"’T i e pamphlet, isidearrlyand directly anti-Chnstian^ We c a enge the wordsquoteLone sentence that suPPorts tneir po^ that ^

IPouafpSple m- p , . - of« * £ “love J L As

,0Ilce said in a sPeech in Johannesburg, Whatever interpretation we put upon the word Christian - i S a ever significance it may have for differing deno­minations, one thing is quite fundamental. I t is the great commandment enunciated by Our Blessed Lord Himself: J i f l ove,the ,Lor.d thy God with all thy heart andSrenffth T l.tf J 1? a11 thy mind and with all thystiength. That is the first commandment. And the secondcommandment is, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself m ere is none other commandment greater than these ’ I t is quite clear from the Gospel what Christ meant when He spoke of thy neighbour’. He meant all men, not only Eng-

a ° w Afrikaners, not only white people, not Pm 1 s, but all people. I t is also quite clear what

St. Paul meant when he said, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free . . .’ This flows from the great central fact of the Christian Gospel, that God was made man. The pamphlet speaks continually of ‘the life and world view of the nation.’ In other words, if you are an Afrikaner child, you must also be an A frikaner Chris­tian. Now this, I believe, is a contradiction in terms. I t is a denial of the fundamental doctrine tha t the church is ‘one fold with one shepherd’ (John 10, 16) . . . The Christian doctrine of man simply will not allow us to believe tha t there can be a Christianity peculiar to one race, to one nation to one language-group . . . To bring up children in this belief — and in a multi-racial society such as our own

is, 1 think, not merely stupid, it is criminal. Our Blessed Lord s great prayer, ‘That they all may be one . . . tha t the word may believe tha t thou hast sent me’ is something that all Christians ought to take to heart. If we want the world to believe . . .. . “The pamphlet says, ‘We believe th a t the calling and task of white civilisation with regard to the native is to Christianise him . . . on the principles of trusteeship, no X af S ap d segregation.’ ^ is a little difficult to imagine what St. Paul let us say, would have made of such a prin-f'hr?sfS w if ? rsays’ <Now ye are the b°dy of C h ris t. Whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we bebond or free . . . (I Corinthians, 12).”

, ^,nd; final]7’ ev.ery sincere Christian must blush to read tha t the financing of native education must be placed on such a basis tha t it does not occur a t the cost of white

f 6re ™ quot.e from the 1936 Commission on Native Education. The native countributes to the national wealth says the commission, partly in taxes, but chiefly by his labour — an enormous contribution. In any case no country m the world calls upon its poorest section to

pay to r all the social services which are necessary for their well-being. So this principle, tha t coloured education shall

not take place at the expense of white, is condemned on the ground even of ordinary human Justice Isn t i t ^ h rn-inciole enunciated in Articles 14 and 15 ot the O.jn.u .

th a t is a t the bottom of the decision to feed onlv white school-children, while the poorest of the poor m M o s S X most helpless, have been b£bv bit of w hat little food they got from the state? bincethe passing of the Bantu E d u c a t i o n A c t A f ncaneducationfnr ineoualitv has been state policy. I he A liican peopie themselves are required to pay for their own education by- special taxation, and the contribution from general revenue has been fixed at £6i million. I t is not human, and from the Christian point of view, the principle is, a dj ^ j g ef tence obey the command to love y o u r neighboui. In this sentence of the pamphlet, to retu rn to Father Huddleston we are told tha t we must love our own — at the expenses 0 1 o npitrhbour This is a denial of the very word civilisation and a denial of everything th a t we mean by the word love (‘Love . . . seeketh not her own. I. Corinthians, IB).

OUR OWN ATTITUDEHere we should like to formulate our own positive

attitude We believe th a t all teachers should have freedom o ? conscience and th a t, all government school and state- aided university education should be secular. The object nf education is in part, to find out the tru th about the uni- veree (as fa r as we can) and the world we live >n. We cannever find out what the truth W e M e ietVmt wp m ust find it in this, and not in that, we oeiievetha t to demand th a t teachers should have certain religious beliefs is to breed hypocrisy, cowardice and dishonesty. W th S n fth a tm in isters^ the" church are as ^ ^ e “ r- runted bv power as other men, and tha t they should tnere fore not have power over teachers. We believe tha t without freedom of constience, both science and a rt will decline and d iS n S f a f We accept as the basis of the moral teaching th a t we think should be directly and indirectly given at school such fundamental Christian wisdom as has become thp ideal of all W estern civilisation, whether specifically Christian or not; for example, th a t we ought to love our neighbour as ourselves, or the idea contained m the text,

‘Inasmuch as ye ha.ve done it unto one of the leastof these, ye have done it unto me (Matthew40).

(b) NationalNext, let us take the word “Nasionaal” (National).

By “NATIONAL” THE PAM PHLET MEANSSEPARATIST, FORBIDDING CRITICISM, ADHER­ING WITH BIGOTRY TO THE VIEWS OF ANEXTREME SECTION.

The word “Nasionaal” may be translated “national,” as in “van nasionale belang” (“of national importance”) or “nationalist,” as in “die Nasionale P arty” (“the Nation­alist P arty”). In the phrase C.N.O. i t is closer to “national­ist”, and we have so translated it in our summary, though the fram ers of the policy intend people to feel th a t they speak in the name of the whole nation ra ther than in tha t of a section of extremists.

Perhaps this point needs am plifying: The word “nasionaal” can most certainly not be translated “national,” when it is made to refer, not to the entire nation, not even to the Afrikaans-speaking white section, but to a section of tha t section, a section th a t can only be distinguished from the rest by the fact th a t it holds certain beliefs. We cannot let ourselves be bullied by the “argum ents” of this section : “You may call yourself an Afrikaner, and you may be Afrikaans-speaking,” they say, “but if you do not agree with us, you are no A frikaner.” “We are the nation,” they say, “and if you do not agree with us, you are attacking the nation.” “You attack the policy tha t we call Christian- National,” they say, “therefore you are attacking Chris­tianity and the nation. ” “We represent the A frikaner,” they say, “and if you dislike us, you are tram pling upon everything tha t the Afrikaner holds most dear, and wound­ing him in his innermost feelings.” To this kind of bullying we rep ly : “You misuse language. Your policy is not Chris­tian, however much you may call it so, as we have demon­strated. Your policy is not national, though you call i t so.

Let us examine the I.C.N.O.’s use of the word “nasionaal.” This word, the central one in “C.N.O.” is really the crux of the m atter. I t is not Christianity, nor education, tha t the fram ers of this policy care about; it is a narrow kind of nationalism.

The present C.N.O. policy, as Professor van Rooy reveals in the preface, originated as a political measure. The early Christian-National schools of the beginning of the century were founded to resist the attempt, by Lord Milner and others, to anglicise Afrikaans children after the

Boer War, and the policy outlined in this pamphlet. says Prof. van Rooy, was framed to counter the (1937) plan to introduce dual-medium^ education in a “renewed attem pt to anglicise our children.”

Now, we respect the early C.N.O. schools of which Professor van Rooy speaks.

I t was right and necessary to found them. We know how the history of South A frica seemed to some of our ancestors (the Boers of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republics), one long and frustrated effort to to d a corner of the country where they would be free from Bri­tish control. We condemn Lord Milner’s attempt, after the war, to repeat the tactics of Lord Charles Somerset, and make another deliberate effort, again chiefly through the schools, to anglicise the Afrikaner. We think th a t the set­ting up of C.N.O. schools to protect the Afrikaans language and culture was an admirable step, and we are grateful to those by whose endeavours Afrikaans was admitted, first as a medium and school subject, and then as one of the two official languages of the country.

Those who talk of the early C.N.O. schools omit to mention a t least one profound difference between them and the schools planned by the present I.C.N.O. The early C.N.O. schools were double-medium schools. They were, in fact, a reaction against single-medium schools, and their aim, in the words of one of their founders, the Rev. Mr. du Toit, in 1897, was to promote co-operation between the English and the Afrikaners in our country.

The schools proposed by the present I.C.N.O., on the other hand, should ra ther be called Somerset or Milner schools, because they make the same mistake as Lord Charles Somerset and Lord Milner d id : they aim a t only one language and only one culture in each school. We, on the contrary, wish for all our countrymen to inherit the wealth of both languages and both cultures. We refuse to make South Africans “choose”, as Professor Stoker said at a recent meeting they m ust do, between being English or “A frikaans.” A great many South Africans are both. Moreover, Afrikaans is now a vigorous, well-established language, w ith a strong individuality of its own; the two languages in South A frica have long enjoyed complete equality; Afrikaans has a great numerical advantage, and it is no longer in the least likely th a t the Afrikaans language and literature will melt away if they come into daily con­tact w ith English. We have more faith in the vitality of Afrikaans culture than the I.C.N.O. appears to have. Besides, there is no longer any emotional reason why the two language-groups should not mix.

Since all this is so, it is absurd to say, as Prof. van Rooy does in the preface, tha t “the struggle in our schools is ju st beginning,” and tha t “the true stuff of our culture is not yet to be found in our classrooms.”

What sort of “struggle” do the I.C.N.O. want in the schools? What do they regard as “the true stuff of our culture” ?

It is a different kind of struggle from tha t of the early C.N.O schools. It is a struggle to prevent the English- speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking from co-operating. It is a kind of “cultural stuff” tha t will tu rn our children into very undesirable citizens. We shall see this if we examine the words of the I.C.N.O. themselves, and their supporters.

“We want no mixed schools,” says the pamphlet (Article 8,i.)

“The attem pt to introduce dual-medium education,” says Professor van Rooy in the preface, “was a renewed attempt to anglicise our children.”

What is the meaning of this? Can we believe that if we let the children of the two language-groups mix and use each other’s language freely, the larger group will be absorbed into the smaller group ; th a t the Afrikaans-speak­ing children will soon all be speaking English, and talking of England as “Home” ? This is too absurd to be taken seriously. Perhaps Dr. Stoker got nearer the bone when he said afte r a recent lecture in Johannesburg: “You can’t have mixed schools because you can’t teach Afrikaans­speaking children about their own heroes of the Boer W ar if there are English-speaking children in the same classroom.”

This seems to imply tha t the two separate language- groups are to be taught two separate sets of historical truths, each set intolerable to the other group, and there­fore only to be spoken behind its back. And this is the system, the aim of which, we are assured, is to teach the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking to respect one another, a state of affairs which “can only be brought about when the Afrikaner is a full-blooded A frikaner and the Englishman is a full-blooded Englishman”.

If this is the sort of logic tha t supports th a t keystone of the C.N.O. policy, the idea of separate schools, the strength of the C.N.O. is certainly not drawn from reason.

No, the appeal of the pamphlet is not to reason. Civili­sation and Christianity have tried for the last 2,000 years a t least, and with little success, to wean men from the love of themselves and their own, and to teach them to love their

neighbour — an injunction which reason also lays on us. The I.C.N.O. attem pt nothing so difficult or so noble. Child­ren are to be taught to love their own ; this, they say, is nationalism.

The chief aim of mother-tongue teaching, says the pamphlet, is to be to cultivate this nationalism; the same is true of history and geography teaching, and in the Civics lesson children are to be taught to preserve the traditions and customs of their forefathers. This seems to us a t best an intolerable narrowing of the scope of education, and at worst a perversion of its purpose. The training m clear thinking, in perceiving values, in purifying emotions which we should get from mother-tongue teaching; the sense of evidence, the ability to judge and apply the lessons of the past which we should get from history, the weighing ol human rights and needs th a t we should get from civics - all are to be lost, and instead the dubious human propensity, already fa r too strong, to love oneself and one’s own is to be encouraged.

This is bad enough. But there is far worse to come. Consider the following sentence: “In no subject may . . . anti-Nationalist or unnationalist . . • propaganda be made (Article 6, i).

We are to accept one particular brand of opinion in this country as sacrosanct, and beyond criticism. Who has made it socrosanct? Not God, certainly. Yet what man, what group of men, w hat policy or ideal made by men dare consider itself beyond all criticism by other men? This is naked tyranny and impious presumption.

W hat alarms us even more about this aspect of the pamphlet is the way in which, in turning away from reason, and the moral and human values established during the last few thousand years, the I.C.N.O. call upon the name of God to justify their views. This is by far the most dan­gerous feature of the pamphlet.

In Article 6, vi, for example, we are told tha t God has given to each nation its own particular cultural task in bringing about his will. A t this stage we should hke to say to the w riters of the pamphlet, “When you claim the sanction of God as you do, be less dangerously vague. What exactly is the cultural task of the A fnka,ner‘,? You don t define it. Why not? W hat are the traditions peculiar to the A frikaner? We have never seen them precisely defined. When you invoke the name of God, in aid of precisely what are you invoking it? ” This is something tha t we all have a right to know, so th a t we may judge for ourselves whether it is likely th a t God has imposed this task, or whether

ambitious men are taking the name of God in vain We must know what this cultural task is before we allow our children to be trained to perform it.

Similarly in Article 6, v, the pamphlet says tha t “the Creator has allotted to each nation its own soil (or ‘lands- bodem’)”.

To whom has God allotted South A frica? To the English-speaking, the Coloured, the African or the Indian? To those who came here before Jan van Riebeeck or after Jan van Riebeeck, before 1806 or afte r 1806? To all these or to one section of them? If God has allotted South Africa to us all, then surely in the eyes of God we are one nation, and it is wrong to have the separate national schools aimed at by the I.C.N.O. If God has allotted South A frica to only one section of its present population, we should like to have chapter and verse for tha t allotting.

OUR ATTITUDE

If we were to define what we meant by patriotism and national feeling, we should say tha t we believe in patriotism, but not isolationism. Our greatest love is naturally for our own people, not because they are the best people but because we know them best. Our greatest responsibility is towards our own country, not because it is the only country that m atters, but because we live in it, and can therefore do more for its welfare than we can do for tha t of other countries.

Charity begins at home, but it should not stop a t home We should act (and this, we would remind the I.C.N.O., is the teaching of Christ) with equal charity towards all men no m atter what their race, colour or creed.

We should make children understand th a t they will be responsible when they are grown up for everything tha t happens in their own country, and to a lesser degree for what happens in the world. I t will therefore be their duty to try and root out wherever they can, injustice, cruelty and poverty.

We believe th a t children should know about and be encouraged to emulate the best th a t human beings have done, but they should certainly NOT be made to believe any such crippling and vainglorious lie as tha t everything their own ancestors did was praiseworthy, and th a t their fore­fathers beliefs and customs were beyond criticism or im­provement.

Collection Number: AD1715

SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS (SAIRR), 1892-1974

PUBLISHER: Collection Funder:- Atlantic Philanthropies Foundation

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 forms part of the archive of the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), held at the Historical

Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.