The Gateway Chronicle April 2014

A magazine produced by the students and staff of the St Albans School History

Department Issue 1 Summer Term 2014

Freedom Fighters

in the twentieth

century

The Gateway Chronicle Issue 1 – April 2014

2 | P a g e

The Gateway Chronicle

Produced by the St Albans School History Department

Editor: Lucy Bonner

Deputy Editors: Milly Garnett, Hannah Brown, Vivien Zhu and Seun Adekoya

Staff: Mr Stone

From the Editor Welcome to the debut edition of The Gateway Chronicle. My team and I are extremely proud of this first publication, which focuses on freedom fighters and the pivotal, or not so pivotal, role they have played in defining history and shaping the world we live in today. Freedom fighters are controversial figures and many historians believe their role is often over exaggerated. The significance of such freedom fighters, marked by the recent death of Nelson Mandela, highlights the world’s appreciation of such individuals and emphasises how despite their downfalls at times, their commitment to their respective causes will forever be remembered and acknowledged. I believe the focus on freedom fighters makes this edition of The Gateway Chronicle evermore topical and interesting and I hope you enjoy our work. Thank you again to those who have contributed their work and thanks to the team who have helped create this first edition. Lucy Bonner

A brief word from DJS… I’d just like to thank all of the students involved in putting this new publication together, especially Lucy, for all their efforts this year. It is a new venture for 6th form historians at St Albans School and they have set the bar high for future cohorts with this first edition. Well done! DJS


3 | P a g e

Contents Page

2. From the Editor

4. ‘Gandhi – A fantastic publicist. A disastrous politician’. Benedict Anthoney

6. History & Politics Society lectures: an interview with Dr David Laven (Nottingham

University) on ‘Italian Unification and the role of Garibaldi and Cavour’. Seun

Adekoya & Vivien Zhu

8. ‘Civil Rights in the 1920s and 1930s’. Robbie Goldstone & Hannah Brown

10. History & Politics Society lectures: an interview with Alex Rutherford OA on ‘Civil

Rights in the 1940’s and 1950’s’. Lucy Bonner, Hannah Brown & Milly Garnett

13. ‘Nelson Mandela: Greatest freedom fighter of the 20th C?’ Mr D J Stone

17. Junior History Film Club: a film review on ‘Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom’.

Lauren Rowe

18.History & Politics Society lectures: an interview with Cameron de Vaux-Balbirnie

(BBC) on what makes a good history documentary and film making. Lucy Bonner &

Katie Clifford


4 | P a g e

Gandhi – “A fantastic publicist. A disastrous politician”

By Benedict Anthoney

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a falsely extolled politician, if you dare to consider him a politician, who did more

for his own public appearance and reputation than he did for Indian politics in the twentieth century. Mahatma,

literally translating to “Great Soul” from Sanskrit, appears to be a rather indulgent viewpoint of Gandhi in light of

much irrational and inexplicable behaviour during his “political” career. From sleeping with his grand-niece to

befriending Hitler, Gandhi seems to have another side to him which lies quietly and tactfully behind his reputation

as the father of India, much of which has gone unnoticed by the millions, if not billions, who to this day associate

him with the likes of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr.

On further investigation into Gandhi and his political decisions, motives and attitudes, it becomes irrefutably clear

that he was clueless in much of what he was doing. He had genuinely convinced himself that his principle of non-

violence and civil disobedience, known as satyagraha, could be universally applied to almost any situation of dispute

or war. In 1939, at the time of Hitler’s brutal oppression of the Jewish population in Europe, Gandhi stated that “a

single Jew standing up and refusing to bow to Hitler’s

decrees,” would likely “melt Hitler’s heart.” It is rather

astounding to think that one of the most revered

politicians of the twentieth century could genuinely

suggest this as a method of relieving the Jewish people

from such brutal genocide. Just two years prior to this,

Gandhi advised the peoples of Czechoslovakia to adopt

his principle of satyagraha, however this time in the face

of German storm troopers. It is as if Gandhi had a desire

to see the Czech people slaughtered in their thousands.

Joseph Lelyveld described Gandhi’s initiatives as, “a

mixed-bag, full of trenchant moral insights, desperate

appeals and self-deluding simplicities.”

Gandhi, although being credited by many with almost single-handedly gaining Indian independence, was

undoubtedly one of India’s most reactionary individuals, who had clear intentions of reverting Indian society back to

simple village life with almost non-existent economic and political structure or development. Writer, Christopher

Hitchens, commented that, “[Gandhi] considered India’s chief enemy to be modernity” arguing that in Gandhi’s

opinion both industry and technology should be abhorred. Indeed in 1909 Gandhi himself wrote, “India’s salvation

consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers,

doctors, and such like have all to go.” Such a sinister attitude towards his country’s progression from India’s

apparent saviour clearly isn’t encouraging for those who thought Gandhi was the liberator of all Indians, when in

actual fact it seems the man wished for Indians’ lives to consist of spinning cloth, praying in their hut and of very

little else.

Gandhi’s behaviour, both in and out of the public eye, was more similarly linked to that of a controversial celebrity

desperately seeking the attention of the people as opposed to a sophisticated politician at the forefront of India’s

nationalist movement. On multiple occasions Gandhi brought himself close to death through fasting, instead of

continuing work within the nationalist movement, in a desperate attempt to gain publicity, sympathy and general

attention from anyone that wished to watch. When speaking to Margaret Sanger, Gandhi expressed his support for

the opinion that women’s sexual health was of no importance to anyone, proceeding to then give himself a blood-


5 | P a g e

pressure attack later on in the interview. There is simply no explanation for behaviour such as this, what good-

minded politician, indeed human being, starves themselves for no purpose and deliberately gives themselves a

blood-pressure attack during a conversation with someone? Furthermore, Gandhi, although having a family,

decided to abstain from sex as part of his cause. He therefore left his family, claiming they were a distraction to his

fight for independence. Speaking of family, Gandhi employed his grand-niece, Manu, for the purpose of sleeping in

bed with him so as to prove to himself, and anyone else that cared, that he could resist erections. It seems

nonsensical to praise Gandhi as an innovative political figure, someone who brought India out of oppression and

gave them freedom, when he spends most of his time lying in bed with young relatives and other beautiful girls just

to prove he can resist erections. In no way was the nationalist movement propelled by this nor did anyone benefit

from it.

Lastly, Gandhi was comprehensively anti-British, to the point where he became closer to Hitler than he was with

any British Prime Minister and on many occasions the viceroy’s staff would intercept correspondence between

Gandhi and Hitler. As well as this Gandhi supported the weak and impractical Khilafat movement, because by that

time even the Turks had rejected the rule of the sultan, but in any case it was anti-British and so of course Gandhi

got behind it even though he was Hindu. In the words of Hitchens, the opportunity that the movement gave Gandhi

to be seen in public, appearing to be doing something worthwhile, “trumped its quixotry” All of Gandhi’s anti-British

feeling was perhaps compiled into one act in

which Gandhi wrote the British after having

met with Hitler, saying the British people

should let the Nazis, “take possession of your

beautiful island, with your many beautiful

buildings. You will give all these but neither

your souls, nor your minds. If these

gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you

will vacate them. If they do not give you free

passage out, you will allow yourself man,

woman and child, to be slaughtered” It is

quite incredulous to think that such a

seemingly peaceful man who many people,

including in this country, worship and glorify

was actually in support of the slaughter of British families and the Nazi occupation of Britain.

So, Gandhi, an inexplicable individual who seemed to diverge off his political course so far that to distinguish

between him and an attention-seeking celebrity of sorts would have been extremely difficult. He lay alongside

many beautiful women in his bed, after leaving his wife and family, but never slept with one of them for reasons

quite unknown, seeing as it contributed nothing to the political fight for independence or his personal reputation.

He was under the illusion that his principles could be universally applied when clearly he was very badly mistaken

and his entire political career seems to offer up a string of fascinating examples of how he was both totally irrational

and seemingly clueless.


6 | P a g e

History & Politics Society lectures: ‘Italian Unification and the role of Garibaldi and Cavour’ with Dr David Laven

Dr David Laven is an associate professor at Nottingham University and conducted History and Politics Society lecture on the relationship between Cavour and Garibaldi from a revisionist perspective. Seun Adekoya and Vivien Zhu, from the Lower Sixth, interviewed him to further discuss Italian Unification and his role as a professor. What was your aim in life as a teenager? It may be weird to say, but since an early age I have age wanted to go into academia. I developed a love for history at an early age. Why did you choose to be a professor? Firstly, my love for the subject, History has always been my passion. I found a love for teaching and making people interested and excited about a topic I love. How has your experience been so far? It is amazing, a chance to do what you love every day; being able to do your hobby all day, every day. When I was first asked to teach, I was teaching a topic I know little about, but the experience was great. How long have you been studying Italian history?

Well, I studied Italian unification in my A-Levels. At university I studied various parts of European history. Now study it full time all the time. What interests you so much about Italian history? It was not necessarily Italy that grabbed me. I would have loved to study French or Russian history just as much. When it came to do my final year I almost went into French history, as had spent all my years’ previous studying France. But I wanted to do something else, just in case I never did history again and went into management or something. So I decided to study Italy to vary my studies and I went to live in Venice for a year. Who do you think made the most significant contribution to the eventual unification of Italy in 1870, Garibaldi or Cavour? If you ask me, neither of them. I believe that unification was influenced more by figures like Napoleon III or Bismarck. But if I had to throw my hat in the fire, Garibaldi. His unconventional methods and his daring nature meant that he could deliver. Anybody could have done what Cavour did. He was just a politician and used simple tactics. Do you think if Cavour and Garibaldi worked together the progress of unification would have occurred sooner?


7 | P a g e

No. Unification was influenced more by international powers. Men like Napoleon and Bismarck controlled Italy’s fate. How do you think the 1848 revolutions impacted upon the cause of unification and do you think unification may have been achieved at a slower pace without them? It showed people that revolution could not bring about unification. Also, that unification could not come from the bottom-up but from the top-down. The revolutions were a catalyst and changed Piedmont for the better. As Piedmont was the only state, after 1848, to have a constitution. People flocked to Piedmont and there was greater exchange of ideas. Piedmont actually, before 1848 the most un-Italian of states as it seemed more French than Italian and the upper classes only spoke French, became more Italian. This set the stride for Piedmont to become instrumental in Italian unification. Even after the unification of Italy in 1870, how truly united do you believe Italy was? Only really the upper classes saw themselves as Italian. The peasants were loyal to their cities and local areas, and ordinary citizens are locally loyal to this day. In fact, Italian was not the common language till the 1960s. This was Florence Tuscan, which was adopted as it was the language books were printed in. Huge parts of Italy still speak their local dialects before Italian. I was working with my friend in Italy, and she kept on correcting me on my Italian. But, when we went to Venice she saw that they spoke the same kind of Italian I had learnt, highlighting the cultural fragmentation in Italy to this day. If you hadn't been a professor, what would you be? I know it sounds boring, but if I wasn’t in higher education academia I would probably be a school teacher. I just love teaching and making other people excited about a subject I love. Do you think the A-Level course is too heavily focused on the actions of Garibaldi and Cavour? The course focuses way too much on Cavour and Garibaldi. All these courses are 30 to 40 years out of date, new research has now come to light. Men like Gioberti, who people laugh at are forgotten. But if people actually took the time to read his work they would see him as an immensely intelligent man, while Mazzini is focused on way to heavily. There isn’t a page on Milanese Cattaneo in a history book, but he is my favourite character in Italian unification. Cattaneo actually came up with a suitable solution for Italian unity which was federated states, as this would give every state a degree of independence while still being in a unified Italy. Italians were loyal to their cities and country loyalty came after that.


8 | P a g e

Civil Rights in the 1920s and 1930s

By Robbie Goldstone and Hannah Brown

The start of the 1920s in the USA is widely remembered as a period of unprecedented prosperity across America.

Despite prohibition, the period is known as the ‘Roaring Twenties’ due to changes in fashion, music, and socialising

for the lively young generation. This idea of prosperity and social progress, however, did not appear to be

unanimous for the population – African Americans were still living widely as subordinate citizens, and the 20 years

following the war did not provide much progress for the Civil Rights Movement. Poverty levels for black American’s

increased, and terrorist organisations against civil rights re-emerged - it is important that we consider how far the

idea of the ‘Roaring Twenties’ actually transpired across the nation.

There existed such a high proportion of African Americans living in poverty during this period that it simply cannot

be considered an obvious Civil Rights success. Post WWI, white Americans returned to the northern cities

demanding their jobs back, which had been filled by African Americans during the war. They were largely successful

in this, which resulted in greater unemployment and poverty for African Americans who were simply cast aside. City

ghettos developed - Harlem in New York, for example, became particularly impoverished, with a mortality rate 42%

higher than other places in the city. The 1929 Wall Street crash and subsequent depression also brought about more

hard times for the African American community. 25% of the whole American workforce became unemployed, but

inevitably minority groups were affected the most significantly. It was estimated that in some cities like Chicago,

black unemployment levels reached 60%. The economic climate was so desperate that in the three years post-

depression, over 20 million Americans were starving. A high proportion of these were African Americans.

In March 1933, Roosevelt was sworn in as President and immediately implemented economic reforms in the form of

the New Deal. Its primary aim was to bring the USA out of the depression, through a series of domestic and largely

agricultural policies by creating new works schemes. Theoretically, it should have brought great economic

improvement for African Americans but in reality, this was not the case. Of the one million new jobs created, few

actually went to black citizens. Furthermore, black people had a lower minimum wage, and welfare schemes


9 | P a g e

created often refused benefits to black

people. Fundamental racism prevented most

black people from becoming employed,

which meant living standards generally did

not increase – evidently, these decades

cannot be classed as economic success for

the Civil Rights Movement.

The re-emergence of the Ku Klux Klan was a

huge social drawback for the Civil Rights

Movement. The organisation re-formed in

1915 in Georgia and under Hiram Evans’

leadership, membership grew exponentially.

By 1925, membership figures reached four million. This inevitably led to an increase in crimes against black people,

including lynching, and also provided a stark symbol of the existence of terror against African Americans in the

United States. By the end of the 1930s, lynching was still not regarded as a crime and perpetrators went

unpunished. Attempts to make lynching a federal crime in 1935 and 1938 by Congress failed to be passed on both

occasions. The disturbing story of Rubin Stacy, a man who was lynched for simply knocking on a white woman’s

door, highlights the level of violence towards African Americans – legal equality simply did not exist in the Southern

states particularly. Roosevelt ignored 22 cases of lynching in 1935 alone; not even the President would stand up to

the violence. With the KKK growing in power, there were far greater levels of intimidation towards black people,

threatening, injuring, or murdering them. The continuing existence of such severe social injustices meant that it

remains difficult to view the decades of the 1920s and 1930s as years of genuine progress for the Movement.

It is important, however, to consider the elements of progress that were able to emerge during this period. The

emergence of the ‘Jazz age’ was a notable example of this, describing the distinctive and often hugely successful

music created by black people in this time, often coming out of poverty and squalor, from ghettos like Harlem. Jazz

music symbolised the rebellious attitude of African Americans, and created some icons for black people to look up

to. Louis Armstrong became a global star and was a hero to many black people, epitomising what could be achieved

if you worked for it. The music created made white people realise how blacks felt, as lyrics often challenged racism,

and supported equality for African Americans. Iconic songs like “Strange Fruit”, by Billie Holiday, almost became

soundtracks to the protest movement in this time. The jazz age actually achieved little for Civil Rights in terms of

legal progress but cannot be overlooked - it gave African Americans a great deal of pride and hope, helping some to

realise the situation they were in.

The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) made some strides forward for African

Americans in the 1920s and 1930s. In the 30s specifically, spearheaded by Walter Francis White, the NAACP really

progressed its cause. It managed some success in courts challenging individual events of discrimination, and

successfully battled against unequal educational funding. African Americans also became more politically active.

The black vote became particularly important in the north, and was often the deciding factor in local elections.

President Roosevelt even assembled a black cabinet to help advise him. However, it was Roosevelt’s white political

advisors, not his black cabinet that influenced political decisions; it was more symbolic than functional. Equally,

although the NAACP advanced their cause to an extent, it twice failed to pass laws against lynching, so failing in its

major goal. These small advancements made by the NAACP should not be overlooked, but did not render the 1920s

and 30s decades of clear improvement for African Americans.

On the whole, it appears that there were small steps made in progression of the Civil Rights Movement. The jazz

explosion lead to the creation of role models and inspiration, and the NAACP advanced its cause. However, to be


10 | P a g e

classified as years of achievement, the achievements should outweigh the failures. This was not the case. The KKK

re-emerged terrorising innocent African Americans, lynching continued, and black people were discriminated

against in the work place, resulting in great levels of poverty. Due to the economic and social hardships experienced

by black Americans, it is clear that the extent of the progress felt by the rest of America (experienced particularly in

the 1920s), was as segregated as so many other aspects of life remained to be.

History & Politics Society lectures: ‘Civil Rights in the 1940’s and 1950’s’ with Alex

Rutherford OA

Alex Rutherford OA returned to St Albans School on 14th November 2013 to give a History and Politics Society

lecture on the theme of ‘Civil Rights in the USA in the 1940’s and 1950’s’. Lucy Bonner, Hannah Brown and

Milly Garnett, from the Upper Sixth, interviewed Alex about his take on the Civil Rights Movement and his

time studying in South Carolina, a state at the heart of the movement.

How do you think World War Two affected the Civil Rights Movement?

I think World War Two had a very

significant impact. One of the most

important things it did was highlight and

sharpen the hypocrisies of American

democracy and raise the political profile

of Civil Rights in the US. For example, the

Pittsburgh Courier (newspaper) waged

the Double V campaign, the idea that

America cannot project its image of

equality and democracy whilst at the

same time having such issues within Civil

Rights. It also instilled a sense of urgency

and militancy within the movement - lots

of figures who were later high up in

groups such as the SNCC were exposed to racial equality around the world and therefore were militant about the

Movement upon their return. It was an engine for change and accelerated the plight for Civil rights.

How did your experience of living and studying in South Carolina enhance your experience of the Movement?

Firstly, speaking to individuals there definitely furthered my interests - I was struck by how racial issues were in

South Carolina; it seemed, for example, that if you went to the local cafeteria there would be one section largely for

African Americans who voluntarily sat separately from the Whites and Hispanics. I decided that being there, I could

try and bridge these gaps, so that I gained first-hand experience of Civil Rights. Speaking to African Americans, they

said that I was the first non-black friend they'd ever had, because, to quote them, they 'didn't really understand

white people'. Speaking to them gave me a chance to understand both how things have and haven't changed in

South Carolina. I posed difficult questions which people were often uncomfortable answering but it gave me a solid

understanding of how integral race issues are to the foundations of society in the USA.


11 | P a g e

What exactly did you do to achieve the Social

Justice Award?

I joined the gospel choir as an attempt to bridge

these gaps, which was great. I had been told by a

few people not to join as it was 'only for black

people' and may be a strange or even

uncomfortable experience. I joined anyway due to

my natural passion for singing and was able to

learn about the history of gospel choir, and

spiritual music. I was then able to advocate this

around campus: I chaired discussions, went on a

Civil Rights road trip and represented the Office

for Multicultural affairs, acting as a spokesperson doing speeches on my experience. I won the award for my

contribution in this way, as I also introduced twelve or fifteen non-African American individuals to the gospel choir

as an attempt to mitigate the race issues that I had seen.

Do you think the Civil Rights Movement is ongoing?

I think to answer that question, you must look at the fact that there has undoubtedly been significant strides for

improvement since the 1950s and 60s: politically, with figures such as Obama; socially, rigid segregation has been

completely displaced; but if you look at certain areas such of education you can see that there is an ongoing

struggle for African Americans in particular to be in the best schools, for example. I think the problem has changed

from Civil and Voting Rights to other issues such as income inequality. I asked a few people this question for my

dissertation and they felt that it was indeed ongoing, but not limited just to African Americans – the ongoing issue

has spread to Hispanic Americans too.

How significant would you say the role of Martin Luther King and other key individuals were in bringing about

Civil Rights success?

Martin Luther King had a very significant part in the Civil Rights Movement, but because his oratory presence and

ability to capture the media was so good, people see the Civil Rights Movement in a very King-centred way. It is

important to know that King not only raised the profile of Civil Rights, but his strategy was also very good: his

marches and campaigns were very useful. I think you also have to look at the grassroots, however, which laid the

foundations and the basis for King and other organisations to use. Without these King wouldn’t have been as

successful.

How significant was the Brown vs. Topeka case in 1954 in advancing the Civil Rights Movement?

Brown was very significant, you could argue, in the short term. After Plessy in 1896 indoctrinated the separate-but-

equal, Jim Crow idea, which set the legal framework for the next sixty years, the unanimous declaration that the

bedrock of segregation was completely demolished in June 1954 was certainly encouraging for activists, and it

raised the hopes and expectations of people. It became one of the pivotal moments within the Civil Rights

trajectory, but in the long term the ruling was not particularly effective – there are still ongoing problems today with

funding for African-American children’s school places in South Carolina!


12 | P a g e

Would you say that the eventual success of the Movement was in a sense inevitable from the outset of the

Emancipation Proclamation, or was it a result of the activists and campaigns in the 1950s and 60s?

Historians generally don’t like inevitability… The Emancipation Proclamation and other events at the beginning of

the 20th Century certainly pushed the Movement forward, but, as Clayborne Carson argued, it is unlikely that

without the catalysts of the mid-20th century the Civil Rights Movement would have progressed. Although I was

initially sceptical, it is now possible to see that World War 2 encouraged people’s organisation and enthusiasm in

protesting. For that reason I would be careful with the use of the word ‘inevitability’ in reference to this Movement.

What would you say was the most successful method of protest for the Civil Rights Activists?

Non-violent protest was the most successful form, and legal challenges of the court. Birmingham in 1963, for

example, was very important. One of my tutors in South Carolina knew King personally as he had been Secretary of

the SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee), and he said that Birmingham changed everything – it

was the ‘big earthquake that shook the foundations of America’ as following this, President Kennedy, who had

previously been on the fence about being active in Civil Rights, made a speech openly supporting the fight. This

shows how important non-violent protest was – sometimes it got militant, but it could be seen nationwide on TV

and therefore spread an important

message and stayed on America’s

conscience.

How did you find studying History at

university and what attracted you to

specialise in the Civil Rights

Movement?

Studying history at University is great –

in St. Albans they train and teach you

very well for university, as lots of other

people struggle with the new ideas of

independence and organisation difficult

at University. You have to be organised

and disciplined - I only had 5 hours of

contact time per week at Warwick. Read around what you’re doing, analyse the sources and try to come up with

your own take on what you are studying. That idea attracted me to do History. In South Carolina it was different –

much more factual-based and evidential-based. Studying Civil Rights for A2 with Mr Martin (whose notes I still use!)

inspired me; I was really struck by how youth were important, how recent it was and the idea of justice all appealed

to me.


13 | P a g e

Nelson Mandela: Greatest freedom

fighter of the 20th C?

By DJS

Mr Stone explores the life and achievements

of one of the 20th Century’s most influential

and inspiring figures (in his humble opinion!).

The term ‘great’ is a strong word. To be the

greatest implies superiority over all others. Of

course, as a result it is often overly and inappropriately used to label individuals and collectives in a variety of

contexts. Ronaldo is the greatest footballer in the world. Exeter City are the greatest football team… in Devon.

Many of you may recall from your Third form History lessons that esteemed historian Jeremy Clarkson waxing

lyrical about the merits of Isambard Kingdom Brunel as the greatest Briton. It is a label that has been used at times

contentiously to describe the political capabilities of Winston Churchill.

Few men are truly great and the application of the label ‘greatest’, especially when considering freedom fighters, is

entirely subjective. Yet one man for whom this label is, in my humble opinion, wholly appropriate is Nelson

Mandela. No doubt you will have seen in the news and wider media the reports into his life at the time of his death

in the autumn of last year. Lawyer, defendant, prisoner, terrorist, forgiver, statesman; call Mandela what you will.

To fight injustice, to win the argument but lose twenty seven years of your life to imprisonment, then work with

your enemies and turn the other cheek whilst trying to meet over-ambitious expectations of your electorate whilst

convincing the minority white population of their role in the new South Africa has to be seen for what it was; the

mark of a truly remarkable man.

The system of Apartheid introduced in 1948 was in many ways an extension of the Pass Laws which Gandhi had

been fighting before the First World War. When Britain unconvincingly won the Boer War at the turn of the century,

the result was eventually a Union of South Africa (1910) dominated by former Boer generals’ intent on continued

suppression of the black majority. And why wouldn’t they, after all this was the era of Jim Crow in the Deep South of

the USA and the height of social Darwinist influences on the British imperialists ruling over one-fifth of the world. In

1920’s and 1930’s South Africa, the plight of blacks was ignored.

By the end of the Second World War, a divide had opened up in South African politics between the United and

National Parties. When the United Party, led by Jan Smuts, began to propose the introduction of a range of policies

which were far off suggesting the creation of a wholly equal society but did suggest a relaxation of racial

restrictions, the National Party led by Dr Daniel Malan campaigned and won the election with Apartheid as the focal

point of its manifesto.

Apartheid literally means separate development and again, similarities can be drawn here between apartheid and

the principle of ‘separate but equal’ established by the US Supreme Court in 1896 with the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling.

A key difference here was that there was no obligation on the part of the state even to maintain the façade of

equality. Apartheid was introduced immediately, with the passing of ten new laws between 1949 and 1959. As the

National Party’s grip on power tightened into the 1950’s, the system of Apartheid continued to evolve and become

firmly entrenched in the psyche of much of white South Africa.

Nelson Mandela came from the Transkei region on the Eastern Cape and had enjoyed the education and upbringing

one might expect for a member of the Themba royal family; reading law at the Fort Hare University and the

University of Witwatersrand before eventually embarking on a legal career in Johannesburg. By 1953, Mandela had

set up the only African-run law firm in South Africa with Oliver Tambo, but by this stage his political activism had

begun to take over from his ability to practice law.


14 | P a g e

As the new apartheid laws came in, Mandela was part of a new vanguard in the ANC (African National Congress)

calling for direct action against the policies being introduced. In 1950, he became the president of the ANC Youth

League, advocating non-violent protest through the medium of strikes and boycotts. Specifically in the style of the

sit-in protests that would follow in the USA, campaigners entered ‘whites only’ areas in public places.

Unquestionably the leaders of the Indian nationalist cause who had just realised their goals inspired Mandela and

other leading ANC figures to believe that their cause could also be won through peaceful but militant means.

In the mid 1950’s opposition to apartheid was still largely peaceful. In 1955 a Congress of the People met to proclaim

a Freedom Charter, which set out a new vision for the future of South Africa. It called for an end to apartheid and

the introduction of democracy, human rights, land reform and equality before the law. The government saw this as

an act of treason and charged 156 leaders of the ANC, including Mandela, under the Suppression of Communism

Act. Whilst not guilty verdicts were eventually delivered, the trial lasted for several years with the defendants’

ability to orchestrate opposition being severely restricted. Thus anti-apartheid activism was less prevalent in these

years. Yet the brutality of the government was sustained, culminating in the infamous Sharpeville massacre of

1960, where 69 people were killed and 186 injured when police opened fire to disperse a crowd protesting about the

pass laws.

Between 1960 and 1963, anti-apartheid leaders were forced underground, with Mandela forming the militant

Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK)

organisation to fight the

government. During this

period, he was able to escape

South Africa and travel across

Africa to London, spreading

the word of his organisation

and the plight of blacks in

South Africa. Upon his return

and after evading the

authorities for many months

(becoming known as the Black

Pimpernel), he was arrested

and placed on trial for treason

alongside sixteen other

leading figures in the infamous

Rivonia Trial. Mandela used the dock as a platform to denounce his opponents, delivering a four-hour speech in

which he called for greater understanding between white and black communities in South Africa; ‘I have cherished

the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal

opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, My Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for

which I am prepared to die.’ Given that he faced the death penalty, it took tremendous courage to stand up to his

opponents in this way and even at this early stage set out his stall for the future. Eight of the defendants were

convicted but sentenced to life imprisonment. And so began twenty-seven years’ incarceration with all but the most

ardent opponent of apartheid acknowledging the success of the government in crushing internal opposition.


15 | P a g e

Mandela continued to fight from his

prison cell on Robben Island. As the

letters in his book Conversations with

Myself attest, in spite of enduring

considerable hardship he and his

fellow prisoners lobbied to be

considered as political prisoners

rather than criminals. They sought to

maintain their identities as

individuals as the state sought to

break their will with hard labour and

through the stripping away of their

individuality. Throughout this time,

Mandela continued to argue his case

with a foe he sought to respect

whom he could so easily have

despised. For me, this was best

reflected in the following quote

which formed part of a letter smuggled from prison in 1977 to lawyers in Durban directed to the government and

prison officials, ‘I detest white supremacy and will fight it with every weapon in my hands. But even when the clash

between you and me has taken the most extreme form, I should like us to fight over principles and ideas and without

personal hatred, so at the end of the battle, whatever the result might be, I can proudly shake hands with you, because I

feel I have fought an upright and worthy opponent who has observed the whole code of honour and decency.’

Beyond Robben Island as the swinging Sixties gave way to the 1970’s and 1980’s, a new wave of anti-apartheid

protests began to challenge the South African government. Sporting boycotts, decolonisation to black

governments in neighbouring countries like Mozambique, continued brutality culminating in the murder of Steve

Biko in police custody in 1977 and economic sanctions began to make South Africa a pariah state within the

international community; although controversially US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister

Margaret Thatcher remained firm in their belief that that Mandela was a terrorist.

It was really the election of P W Botha as Prime Minister of South Africa in 1978 that led to the renewed possibility

of Mandela’s conditional release. Repeatedly such offers were rejected, such as in 1985 when he stated ‘what

freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people [ANC] remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A

prisoner cannot enter into contracts.’ Increasingly the imprisoned Mandela was becoming an internationally

renowned symbol of the injustice of apartheid and an embarrassment for a government beginning to look for a way

out. This provided the basis for the secret talks between Mandela and the government documented in John Carlin’s

Playing the Enemy (the book that provided the inspiration for the film Inviticus). In these secret talks between 1987

and 1989, Mandela combined his charm and sharp intellect to befriend his opponents in the same way he had won

over his wardens, securing relaxation of the restrictions which affected his party and his people; ultimately

culminating in the open negotiations with new Prime Minister F W de Klerk which led to his unconditional release

on 11th February 1990.

It is perhaps the next stage of his life that makes him the most remarkable and sets him apart from other figures

who might otherwise have contested for the title of ‘the greatest’. After twenty-seven years’ incarceration, much of

it in solitary confinement, away from family and friends, one might reasonably expect a degree of anger, frustration

and a desire to exact revenge. With Mandela this was not the case. He immediately set about tackling the difficult

negotiations that would precede the first multi-party elections in South African history in 1994 at a time when the

country teetered on the brink of civil war. He sat down with both his former jailors and those from within the black

community from whom he had been separated for nearly thirty years and whom he could not claim to wholly

represent. Central to Mandela’s philosophy was a belief that reconciliation would be the only way to ensuring a fair


16 | P a g e

and just, politically and economically stable South Africa. Significant threats to these negotiations were presented

by the Zulu nationalist Buthelezi and the extreme right wing Afrikaner Resistance Movement led by Terreblanche.

The April 1994 elections delivered a convincing victory for the ANC and in May 1994 Nelson Mandela became

President, declaring ‘this is a time to heal the old wounds and build a new South Africa’. In this respect, the timing of

the 1995 Rugby World Cup, won by South Africa, acted as a timely boost helping Mandela to use the toxic brand

amongst blacks that was the Springboks as a platform to advertise the Rainbow Nation as being open to the world.

Perhaps most poignantly, Mandela oversaw the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1996 to

investigate crimes committed under apartheid by both the government and the ANC, appointing Desmond Tutu as

its chair. The commission granted individual amnesties in exchange for testimony of crimes committed during the

apartheid era. It held two years of hearings detailing rapes, torture, bombings and assassinations before issuing its

final report in October 1998. Mandela praised the Commission's work, stating that it ‘had helped us move away from

the past to concentrate on the present and the future’.

So what makes him the greatest freedom fighter of the 20th Century? As with all of us, he had his flaws. Mandela

was regarded as something of a loose cannon amongst the ANC leadership in his early years. He left behind two

failed marriages and developed a reputation as a ladies man both before and after his incarceration. Many have

reflected his time as president as a time of failure, when many promises made to the South African electorate were

not delivered. The fact that South Africa remains in places a

troubled, divided and unequal country today, twenty years

after those first elections, has been identified by some as a

blot on the copybook of Nelson Mandela. Yet, the

inescapable truth is that the end of apartheid brought about

a surge in expectations amongst the black community that

were never going to be immediately realised. As Martin

Luther King quickly realised in the aftermath of legislative

success in the USA in the 1960’s, addressing social and

economic injustice is a far more complicated and tricky

affair. Gandhi too is seen by many as a heroic nationalist

leader who fought against imperialist oppression in India

and indeed the Congress movement provided inspiration for

Mandela and his peers. Yet it was Nehru’s more pragmatic

example to which Mandela aspired as opposed to the

satyagraha and ahimsa of Gandhi. It is to Mandela’s credit

that he managed with others to maintain a peaceful course and keep his country away from the brink of civil war.

He was prepared to work with his jailors, set aside any inclination to seek revenge, and set an example to his people

as he sought to steer South Africa on a pathway to a creating a new peaceful, stable, democratic post-apartheid

society. His dignity, self-belief and refusal to become a victim inspired millions of people, not just in Africa. He was a

role model for any peoples facing oppression.

Further reading

Playing the Enemy – John Carlin

Long Walk to Freedom – Nelson Mandela

Conversations with Myself – Nelson Mandela

Mandela: The Authorised Biography – Anthony Sampson


17 | P a g e

Junior History Film Club: a film review on ‘Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom’ By Lauren Rowe

As we are right now in the midst of the film awards season, a question on the minds of many is why hasn’t the new film on Nelson Mandela been appearing among the nominees? A film so talked about, especially given its release coincided so well with the death of the former President yet the only mention of it amongst the Academy Award nominees is for Best Song.

However any who have seen the film will agree its powerful. Every time we see the crowds of gathered Africans respond to the African chants shouted by Mandela and his wife, Winnie, with their right arms raised as a fist in the air we are swept up in their determination and their struggle. Possibly most poignant of all these moments is following the sentencing of Mandela and his fellow ANC colleagues. From the dock they turn to the crowd of Africans behind them and chant, Mandela reaches out to his wife just before he is pulled away and sent to Robben Island. It’s a moment that evokes sympathy and respect: it depicts Mandela as both the determined leader and the husband forced away from his family. Huge credit must go to Idris Elba with his portrayal of Mandela. Although the film does not shy away from depicting Nelson Mandela’s flaws: his adultery, neglecting his first son and smoking scene after scene; Elba still manages to portray a hero, a character that the viewer admires and respects. It’s a role Elba plays with incredibly believability. As the film progresses we see his Mandela age both physically, in his gait and his stance, and vocally. It’s so realistic that we make that journey with him.

And what a journey it is. In just over two hours, Justin Chadwick, the director, begins in Mandela’s early career and ends with the announcing of his Presidency. We see Mandela grow from the young, successful lawyer, fiery and confident to a much wiser, slower man with huge gravitas, a Mandela the world is possibly more familiar with. Through his younger years, the pace is faster, events flash by and this encourages us to be caught up in the whirlwind of determination and the excitement of a group of people trying to change the world. Appropriately this slows down following his jailing and to begin with we too are almost confined to Robben Island. Gradually Chadwick allows us to become more aware of the growing momentum of the protests in South Africa. The depiction of Winnie’s traumas and suffering are heart-wrenching: a mother tortured and abused whilst her two young children are left at home alone. This is Harris at her best, the feisty woman who we see grow more and more determined as she grows more and more angry. Chadwick contrasts Winnie’s growing anger with Mandela’s growing calmness so by the time they are re-united we understand why their distance and separation leads to their divorce.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom may not have been successful with the awards but that’s certainly not to say that it is not a good film. In fact as an overview of Mandela’s life it is definitely well done, it depicts the development of a leader and takes the viewer on a journey of highs and lows. Overall it brings alive the struggle of one man to bring about the end of Apartheid, a story that should be important to everyone.


18 | P a g e

History & Politics Society

lectures: ‘Historical Film Making

for the BBC’ an interview with

Cameron de Vaux-Balbirnie

Cameron de Vaux-Balbirnie is a historical

documentary film maker for the BBC who

has contributed to the making of

documentaries such as Operation Grand

Canyon and The Whale. Lucy Bonner and

Katie Clifford interviewed Mr de Vaux-Balbirnie to get a further insight into his profession and what it entails.

Where do you find the inspiration for the documentaries from?

Part of what we do is what is expected of us because we are the nation’s broadcaster so not surprisingly a lot of our

thinking recently has been about World War I and how we mark World War I. Obviously 2014 is a really big year and

so that expectation of us means that in some ways inspiration is just a given. Because history is chronological there

are a lot of anniversaries, coming up in the summer is also a big D-Day anniversary, and I spend a lot of time talking

to history academics and seeing what new books have been written. I also read the newspapers, I am interested in

ancient history and archaeology so all the time you meet people and read articles and I see new ideas and new

discoveries.

What’s been your most interesting and challenging project you’ve worked on?

Recently I made a program called Operation Grand Canyon which was recreating the first navigation of the Grand

Canyon in 1869 which was formidably difficult. That was challenging, it was interesting too but it was mainly

physically challenging trying to fill over 3 weeks on the Grand Canyon. I made a film called Hiroshima in 2005 where

we filmed the last ever interviews with the flight crews that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and so to ask

the pilot what did it feel like to kill a quarter of a million people it was incredibly interesting.

Do you find that you and your team are restricted in any way when considering the views and opinions you

present in your documentaries?

It’s important to challenge opinion, we are proud to go out on a limb but there are issues of balance. We can’t just

say something that is ludicrous but one of our roles is to be provocative, we do get complaints but they’re the right

sort of complaints. We made a film where we interviewed the Pussy Riot girls about Putin’s role and got complaints

from the Russian Orthodox Church. So no, we can challenge but I think we must respect public opinion; for World

War I it’s a really interesting question of how we treat WW1, especially with the whole public debate which we have

got to be part of. Do we look at it dispassionately and so we say that Germany is to blame for WW1? We don’t

necessarily have to take one side or the other but we must recognise it as a debate and take part in that debate.

How did you find yourself getting into this kind of industry?

Fundamentally I am interested in stories, I was interested in fiction stories so I was a print journalist and wrote all

sorts of things. And as a film maker I have worked across all sorts of genres, in science and history and futures and

arts but history has good stories, it gives you stories. It’s like a box of chocolates, you open it up and it gives you

really good stories to make films about!


19 | P a g e

Have there ever been any

documentaries that once you’ve

aired them you really wished

you had gone about them in a

different way?

Actually no, I find myself

surprised to say no! I think it’s

because as a print journalist you

write a news story in 10 minutes

but as a film maker, making a film

or TV series takes a long time. So

in that time you have enough

time in the process to really

reflect and change. Film making is over a really long period of time where you discuss what it’s about, you film and

edit it and mould it, whilst a lot of people are involved all talking. When it goes out you feel like that’s what you

wanted to make with a quiet sense of satisfaction as you see all your changes over time come together.

Is there any particular topic or area that you would love to make a film on in the future? I’ve always had a little fascination for the 17th Century, which is strange as there isn’t much of a story as such. It’s a time period beginning with Elizabeth on the throne and ending with the Industrial Revolution, and in the middle you’ve got lots of scientific experiment, the invention of the Bank of England, the Glorious Revolution and a complete change of an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy, the Civil War, and there is also a mini Ice Age which, it is thought, killed a third of the entire population of the earth! Some extraordinary things happened in this century; a transformation from a Mediaeval world to an almost modern world. I think there’s a fascinating story to tell, I just don’t know what it is yet.

When a team of you look at initially filming a new project, and there are two people who have completely clashing opinions, where does the compromise come in?

There isn’t one. Television is very consultative but also hierarchical, so the programmes I make are made my way. I think the trick in television, is that it works at its best when it is very consultative and you take the views of lots of others on board, but you must be very careful with taking on board too many different opinions – in the end you must take the final call yourself. Not least because media is expensive, so as soon as you have a team on making a programme, progress happens quickly.

Have your own opinions on historical events ever drastically changed after making a documentary?

I suppose the Hiroshima film. I was extremely interested to interview the men who flew the plane which dropped the bomb on Hiroshima – the eldest person was 29 years old at the time and the youngest was 17 at the time, such young men flying seven hours to Japan to drop a bomb they knew would kill thousands of people – I wanted to ask what that felt like. Actually, when you talk to these old men and what they went through, and how they rationalise it, you begin to understand it – there are other arguments, such as that Japan was not going to surrender and the war would continue where the Japanese would kill many more people than Hiroshima. I therefore think that your views can definitely be moderated by these experiences; it teaches you something about life as well as about history.

Are there any particular individuals you’ve met who have really stood out to you?

Usually people don’t go on the screen unless we think they are remarkable. In history, it tends to be those individuals who have been at the heart of enormous events. You always are amazed by individuals who have lived through so much and it always makes you wonder what it was like to be them – it reminds you that history is not just about these huge events, but also about people just making decisions.


20 | P a g e

Documents

The Gateway Chronicle April 2014