Let’s face it, South Africa a hundred years ago was a totally different place with a completely different vibe.
J Haasbroek provides valuable insights into the mindset of the early 20th century Free State via a study of a series of articles published in Bloemfontein’s English newspaper The Friend* (now defunct). The particular incident that started it all was recorded as follows on July 12, 1918: “At the Magistrate’s Court, Bloemfontein, yesterday Mr. C.W.E. Atkinson, Additional Magistrate, sentenced a native to a fine of £1 or 14 days imprisonment with hard labour for holding a tea party in the Waaihoek location after the time allowed him by the permission previously obtained by the police.”
Draconian municipal regulations were in place to prevent so-called disturbances of the peace. What irked the residents of Waaihoek the most was the disproportionate, rude and inconsiderate meting of justice by the police. In any event, the transgressor had gone 45 minutes over his allotted time, and as a result, The Friend reported: “The indiscretion cost him a sovereign.”
The local Anglican churches’ Deacon Frank Howell Hulme was deeply upset by this deplorable state of affairs. So much so, Hulme wrote a letter to The Friend questioning the sensibility of the arrest and penalty. Hulme, in his letter, pointed out the absurdity of a person holding a tea party in his own home, in his own suburb, and with permission, being summarily arrested for simply taking too long to disperse.
Hulme also described the heavy handed intervention as “discriminating against black people”. Hulme went on to question whether the man’s incarceration, amongst hardened criminals, and forced labour, and the penalty of an equivalent half month’s salary could be justified.
The Friend responded via an editorial from an apparently neutral position, maintaining a measure of sympathy with the unfortunate transgressor, whilst reflecting that the rule of law (with its explicit rules and regulations) could hardly be blamed either. The newspaper added that the transgressor must have been aware that he was flouting the rules, so why did he?
The Hulme letter opened a can of worms in the Bloemfontein community of the day. For over a month letters appeared in the newspaper espousing yet another view on the topic. One letter summarized the discontent as follows: “(T)his notorious tea party has brought about quite a lively controversy.” Interestingly, the newspaper initially listed the various positions and comments on this topic under the heading: “A Waaihoek Tea Party.” But as the intensity of the responses increased, the heading changed to: “The Waaihoek Tea Party.”
The writer J. Haasbroek points out in his article in Culna magazine (July 2000) that the tea party debate was not so much significant in and of itself, but rather a measure of underlying tensions in race relations. As such, the issue that started the debate soon shifted into the background, but indirectly set up a platform for this debate.
Eventually The Friend declared: “We now have two camps of extremists in sharp antagonism.” On the one side, the Hulme opponents described discriminatory laws as “Biblical”, the God-given rights of whites, necessary for the black worker to know his place. Hulme was reminded, further, that white people could receive jail terms simply for selling a bottle of brandy to a black man.
As far as this group was concerned, the law had been broken, plain and simple. On the other hand, black correspondents praised the Deacon for his rational actions. Some white residents also rallied to Hulme’s support. Interestingly, The Friend perhaps portentously, began to compare the Waaihoek Tea Party to the renowned Boston Tea Party of 1773, an event which soon led to the American war for independence.
Haasbroek, in summarizing the later letters to The Friend notes a level of sarcasm in letters, including from seasoned churchgoers. After a few points were made under the heading “Everyone in his place” the following retort ensued courtesy of a certain Arthur P. Pitso, from Kroonstad: “To begin with,” Pitso fired, “the native in question was in his place — at Waaihoek location in his own house. He was not in town hankering after social equality with any white man. Can one be more in his place than that?”
Haasbroek notes that The Friend finally cauterized the debate when it degenerated into mudslinging. But Haasbroek also references the sensitivity that was the order of those days, and still remains to some extent, present with us today, brewing under the surface.
Nevertheless it is heartening to observe that whilst some piffly uncertainties and suspicions persist amongst 21st century South Africans of all races, we have already come a long, long way from the bad old days of separate amenities, pass books, curfews and worst of all, racism sanctioned by the Almighty.
* Source: “The Waaihoek Tea Party,” by J Haasbroek, Culna magazine (published in Afrikaans), page 29-30, July 2000.
This article originally appeared in the Mail & Guardian newspaper as an advertorial supplement