In 1921 a petition signed by 259 Baster men from Gordonia was submitted to Parliament.1 They asked Parliament "to restore our previous rights in the settlement of Gordonia" given by the Imperial government in "perpetual Erfpacht". A demand for restitution of land, the petition became re-interpreted by successive South African governments in line with policies of segregation. It catalysed, in fact, the racial division of the territory of Gordonia. In the Gordonia settlement, established in 1880, Basters had been granted farms along the north bank of the Orange River from the Aughrabies Falls to the present Groblershoop as well as in the interior of the country. Subsequently, they had lost most of this land. Basters told a Lands Department official in 1921 they were "finding it practically impossible to find places where they can pursue their calling, which is agricultural farming, and even when they do succeed in securing places where they can live, their form of tenure is very insecure... [causing] them a great deal of inconvenience and financial loss."2 Moreover their tenancies were threatened, wrote the Rand Daily Mail, because "Europeans... more and more require their land for their own use."3 The petitioners blamed the loss of land on the government. Under the original regime, they claimed, land alienation was prohibited to persons not registered as citizens (i.e. mainly Basters). This was correct.4 So far as they knew, these rights had been ratified when Gordonia was annexed to British Bechuanaland.5 But after annexation farms were sold by public auction, including to people previously ineligible. Because their forefathers were even less educated than now, they did not pay attention to this violation of the conditions. They trusted that the government would defend them. But having now seen the original documents, the petitioners were amazed that farms were allowed to be sold. Even those who had sold their property, they claimed, were surprised that they were never warned by officials when these transactions were registered. This seemed to show that the former rules were no longer in operation despite the fact
{"title":"The Racial Division of Gordonia, 1921-1930","authors":"Martin Legassick","doi":"10.18772/12016049544.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18772/12016049544.16","url":null,"abstract":"In 1921 a petition signed by 259 Baster men from Gordonia was submitted to Parliament.1 They asked Parliament \"to restore our previous rights in the settlement of Gordonia\" given by the Imperial government in \"perpetual Erfpacht\". A demand for restitution of land, the petition became re-interpreted by successive South African governments in line with policies of segregation. It catalysed, in fact, the racial division of the territory of Gordonia. In the Gordonia settlement, established in 1880, Basters had been granted farms along the north bank of the Orange River from the Aughrabies Falls to the present Groblershoop as well as in the interior of the country. Subsequently, they had lost most of this land. Basters told a Lands Department official in 1921 they were \"finding it practically impossible to find places where they can pursue their calling, which is agricultural farming, and even when they do succeed in securing places where they can live, their form of tenure is very insecure... [causing] them a great deal of inconvenience and financial loss.\"2 Moreover their tenancies were threatened, wrote the Rand Daily Mail, because \"Europeans... more and more require their land for their own use.\"3 The petitioners blamed the loss of land on the government. Under the original regime, they claimed, land alienation was prohibited to persons not registered as citizens (i.e. mainly Basters). This was correct.4 So far as they knew, these rights had been ratified when Gordonia was annexed to British Bechuanaland.5 But after annexation farms were sold by public auction, including to people previously ineligible. Because their forefathers were even less educated than now, they did not pay attention to this violation of the conditions. They trusted that the government would defend them. But having now seen the original documents, the petitioners were amazed that farms were allowed to be sold. Even those who had sold their property, they claimed, were surprised that they were never warned by officials when these transactions were registered. This seemed to show that the former rules were no longer in operation despite the fact","PeriodicalId":53088,"journal":{"name":"Kronos","volume":"31 1","pages":"152-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90257163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：