Blank-swart-verhoudinge soos weerspieël in die Vrystaatse historiografie, 1800-1910

English: The aim of this dissertation is to conduct, within the framework of existing historiographic classification, a historiographic investigation into white-black relationships in the Free State during the period 1800-1910. Firstly, to achieve this goal, the relationship of conflict between the whites in the Free State and the Basutu was historiographically investigated. Secondly, the relationship between whites and blacks in the Free State as it was during the Anglo Boer War (ABW) was analysed. The perceptions of historians and other writers on white-black relationships in social, medical, educational, economical, political, juridical and religious affairs were also investigated. White-black relationships as reflected in the historiography of .the Free State, 1800-1910 As a result of the influence of the personalities of individual historians and memoirists, the effects of social environments and the spirit of the age, as well as paradigmatic and methological differences on historiography, it is impossible to obtain any objective, general account of the history of white-black relationships in the Free State. From the historians' and memoirists' picturing of the white-black relationships during the period 1800-1910, a clear distinction can be made between pro-white and pro-black historians and memoirists. Regarding pro-white historians, it is possible to distinguish between Afrikaner-centric historians from the prescientific phase, their professional and amateur kindret spirits, as well as colonial and imperial historians on the grounds of methodological and paradigmatic differences. Pro-black historians and memoirists include on their turn the contemporary liberals, professional liberals, neo-liberals, revisionists and black historians. With a few exceptions, the pro-white historians are of the opinion that the whites brought peace, progress, civilisation and the Word of God to the uncivilised, warlike heathens in the Free State. On the other side, the pro-black historians show, although from different starting points, how the peace and progession that the Basutu experienced under the capable reign of Mosjwesjwe were cruelly disturbed by the whites. The view of these historians and memoirists that the whites with their thirst for land occupied the land of the Basutu unlawfully, is rejected by pro-white historians and memoirists. The latter point out that the whites are the lawful owners of the Caledon River because they had occupied unoccupied land. Various border agreements and peace treaties were made between the whites in the Free State and the Basutu during the period 1843-1869. The positive and/or negative judgements of the historians and memoirists concerning these treaties are determined by the writers' interpretations of the benefits or the disadvantages of the treaties to the whites/Basutu. Next to white-black relationships, the other most important relationship-study in the South African history is that between the Boers and the British. In historians' discussions of the involvement of the British in the white-black conflict in the Free State, these two relationships are intertwined. Imperial historians propagate for example British involvement in South Africa. They create the impression that British interference is necessary for the establishment of peace and progression in the Free State. The withdrawal of the British from the area in 1854 is seen by these historians as a great mistake. While liberal historians accuse Great Brittain that she has failed in her mission to act as protector for the indigenous people, the neo-liberals and revisionistic historians are of the opinion that the Boers and the British formed a white power base to the cost of the native people. The Afrikaner-centric historians are very critical against the conduct of the British against the blacks during the period of the Orange River Sovereignty. They work on the assumption that only the white Afrikaner had the necessary knowledge and insight to organise white-black relationships significantly. During the republican era, there occured three wars between the whites in the Free State and the Basutu. The Afrikaner-eentric and colonial historians see the Basutu aggression as the most important cause of the wars, and the pro-black historians do not deny this aggression. They justify it as an attempt of the Basutu to regain their lost land. The historiography on the wars is full of contradictions. The pro-black historians and memoirists create the perception that Mosjwesjwe was a peace- leader who had no other option than to step up to the war. The Afrikaner-centric historians, however, describe the presidents of the Free State as peace-loving. They tried everything to come to terms with Mosjwesjwe. Due to the Basutu aggression they had to take up the weapons in order to survive. Even regarding the course of the wars the historians are not concurrent. Afrikaner-centric historians depict the Boers as brave and virtuous; the Basutu were dishonourable and acted cowardly, directing their attacks on defenseless women and children. Exactly the opposite picture is portrayed by the pro-black historians and memoirists. According to them, the Basutu gained victories in spite of logistical problems. The destroying strategies of the whites brought Basutuland on the edge of destruction. To survive, they had to ask for peace. The historiographic analysis of white-black relationships in the Free State during the time of the ABW was a deviation from the standard historiographic classification. The findings of ABW historians and memoirists were determined mainly by their pro-British and pro-Boer loyalties. Although several historians and memoirists ignored the role of blacks in the war, there are others that specifically pay attention to their contribution as supporting personnel to the Boers and/or British. The acknowledgement of historians and memoirists of this .contribution vary between rude, racist enunciations to positive descriptions. The armament of the blacks by the British troops create strong reaction from historians and memoirists. The pro-British writers point out that they had provided the blacks with weapons because they were tortured and/or killed by the Boers. The pro-Boer historians use this armament of the blacks as justification for the prompt killing of armed blacks. Although few memoirists and historians pay attention to the suffering of black civilians of the Free State in and out of concentration camps, this subject is, since the seventies, increasingly receiving the attention of historians. From the historiographic study of white-black relationships in the Free State in the social, educational, juridical, economical, labour, political and religious spheres, it seems that the role of blacks in these spheres are either marginilised or stereotyped by most historians, historical educationalists, memoirists and church historians. With a few exceptions, the majority of publications on these relationships are those of Afrikaner-centric historians. As a result, there can be but little significant comparison of the views of historians and memoirists on white-black relationships in these areas. In spite of the view that Afrikanercentric historians find social and economic historiography and research strange and therefore omit it, the most important publication on the mentioned relationships is that of JH van Aswegen and CJP le Roux. From the study it seems that there exist differences between writers regarding the selection of sources, as well as the utilisation of sources or a lack of it. With the exception of published doctoral dissertations, specialised works and a few synoptic works, there seems to exist a serious lack with regard to archival, archeological, linguistic, anthropological, sociological, economical and climatological research and utilisation of oral witness and the oral tradition. In spite of the fact that there exist so much conflicting witnesses on whiteblack relationships in the Free State, primary research is being neglected by historians. A large percentage of authors base their research on the views of other historians - mainly congenial spirits. While some of these writers acknowledge their sources, others plagiarise blatantly. Historians will have to turn to the oral evidence and black folklore to reconstruct the history of all the inhabitants of the Free State. The history of the Free State is indeed the history of all its inhabitants - politicians and ordinary people - as experienced by all its inhabitants. Regional studies are necessary to ensure that the history of the common man IS being recorded. The recording of the history of the Free State is far from completed. Themes that ask for .investigation are inter alia the role of whites and blacks in educational, economical, agricultural, medical, juridical and labour spheres. Not only the conflict-situations or the differences should be research in such relationship-studies, but also the cooperation between white and black. The time is ripe to record the history of the Free State in such a way that the role of all the population groups and the interaction between these population groups are portrayed in a scientific justifiable way. Although such a work will not be acceptable to everyone, it will make a contribution to a better knowledge and understanding of the Free State community.