Anachronistic Calvanistic Afrikaners

Katie's research on the history of South Africa's Drum magazine has turned up some fascinating stuff. First there was Dear Dolly (also discussed here), and now she's stumbled over an amusing passage in a 1964 report on the media written by agents of the apartheid government.

In the name of searching for bias and "irresponsibility" in the media, this report examined each of the newspapers and magazines published within South Africa, and much of the work done by foreign correspondents for publication overseas.

At the time, the apartheid government, run by the National Party, was trying to justify its policies by saying that it wanted simply to provide space for black and white cultures to develop at their own pace. And it labeled much of its political opposition as communist in an attempt to earn the favor of western Europe and the United States.

Both arguments were simply not true. And apparently, the New York Times reporter based in South Africa at the time was smart enough to see through their crap. This is from page 1,293 of volume two of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Press:

97.74 percent of the total wordage of the cabled political and racial news dispatched to the New York Times was dispatched during this period, and of this percentage, the bad reporting accounted for 5.4 percent and the very bad for 91.59 percent. During this later period, the reporting, as a whole, can only be described as sensational and dishonest. The irresponsible and extravagant utterances of all and sundry are used to depict the South African scene. Trivial occurrences are given an importance which they do not enjoy. Isolated social disturbances and acts of violence are represented as being examples and proof of a general course of conduct. The Government point of view and the National Party point of view are virtually omitted. The United Party point of view is also virtually omitted, save for the reporting of some of its more extravagant criticisms of the Government and the National Party. The picture formed from reading these cables is that of a land in a state of perpetual crisis, a land on the brink of civil violence and ruled by an intolerant Government composed of anachronistic Calvanistic Afrikaners who use their out-moded religious beliefs to justify a racialistic authoritarian regime which is used to oppress all elements opposed to it and particularly the non-whites. The cables also create the impression that the so-called oppression of the non-whites is generally approved of by the white people. The whites are represented as having fear of, and having no human feelings for, the non-whites who have no rights of liberty in South Africa.

And, in order to make the views expressed by communists acceptable to the U.S. reader, the correspondents suppress the views of communists or represent the communists as having been falsely labeled as such by the Government for the purposes of discrediting them politically and/or employing the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act against them.

Isn't that brilliant? Some apartheid government functionary managed to write the most accurate and concise summary of how history now judges the apartheid government, and he managed to do it as that government was only just beginning its cruelest era. I mean, "...anachronistic Calvanistic Afrikaners who use their out-moded religious beliefs to justify a racialistic authoritarian regime..." just about covers everything.

And it makes you think: Which contemporary American media critics who shout about bias will be revealed by history to be anachronistic Calvanistic Republikaners?