Historically used as political instruments to oversee the functioning of nations, the British empire in particular used both statistical data collection through censuses and territorial mapping as methods of maintaining governance from afar [1]. The census was, and remains to be, a political instrument which allows for the numeration, discrete categorisation and ordering of individuals so they may be governed. The statistics generated, both fabricate and are fabricated by government policies. The modern census is a political technology reintroduced by the British government used in the United Kingdom and its colonies since 1840; when the census was proposed to be taken in colonial territories, it was to match that taken in the United Kingdom [2]. The census of the British empire built upon the returns already being conducted on the profitability and income of each colonial territory. The census itself is a method of producing knowledge, and was justified as a way of monitoring if a territory was economically prosperous; the empire was justified as having the purpose of being economically productive and profitable [3]. Census technologies are found however to not be merely descriptive exercises representing populations, but in addition exercises which generate them [4]. The colonial office requested each colonial government to present annual statistics of a population within a Blue Book [5]. The collection, analysis and presentation of statistics on a population allowed census commissioners to exhibit the perception of an ordered image of a society categorised by their colonially defined identities at a particular place and time, and construct trends considered to be of importance for the governance of individuals in each group. The result was the fabrication of colonial national identities which evolved alongside the census, its questions, and pre-determined answer categories. At times of political change, the national identity changes alongside, and so too does the census, its questions and answer categories. Studies on the census have demonstrated they are not simply a matter of bureaucracy but instead play a part in the construction of a reality – a national identity as well as the division of people according to their race, ethnicity, language and religion [6]. As shown here, it also reflects the political programs and imperatives of the party in power. In the past, examinations of the modern census have argued they were simply monitoring exercises used by the British empire to determine the economic profitability of a nation and its people, arguing race to be purely linked to economic activity. In this article however I push this further by examining not only Britain, but the political tension between Britain and other imperial powers which centre on the separation of religion from the state and the use of English as an official language, and argue that this in fact creates the political concept of ‘race’. South Africa proves a key site for this case study due to its history of apartheid; many diversity movements across the globe look towards and are influenced by the movement in the region. The diversity movement in South Africa came to prominence after the end of apartheid in 1994. With the election of the African National Congress and the end of 53 years of racial segregation, the ‘rainbow state’ was formed. The beginning of the anti-apartheid movement is argued to have begun with the Soweto uprisings where officially 176 school children were killed by police during a peaceful demonstration against the use of Afrikaans in state education, although many claim the number of lives lost to be higher. Political isolation from external territories followed. Consequently, since the end of apartheid many government legislations have aimed towards addressing the inequalities caused by the regime, however by using racialisation as the method to do so, in effect they continue to use the same methods used since the first modern census taken in the region, and categorisation techniques the apartheid government administered since 1951. Racial restitution schemes employ the same methods as those used during apartheid, upholding its legacies. In this article I argue race in the census is in fact a product of religion and language, placing a higher emphasis on ethnicity over race as an important factor in the production of knowledge for purposes of governance. Other scholars contend the census helps to constitute racial discourse and that racial discourse in turn effects government policies [7]. In terms of ethnicity, others recognise the importance of religion as a value to people and as a tool in creating a concept of national identity [8]. I however show here that the more important factor is the historical importance of religion and within models of governance for different ethnicities.

The Research Process

In this article, I split the history of the region currently known as South Africa into four specific time periods to consider how it has changed in territories since the first modern census taken in the region. The time periods and territories mapped are the British Colonies (1806-1910) and the Boer States (1838-1902), the Union of South Africa (1910-1961), Apartheid (1961-1994), and post-Apartheid (1994-present). In doing so the paper highlights how the national identity is affected by political agendas and shapes and is shaped by the census. Both primary and secondary sources have been used in this case study.

British Colonies (1806-1910) & Boer Republics (1838-1902)

When the first censuses took place the region was initially split into colonies claimed to be owned by theBritish empire (Cape of Good Hope, British Bechuanaland and the Colony of Natal), and independent republics (Orange Free State, South African Republic and Transvaal) claimed to be owned by Dutch-speaking people who had previously lived in the Cape of Good Hope, the ‘Boers’. The British took hold of the Cape of Good Hope in 1806 after the Battle of Blaauberg. Fought between the Batavian Republic (later known as the Kingdom of Holland) and the British as a part of the Napoleonic wars, when the Amiens Treaty was suspended it provided the British with an opportunity to seize the Cape of Good Hope, a territory of value as it provided a strategic stop off point, and a look out point, for western empires wishing access to the east [9].The imposition of British colonial power over of the Cape of Good Hope led to the Dutch-speaking farming community, the ‘Boers’, migrating inland. The Dutch-speaking community was placed at a disadvantage due to the language laws placed upon the community; the British enforced English as the official language of the region and prohibited the use of Dutch for trade, educational and judicial services. As many traditions, including schooling and other state services, as well as the dominant religion in the Boer population at the time, were conducted in Dutch, the language itself differentiated them. Most importantly to the Boers however was that religion remain linked to the state. The Boer Republics were founded with a constitution which did not separate religion from the state, and ensured that only those who were members of the Dutch reformed church had the opportunity to own land and vote, later extended to the Calvinist protestants. In addition, after the abolition of slavery act in 1834, the British proposed compensating the Dutch-speaking slave owners, primarily farmers, £1,200,000 [10]. The Dutch-speaking community disputed the requirement they had to travel to London to file their claims, and that the amount being offered was below the valuation. This led to, ‘The Great Trek’ during which the Boers migrated inland to live a life outside of British colonial rule. They began to establish a set of independent republics in the interior of the region, politically independent of the British Colonies. These were namely, The Orange Free State, South African Republic, and Transvaal; collectively known as the Boer Republics, ‘Boer’ meaning farmer in Dutch and later Afrikaans [11]. British Bechuanaland was a colonial territory between 1885-1895. The British acted to gain control over the region as the Boers twice attempted to gain authority of the region from the native Zulus in 1882; the region was claimed by the British in 1885 [12]. The British initially settled in the Colony of Natal for its location as a trading port. Subsequently, it was taken over from the Boers in 1843 due to conflict, again between the native Zulu population and the Boers. Indentured labourers were recruited to the region to work on sugar plantations allowing for their industrial development. The initial British censuses were required to categorise populations into ‘White’, ‘Coloured’ and ‘Slaves’ until the abolition of slavery in 1834, after which the classifications became ‘White’ and ‘Coloured’ (Cape of Good Hope 1865). In practice however, many territories chose to use different racial classifications due to differences in political alliances, as well as differences in economic liberties for individuals based on race. In the British Colonies in the region currently known as South Africa, the censuses reflected this attitude and the racial classifications chosen reflected categories of the population according to their economic activity. The Cape of Good Hope & British Bechuanaland The first modern census in the region was conducted in the Cape of Good Hope in 1865 with the racial classifications chosen to be ‘European’, ‘Hottentot’, ‘Kafir’ and ‘Other’(Davenport and Saunders 2000). Individuals were also classed according to their religion, primarily to distinguish between the Dutch and British populations. Racial categorisation in the census was related to a categorisation of the population according to their economic contribution. Within the census, the ‘Kafir’ were people defined as the Bantu-speaking population [13] who were a community of settled farmers organised as chiefdoms with hierarchical political structures. The Khoe-speaking population were classified as the ‘Hottentot’ as they were non-Bantu speaking nomadic pastoralists, initially termed this by the Boers who distinguished them due to their pastoral way of life. In addition, they actively took part in the trade of fresh meat with both the European populations; they refused to be slaves in return however [14]. Prior to the arrival of European settlers they were a hunter-gatherer community which are egalitarian in nature thus had no institutionalised authority [15]. The ‘Other’ column referred to other groups of the indigenous population, as well as descendants of slaves, usually of Malay (Cape Malays), East African, and South Asian origin due to the Dutch and British involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. The ‘Europeans’ were the settled British, French and Dutch populations [16] and were the primary land owners using their land for economic gain. Further censuses were conducted in the Cape of Good Hope in 1875, 1891 and 1904 in which the population was racialised into six groups: ‘European or White’, ‘Malay’, ‘Hottentot’, ‘Fingo’, ‘Kafir and Bechuana’, and ‘Mixed and Others’ [17]. Political alignments led to the expansion of the categories, including how this may be culturally related to language and religion. Incorporation into the ‘Fingo’ group was a symbol of higher status. They were ethnically diverse and distinguished in the census for their ‘progress in civilisation’ [18]. Their name was derived from a Xhosa verb ukumfenguza which meant to seek service [19] They were made up of people from broken African chiefdoms – the Bhaca, Bhele, Zizi and Hlubi - as a consequence of the Mfecane wars, fought between the indigenous communities in the region over the control of arable land for the production of maize. They initially settled with the Xhosa, a Bantu-speaking group who used them for labour. They were culturally aligned with the imperial powers however as they adopted Christianity. They defected from the Xhosa and became allies of the cape government during the Early Frontier Wars, again fought over the competition for land in the territory; the Fingo were skilled gunmen [20]. The ‘Malay’ were descendants of slaves working in the region who were transported by the Dutch from present-day Indonesia through their involvement in the Atlantic slave trade, the Cape Malays [21]. This group was also differentiated according to their religion, Islam [22]. The Bechuana are a sub-group of the Bantu-speaking population, but have different origins to the ‘Kafir’ population [23]. In this census, the ‘Other’ population was justified as being a mixed-race population (Eybers 1918). The census of British Bechuanaland in 1891 racialised the population within the same classifications as the Cape of Good Hope [24].

The Colony of Natal

The racial categorisation in the census of Natal in 1891 differed from those conducted in British Bechuanaland and the Cape of Good Hope. Due to the indentured labourers prominent in the region, racial categorisation according to economic activity was more complex as they were able to own land after they served the length of their indenture. The classifications were namely the ‘White and non-indentured Indians’ and the ‘indentured Indians and indigenous population’ [25]. Any mixed-race individuals, in other censuses of the time were racialised as ‘Coloured’, but in Natal were racialised as ‘White’ as they were also able to own land. These classifications were justified as they reflected the right to both own land and consequently vote in the Colony of Natal [26]. The indentured Indians were a group of the population who were transported to the country as labourers after the abolishment of slavery 1834. Within the census they also were divided according to their religion – Hinduism. Indentured servitude is a system of unfree labour, in which the employee signs a contract (indenture), which binds them to provide labour for free for the owner of the indenture (the employee) for a fixed period of time. In Natal, this was often a five-year period. The indenture was a contract between the indentee and employer which was often forced, and bound the indentee to work for the employer unwaged for a period of time. The indentured Indians were brought to South Africa by the colonial government of India, firstly to work as labourers on sugar plantations, and subsequently coal mines and railway construction workers . Most notably, in contrast to slaves the indentured Indians were freed after five years of service. And, after ten years of service, they would be given a return passage to India for free, or would become eligible to apply for a portion of land with the price of the return passage removed from its value. From 1874 onwards, the price of the return passage could not be taken off the value of the land and instead, the ex-indentured labourer was free to purchase or rent land As the non-indentured Indians owned a plot of land, they were placed into the same category alongside those racialised as ‘White’ based on their economic activity. The indenture itself acted as a technology providing these workers with additional rights over slaves. In addition, in India there was much famine at the time. The indenture system provided an opportunity for the colonial government of India to resolve the situation through the redistribution of persons to other parts of the empire. In contrast to the racial categorisation of individuals in the British census, based on economic means, the Boer census rejected the concept of racial equality as it would disrupt economic production due to unfree labour, and as a consequence produced a different concept of nationality for the Boer States. This would have later repercussions for race relations under the apartheid regime. The constitution of the republics was founded on the rejection of racial equality after the abolishment of slavery act 1834, the separation of religion from state, and the requirement to conduct business and state affairs in English. Thus, citizenship and franchise were restricted to those who were members of the Dutch reformed church and later the Calvinist protestants. Greater emphasis was placed on the population racialised as ‘White’, as well as citizenship within these censuses as this group was considered to be the only landowners, consequently being the only population with taxable income and thus the opportunity to vote.

The Orange Free State

The Orange Free State took censuses in 1880 and 1890, the ‘Coloured’ population were counted, but no other identity classifications were recorded for this group. This was reflective of the fact they were able to neither own land nor vote. In the Orange Free State, the census also recorded the number of those racialised as ‘White’ who were able to do military service by classifying this population according to religion, and in doing so separating the Dutch-speaking community from the British. The Boers had a citizen army with the entire male population between the ages of 16 to 60 able to be conscripted for unpaid military service; the census served as a means of recording those eligible.

The South African Republic

In the South African Republic, only those racialised as ‘White’ were counted in their 1890 census. Immigration of business people and labourers was prominent in the region due to the presence of gold mines in Witswaserand, and in 1890 only a third of adult males racialised as ‘White’ had the right to vote due to the high number of this population who were not also a part of the Dutch reformed church, nor Calvinist protestant. Again, using a question about religion, the British population were separated from the Boers. The rest of the population racialised as ‘White’ were primarily British. The Boers termed the immigrants in the region as Uitlanders meaning ‘foreigners’. The Boers found their presence troublesome as they twice outnumbered them by 1896 raising concerns over maintaining the republics’ independence. By enfranchising them, the region would ultimately become a British colony. By both disallowing the Uitlanders the right to vote and applying high rates of taxation civil unrest began to rise, eventually leading to the Second Boer War.

Transvaal

The Second Boer War took place in the territory over 1899 to 1902 and led to the British taking control of the Boer Republics. The discovery of gold and diamonds in the region instigated the war. After the British took possession, indentured labourers were again recruited to work in the mines. This wave of indentured labourers however originated from China and worked in the region formally known as Transvaal. The conditions of their labour were much more restrictive than those under which the Indian indentured labourers were recruited. They were recruited under an indenture of three years, after which they could choose to renew their indenture or be returned to China. Further, in contrast to the Indian indenture system, the Chinese indentured labourers were unable to own land nor engage in trade The region in which they were employed, Transvaal was founded on the constitution of the Boers not allowing them to trade as they were not a part of the Dutch reformed church and did not have the right to own land A new constitution had not yet been written since the British had taken control of the region. The Chinese indentured labourers were only allowed to be employed as unskilled workers, even when skill was required such as in the Witswaserand mines in which they were employed as ‘unskilled miners’. The Chinese population were also restricted in terms of their accommodation and movement. They were only permitted to reside in properties adjacent to the mines, and if they wished to leave the premises they had to obtain a pass, and return within 48 hours. Such ‘passes’ were the initial documents leading to the pass laws imposed by the apartheid government. In 1904 a census took place which followed the racial classifications in the Cape of Good Hope, reflective of British control. The other classifications identifying individuals were religion, but not language. After the war, a political identity of the Afrikaner population formed with strong anti-British sentiment. This political movement eventually gave rise to the National Party who instigated the apartheid program, with the ideology of Afrikaner nationalism spearheaded by the Broedebond, a secret organisation for Afrikaner Calvinist males. The Afrikaner population included the Boers and their mixed-race descendants.

British Dominion: 1910-1961

The Union of South Africa, a self-governing dominion of the British Empire, was formed after the South Africa War which took place between 1899 and 1902 and culminated in the British gaining control over the Boer Republics. The Union saw the integration of The Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal as one territory controlled by the British as a dominion. The constitution represented a compromise between the British and Afrikaner Boers. The British enforcement of the race-free ownership of land was written into the constitution. But importantly, reflecting the Boers’ preference of only those who were a part of the Dutch reformed church and Calvinist protestants to own land so they could have the vote, only people racialised as ‘White’ could be elected into parliament. This compromise between the two meant the census allowed a move towards racialisation and racial ordering. The Boer States’ constitutions restricted franchise based on religion, but through the census this developed into individuals racialised as ‘White’ due to the British insistence on the separation of religion from state governance. In addition, the number of seats per region was distributed according to the census population, in particular only the population racialised as ‘White’. The 1911 census was more reflective of the dominion being British-owned in its racial classifications: ‘White’, ‘Bantu’ or ‘Native’, and ‘Coloured’. The population racialised as ‘Coloured’ included the Cape Malays, Chinese, mixed race and South Asian inhabitants. The Khoisan population, who had previously been racialised as ‘Hottentots’, were placed within either the ‘Coloured’ or ‘Bantu’ category dependent on whether the census adopted the term ‘Native’ or ‘Bantu’, as this population was not Bantu-speaking. Language was still not directly recorded for every person, in spite of it being indirectly recorded for the Khoisan population. To ensure a sitting house of assembly, emergency wartime censuses took place in 1916, 1926, 1931 and 1941. Within these, only the population racialised as ‘White’ was counted, eliminating the visibility of the other racial groups within the census, with the longer term effect of placing them within an alternative political category. In 1921 a language question was included asking if Dutch and/or English was spoken, the purpose of this being to monitor integration between the two groups racialised as ‘White’ but simultaneously to avoid splitting them in their racial category, creating a concept of racial identity as a preference over the previously contentious issues of language or religion. In 1921 the census breaks away from the British desire of uniform censuses across territories. Local differences made uniform data collection challenging. In South Africa, a decision was made to produce different census technologies for each racial category with different questions asked and answer options provided in each. In 1922 the rand rebellion took place which saw the armed strike of workers racialised as ‘White’ in the Witswaserand mines. They were protesting as companies were decreasing wages and lowering the colour bar so that the population not racialised as ‘White’ were able to be promoted to skilled positions, as their labour was cheaper than the equivalent skilled worker racialised as ‘White’. The workers claimed there were not racist aspects to the strike, but a slogan used was ‘Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!’. This sense of identity is reflected within the census at the time. The concept of nationality began to be a contentious issue within the population. After the union, citizens were considered to be British nationals oversees and after WWI, a question was included in the census of individuals racialised as ‘White’ on their self-identified nationality, with ‘South African’ as an option. In 1924 the Afrikaner National Party became dominant in the house of assembly; they wished to loosen their ties with the British. Divisions within the population were exposed concerning both the concept of nationality within the region and the flag when the party forced through the 1927 Nationality and Flag Act. The act introduced a new flag endorsing the Union Jack and the flag of the Union of South Africa to have equal status, reflecting the split in public opinion concerning nationality. After the act was passed however the South African identity was seemingly accepted according to the census. The census presented a strong increase in individuals racialised as ‘White’ self-identifying as ‘South African’ nationals. The nationality question was phrased differently in the censuses for the four racial groups: ‘Asian’, ‘Black’, ‘Coloured’, and ‘White’. The population racialised as ‘Coloured’ were asked the same question as the population racialised as ‘White’. As they were composed of mixed-race descendants and migrants to the region prior to the first modern census. The Chinese indentured labourers and their descendants were also racialised as ‘Coloured’ as opposed to ‘Asian’. They however were meant to have been returned to china after their indenture, but in practice some remained. The population racialised as ‘Black’ – the indigenous population - was not asked their nationality at all. The population racialised as ‘Coloured’ were considered a permanent population within South Africa, but the repatriation of the Indian population was official policy until the 1960s, and only after this were they considered a part of the permanent population thus they had their own racial category – ‘Asian’. In 1949 the Durban riots took place which saw people racialised as ‘Black’ targeting those racialised as ‘Asian’. During the riots there was a high level of rape, looting and burning of buildings, as well as the killing of 142 people. The National Party government was elected into power in 1948 and went on to create the apartheid programme; its segregationist policies led to a split from the British government. Their race-based policies were based on the categorisation of each individual into a legally defined group recorded in a national register. The allocation to each racial category would determine an individual’s rights the 1951 census was the basis of the register. It made way for the racial determination of an individual’s social and political rights, as well as their educational and employment opportunities. The indigenous population had already been removed from the voters’ roll in 1936 and those racialised as ‘Asian’ in 1951, the electorate became a group racialised solely as ‘White’. In 1956 the constitution was amended to remove people racialised as ‘Coloured’, and instead placed onto a separate voters’ roll electing four representatives to the house of assembly, all racialised as ‘White’, one to the senate also racialised as ‘White’, and two to the cape provincial council who were not limited to being racialised as ‘White’

Apartheid Republic (1961-1994) and Independent Bantustans (1976-1994)

In 1961 the Union of South Africa left the commonwealth and became the Apartheid Republic. During this time the country was split into regions for people to live in based on their racial categorisation, as determined by the 1951 census. These regions were known as ‘Bantustans’ and were structured such that they were self-governing and with the expectation they would later become independent states, effectively excluding them from the nation and their citizens from the political process. In 1960 the Union of South Africa held a referendum deciding whether or not to become a republic. The right to vote was restricted to only those racialised as ‘White’ and was narrowly won. This was partly as a consequence of the Sharpeville massacre in which 69 people were killed. The massacre was the result of a day of protests by people racialised as ‘Black’ against passes which were required to be held by all individuals who were not racialised as ‘White’ to move freely around the territory. In 1961 South Africa left the commonwealth and due to protests objecting its policies of racial segregation, the country was facing political isolation from outside territories. This included economic and military sanctions as well as cultural and sporting boycotts. For example, as the government banned multiracial team sports, international teams comprised of multi-racial players could not play in the Apartheid Republic, thus international sports federations and associations boycotted the region. At this time the population racialised as ‘Black’ were growing in numbers overtaking the population racialised as ‘White’; consequently, the apartheid government began to covertly exclude them from the political process. Simultaneously, the decolonial movement elsewhere pressurised the government to allow political rights to those racialised as ‘Black’. As a response, the Apartheid Republic created a set of territories through which the native population could reside and exercise their political rights, with the expectation they would turn into independent states These were known as the ‘Bantustans’ and were defined according to the Bantu language spoken by the population allocated to the territory. The government claimed each would have its own political and economic activity, and within them citizens racialised as ‘Black’ could enjoy full rights. The 1970 census reflected these policies by categorising the Bantu-speaking population according to language as ‘Bantu national units’ Following this, in the same year the Bantu homelands citizenship act was passed which allotted individuals racialised as ‘Black’ a Bantustan according to their ethnic group even if their culture was different to that traditionally associated to their ethnic group. The native rural areas and urban townships were assigned to each of the Bantustans and were separated statistically from the rest of South Africa which was designated a ‘White’ region The Bantustans were: Transkei, Bophutswana, Venda, Ciskei, Kwazulu, Lebowa, QwaQwa, Gazankulu, KwaNdebele, and KaNgwane. Transkei and Ciskei were both designated for the population racialised as the ‘Xhosa’. Prior to the arrival of the Dutch the Xhosa occupied the eastern part of current day South Africa. The Xhosa initially succumbed to the colonialists after their cattle became infected with a disease caught from cows imported by the Dutch. As a consequence, the Xhosa experienced a famine. The governor of Cape Colony at the time took advantage of the situation by confiscating land, imprisoning chiefs and employing the Xhosa on exploitative labour contracts. Bophutswana was designated for the population racialised as ‘Tswana’ speaking. Previously, the Tswana traded ivory in the region with the colonialists in Cape Colony. This allowed them to gain control of what became British Bechuanaland. Venda was for the group racialised as ‘Venda’ speaking. Traditionally, they were a tribe originating from central and east Africa Kwazulu was designated for the population racialised as ‘Zulu’ speaking. In 1879 the Anglo-Zulu war took place which saw Zululand, a territory previously operated by the Zulus, taken by the British colonialists. Lebowa was designated for the population racialised as ‘Northern-Sotho’-speaking. The QwaQwa was designated for people racialised as ‘Besutho’-speaking, Gazankulu was designated for the ‘Xitsonga’-speaking people, KwaNdebele was designated as a region designated for the people racialised a ‘Southern Ndebele’-speaking, and finally KaNgwane for the people racialised as ‘Swazi’-speaking. In 1976 the Soweto uprising marked the beginning of large protests against apartheid. It began as a demonstration held by secondary school students in protest against the use of Afrikaans as the primary teaching language, the Afrikaans medium decree of 1974. Many children were shot and killed. The official figure of deaths is usually cited as 176 but some sources cite much higher figures. As Afrikaans was the preferred language of the Apartheid Republic government, and was associated to the Boer states which racialised to provide individuals racialised as ‘White’ preferential status, the population racialised as ‘Black’ preferred to be taught in English as the British colonialists emphasised race-free economic opportunities. The African National Congress (ANC) had an armed wing at the time called the Umkhonto we Sizwe which gained numbers after the incident. From 1976 to 1987 they carried out several successful bomb attacks on government buildings, public transport and power stations. Anti-apartheid support was also provided by trade unions. 1973 marks the Durban strikes, first initiated by workers at bricks and tiles manufacturers, and subsequently other industries. The strikes were held to protest against low wages, poor working conditions including discrepancies between workers racialised as ‘White’ to any others, and the pass laws. Most notably however, the strikes marked the beginning of non-racial trade unions; the populations racialised as ‘Black’, ‘Asian’ or ‘Coloured’ all worked together towards collective action. Subsequently, new trade unions formed which incorporated all races, in effect becoming anti-racialisation. The anti-apartheid movement itself worked across all racial boundaries. Many of the population racialised as ‘White’ condemned the shootings of protesters during the Soweto uprising. A small group within the ANC however opposed this view and instead preferred to campaign for solely the rights of those racialised as ‘Black’. They considered the territory of South Africa to be the sole right of the natives and so did not want to campaign for the rights of those racialised as ‘Asian’, ‘Coloured’ or ‘White’. Consequently, they formed their own group which became known as the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Consequently, they formed their own group which became known as the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). In 1980, three Bantustans from the Apartheid Republic which had opted for independence were removed: Transkei, Bophutswana and Venda. Internationally, the Bantustans were considered puppet states as they were still heavily reliant on the Apartheid Republic for labour and resources. The land of the Bantustans was arid and lacking in natural resources so many inhabitants needed to travel to the Apartheid Republic for employment each day. In addition, they were all located inland and due to the lack of resources neither trade nor the building of an economy was possible. They were still heavily reliant on the Apartheid Republic. In 1980 a census was conducted for the Apartheid Republic and the Bantustans which had not opted for independence. For the very first time every person, excluding those in the independent Bantustans, was asked their citizenship with the same classifications as options for an answer. The native population however was split between their ethnic groups according to their language, and in doing so, the South Africans racialised as ‘White’ maintained a higher overall population than any of the population groups racialised as ‘Black’ The manipulation of statistics in this way continued to be used and in 1985 and 1991 the Ciskei group was excluded as they had also become independent. Questions began to be raised as to the accuracy of the census. The number of people counted who were racialised as ‘White’ continued to decline. In 1994 the Bantustans were reincorporated into South Africa. During apartheid, when they were considered independent states by the South African government, they conducted their own censuses. In 1987 Transkei decided to change their census entirely, adopting questions focussed on their economic development in preference of questions about race or other forms of identity. The Venda and Ciskei followed the Republic’s censuses. The Bophuthswana census used the same classifications as the 1970 South African census with all the Bantu languages.

Democratic Republic Since 1994

In 1994 the country voted in favour of a new African-led party. The new government was a political compromise between the ‘White’ Afrikaners and the African-led ANC .In 1996 a full census of the population was taken with everyone answering the same census questionnaire. The census itself however still continued with the racial classifications enforced by the apartheid regime: ‘White’, ‘Coloured’, ‘Asian’ and ‘Black’. The reason given for continuing to use this classification system was that ‘it clearly indicates the effects of discrimination of the past, and permits the monitoring of policies to alleviate discrimination’. This is in spite of the fact the ANC were one of the main political proponents of the anti-apartheid campaign which was based on anti-racialisation, and that the PAC broke away from the ANC over this exact political issue. Legislation designed to alienate economic discrepancies due to the history of the region are based on the monitoring of progress conducted through statistical figures provided in the census.

Discussion

This study traced the modern South African census demonstrating how the concept of political race has developed in the region. It also highlighted that the colonial ordering methods and apartheid racial categories are being reproduced by diversity movements and associated restitution schemes within the region. Although many have acknowledged the need to place emphasis on socioeconomic background over race, this case study demonstrates a need to also consider ethnicity as a factor.

The Census and the Creation of ‘Political Race’

Following the progression of racial classifications in the South African census, the census has proven to be a political instrument used to represent a nation through selective questions and answer options considered to be of importance by the government ruling the region at any given time. Furthermore, the technology itself is produced by national policy as well as producing and shaping policy through the production of an image of society, by statistically representing a population through selective questioning and categorisation. The constitution of the Union of South Africa represented a compromise between the Boers and British. Previously, the British colonies based their racial classifications solely on the economic contributions being made by individuals. The Boers however migrated away from the Cape of Good Hope partly because of the British insistence of separation of religion from the state, as well as the abolition of slavery and the insistence of conducting business and state affairs in English. This led to the Boer Republics including stipulations in their constitutions that franchise, including the ownership of land and the right to vote, was only made possible to those who were part of the Dutch reformed church or Calvinist protestants. As their census recorded racial classifications and religion, but the British did not record religion, what was initially a political issue concerning economic production, the official language, and the separation of religion from state governance, becomes one in which race becomes a primary concern. This is through the creation of an identity facilitated through selectivity of questions in the census. This creation of political identities through racialisation leads to the segregationist policies imposed by the apartheid government. The same political identities created by the apartheid program are still being used within the diversity movement in the region during the present time. In South Africa, another technology which is seen to have an effect on the creation of an identity proves to be indenture. The difference between the indenture system of the population classed as traditionally Indian compared to that of the population classed as traditionally Chinese has an effect on the creation of racial classifications within the census over the long-term. The indenture of the population of the Chinese indentees stipulates they are not permitted to own land in contrast with the indenture of the Indian indentees. The difference in economic activity between the two groups leads to a difference in their visibility in the census. The term ‘Asian’ in the subsequent censuses refers solely to the population classed as traditionally Indian, and those classed as traditionally Chinese are to this day racialised as ‘Coloured’. Furthermore, slaves do not have contracts and no income so fail to be able to contribute to an economy in a purely monetary sense. Their contribution of labour is invisible due to the emphasis on taxation and monetary contribution in the making and purpose of the British empire, thus they have an entirely different category. The census also demonstrates instances in which political meanings are given to words associated to racial classifications. In the modern censuses taken by the British colonies between 1865-1910, the ‘Kafir’ population referred to the Bantu-speaking people. Under apartheid however its use was considered derogatory, with ‘Black’ being used to categorise the same population in the censuses of the time. Since 1976, the term is criminally actionable as an offence in South Africa, and in 2000 under the promotion of prevention of unfair discrimination act, the term is listed as an example of hate speech. In contrast, the same term is used in Sri Lanka for a group of the population who were transported as slaves to the region; this group do not find the term offensive.

Apartheid and the Diversity Movement

Post-apartheid, some groups are becoming increasingly aware of the political ramifications associated to being racialised under certain classifications. In particular, as this has an effect on the socio-economic benefits individuals can receive through restitution schemes. Post-apartheid the population classed as traditionally Chinese had to argue to be included as a population to be racialised as ‘Coloured’ in the census in order to take advantage of restitution schemes. Under apartheid, the descendants of the Chinese indentured labourers were usually racialised as ‘Coloured’, but in the 1970s the South African government struck an economic alliance with Taiwan, and as a result, Taiwanese immigrants were considered ‘honorary whites’. During apartheid the country faced many economic sanctions due to their segregationist policies. Consequently, those racialised as Chinese were not required to live in segregated areas and in the early 1980s they were exempt from some apartheid laws applying to those not racialised as ‘White’ (Leonard 2008). Subsequently, they were racialised as ‘White’ in censuses post-apartheid. Despite the fact the anti-apartheid movement worked across all racial boundaries as a collective effort, the present day South African government insist on continuing to use the classifications of racialisation as defined by the apartheid government with the aims of monitoring economic and social progress. Thus, individuals born after apartheid are still placed within these same classifications. Those classed as traditionally ‘Chinese’ have successfully campaigned to be racialised as ‘Coloured’, and the Khoisan are campaigning for the inclusion of an ‘Other’ category as their have recognised they require separation from other groups to highlight their own political agenda, in this case concerning the restitution of land (Schweitzer 2015). The political identities created through the census are being realised by the individuals being racialised. Statistics South Africa however still fail to recognise the creation of political identities through the census and so still use the same racial classifications as were used under apartheid as they continue to view it as a monitoring exercise, consistent with the justifications provided by the British colonial government and Boer states in the development of the modern census.

This article has shown that the census itself is a political instrument which has shaped and is shaped by policy agendas concerning the social and economic aspects of nation building; this results in states categorising individuals based on scientifically-defined identities which in turn dictates liberties. The categorisation of individuals was a colonial method used to order a population, and classification categories being used by current day restitution schemes are those which were administered by the apartheid republic. In this way legacies from both empire and apartheid are being reproduced in current day systems of governance. A conflict between imperial powers about the separation of church from state is the primary factor which has created the concept of political race in the South African census. What this study highlights however is that the restitution schemes may need to consider ethnicity as an important factor. Many acknowledge the need to prioritise socioeconomic background over race but ethnicity is often overlooked. Given the production of knowledge itself contributes to the racialisation of individuals, should racialisation still be used to determine social and economic progress of people? In doing so, job opportunities become firmly linked to race and racialisation becomes mandatory, regardless of socioeconomic background. This case study has however highlighted that as well as economic background, religion and language have previously played a role in governance and should be accounted for if the aim is to reduce inequalities. In the future, restitution schemes may also need to highlight how ethnicity plays a role in the formation of race and inequalities. In modern states the production of scientific knowledge is used to govern individuals where historically religion was a part of the governance structure for all ethnicities. Further work should be conducted on how current day governance structures have been influenced by religion and may have an effect on our understanding of scientific method and practice, and thus scientific governance. In turn we may begin to open up conversations about discrepancies according to ethnic over racial categories in issues of diversity.

1. Svalastog AL, Donev D, Kristoffersen NJ, Gavojic S. Concepts and definitions of health and health-related values in the knowledge landscapes of the digital society. Croatian Medical J. 2017; 58:431-435.
2. Benedict A. Imagined Communities. 1^st. London: Verso. 1983.
3. Bhana S, Brain J. 1990.Setting Down Roots: Indian Migration in South Africa, 1st ed.Johanessberg: Wits University Press. 1860-1911.
4. Boezak W. Indigenous Peoples' Cultural Heritage. 1st ed. Leiden: Brill. 2017; 253-272.
5. Cape of Good Hope. 1865. Cape of Good Hope Census 1865.
6. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fE1AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
7. Cape of Good Hope. 1875. Cape of Good Hope Census 1875.
8. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6us1AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
9. Christian, A. The Spread and Impact of the Lungsickness Epizootic of 1853–57 in the Cape Colony and the Xhosa Chiefdoms. South African Historical J. 2005; 53:50-72.
10. Christopher, AJ. A South African Domesday Book: The First Union Census of 1911. South African Geographical J. 2010; 92: 2151-2418.
11. Christopher AJ. The Quest for a Census of the British Empire 1840-1940. J Historical Geography.34:268-285.
12. Christopher AJ. Delineating the nation: South African censuses. Political Geography. 2008; 28:101-109.
13. Davenport R, Saunders C. South Africa: A Modern History. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 2000.
14. Isin E, Ruppert E. Data’s empire: postcolonial data politics. InData Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights, by Bigo D, Isin E and Ruppert, E. London: Routledge. 2019.
15. Eybers GW. Select constitutional documents illustrating South African history. 1918; 1795-1910.
16. Government of South Africa. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.Accessed: 05/08/2020.https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf.
17. Harris KL. Indentured “coolie” labours in South Africa: the Indian and Chinese schemes in comparative perspective. Diaspora Studies. 2013; 6: 92-102.
18. Kertzer D, Arel D. Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.
19. Leonard A. What color are Chinese South Africans? Accessed: 19/06/2020 https://www.salon.com/test2/2008/06/19/chinese_declared_black/.
20. Malherbe VC. Indentured and Unfree Labour in South Africa: Towards an Understanding. South African Historical J. 1991; 24: 3-30.
21. Mitchin T. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity.1st ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
22. Phillips L. History of South Africa’s Bantustans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017.
23. Pieires JB.The Dead Will Arise: Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement of Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers. 2003; 1856-1857.
24. Pretoria Government. 1994. Ordanances of the Traansvaal.1st ed. Pretoria: Pretoria Government. 1904.
25. Richardson P. Chinese Mine Labour in the Transvaal. London: Routedge. 1982.
26. Schweitzer E.The Making of Griqua, Inc.: Indigenous Struggles for Land and Autonomy in South Africa. Vienna: Lit Verlag. 2015.
27. Siyabona Africa. Siyabona Africa: Venda. Accessed 28/08/2020. http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_venda.html.