Educators and participants will come away from the session with a better sense of how to effectively teach the apartheid-era in South Africa and its connection to global changes around the world and to today.  Using music as the lens to view both the oppression and degradation of apartheid, as well as the strength, resiliency, and hope of the people in resisting it, teachers can effectively help their students better understand South African culture, the social and political power that music has, and build the valuable skills of critical thinking, analyzing, and listening.

Educators and participants will come away with specific lessons, activities, and strategies of not only how to teach about South African history through music, but why it is important for students to learn about the power and effectiveness that music has always had in the fight against injustice and for change.

Some of the key questions that I will focus on include:

• Is one form of resistance more effective than another?
• Why is music an ideal vehicle for social criticism and political protest?
• How can music mobilize people to action?
• What role should musicians take in protesting or trying to influence society and politics?

South Africa is a perfect example of the power and influence music can have on society. Music is part of the vibrancy of the culture and life in South African society, and it plays an important part in the country’s violent and oppressive past.  As Amandla! director Lee Hirsh said, “Songs were solace, encouragement, and resilience. … The apartheid government took everything away from people, but it couldn’t stop them from singing.”

Although the anti-apartheid movement included many strategies and tactics, arguably one of the most powerful, inspiring, and unifying was that of protest music.  Music was used a creative outlet for those who struggled against apartheid.  Songs were sung in prison, at funerals, and during protests and marches as symbols of defiance.  It was not just the background to what was happening in the streets, it was an act of defiance and protest in itself.  The music was as diverse as the cultures in South Africa, including jazz, rock, reggae, gospel, and a capella.  It was music in various languages, too, including different musicians singing in Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaans, and English, showing that people from all backgrounds and cultures were in opposition to apartheid.  But anti-apartheid protest music was also prevalent around the world.  Internationally, musicians used their songs and concerts as a way to inform and educate as to what was happening in South Africa, and to mobilize audiences to put pressure on their governments to bring an end to apartheid.

The apartheid government knew how powerful music was, banning songs, musicians, and concerts.  Musicians were even imprisoned and driven into exile, but the music played on.

This will not be just a history lesson on South Africa, but an exciting opportunity to learn how to teach history through music in an effort to engage the students better and make the learning and understanding deeper and more enriching.

The 93rd NCSS annual conference will be held in St. Louis from Nov. 22-24, 2013.

The case has its roots in South African apartheid victims seeking compensation and reparations for abuses, oppression, discrimination, and violence during the apartheid era. Their focus, however, was not solely on individuals and organization in South Africa, but also multinational corporations who did business with South Africa in this era, thus profiting from apartheid’s system of cheap labor and thus propping up the apartheid state and aiding and abetting the perpetuation of gross human rights violations during apartheid.

According to Desmond Tutu, “In South Africa, multinational corporations participated in apartheid-era human rights abuses.”

When it came to financial reparations in South Africa, a one-off payment of R30,000 was awarded to around 22,000 apartheid victims. Announcing this in 2003, President Thabo Mbeki said: “We are convinced that to the millions who spared neither life nor limb in struggle there is no bigger prize than freedom itself”.

But the Khulumani Support Group maintains that it has collected records of at least 65,000 people who suffered “gross human rights violations” under apartheid.

In the U.S., these apartheid victims sought justice and retribution under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a U.S. law enacted in 1789 that allows non-U.S. citizens to bring civil claims in U.S. federal courts against those who commit or assist in the violation of universal human right norms. The act is controversial and has been repeatedly challenged.

This law has allowed cases to be brought in U.S. courts against multinational companies who contributed to or aided in human rights abuses committed in other countries around the world.

In 2002, apartheid victims filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.  The plaintiffs include family members of those who were killed by the South African apartheid regime. They were seeking damages from more than 50 major corporations. The victims had brought the human rights lawsuit against a list of U.S., Canadian and European corporations “on behalf of all persons who lived in South Africa between 1948 and the present and who suffered damages as a result of apartheid.”

The case was filed against the background of the failure of multinational corporations to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Business Hearings to answer for their role in ensuring the prolonged survival of the bankrupt apartheid regime. According to the Khulumani Support Group, “They had supported the apartheid government in violation of the United Nations’ resolution that had declared apartheid a crime against humanity, only because it was highly profitable to do so.”

The suits allege that the companies involved—including IBM, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Hewlett-Packard, Bank of America, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler—knowingly aided the apartheid regime in its commission of human rights violations, by providing financing, material and training to the government. The cases seek $400 billion in damages.

In the case of IBM, for instance, it is alleged that the computer giant provided the necessary computer technology to allow the implementation of the Pass Laws. The motor companies are accused of having provided customized vehicles for the security forces to use in townships to stifle resistance.

According to Marjorie Jobson, director of the Khulumani Support Group, ordinary South Africans suffered the consequences of these business dealings as they rose up to resist apartheid oppression and became the victims of violations committed with the resources provided by the multinationals identified in the lawsuit. These included armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition, oil to power the military vehicles, finance to make these purchases and the computer hardware and software that was used to racially classify South Africans.

In 2004, a U.S. district court threw out the lawsuit. In throwing out the suit in 2004, the judge said that courts must be “extremely cautious in permitting suits [in the U.S.] based upon a corporation’s doing business in countries with less than stellar human rights records,” and that such suits could have “significant, if not disastrous, effects” on trade.

In 2007, though, a U.S. appeals court overturned this ruling. This ruling held that survivors of apartheid could bring claims against dozens of multinational corporations on an aiding and abetting theory.

The case was challenged up to the Supreme Court in 2008. The corporate defendants, among them Citigroup, UBS, General Electric, International Business Machines, General Motors and ExxonMobil, had hoped to persuade the Supreme Court to adopt that district court judge’s view and declare that the appeals court was wrong. The Supreme Court said, however, that it could not intervene in the case, allowing the lawsuit to continue.

In the years since the litigation began, however, the Khulumani Support Group has dropped the cases against oil companies and banks. This is because the court ruled that oil companies and banks provided normal services during the years of apartheid. In the case of the five remaining companies, however – GM, Ford Motor Company, IBM, Daimler and Rheinmetall – Khulumani charges that they had exclusive contracts to provide services which created the infrastructure of apartheid.

In 2012, General Motors paid $1.5 million in company stock to 25 South Africans who suffered torture, arrest and harassment at the hands of the regime, according to the Khulumani Support Group, which represented the victims in U.S. courts.The victims victims charged that the automobile manufacturer produced parts for vehicles employed by South Africa’s former apartheid government to raid homes and to track down and assassinate apartheid opponents.

This out-of-court settlement was a voluntary engagement on the part of the company. While GM was not required by the court to admit liability, the payment of damages amounts to a tacit acknowledgement of responsibility.

This victory is considered symbolic step toward a reparation package, said Shirley Gunn, director of the Human Rights Media Centre in South Africa, which is based in Cape Town. Charles Abrahams, attorney for Khulumani Support Group, said the settlement is a step in the direction of corporate accountability.

Some companies have not settled, though, including car manufacturers Ford and Daimler, the computer manufacturer, IBM, and a German defense contractor, Rheinmetall. Their argument is that they cannot legally be held responsible for the actions that the government, police, and army carry out in a foreign country that they are operating in.

My story was the featured Participant Story for the Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching program, so check it out here:

But besides the fact that the concert was great, it led me to think of the connections, historically, that link South Africa and Zimbabwe, and not just because they share a border in southern Africa.

Zimbabwe, known then as Rhodesia, was ruled under a minority white government just like South Africa. With policies as brutal as apartheid, and under a leader in Ian Smith that shared many of the same beliefs about race relations, segregation, and white supremacy as the apartheid leaders, the two nations were allies.  This also meant that opposition movements and leaders in both countries were allies, too.

While the ANC, PAC, and others were fighting for freedom in South Africa, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) were fighting for freedom in their own country.  They all had armed wings, as well.  In South Africa, the ANC had Umkhonto we Sizwe and the PAC had Poqo and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA).  In Zimbabwe, ZAPU had the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) while ZANU had the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA).

These organizations all worked together as allies, even more so once Zimbabwe became independent in 1980 after a 10 year long civil war.  Zimbabwe and President Robert Mugabe were close allies and supported the ANC and the liberation struggle in South Africa.  They allowed ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe offices and training sites to be established in the country, gave them money, arms, and support.  Zimbabwe, for their support of the anti-apartheid movement, was also thus targeted by the South African government and was subjected to cross-border raids by the army and attacks and bombings by South African security forces.

The close ties between the two countries was evident when I was in Bloemfontein for the centenary of the ANC.  There were dozens of banners with the words “Thank You” on them addressing countries who aided the ANC and the liberation struggle throughout the city.  Two of these banners were for Zimbabwe, one with Robert Mugabe on it (leader of ZANU) and one with Joshua Nkomo (leader of ZAPU).  Zimbabwe was a key player in helping to bring down apartheid, and the ANC was recognizing this important fact and paying tribute to them.

One of Tuku’s songs in particular makes me think of the common goal that South Africans and Zimbabweans were fighting for.  In South Africa, Steve Biko in the late 1960s and 1970s was advocating for black South Africans to have pride in who they were in his Black Consciousness movement.  He said that black South Africans must see themselves as human beings and not inferior to whites first, as Bob Marley sang in “Redemption Song,” before they could achieve political emancipation. Oliver Mtukudzi’s song “Kwawakabva” includes the same message as Steve Biko and others were advocating for:

“Never listen to the propaganda on the tele,

you will never be a color which was never yours.

No color can tint out your color, and your color can never be any other,

Because your color is black, your color is black my son, your color is black.

Our color is black is black…

Yes there are beautiful colors in the rainbow, yet your color is never on the rainbow,

why then do they say, your color is beautiful, black is beautiful.

Black is beautiful.”

Having pride in who you are and viewing yourself as a human being, not inferior to anyone due to the color of your skin, was a central message for Biko and Tuku, and in the independence of both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Thank you Tuku for such a wonderful night of music, and for bringing the music of southern Africa to the U.S.

But some of the most interesting reflections on the reign of the “Iron Lady” have been out of the South African press about her stance towards the National Party and the ANC during apartheid. Through the fiercely anti-communist glasses that she saw the world through, along with Reagan, she took a very controversial stance on dealing with the apartheid state.  And with former South African President F.W. de Klerk not only being invited to her funeral last week in London, but also praising her as a “visionary,” the controversy of her actions during apartheid were again brought to the forefront in South Africa.

When I was in South Africa a year ago, I saw the movie The Iron Lady, about the life of Margaret Thatcher, in the theater.  I was unsure of the reception it would get in South Africa due to the stance she took on the ANC, Nelson Mandela, sanctions, and in dealing with the apartheid state.  There were no protests outside the theater, though, and the film didn’t seem to elicit much protest or anger amongst the population, but with her passing away, many of the old wounds resurfaced in the country.

In an article in South Africa’s Mail & Guardian on April 10th, titled “Did Margaret Thatcher help prolong apartheid?”, Pallo Jordan, a former Cabinet minister and ANC leader, said that Britain’s former leader supported the apartheid government when it was at its deadliest.

“Maggie Thatcher and Britain … were defending [apartheid] South Africa, they were preventing international sanctions,” said Jordan. Jordan then later said in a radio interview, that not only was her death not a great loss to the world, but “good riddance.”

Thatcher branded Nelson Mandela and the ANC as “terrorists”, amid concerns that they received backing from the former Soviet Union during the Cold War era.  She was staunchly conservative and anti-communist during her reign, and she took this stance not only with the Soviet Union, but also with anyone suspected of collaborating with Moscow.  The ANC received support from the Soviet Union, including weapons, money, and training, and they worked with the South African Communist Party, but they were not communists.  This is the same stance that South Africa’s apartheid leaders took and relied upon for decades to justify apartheid, and Thatcher, along with others like Reagan, supported the National Party due to its anti-communist stance.

But others argue that Thatcher was strongly opposed to apartheid and racism and helped influence the white government to free Mandela.

“Thatcher did more to release Nelson Mandela out of prison than any of the other hundreds of anti-apartheid committees in Europe,” Pik Botha, the last foreign minister of the apartheid regime, said in the article.

Thatcher, who argued that she opposed apartheid, was steadfastly opposed to issuing sanctions on South Africa as a way to bring about its demise, however.  She thought that this would hurt the black community in South Africa more than it would help them, and she thought it would isolate the apartheid government when she believed “constructive engagement” is what was needed to bring about change in the country.  According to the article, “Thatcher argued that sanctions were immoral because they would throw thousands of South African black people out of work. Her stance allowed British companies to continue operating in apartheid South Africa, where the United Kingdom was the biggest trading partner and foreign investor.”

Political commentator Susan Booysen, said Thatcher was one of the people who had helped “keep up” the National Party at the time.

“The apartheid government, the Nats thrived in her presence,” she said. “That type of international support really gave the National Party government a few extra years of life because that was in the midst of international pressure and internal mobilization … Economic expedience came into it but I think she also felt a type of brotherhood with the very conservative elements in international politics.”

F.W. de Klerk supported Thatcher’s stance, and still does.  In the wake of her passing, he said that she “correctly believed” that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government.

“She will be remembered not only as one of Britain’s greatest prime ministers, but also as a leader whose policies and approach had a significant impact on politics throughout the world,” De Klerk said.

ANC spokesperson Keith Khoza had a different view.  He said in a an April 8th article in the Mail & Guardian, “The ANC was on the receiving end of her policy in terms of refusing to recognize the ANC as the representatives of South Africans and her failure to isolate apartheid after it had been described as a crime against humanity…”

“There can be no doubt that Margaret Thatcher prolonged Apartheid,” Khoza said. “She called the ANC a terrorist organization and even referred to our first democratically elected president Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. She did not want South Africa to be ruled by the black majority.”

Thatcher’s passing has brought up these old back up again, and it is another reminder that apartheid and its end is still a controversial and deeply divisive issue in South Africa, even 19 years after its demise.