| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 4 | Reference code | 20N.1.BP.TZ0.14 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Analyse | Question number | 14 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Source P Roger B Beck, an historian specializing in South African history, writing in the academic book The History of South Africa (2000).
The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959) limited African political rights to the reserves, thereby taking away their elected White parliamentary representatives. … The bantustans were allotted within the limits of the 13.7 percent of land earlier set aside and varied considerably in size and quality. There were eventually ten homelands, or bantustans, based on ethnicity. Furthermore, in an effort to guarantee White access to the best farming land and mineral wealth, only the tiny bantustan of Qwaqwa was a single piece. Bophuthatswana consisted of nineteen fragments, some separated by hundreds of miles; and KwaZulu had twenty-nine major and forty-one minor fragments. …
Verwoerd argued that South Africa was “decolonizing” the bantustans and granting them independence; as citizens of their respective bantustans, Africans enjoyed full political rights according to their own practices and traditions. According to Verwoerd, there could be no racial discrimination against Africans in South Africa because there were no African citizens; African rights in White South Africa were not restricted because of race but because they were foreigners.
To present an acceptable face to the world, Verwoerd increasingly referred to “separate development” rather than apartheid; “Natives” became Bantu; bantustans became “homelands”.
[Source: Republished with permission of ABC-CLIO from History of South Africa, Roger Beck, 2013;
permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.]
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source P for an historian studying the Bantustan system.
Markscheme
Value:
- It is written by a specialist in South African history.
- The publication date offers the benefit of hindsight.
- The source provides an insight into the nature and injustice of the Bantustan system.
- The source suggests that there was concern about the international perception of the system.
Limitations:
- The author’s intent is to provide a broad overview of South African history. Therefore, his account may lack sufficient depth when considering the Bantustans.
- The source offers insight only on the establishment of the Bantustans and lacks information about the consequences of the implementation of the system.
The focus of the question is on the value and limitations of the source. If only value or limitations are discussed, award a maximum of [2]. Origins, purpose and content should be used as supporting evidence to make relevant comments on the values and limitations. For [4] there must be at least one reference to each of them in either the values or the limitations.
Examiners report
As was the case last session, the majority of candidates offered some analytical comments on the value and limitations of the source from its origin, purpose and content. However, several candidates continue to give long descriptions of the provenance and content of the source instead of using these elements to evaluate the value and limitations. In addition, comments should go beyond merely stating that a source is "primary" or "secondary". There were also instances where a note-form approach was adopted, and candidates should be cautioned against this as these responses tended to lack clarity in terms of establishing the source's value and limitations. There were a very small minority that analysed the wrong source, as mentioned at the beginning of the report, candidates should be reminded to read each question carefully.
