DOES IT J'AY TU EDUCATK THE NATIXTv 



By Res'. Albert E. Le Roy, B.A., B.D. 



{Rcad^ July lo, iyi8.j 



In presenting this paper, I would like to state at the outset 

 that it was not prepared in the first instance as an attempt to 

 defend the educated native, but was simply a more or less scientific 

 investigation of the data obtainable regarding the product of one 

 school. 



Nor is it offered now as a defence of native education as it 

 has been given in the past. We w-ho are in educational work have 

 realised its weakness, and have been insistent upon radical changes 

 in the curriculum. At the same time there is danger of our 

 becoming somewhat hysterical in our denunciation of native 

 education, as being " almost wholly along wrong lines,"' and as 

 being a " failure." The subjects taught may not always have been 

 the most suitable, but there was always the discipline, the insist- 

 ence on regularitv and j)unctuality, on order and cleanliness, on 

 obedience and work, that are the foundatiini of character. We 

 must not lose sight of the fact that the giving of education that 

 will fit a man for his environment is, even for the white man, of 

 comparatively recent origin. Technical schools and Domestic 

 Science classes for our boys and girls were never heard of until 

 very recently, but it does not necessarily follow that all of the 

 education we received has proved a failure. 



So far as native education was concerned in the past, the cry 

 was: " Teach him to work for the White Man." The success or 

 failure of native education was judged almost whollv by that 

 standard. Now the cry is " Back to the land." " Teach the 

 native to work for himself and his people." We welcome the 

 change of emphasis, though perhaps these cries have been antici- 

 pated more than is generally realised. 



This paper has to do largely witli the res))onse the native has 

 made to the former cry : " Teach him to work for the white man." 



Much might be said regarding what the native is doing on the 

 land, but it does not come within the scope of this paper. 



During the past 20 years a great change has taken place in the 

 attitude of the European toward the native in South Africa. 

 Previous to that time the native did not occupy a large place in 

 the white man's thinking, except on the few occasivins when he 

 took up arms against the European, or when he failed to i)rovide 

 the labour necessary for the carrying on of the varied industries 

 of the land. He was not a political |)roblem, except to the far- 

 seeing few. Like the recurring seasons, he was taken for granted, 

 and so long as he behaved himself, he was not considered. He 

 had not yet become the i)roblem of South Africa. 



To-day aU that is changed. The native is very much in tlie fore- 

 ground of our thoughts. As one has expres.sed it : " Commissions 

 are sitting on him ; books are being written abou*^ him ; societies 

 are being formed to study him ; and Tarliaments are endeavouring 



