PHELPS^STOKESISM AND EDUCATIONIN ZIMBABWE*RJ. CHALLISSDepartment of History, University of ZimbabweTHE MAIN AIM of this article is to consider the impact of certain importantexternal influences on the formulation of educational policy in Zimbabwe,which most historians have tended to overlook, with the result that educationalpolicy in Zimbabwe has not always been informed by reliable historicalperspectives,1The term 'Phelps-Stokesism' is derived from the name of a fund bequeathedin 1909 an American heiress, Miss Caroline Phelps-Stokes, for the welfareof Blacks in the United States and Africa2. In 1912 the Phelps-Stokes Trustees,decided that a sociologist, Dr Thomas Jesse Jones, with the co-operation of theUnited States Bureau of Education, should undertake extensive studies ofeducational facilities for Blacks in. the United States.3 After the First WorldWar, in co-operation with the Imperial Government and British and Americanmissionary and philanthropic bodies, the Phelps-Stokes Commissions, underthe chairmanship of Jones, undertook similar investigations in Africa.4 In1925 the recommendations of the Phelps-Stokes Commissions were officiallyendorsed by the Imperial 'Government as the basis of a racially differentiatededucational policy in all British colonies,5 However, the policy had beenofficially adopted -already in Zimbabwe by 1921 under the regime of theBritish South Africa Company.6*This is an edited version of a paper delivered to the Conference on Zimbabwe History:Progress and Development, University of Zimbabwe, 1982,1 See generally, R.J. Challiss, 'Education planning for Zimbabwe: The problem of unreliablehistorical perspectives', Zambezia (1979), VII, 215-41,2The most thorough historical study of Phelps-Stokesism is by K. J. King, Pan-Africanismand Education. A Study of Race Philanthropy and Education in the Southern States of Americaand East Africa (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1971): the Phelps-Stokes family had for longinterested itself in the welfare of Black Americans, and from i 890 onwards the institution foundedby Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1881 received generous endowments fromthe heiresses Olivia and Caroline Phelps-Stokes, L.R. Harlan, Booker T. Washington: TheMaking of a Black Leader (New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 1972), 196-7.'King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 33.4L.J. Lewis (ed.), Phelps-Stokes Reports on Education in Africa, Abridged with an Intro-duction by L.J. Lewis (London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1962), 1-11; see also, Phelps-Stokes Fund,Education in Africa: A Study of West, South, and Equatorial Africa by the African EducationCommission, under the Auspices of the Phelps-Stokes Fund and Foreign Mission Societies ofNorth America and Europe: Report Prepared by Thomas Jesse Jones, Chairman of theCommission (New York, Phelps-Stokes Fund, [1922]); and Phelps-Stokes Fund, Education inEast Africa: A Study of East, Central and South Africa by the Second African EducationCommission under the Auspices of the Phelps-Stokes Fund, in Co-operation with the Inter-national Education Board: Report Prepared by Thomas Jesse Jones, Chairman of theCommission (New York, Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1925).5King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 99; L.J. Lewis, Education and Political Indepen-dence in Africa and Other Essays (Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson, 1962), 86-7.6R-J. Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System in SouthernRhodesia, 1890-1923, with Special Reference to the Education of Africans' (Salisbury, Univ. ofZimbabwe, D. Phil, thesis, 1982), chs 4, 5, passim: The European Educational System inSouthern Rhodesia, 1890-1930 (Salisbury, Univ. of Zimbabwe, Supplement to Zambezia,1982), 101-8.109The racially segregated and differentiated educational policy, which Jonesand his associates advocated for adoption in America and Africa alike, wasderived from a strategy devised by Booker T. Washington to deal with therising tide of racial friction that afflicted the United States in the late nineteenthcentury.7 This racial tension arose mainly from White reaction to theemancipation of Blacks after the Civil War and clashes between Black andWhite workers during the American industrial revolution.8 To curb clashesand ameliorate race relations generally Booker Washington advocated arurally orientated education for Blacks that was very different fromconventional Western education. The aim of this racially differentiatededucation was to encourage Blacks to remain rurally based and thereby avoidclashes with Whites in cities and industrial centres.9 The education combinedliterary with practical vocational training designed to develop self-reliance andself-respect amongst Southern Black communities. By their efforts to improvethemselves amongst themselves Blacks would eventually impress Whites tothe extent of eliminating prejudices and securing equal rights based uponrespect and co-operation between the races.10Precedents for the educational scheme devised by Washington are to befound in early nineteenth-century policies on the education and vocationaltraining of children from the lower classes in Europe and the United States, aswell as in schemes for subject races in the British Empire, notably the 1847memorandum by Sir James P. Kay-Shuttle worth, Practical Suggestions as toDay Schools of Industry, Model Farm Schools and Normal Farm Schools,for the Coloured Races of the British Colonies.11 More immediately,Washington was inspired by the practically orientated education given at hisalma mater, the Hampton Institute in Virginia, which had been founded byGeneral S.C. Armstrong in 1869.12 However, what rendered the work ofWashington specially significant lay in the fact that it 'was the first outstandingexample of the blackman's turning to industrial education of his own accord'.13Booker Washington died in 1915, but his kind of differentiated educationlived on mainly because it was favoured by Jones in the influential Phelps-Stokes reports on Black education in America.14 In his endorsement of theWashington strategy Jones was influenced by a racial theory, which he hadimbibed at Columbia University in New York, described as 'consciousnessof kind'. The theory was based on Social Darwinistic notions to the effect thatit was 'precocious' or 'not natural' for Blacks, who were allegedly on a lowerlevel of civilized evolution compared with Whites, to 'set themselves againstthe social forces controlling and limiting the development of races'.15 Joneswas careful to exclude this racial theory from his reports.16 Even so, Jones7A. Conway, The History of the Negro In the United States (London, The HistoricalAssociation,General Series Pamphlet No. 67, 1968), 18-20.8See generally, Harlan, Booker T, Washington; Conway, The History of the Negro, 18-20.9 Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery; An Autobiography (Boston, Western Islands,reset from the original 1901 Doubleday edition, 1965), 46, 66, 105-6.l0Ibid., 123, 168."See generally, A.E. duToit, The Earliest British Document on Education for the ColouredRaces (Pretoria, Univ. of South Africa, Communication 34, 1962); H. D'Souza, 'Externalinfluences on the development of educational policy in British tropical Africa from 1923 to 1939',African Studies Review (1975), XVIII, ii, 35-~43; Harlan, Booker T. Washington, 63- 5; King,Pan-Africanism and Education, 44-8.12King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 7.13Ibid.,47. 14Ibid.,21.ISIbid., 23. "Ibid, 28.110believed that It was futile to antagonize Whites by strongly criticizing racialoppression. Instead, co-operation between the races should be fostered byfocusing attention upon constructive action that diverted attention fromcontentious issues. Consequently, Jones deliberately minimized criticism ofthe White South and excluded from his reports consideration of such mattersas Civil Rights, Klu-Klux-Klan lynchings and discrimination." In the Pheips-Stokes Reports on Africa Jones adopted a similar tactic by virtually turning ablind eye to racially unjust colonial practices.18The man who was mainly responsible for securing Imperial Governmentapproval of Phelps-Stokesism was Dr J.H. Oldham, Secretary of theInternational Missionary Council19 Oldham was greatly impressed by theway Jones managed to secure co-operation between Blacks and Whites inAmerica, as well as between American Government, philanthropic andmissionary agencies, and he felt that there was need for similar co-operation inAfrica.20 This was particularly so when the war ended and when the idealism ofthe League of Nations called for more vigorous governmental action on thewelfare of subject races, action which until then had been left almost entirely tomissionaries.21Influenced as the Imperial Government undoubtedly was by Oldham,additional reasons for its encouragement of the Phelps-Stekes Commissions inAfrica included the realization that there was an urgent need for aninvestigation that might provide a useful guide for the formation of Imperialeducational policy, a matter that had suffered prolonged neglect as a result ofthe war,22 The Phelps-Stokes Commissions also offered a welcomeopportunity for Anglo-American missionary and governmental co-operationas well as the promise of financial assistance from philanthropic bodies whichsupported Phelps-Stokesism, notably the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Jeanesagencies.23However, the Phelps-Stokes Commissions in Africa were propagandistrather than objectively investigative in their nature. Indeed, the firstCommission embarked for the shores of Africa in August 1920,24 and after 'arapid tour of West Africa',25 followed by a very brief visit to Salisbury, Joneshad already formulated the essential features of the policy that was to berecommended In the reports of 1922 and 1924. This Is revealed by amemorandum which Jones sent to the Administrator of Southern Rhodesia,"Ibid, 25.18Ibid., 137-9."Ibid., 51; L. J. Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice in British Tropical Areas (LondonThomas Nelson, 1954), 13.20King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 99.21Ibid.; Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 9-10.22Lewis, Educational Policy and'Practice, 13."Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 79.24Phelps-Stokes Fund, Education in Africa, xvii."Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 16, where it is erroneously stated that the tour tookplace in 1919.IllDrammond Chaplin, in March 1921.26 The policy was based on the premisethat African education should be specially 'adapted' to what theCommissioners considered to be African developmental and environmentalneeds. The Phelps-Stokes Reports are lengthy documents but the policyadvocated in them can be briefly summarized under four main headings, whichJones called 'The Four Essentials of Education* for Blacks in Africa,embracing 'the "Simples" of health, home life training, industry (includingagriculture) and recreation'.27 A good idea of what 'adaptation' would involvein Southern Rhodesia is provided by the memorandum which Jones sent toChaplin in March 1921,With reference first to 'Sanitation and Hygiene', Jones informed Chaplinthat these subjects usually received little or no attention in mission schools andso special efforts should be made to ensure that they received an importantplace in the curriculum of African education.28 Under a second heading,'Effective use of Environment to Obtain the Essentials of Life', Jones criticizedthe 'lamentable neglect of this' in the curricula of most mission schools. In thisregard Jones was particularly critical of'higher technical education' in missionschools which simply prepared Africans for the needs of 'the Whitecommunity', for while such training might be 'desirable it [was] by no meansequal to the preparation of workers who [would] go out among the NativeAfricans and teach them to make better use of the soil and the facilities at hand'in their kraals. Industrial training, therefore, should concentrate mainly onland husbandry of a simple kind and 'simple handicraft' instruction.Under the heading 'Recreation', Jones referred to American missionary'experience in the Philippine Islands' as indicative of the way 'communitiesmay be turned away from excessive sex indulgence and other harmfulpleasures to recreations that improve the physique, morals and morale'.Consequently, the leisure-time of Africans should be directed towards thedevelopment of beneficial cultural pursuits, notably singing and dancing, andparticipation in vigorous sporting activities. Closely related to these aspects ofAfrican education was what Jones had to say about 'Development ofCharacter'. Jones lamented that while this should be the 'first' aim in all26 National Archives, Zimbabwe, Harare [all documentary citations are to this Archives],LO/1/1/178 [London Office: Board of Directors' Papers: Agenda with Annexures: 6 Jan.-26May 1921], Dr Thomas Jesse Jones to [the] Administrator of Southern Rhodesia], 31 Mar.1921, I am grateful to Dr S.B. Stevenson for drawing my attention to this documentAlthough Zimbabwe was not 'included in the original. . . itinerary' of the Phelps-StokesCommissioners in 1921, Jones and Loram decided to pay a special visit to Salisbury in that yearbecause they had heard that the Government had undertaken work at nearby Domboshawa for thepromotion of a policy that was very similar to the one advocated by themselves, The RhodesiaHerald, 1 Apr. 1921, Editorial, 'Native Welfare', However (as it is seen later in this article),Government policy had been subjected to strong criticism from certain leading missionaries andsenior officials of the Department of Education by 1921, No evidence has come to light whichindicates that Jones and Loram knew of this criticism before their arrival in Salisbury. Even so, itis evident from the memorandum to Chaplin and in press reports that the Commissioners learnedof the controversy during their stay in the capital, Chailiss, 'The Foundation of the RaciallySegregated Educational System', 386-93, Consequently, as the Commissioners were widelyregarded as being leading authorities on African education, their public endorsement of Govern-ment policy and praise for the work that had been undertaken at Domboshawa must have gone a longway towards undermining missionary and Department of Education opposition to what theGovernment was doing."King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 97,28LO/1/1/178, Jones to Chaplin; until otherwise stated all the quotations and information thatfollow are from this source.112mission schools, It was 'too frequently neglected'. In the development ofcharacter Jones stressed that it should involve not merely theteaching of honesty, but the cultivation of those virtues in which theNative peoples are known to be weak. Emotional groups of people areespecially in need of the virtues of perseverance, regularity, thorough-ness, thrift, cleanliness, order. These virtues should be taught, not somuch by verbal exhortation but, by the development of habits throughthe simple activities of the school and community life.As for literary education, Joees, under the heading 'Rudiments ofKnowledge', observed rather ruefully that in most African schools the teachingof the Three R's was the 'chief object', but he was particularly critical of whathe felt was a general failure to relate such instruction to 'the realities of the lifeof a simple people'. African education, Joees asserted, should be 'as closelyrelated to the life of the people as the circumstances require'. Jones, therefore,deplored a tendency to teach Africans arithmetic of an advanced kind moresuited to the solution of problems arising in 'London finances, rather than thesimple exchanges of kraal and village'. Jones also lamented the fact that MsCommission had rarely come across African pupils who had read BookerWashington's Up from Slavery, which he described as 'the wonderful story ofthe American slave boy . . , who taught Ms people to live in peace with oneanother and with the world; to make the largest possible use of theirenvironment'.Finally, with reference to the 'School and Community', Jones describedwhat he clearly regarded as the most important function of African schools.Jones felt that village schools should be the engines of communitydevelopment, but lamented the fact that 'this function' was' almost unknown inmany parts of Africa'. Indeed, Jones asserted that the criteria for theevaluation of any African school should be based on the extent to which itexercised 'its influence directly and indirectly on the community in which it islocated'. As for teachers, they should be made to 'realize that their influenceand responsibility extend beyond the walls of the school room to the health, thework, the recreations and the general well-being of the community'.Generally speaking, two basic principles of policy advocated by Joneswere that all Africans should receive an education based on the inculcation ofthe 'Simples', and that European rule was essential for the promotion of Africanprogress. There was little or no room for independent African initiative andleadership. Jones was of the opinion thatNatives themselves, without guidance, will adopt the superficialelements of European education, religion and life. We could giveillustration after illustration of Native groups that have organizededucational and religious activities that are unrelated to their own past aswell as to their best interests.Only Europeans knew what was in the 'best interests' of Africans, and so it wasessential that Europeans should monitor gradual African progress based on aracially differentiated educational policy which placed 'emphasis' on whatEuropeans felt was most suitable for a 'primitive people'.Assisted by Dr Charles T. Lorani, who joined the Pheips-StokesCommissioners after they had completed their West African tour, Jones, from1921 onwards, personally promoted Pheips-Stokesism in Southern Rhodesia.29"Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System', chs 4, 5, passim.113A South African graduate of Cambridge University, and an inspector of schoolsin Natal, Loram went to the United States in 1914, where he attended Jones'sold university, corresponded with Booker Washington, visited his famousTuskegee Institute in Alabama, and, like Jones, was impressed by the Blackleaders' exposition 'of the conventional wisdom in race relations" in the UnitedStates.30 In 1917 Loram published his doctoral dissertation, The Education ofthe South African Native, which established his reputation as an authority onAfrican affairs.31 Like Jones, Loram believed in the racial inferiority of Blacks32but he also felt that Africans should receive special protection in the context ofescalating racial tensions in Southern Africa. Consequently, Loram opposedwhat he called White 'repressionists' who simply wished to utilize Blacks ascheap, unskilled labourers, and he also opposed what he called 'equalists', whofelt that Blacks should receive the same education and rights as Whites.33Instead, Loram favoured the views of 'segregationists', who believed thatBlacks had a right to develop, but 'any such development must be a slowprogress, and not. , . entirely upon European lines'.34 Governments, Loramfelt, should protect Blacks from exploitation by 'repressionists' and shouldguide them along the path of gradual progress 'along their own lines'.35Documentary evidence shows that direct Phelps-Stokesist influences oneducational policy in Zimbabwe go back at least as far as 1917, when Loram'sbook was published, and as far back as the turn of the century with regard to theideas of Booker Washington.36 However, before examining the Phelps-Stokesist impact on Zimbabwe, it should be noted that the policy, from thevery beginning, received strong criticism from certain well-informed observersof African affairs. Although these contemporary critics were unable to preventthe vigorous promotion of Phelps-Stokesism in Africa, in retrospect their fearsabout the consequences of the policy have in some ways proved to have beenprophetic. One of the most eminent of these critics was the distinguished BlackAmerican scholar, W.E, Burghardt Du Bois. As early as in 1903, Du Boisexpressed the fear that Booker Washington's strategy might result in Blacksubservience to Whites becoming 'a veritable way of life'.37 Du Bois latercriticized Pfaeips-Stekesism on the grounds that the policy was based on30For a study of Loram's career, see R. Hunt Davis, 'Charles T. Loram and an Americanmodel for African education in South Africa', African Studies Review (1976), XIX, ii, 87-99; thequotation only is from Harlan, Booker T. Washington, 229.31ChaIliss, 'Education planning for Zimbabwe: The problem of unreliable historicalperspectives', 217,32H. Jowitt, 'The Re-Construction of Native Education in Southern Rhodesia' (Univ. ofSouth Africa, unpubl. M.Ed, thesis, 1928), 137-41."C.T. Loram, The Education of the South African Native (New York, Longmans, Green,1917), 18-22."Ibid., 23, "Ibid.36Early in 1918, the Chief Native Commissioner, H.J. Taylor, cited Loram's book as anauthority for the formulation of policy on African affairs in Zimbabwe, A/3/18/9 [Admin.'sOffice : Correspondence : Native Affairs : 7 Sept 1917-10 June 1920], H. J. Taylor to Secretary]Department of the] Admin., 4 June 1918; in 1925 H.S. Keigwin, whose name was given toGovernment policy on African education from 1919 onwards recalled that the 'Keigwin Scheme'was 'largely inspired by what fhej had read and heard of the work among Negroes in America,particularly by General Armstrong and Booker Washington', SI 38 [Native Affairs, Chief NativeCommissioner, Correspondence, Numerical Series, 1923-1933], 69 [African Industrial Schools,,1920Š1932|, H.S. Keigwin to H. Taylor, 24 June 1925; King, Pan-Africanism and Education,48, also mentions that the first Inspector of Schools in Southern Rhodesia, H.E.D. Hammond,had recommended the adoption of the Washington Model in 1905."W.E.B. Du Bois, 'Of Mr Booker Washington and others', quoted in King, Pan-Africanismand Education, 11,1J4political rather than educational principles and was likely to institutionalizethe repression of Africans in'British colonies,38 Norman Leys, author ofKenya, the famous expose of colonial malpractices, agreed with Du Bois,39Leys was particularly critical of the wordy vagueness and ambiguities thatcharacterized the first Phelps-Stokes report and warned, that in Africa theobscurantist is an even greater danger than the exploiter,40 Leys felt thatWhites should encourage the emergence of a thoroughly well-educated Blackleadership and co-operate with such leaders in the promotion of colonialwelfare and development41 Professor A, Victor Murray, author of the wellknown study, The School in the Bush, also strongly criticized the lack of soundeducational principles in Phelps-Stokesism and warned that 'Differentiationwithout equality means the permanent inferiority of the Black man'.42However, little heed was paid to these critics, for Phelps-Stokesismrepresented a typically Galbraithian 'conventional wisdom* on race relationsin Anglo-American official, missionary and philanthropic circles.43With reference to the impact of Phelps-Stokesism on Zimbabwe, there arethree aspects which evidently require special attention, namely, the initialimpact of the policy, its enduring influences, and confusion in the historio-graphy of education in Zimbabwe arising from failures to clearly identify andtherefore fully appreciate the importance of Phelps-Stokesist influences. Theterm 'initial impact' refers to what appear to have been crucially importantyears between 1919 and 1929 when what can be very loosely described asconventional progress along Western lines of educational development forBlacks in Zimbabwe came to a virtual halt, mainly because of the combinedinfluences of the Phelps-Stokes Commissioners, Jones and Loram, and of theNative Affairs Department. To clearly describe what happened in that decadeit is necessary to indulge in considerable simplification of somewhat complexprocesses.By the end of the First World War the British South Africa CompanyAdministration, and particularly the Native Affairs Department, conscious ofthe growing deterioration of race relations in South Africa, became more thanever aware of the danger of African education in Zimbabwe becoming a'subversive activity5 Š subversive, that is, to what were considered to be thebenefits of peace and stable progress under European colonial rule.44 At thesame time, it was felt by local and Imperial Government authorities, that therewas an urgent need to make the soon to be re-constituted Native Reserves more38King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 144Š5,"Ibid, 130-45,40N. Leys. Kenva (London. Hogarth Press, 1924), 393.41King, Pan Africanism an^ I dm »<>>; l 30.42A.V Marram 7VNative Education ,'i Ł;1929), 30* t-M43J.K GJi. ,, .1958), 1S.\ |._ir , ic,with what trosl dotw navoid awl *ard eftort i.:44Chd!hs>, "The Friwhere a sti»i\ i^ .nade ofsecurity.School ,r tht Bu-1 j Critical Study of the Theory and Practice ofŁŁia (L<.r« >n Lcingn->.i ,s. Green, 2nd revised edn, 1938, first published,i '» Ph ips Sr skts;sT., see generally, ch. 13 "America in Africa',*/r./" , s>.K'un Honrondsworth, Penguin Books. 1962, first publishedact <, % w it^nicC .<i being one that associates 'truth with convenience Šrf< .-10^ v,jrh biH inteiest and individual well-being or promises best toen*. Icoia. d'slo.ation of life',niiiuu.r of ni'" Ra.ullv Segregated Education System', ch. 4, passim,-\t« iv.. ;Ł c Ii.v autin bv i \ .-en 1910 and 1923 in the special context of state115productive and habitable.45 A third Important consideration was the need toshow that something concrete was being done about Southern RhodesianAfrican development in order to allay fears about a possible union of theterritory with South Africa and also to counter strong criticisms fromindividuals like John Harris of the Aborigines Protection Society and, closer tohome, the missionary Arthur Shearly Cripps.46 Fourthly, there was a need to'forestall a possibly critical situation arising' from a growing tendencyamongst White settlers, particularly farmers, 'to seek ways and means ofutilising greater numbers of Zimbabwean Africans mainly as cheap [unskilled]labourers'.47To deal with these problems the British South Africa CompanyAdministration, acting in close consultation with the Imperial Governmentauthorities, devised a strategy named after the Native Commissioner chargedwith its implementation,, H.S. Keigwin. The basic intention of the newstrategy, represented by what is commonly known as the 'Keigwin Scheme',was to divert progress in African education away from possibly subversiveregions of more advanced literary work, into directions that concentrated upona specially simplified form of industrial training for economic and carefullycontrolled community development in the Reserves,48 For his part in theformulation of the scheme in 1919, Keigwin was greatly inspired by what hehad read about differentiated education for Blacks in America,49 while theChief Native Commissioner, H. J. Taylor, had been influenced by what he hadread in Loram's recent publication.50 Phelps-Stokesism had already begun toexert an influence on educational policy in Zimbabwe, therefore, before Jonesand Loram visited the territory in 1921. However, the visit by the two Phelps-Stokesists was of special importance, for the Native Affairs Department wasby then in need of authoritative endorsement of the Keigwin Scheme in the faceof opposition from certain leading missionaries and also senior officials of theDepartment of Education.51A fundamental issue at stake by 1921 was that the devotion of meagregovernment and already strained missionary financial and manpowerresources to the provision of 'simple5 industrial training schemes inevitablyresulted in the starvation of resources for progress in literary education,particularly with regard to urgent needs for the expansion of teacher-trainingfacilities and the recruitment of a better quality of teacher by improvingsalaries and conditions of service.52 The Native Affairs Department was fully45See generally, Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Native Affairs Committee of Enquiry,1910-191! (Sessional] Papferjs, A.12, 1911); Great Britain, Southern Rhodesia. PapersRelating to the Southern Rhodesia Native Reserves Commission, 1915 (October, 1917) [Cmd8674] (H.C. 1917-18, xxiii, 135).46 See generally, Great Britain, Southern Rhodesia, Correspondence with the Anti-Slaveryand Aborigines Protection Society Relating to the Native Reserves in Southern Rhodesia (inContinuation of [Cmd. 8674}) February, 1920 [Cmd. 547] 9 (H.C. 1920, xxxlii, 219); J.H.Harris, The Chartered Millions (London, The Swarthmore Press, [1920]); T.O. Ranger, Stateand Church in Southern Rhodesia 1919 to 1930 (Salisbury, The Central Africa HistoricalAssociation, Local Series 4, 1962).47Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System', 344."'Ibid., chs 4, 5,passim; see also, Rhodesia Resources Committee, Native Development (byH. S, Keigwin) ([Salisbury, The Committee, 1919]); Southern Rhodesia, Report by H. S. Keigwin,Esquire, Native Commissioner, on the Suggested Industrial Development of Natives (Sess.Paps, A.7. 1920),49S138/69, Keigwin to Taylor, 24 June 1925,50A/3/18/9, Taylor to Seer. Dep, Admin., 4 June 1918.51Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System5, ch. 5, passim,52Ibi&, chs 3, 4, 5, passim,116aware of the implications of the situation but felt that further progress inliterary education had to be curbed. By giving relatively advanced education toa few Africans it was feared that a class of allegedly irresponsible agitatorswould be created who would exercise premature and undesirable politicalinfluence amongst the mass of the African populace.53 Only after gradualprogress of the mass of Africans had been achieved through concentrationupon 'simple' industrial training and community' development schemes inReserves could more advanced literary education be safely contemplated. TheNative Affairs Department was also averse to improving African teachertraining and conditions of service because the teachers would simply swelloumbers in the already very large ranks of single-teacher kraal schools whichcould not be kept under close European supervision. Moreover, kraal schoolsgave only literary instruction and were, therefore, considered to be virtuallyuseless for the purpose of promoting separate economic development inReserves.Acting in close liaison with the Native Affairs Department, Jones andLoram succeeded in modifying the Keigwin Scheme along Phelps-Stoke si stlines and at the same time greatly helped in the campaign to convertmissionaries who resisted the new policy.54Of course, Phelps-Stokesist policy and the Keigwin Scheme alike werelargely inspired by the Tuskegee model of differentiated education and trainingfor the promotion of separate racial development. Even so, a major practicalconsideration in the formulation of the Keigwin Scheme had been a desire tostimulate greater productivity in African Reserves. Consequently, theKeigwin Scheme tended to concentrate mainly on the economic rather than theeducational aspects of African development. The Phelps-Stokesistcontribution, therefore, was to be of special importance with regard to theimplementation of the educational aspects of the new strategy devised by theGovernment in 1919.Some indication of just how successful the Phelps-Stokesists and the NativeAffairs Department were in the promotion of the new strategy devised in 1919is to be found in the distribution of state aid for industrial as opposed to teachertraining at mission schools after 1920. In 1920 the Adminstration awarded 6grants towards the salaries of specialists in teacher training, whereas 10awards went to industrial specialists,55 By 1927 there were 22 teacher-trainingawards, but 67 industrial training awards. In that year, grants for industrialtraining absorbed £4,623 of the £6,744 expended by the Government onspecialist salary grants.56 In addition to this there was the expenditure of about£7,000 annually on the Government Industrial Training Schools which wereestablished at Domboshawa and Tjolotjo in 1920 and 1921 respectively,57Two additional consequences of the successful promotion of Phelps-Stokesism in Southern Rhodesia were the appointment of an exponent of thepolicy who had worked under Loram in Natal, H. Jowitt, as the first Directorof Native Education in 1927, and the administrative separation of thisdepartment fren tHe authority of the Department of Education,58 In theIbid ,), i."Souther Rho.ifC.S.R. 23, V)2H). H"Chalhss. The58Ibid , ch 5, pa-,"' 54Ibid., ch. 5,passim.Report of 'the Directorof'Education for the Year /920(Sess. Paps, A.?,of the Director of Education for the Year 1927 (Sess. Paps,J-vr 'Report of the Director of Native Education", 15.Łundation of the Racially Segregated Education System'. 268.117appointment of Jowitt, the Government conformed with advice given by Jonesin 1924, when he stated that the new Director should have 'a belief in thepotentiality of the natives to receive and use the type ofeducation' advocatedby the Phelps-Stokes reports.59 However, Black Zimbabweans had alreadydisplayed, and for long continued to display, strong resentment of andresistance to differentiated education and simplified industrial training.Instead, there was a natural enough desire to obtain the more advanced literaryeducation and the technical and scientific training necessary for modernprogress.60 Moreover, Black Zimbabweans had revealed from the verybeginning of European rale that they could adapt readily to twentieth-centurymodernization and that, given the encouragement, they were also keen to leadthe mass of their people along the same path Š facts which Whites wereunwilling to frankly recognize. Instead, Whites preferred to believe that itwould require centuries of paternalism to wean Blacks from what was consideredto be their naturally barbaric state of backwardness.61Despite strong Zimbabwean resentment of the 'simple' nature of the raciallydifferentiated education and training advocated by the Phelps-Stokesists, andthe well-informed criticisms of contemporaries like Du Bois, Leys andMurray, the policy was to be vigorously implemented by Jowitt until hisresignation in 1934.62 In subsequent years the policy naturally underwentconsiderable modification, particularly when steps were taken to introducesecondary and higher educational facilities for Africans in Southern Rhodesiawhich tended to conform closely with conventional Western institutions.63Largely vain attempts were also made to provide -Zimbabwean Blacks withbetter opportunities to acquire proficiency in skilled trades of a conventionalWestern kind instead of a training directed ostensibly towards development'along their own lines' in Reserves.64 Even so, the Phelps-Stokesist emphasison racially differentiated education and training for separate development inZimbabwe was never lost sight of entirely and was to be revived to someextent during the U.D.I, period. The scheme for the establishment of F2Schools, for example, which offered a specially simplified form of rurallyorientated, racially discriminatory education and training for Blacks, was59S138/10 [African Advancement, 1923-1933], Acting Seer., Colonial Seer., to Taylor, 10June 1924, enclosing 'Memorandum by the Phelps-Stokes Commission', which was very probablywritten by Jones.*°See generally, Chailiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System',esp. ch. 5, where accounts are given of student unrest and disenchantment with the 'simple'natureof the work done at the two Government Schools-at Domboshawa and Tjolotjo; see also, B.Grimston, Survey of Native Educational Development, Southern Rhodesia, 1937 (St Albans,privately, 1942), ch. 4, para. 255, for consideration of the prevalence of'reactionary opinion' withregard to 'controversy over the advisability of using European implements in industrial work' atmission schools. °61 See generally, Rhodesia Resources Committee, Native Development, Lord Lugard.'Education and race relations', Journal of the African Society (1933), XXXII, exxvi, 7.62F. Parker, African Development and Education in Southern Rhodesia (Columbus, OhioState Univ. Press, Kappa Delta Phi Publications, International Education Monograph 2, 1960).84-90.63N.D. Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians: A History of Educational Policv in Rhodesia(London, Longman, 1972), 118-121, 135-207.MSee generally, B. Mothobi, Training for Development: An Inquiry into the Nature andScope for Technical Training in Rhodesia for African Workers in Industry, with SpecialReference to Apprenticeship Training (Salisbury, The Association of Round Tables in CentralAfrica in conjunction with the Univ. of Rhodesia, the Centre of Inter-Racial Studies and theInstitute of Adult Education, 1978).118directly inspired by esteem for the policy pursued by Jowitt.65 Of course, thenature of race relations in Zimbabwe largely accounts for the persistence ofPhelps-Stoke sist tendencies, particularly during the U.D.I. period. However,it was noted that the Imperial Government gave its official blessing to thepolicy in 1925 and Phelps-Stokesism, albeit in modified forms, was to remainone of the main inspirations of British colonial education policy for the nextfifty years.66 External influences on the persistence of Phelps-Stokesistinfluences in Zimbabwe, therefore, cannot be entirely disregarded byhistorians.The enduring influence of Phelps-Stokesism in British colonial educationalpolicy generally can be attributed partly to the work of Jones and Loram in theUnited States, where they obtained sponsorship from philanthropic bodies forthe award of study grants for missionaries and colonial government officialsunder their tutelage. Loram was to be particularly active in this regard,especially when he was appointed Sterling Professor of Education at YaleUniversity in 1931, a post which he held until his death in 1940.68 Similarinfluence was to be exerted by the Faculty of Education of London Universityuntil relatively recent times. Indeed, an academic who played a particularlysignificant role in this regard was our late Principal, Professor L.J. Lewis,C.M.G. After gaining practical experience as an educationist in Nigeria beforethe Second World War, Lewis was appointed as a lecturer in the Institute ofEducation of London University in 1944 and as Professor of Education withSpecial Reference to Education in Tropical Areas in 1959. The Professor heldthis post until 1973 when he was appointed Professor Emeritus of LondonUniversity.69Lewis has written a number of books on British colonial educational policyand practice, in all of which Phelps-Stokesism is highly commended.Certainly, there are aspects of Phelps-Stokesism that, as he put it, 'still offersound guidance about planning educational development'.70 Much in thememorandum which Jones sent to Chaplin in 1921, for instance, wasobviously commendable educationally, notably with regard to the need toadapt formal education to the special socio-economic needs of pupils, the aimto link education more closely with community development and, as Joneswent on to mention in the memorandum, the need to foster closer co-operationand co-ordination amongst all engaged in making provision for formaleducation. On the other hand, relatively little investigation into what actuallyconstituted African socio-economic needs was undertaken by the Phelps-Stokesists, who tended to base their recommendations largely uponpreconceived ideas and prejudices about African backwardness, racialinferiority and what Europeans, rather than Africans, considered to be worthyof special attention in African schools. These weaknesses of Phelps-Stokesism, which were comprehensively identified by contemporary critics ofthe policy like Du Bois, Leys and Murray, are almost entirely overlooked inthe books by Professor Lewis.65M.G. Mills, Junior Secondary and Secondary F(2) Schools in Rhodesia (Salisbury, Univ.of Rhodesia, Faculty of Education, 1974), 69.66Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 55, 85-6.67King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 177-254.*8Davis, 'Charles T. Loram and an American model', 90; R.D. Heyman, 'C.T. Loram : ASouth African liberal in race relations', The International Journal of African Historical Studies(1972), V, 41-50.wWho's Who 1981 (London, Adam and Charles Black, 1981), 1544.70Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 55.119In Ms historical assessments of Phelps- Stokesism Lewis never refers to thewell-informed critics of the policy. Even so, he does criticize the typicallyPhelps-Stokesist denigration of what was known as the 'mission educatednative', one who had received plenty of literary instruction but little or nopractical training." For instance, while the Professor felt that there might havebeen 'an element of truth' in allegations that 'missionary education producedpeople who became political agitators, possessing no roots nor respect for localtraditions, beliefs or environment, out of touch with the mass of the people,ridiculously sensitive to racial and social discrimination, real or, fancied, [and]ready to create and respond to unrest',72 he felt that such criticism was oftenbased on 'a superficial acquaintance with the people who had recieved amodicum of education* and failed to recognize that mission schools had helpedto produce 'an excellent cadre of local assistants for State and Church' and 'anumber of outstanding individuals'.73 Indeed, Lewis was personallyacquainted with one of these individuals, Dr Henry Carr, the Nigerianinspector of schools and 'member of the legislature.74 However, it is evidentthat Lewis was not entirely in accord with views expressed by Leys on the needto encourage Africans in their quest for advanced education. Instead, Lewissuggests that there was 'a timeliness about the step forward taken by Britain toprovide for higher education in Africa' shortly after the Second World War, forwith 'regard to social and economic conditions ,. . World War II apart, anearlier effort would have been premature and a later one could have beentragic'.75 This opinion Indicates that Lewis's attitude conforms most closelywith one displayed by Dr Oldham, who had done so much to promote Phelps-Stokesism before the Second World War,The attitude of Oldham after the Second World War represented what canbe characterized as a modification or evolution of Phelps-Stokesism in thecontext of 'globular political changes'.76 When it became clear after the warthat decolonization in Africa was imminent, it was equally evident thatleadership in politically independent Africa was most likely to be provided bythe very class of 'educated' Africans who had been denigrated by Phelps-Stokesists in the 1920s. Therefore, while Oldham still revered the memory of'Dr, Thomas Jesse Jones, who made so notable a contribution a generation agoto thought about African education*, he nevertheless advocated somewhatdifferent tactics in the 1950s by supporting the cause of the Capricom AfricaSociety.77 The aim of the Society was to create in Africa 'an inter-racial,integrated society in which differences of race and colour [would] cease tohave any significance'.78 The Society was founded in Harare in 1949 'by agroup of people ... of different races, who believed that a policy for Africamust come from within Africa itself.79 Educational schemes and close co~"Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 12, quoting from Lord Lugard, 'Education inTropical Africa', The Edinburgh Review (July 1925), C."L.J. Lewis, Society, Schools and Progress in Nigeria (Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1965). 30."Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 12-13.MLJ. Lewis, personal communication, 11 June 1981.""Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 92.7*Of course, when the counsels of Pheips-Stokesists like Oldham and Lord Lugard wereeventually replaced by those of individuals like Margery Perham and Julian Huxley, Britishcolonial educational policy evolved along more progressive lines. Even so 'globular - politicalrather than strictly educational considerations tended to remain a major element in the formulationof policy', H. D'Souza, 'External influences on the development of educational policy in Britishtropical Africa from 1923 to 1939', 46."J.H. Oldham, New Hope in Africa (London, Longmans, Green, 1955), 48."Ibid., 13. "Ibid., 14.120operation between Whites and 'educated5 Blacks figured largely in the strate-gies of the Society.80 Although Lewis did not join the Capricorn Africa Society,81his views would appear to have been consonant with many of those expressedby Oldham, when he propagated the aims of the Society in 1.955 in hispublication, New Hope in Africa,To some extent the historical assessment of Pheips-Stokesism by Lewisappears to be almost deliberately neglectful of important issues raised bycontemporary critics of the policy. For instance, reference is made to TheSchool in the Bush by Murray, but not to the perceptive criticisms by Murrayof some of the educationally unsound principles that informed Phelps-Stokesism.82 Consequently, no attempt is made by Lewis to consider theimplications of the warning by Murray that 'Differentiation without equalitymeans the permanent inferiority of the Black man*. Lewis simply asserts thatPhelps-Stokesism and the Imperial educational policy that it so largelyinformed marked 'a crucial step forward for education in the then Britishcolonial dependencies'83 and that 'enlightened statesmanship' allowed for thedevelopment of African 'educational facilities by their best lights*.84 Anyfailures of British colonial educational policy stemmed largely, Lewis claims,from inadequate finance and a consequent inability to implement schemes withsufficient thoroughness,85 While 'all that might be desired' had not beenachieved, Lewis feels that there was 'little to be ashamed of.86 If onlyhistorians 'in the best objective traditions of historical research andpresentation'87 could fill gaps of knowledge about what the British hadachieved in the sphere of colonial education then 'hostile' criticism 'based oninadequate information coloured by prejudice' would be largely silenced,88What Lewis laments is that criticism of British colonial educational policy islargely 'emotional in origin rather than based on a knowledge of facts aboutwhat has been done or about what remains to be done'.89 Too much 'opinion oneducation in Africa', Lewis feels, has been 'emotionally conditioned'.90However, as King and other analysts of Phelps-Stokesism have shown, thepolicy was inspired as much by reactionary notions about racially and sociallydifferentiated educational policies that go back to the early nineteenth centuryas by altruistic desires to take 'a crucial step forward',91 By disregarding issues80The Capricorn Africa Society acquired 'the reputation of being dangerously radical andwildly idealistic' and therefore achieved relatively little as a political pressure group amongstEuropean settlers in Zimbabwe', I.R. Hancock, 'Sane and pragmatic liberalism: The ActionGroup in Bulawayo, 1955-1965', Rhodesian History (1976), VII, 75, fn. 34. However, theSociety was able to secure funds for the establishment of Ranche House College in Harare, mainlyfor purposes of non-racial adult education. Under the Principal, Mr Ken Mew, D.F.C., whoretired in 1982, the College also played a 'secret* political role daring the U.D.I, period by makingarrangements for meetings between Black and White leaders, The Herald (IB Aug. 1982), 11.8lLewis, personal communication, 11 June 1981.82Lewis, Society, Schools and Progress in Nigeria, 29-30.83Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 79."Ibid., 65,"Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 16Š17.MIbid., 4.87M. Read, Education and Social Change in Tropical Areas (London, Thomas Nelson,1955), 25, quoted by Lewis in Education and Political Independence, 82.88 Lewis, Educational Policy and Practice, 4; and Education and Political Independence, 85.Ł"Lewis, Educational and Political Independence, vii.90Ibid,; in much the same way as Jones denigrated Blacks for being an 'emotional* race, sodoes Lewis denigrate their 'strong political aspirations' as being 'largely emotional', Lewis,Educational Policy and Practice, 111,"King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 137-9.121raised by the critics of Phelps-Stokesism, Lewis deals with his subject in muchthe same way as the Phelps-Stokesists themselves tended to do, namely aspropagandists rather than as investigators inspired by 'the best objectivetraditions' of scholarship.92The views of Lewis have been considered at some length in this paperbecause they seem to indicate the persistence of what has been characterizedas 'the conventional wisdom in race relations' of the Anglo-Americanestablishment that was mentioned earlier. Of equal significance is the specialrelationship between the Faculty of Education of London University, wherethe Professor has for long exercised considerable authority, and the educationfaculties of universities in former British colonies like that of the University ofZimbabwe,93 It is hard to say how far the somewhat uncritically favourable-esteem for Phelps-Stokesism propagated by Professsor Lewis has influencedhistories of education in Zimbabwe, notably those by Professor FranklinParker, an American academic who held a research post at the University ofZimbabwe,94 and Professors R.C. Bone and N.D. Atkinson, long-servingmembers of the Faculty of Education of the University of Zimbabwe. However,consideration of these histories reveals a great deal of conformity with assess-ments of Phelps-Stokesism made by Lewis, even when the relationshipsbetween Phelps-Stokesism and educational policy in Zimbabwe have notalways been clearly identified in these histories. There are also certain errorsand omissions in these histories that tend to render their accounts of the impactof Phelps-Stokesism in Zimbabwe somewhat misleading and confused.An important omission from the accounts by all three of the historians justmentioned is the failure to refer to Pfaelps-Stokesist influences exerted inSouthern Rhodesia before the advent of Responsible Government in 1923. Byoverlooking the inspiration and support of Jones and Loram that can be tracedback to at least 1917, the impression given by the three historians is that theformulation of Government policy was almost entirely the result of internalevents, indeed, the result of ideas propagated by Keigwin alone. Parker, forinstance, somewhat simplistically accounts for policy changes by stating that'In 1918, H.S. Keigwin, a Native Commissioner, interested the Governmentin developing village industries',95 Atkinson simply mentions in a footnote thatKeigwin was appointed as the first Director of Native Development in 1920,96by which time, he states in the main text, Keigwin had 'begun to turn histhoughts towards schemes for a more direct intervention by Government in thefield of African education'.97 Moreover, Atkinson suggests that little wasachieved under the Keigwin Scheme before British South Africa Company92King, Pan-Africanism and Education, 45; Harlan, Booker T. Washington, 63-4; D'Souza,'External influences on the development of educational policy', 37-8."Lewis, Education and Political Independence, 15-47.94 Professor Parker was a research scholar at the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasalandwhen he undertook his investigations, M. Gelfand, A Non-Racial Island of Learning: A Historyof the University College of Rhodesia from Its Inception to 1966 (Gwelo, Mambo Press, 1978),136.95Parker, African Development and Education in Southern Rhodesia, 76.96Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians, 110, fn. 73; it is erroneously stated in this footnote that in1921 Keigwin was appointed Director of Native Education, a post 'on the establishment of theDepartment of Native Affairs and did not carry any responsibilities to the Education Department'.In fact Keigwin and his chief assistant, G.A. Taylor, were appointed as additional inspectors ofschools in 1922 'under a special arrangement by which their reports should be rendered to theheads of both [the Native and Education] Departments', Southern Rhodesia, Report of theDirector of Education for the Year 1922 (Sess, Paps, A.I 3, 1923), 23."Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians, 97,122rale had ended and when 'it was at last possible to embark on ambitiousschemes for forward planning in almost every aspect of life in SouthernRhodesia'.98 Certainly, the Native Affairs Department achieved less than ithoped for by 1923. Even so, particularly with regard to the propagation ofPhelps-Stokesism amongst missionaries and the diversion of state aid andother resources into industrial rather than teacher training some verysignificant steps had been taken by 1923."While it is acknowledged by the three professors that after the advent ofResponsible Government, at any rate, the Phelps-Stokes Commissions exertedan influence in Southern Rhodesia, little or no attempt is made by them toclearly identify and assess the nature and extent of this influence. For instance,no mention is made of the fact that Jowitt was a protege of the Phelps-StokesistLoram and probably owed his appointment as the first Director of NativeEducation to recommendations made by Loram and Jones. Moreover,Atkinson gives the very misleading impression that the Phelps-Stokesistinfluence was not felt at all before 1923 by stating rather vaguely that 'at aboutthe same time [as the advent of Responsible Government], a commissionunder the auspices of the Phelps-Stokes Fund of New York arrived to enquireinto the state of native education in central Africa5.100In addition to errors and ©missions in the accounts by the three professors,they make assessments of the impact of what they do not always clearlyidentify as being Phelps-Stokesist influences which are very similar to some ofthose made by Lewis with regard to the impact of Phelps-Stokesism generallyin British colonial Africa. The three professors, therefore, tend to be inagreement with Lewis to the effect that Tfaelps Stokesism heralded a crucialstep forward' in the development of the formal education of Africans. Bone, forinstance, evidently assumes, like Lewis, that the Phelps-Stekesists wereeminently well-qualified educationists intent upon the development of Africaneducation by its 'best lights'. Consequently, Bone accepts without questioncriticisms made in the Phelps-Stokes reports to the effect that the Departmentof Education and missionaries were culpable of prolonged neglect and incom-petence with regard to teacher training and gives the impression that it was onlywhen Jowitt became Director of Native Development in 1929 that teachertraining began at last to receive proper attention.101 What Bone overlooks isthat despite adverse circumstances, certain missionaries, with considerableencouragement from the Department of Education, managed to make remark-able progress in the establishment of teacher-training institutions, particularlywhen the war ended and until 1921,102 Subsequently, Phelps-Stokesist influ-ences themselves tended to greatly hinder further progress. Parker concedesthat 'a few' missionaries had for many years been critical of the fact that inteacher training, at least, industrial work was done at the expense of academiceducation,'103 Even so, Parker concludes that'Keigwin's and Jowitt's policy of"adaptation to environment" ' was eminently sound,104 indeed, was a policy98Ibid, 103."Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System', chs 4, 5,passim.100Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians, 103. "1OIR.C. Bone, African Education in Rhodesia : The Period to 1927 (Salisbury, Univ. Collegeof Rhodesia, Faculty of Education Occasional Paper 9, 1970). 26-36,102Challiss, 'The Foundation of the Racially Segregated Education System*, ch. 3,passim.103Parker, African Development and Education in "Southern Rhodesia, 74,104F. Parker, 'African Community Development and education in Southern Rhodesia, 1920-1935', International Review of Missions (1962), LI, 346.123that had undoubtedly been conceived by 'men of wisdom'.105 Atkinson israther more guarded about the 'wisdom5 of what was conceived by 'Keigwinand Jowitt'; he feels that for 'an underdeveloped community' there was 'somejustification, both on educational and sociological grounds' for the KeigwinScheme and what he does not always dearly identify.as being Phelps-Stokesistmodifications.106 Nevertheless, Atkinson does point out that 'almost unavoid-ably' the new policy 'tended to retard the development of facilities for secondaryand higher education and ensured that Africans could not generally equal thestandards achieved by Europeans',107Of course, the most important consideration, arising from the assessmentsmade by the three professors and a more critical assessment based on furtherresearch and in the light of relatively recent studies of Phelps-Stokesism, isthat there appear to be three distinct general interpretations of the significanceof the impact of Phelps:Stokesism in Zimbabwe. Parker, in his pioneeringstudies undertaken mainly in the 1960s, makes an interpretation that conformsvery closely with contemporary views expressed by Professor Lewis. Therefore,with reference to what were in essence the Phelps-Stokesist policies under-taken by Keigwin and Jowitt, Parker asserts that 4Had the policy of makingAfricans efficiently secure in their environment been intelligently supported, itmight substantially have improved the present generation's ability to work outmulti-racial problems.'108 Atkinson, writing some ten years later, remainsvague about what actually represented Phelps-Stokesist influences, but makessomewhat different observations from the one propounded by Parker. Atkinsonstates that 'persistence [after the 1920s] with segregated arrangements was notwithout some justification, both on sociological and educational grounds', for'African education presented special problems in its own right, calling forseparate machinery for planning and development'. However, Atkinson alsoasserts that there was an equally important need 'to develop a co-ordinatededucation policy for the country as a whole' and he feels that governments afterthe 1920s persisted too long with 'two distinct systems of education . . . alongseparate lines of development'.109I would agree with Parker that what were in fact Phelps-Stokesist economicand community development schemes received inadequate financialassistance under successive governments, for there was hardly much point inrurally orientated training schemes unless they were backed up by capitalinvestment in rural development. I naturally agree, too, with Atkinson that 'aco-ordinated education policy' was overlooked for too long. However, I cannotagree with the view that the implementation of what I would prefer to callPhelps-Stokesism was as wise a policy as the four professors tend to suggest.The attempt to set the clock back, as it were, by trying to suppress Africanaspirations to modernize and revive enthusiasm for separate tribaldevelopment was a tall order by 1920. After the First World War growingnumbers of Zimbabwean Africans were beginning to seek racially integratedrather than separate development. But, as another supporter of the CapricornAfrica Society, Sir Laurens van der Post, put itHaving taken away their way of life we then made it impossible for themto acquire any other. Having supplanted their law by ours we then gave105Ibid, 347.106Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians, 200.107Ibid., 201,l08Parker, 'African Community Development and education', 335.'"Atkinson, Teaching Rhodesians, 200-2.124them no right to live as our law demanded but rather forced them to driftsuspended in dark acceptance of a state of non-being.110When White settlement began in the 1890s there might have beeo a case for an'intelligently supported' Phelps-Stokesist policy, but by the 1920s it wouldappear that the time had come for what Atkinson refers to as 'a co-ordinatededucation policy'. By stressing alleged African backwardness at this stage,Phelps-Stokesism inevitably aggravated Black discontent with colonialism.Moreover, stress on 'simple* industrial training, which receives little or noattention in the historical assessments of the four professors, contributed toour present manpower and development problems.10L. van dei* Post, The Dark Eye in Africa (London, The Hogarth Press, 1955), 48.125