Lucy O'Brien, author of the new Dusty Springfield biography, Dusty,
documents the courageous anti-apartheid stand taken by Britain's premier
female soul voice in the sixties.
''BRITAIN is a state of long-haired, third-rate entertainers with
Dusty Springfield as Queen of the Mods.''
So wrote one irate Capetown resident after blonde bouffant sixties
star Dusty Springfield was deported from South Africa in 1964 for
refusing to play to segregated audiences. Her action then was seen as
cranky and dangerously subversive. Pop entertainers in the sixties
weren't meant to have a public conscience, and it is only comparatively
recently that anti-apartheid pop protest has gained credibility.
South Africa has been one of pop's biggest political debates of the
eighties, with the spectacular Nelson Mandela 70th Birthday Tribute last
year at Wembley. Beamed by satellite to more than 63countries, the
11-hour marathon featured stars including Whitney Houston, Stevie Wonder
and Dire Straits, with Simple Minds' Jim Kerr acting as an ambassador
and prime mover behind the concert in Britain.
With a clear anti-apartheid message calling for the release of Nelson
Mandela, the show sent its proceeds to British anti-apartheid and
various South African aid groups. To Jerry Dammers, leader of the
British musicians pressure group Artists Against Apartheid, this show
was a key victory in a decade of vigorous pop campaigning.
South Africa, however, was not hip and high up on pop's agenda
throughout the sixties and seventies, and little has been recorded about
mainstream pop performers who took an isolated stand, often to the
detriment of their careers. Apart from Biko by Peter Gabriel and Gil
Scott-Heron's Johannesburg, there were few songs directly condemning
apartheid, and artists played Sun City with impunity.
This changed in December, 1980, when the UN passed its Resolution
35/206 supporting an official cultural boycott. When fierce controversy
broke out six years later over Paul Simon's naive decision to record his
Graceland LP in South Africa, his concerts were picketed and consensus
went against artists breaking the boycott. There has not always been
such widespread support. The history of the boycott ironically has its
beginnings in the action of an insecure white convent girl from
Hampstead.
Dusty Springfield was the first British artist to include a ''no
apartheid'' clause in a South African contract. Until then performers
had regularly appeared before segregated audiences, with the Musicians
Union a solitary voice in opposition. Long before any other trade union
had taken a similar action, the MU organised a strike in 1957 at
Wolverhampton's Scala Ballroom against a colour bar imposed by the
management. The strike found its way into union history with a legal row
as to whether musicians could take such collective action.
In 1964 the idea of a Western cultural boycott was in its infancy, and
Dusty became a test case for this policy. Her decision to include a
''black'' clause in her contract stemmed from her love and respect of
black music, and friendships with prominent US singers like Martha
Reeves, Dionne Warwick, and Stevie Wonder, all of whom deplored the
worsening situation in South Africa.
Before her visit, Dusty spoke publicly about her decision to play only
to non-segregated audiences: ''It's my little bit to help the coloured
people there. I think I'm the first British artist to do this. If they
force me into anything, I'll be on the first plane home.'' It was the
last line that was to cause her so much trouble.
''The guy promoting the tour, Dennis Wainer, was a Jewish lawyer who
ran legal aid for coloured people, so the South African Government
weren't terribly enamoured with him,'' recalls Dusty's sixties manager
Vic Billings. ''Also it emerged afterwards that in 1965 they were going
to strengthen the Bantu laws. We were on a sticky wicket before we went.
We didn't know what was going on, apart from the fact we were caught up
in the middle of it.''
Dusty's first two shows in Johannesburg were a non-segregated success,
but by the time she arrived in Capetown, ministry officials caught up
with her and served her a deportation order for ''blatantly flouting
apartheid laws.'' Her pre-tour statements had been interpreted by the
authorities as ''a red rag to the Government.'' On December 17, 1964,
after three miserable days holed up by the police in a hotel with her
band and manager, Dusty was deported.
Back in Britain the tabloids had a field day, with headlines like POP
STAR IN COLOUR BAR ROW and SHOWBIZ V. APARTHEID. Despite pockets of
support, Dusty was attacked by those anxious to protect showbusiness
profit and privilege, with entertainers of the calibre of Max Bygraves
and Derek Nimmo accusing her of being ''publicity seeking'' and
''foolishly irresponsible.''
This sparked furious debate in the Equity and Variety Artists'
Federation unions over whether to vote for a cultural boycott and bring
their policy into line with the MU ban. On December 19 the debate
escalated to the House of Commons when 15 MPs signed a motion applauding
Dusty's action in standing ''against the obnoxious doctrine of apartheid
in South Africa.''
Bewildered and battered by the storm she had created, Dusty said:
''Whatever your personal political feelings are, if you become involved
in them publicly, you're bound to come out the loser.'' She gave away
her #2000 fee for the South African tour to black South African
charities, saying ''I'm disgusted at the way I've been treated, I don't
want a penny of my salary.''
Whatever Dusty's misgivings, her point of principle created a
precedent. A month after her deportation Adam Faith was also sent home
from South Africa for appearing before multi-racial audiences. As
international pressure grew against apartheid, more and more artists
realised the implications of playing in South Africa, and a cultural
boycott was eventually implemented. It wasn't until 1988 that hundreds
brought that into global focus at Wembley. In 1964 Dusty was out on her
own. It always takes one to blaze the trail.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article