After reading the document carefully, consider your answers to these questions. Feel free to refer to the document again. Below, I'll tell you what I think; but don't look ahead! My answers are not necessarily the right ones--just those of one biographer.

	Welensky states at the outset that he has "no objection to the African being employed in any service [any job]..." Later he confirms that he is "prepared ... to permit, where he displays capacity, the native to rise in the level of grades of employment in the railway." Do you believe him? Why or why not? Why does Welensky insist that such Africans receive "the same wage as the European, full Union rates?"
	What do you think he means when he says "the native of Africa is not being uplifted, he is being exploited at the expense of the European," that the African is being used "as a tool to lower my standard?"
	If Africans were promoted with the same pay, do you think the white Europeans would accept working "side by side" with them? Do you think Welensky would?
	What if you were an African railwayman? If you were being considered for promotion into a previously "white" job, would you insist on the same pay? Why or why not?
	What do you think Welensky or Gore-Browne mean by "segregation?"
	What do they mean by "partial" or "modified" segregation?

Vickery's Take:

O.K., here's what I think: Welensky did sincerely believe in "equal pay for equal work." This is indeed a sacred trade union principle. But in a larger sense it has been invoked in support of some important "progressive" movements, like anti-slavery abolition and the liberation of women. He could thus embrace this with a considerable sense of personal and political morality.

But ...IN THIS CONTEXT Welensky, I believe, knew full well that the greatest appeal--for some the only appeal--of black labor for employers was that it was cheaper. If the "equal pay" principle were observed, he was confident that the ACTUAL EFFECT would be a continued exclusion of African workers from white jobs.
In a sense, he got the best of both worlds: attachment to principle and continued job protection.

IF an African had been promoted with full pay, would Welensky have been happy working with him? I don't know. I doubt it, at least early on. Later, it is a fact that as Prime Minister he oversaw the entry of the first Africans into previously protected positions.

I believe that Welensky was NOT a classic segregationist, in the sense of someone who believes that peoples and cultures are fundamentally, and permanently, different. He thought--he knew--that someday Africans would be doing exactly the same jobs as whites and, eventually anyway, do them just as well. Time--a long time--was the key. He was then, a white supremacist, but a paternalist, in my view, rather than a classic segregationist. The African "child" would, someday, grow up, and grow up using a universal yardstick. Real segregationists denied this, or thought the "growing up" would be measured within each particular group, using its own standards.