In Cry, the Beloved Country, is the author impartial in his treatment of the two races?

This is a fascinating question. Paton, as a white South African
himself, wrote this novel to express his fear and concern about what was happening in his country
and how he saw the racial divide widening day by day. Therefore, I believe that he does his best
to be impartial. There are a number of chapters away from the main action of the novel where
Paton allows us to hear a wide range of different opinions about what is happening in South
Africa. I believe he tries to do this as justly and accurately as possible without bias. Consider
Chapter 12, where Paton is keen to present the negative effects of what is happening in South
Africa on both whites and blacks:

readability="14">

Have no doubt it is fear in the land. For what can men do
when so many have grown lawless? Who can enjoy the lovely land, who can enjoy the seventy years,
and the sun that pours down on the earth, when there is fear in the heart? Who can walk quietly
in the shadow of the jacarandas, when their beauty is grown to danger? Who can lie peacefully
abed, while the darkness holds some secret? What lovers can lie sweetly under the stars, when
menace grows with the measure of their
seclusion?

The situation in South
Africa is thus shown to impact all of its residence, no matter what skin colour. Note too that
the novel presents both whites and blacks who are working to try and do something about the
situation - we are presented with the colony in Ezenzeleni where whites work with blind blacks,
and also the white worker of the reform school where Absalom was. Although Paton is keen to evoke
the full danger of the situation in his country, he does not seem to place the blame in any
quarter, rather making an appeal for compassion, understanding and love - as is shown by the
relationship at the end of Jarvis and Kumalo.