Talk:Apartheid
Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template Template:FAOL
 | Apartheid received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Politics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
archives
FA, post-apartheid
I think it looks great now. I have a dream of this article someday being featured, something to strive for. I notice there is no mention of the aftermath of apartheid, Truth and Reconciliation Commision, Mandela's inauguration ceremony, and so on. Specifically the TRC. Yes/No? Banes 08:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- My personal opinion, that Mandela is a putz, should warrant prominent mention. Let me know how I can make this happen. :-p Tomer TALK 09:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Tomer, I dont know how we could add that, perhaps further debate may be needed. Banes 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose you could start a page - Mandela vs. Putzness, a comparison - and see how it goes ;) Xiphon 17:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I dont know if it will get past a speedy deletion, but we can always hope! Back to my original point above regarding the aftermath of apartheid. Well? Banes 19:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- The aftermath of apartheid is already covered in History of South Africa. History of South Africa has already been nominated twice for FA, and failed both times, mainly because of a lack of references. Since then, the apartheid-era stuff was spun off into this article, and combined with the old apartheid article.--Bcrowell 02:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, that is a pity. Recently I created a short article about Hastings Ndlovu, the first boy to be shot on June 16, 1976. Is it a problem if I add that under the Soweto Riots section, just a passing mention, you know? Banes 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
interesting edit
I don't know whether the following edit should make me laugh or cry: [1]. I hope it was an attempt at humor, maybe a satire on the Jews-caused-apartheid kooks. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.--Bcrowell 02:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The JAHWEH kook has struck again. I've reverted him.--Bcrowell 03:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Two more JAHWEH edits, reverted by me and Greenman.--Bcrowell 14:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Omission
I can't find mention of the forced removals that took place from areas like District Six and Sophiatown to areas like SOWETO (SOuth WEst TOwnships). The removals had serious repercussions through the decades and have come back to bite us today (such as the rebuilding of District Six in Cape Town). I think they should at least be mentioned somewhere, or given a section of their own, which I am happy to do if required--Xiphon 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, I'd always assumed that Soweto was just a place name that came from an African language --- I'm always learning something new on WP! Sounds great to me, Xiphon, if you want to add something about this.--Bcrowell 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's one hell of an ommission :) Feel free to add. See District_Six and Sophiatown as a start. Greenman 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a piece called Forced Removals as 2.3, as it is most directly related to the homeland system of 2.2. I welcome comments and suggestions, as well as thoughts on my adding a famous picture showing reistance graphiti in District Six prior to the move--Xiphon 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good so far Xiphon. However, many of the removals were not to homelands, rather to distant urban areas, such as the Cape Flats, Ocean View, Soweto etc, so the first sentence is incorrect as it stands. Greenman 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point. However I'm not really sure what term to use for said locations, as they were all so different. "Designated areas" perhaps?--Xiphon 17:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, "Designated areas" sounds fine. On the other hand, you could say that "...were relocated to tribal homelands and to townships..." Just an idea. Banes 13:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Contemporary History
Can anybody tell me concisely what articles exist that deal with contemporary SA history? It seems a little unbalanced to me to have one huge article about 3 million years of SA history, which subsequently isn't too detailed; and then one article about apartheid. Have I missed an article somewhere? I think we should try to redress this inbalance and spread the load a bit, i.e. more articles such as this one addressing specific issues or periods. Or am I just a voice in the wilderness here?--Xiphon 21:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, apartheid was probably the most important and most documented. But spreading the load could be a good idea. For the different periods sounds good to me. Any other comments? Banes 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- If I might just add that the SA education system is broken up into three periods: 1924 - 1948 (Basically constitutional developments, NP comes to power and so on); 1948 - 1976 (Apartheid and resistance); and 1976 - 1994 (move to democracy). Perhaps we should look to adapt and employ this system?--Xiphon
I think History of South Africa should have more of the early stuff spun off into separate articles, so that it would be like History of the United States.--Bcrowell 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Jordan Haller
Jordan Haller has AIDS and he is estimated to have been giving the disease to men, at the explosive rate of over 5000 new cases per day.
Googling for the name and AIDS produces 2 nonrelevant results. Typo in the name, or a source? TransUtopian 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Disregard. I was looking at a previous edit. It's been reverted. TransUtopian 05:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
POV
the lack of opportunities for the races to mix in a social setting entrenched white attitudes of superiority — often demonstrated in hostile, rude or patronising behaviour.
From last paragraph of apartheid from day to day, is laughably POV, IMO. Seeing as most ordinary white South Africans rarely encountered blacks, for obvious reasons, the opportunity simply didn't arise. Only the die-hards "often demonstrated" that sort of thing--Xiphon 12:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest being bold then, remove it. Banes 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, that sort of section is inherently POV anyway due to its subjective nature. It probably should not be in an encyclopedic article. Impi 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The paragraph even contradicts itself. I have removed the last line, patronising behavior and such. I also changed the line before slightly to make it more more accurate as well as neutral. Banes 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
APA
Hey! Where is the Abolition of Passes Act? Is there a reason why it hasn't been included in the list of Acts/laws?--Xiphon 16:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Who knows. Sigh...no-one reads this often enough.....Banes 09:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Reasons for apartheid
The article, justifiably and understandably, tells of the harms done by and the struggle against apartheid. I should be interested to read what were the reasons given for apartheid, what was the justification that the laws were given by the government. I think this is lacking in the article and I should like to know about it.
- Well, the National Party (who implemented it), came to power in 48 basically on their Republican ideals, which appealed to the Afrikaners, and secondly what they termed 'black peril'. SA politics had always attempted to maintain white security first. For example there were strikes in the mines when the ratio of white to black labourers was increased from 1:3 to 1:10. As whites made up the biggest percentage of the voting body (blacks were excluded), it was important to cater to their interests. The justification was a little more complex. In short, events in the rest of Africa, notably the Belgium Congo, had shown what could happen if blacks were allowed to come to power, such as civil war, genocide etc. Therefore the government had to protect white interests, but to that end they had to maintain a minority government, which could only be done by suppresing the black majority. This led to their seperate development policy, i.e. the homelands. This is just a brief overview of course, but I do agree a more comprehensive explanation is lacking from the article.--Xiphon 05:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- As much as it appalls and disgusts me to say so, there are parallels in Israeli history, which probably bear mentioning in Apartheid outside South Africa... Namely, that the position of the Israeli government all along has been that movements toward self-government should be grassroots [and peaceful], especially that such movements should not be foisted upon the "conquered", but should be "homegrown"... IMHO, the fact that the gov't of ZA did nothing to promote the development of responsible self-government, and the resultant chaos, including the rise to prominence of the vilest most terroristic elements, is closely parallelled by the Israeli failure to foster a movement forwarding responsible self-governance among the Plishtim. Granted, the Israeli gov't, given the "temporary" idea of the "occupation", felt no particular mandate to get involved in the self-determination of others (an extension of the oft-misunderstood and misinterpreted Jewish cultural abhorrence for trying to foist Jewish ideals on others), but the failure to act by the "rulers" in both cases has led to equally dire consequences. Tomer TALK 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that no notice has been paid to the comment above. It's one of the most racist diatribes I've ever read. Blacks were the "vilest, most terroristic elements" in South Africa? They were oppressed because they didn't form their own government? What kind of crap is that?
Question
Does anyone have a list of African states that had diplomatic relations with South Africa during apartheid? I'm just curious.
- South Africa was feuding with her Southern African neighbors, so, no relations there. As for the rest of africa, I dont know for sure, but I would assume not. SA did had relations with USA, Israel, and Iran (under the Shah). Other than that the country was completely isolated. ( Somebody correct me if I am full of it:-) Banes 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- SA did have diplomatic relations with some African states, and at the very least conducted frequent diplomatic negotiations of sorts with its neighbours, which were ironically mostly economically dependent on SA (still are, in fact). I'm not sure about all the details though, I'll try look them up. — Impi 09:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Taiwan and Libya were important ? I think that when Mandela (who was against sanctions ?) had to snub Taiwan to please China (when he was president), he decided he was getting too old for these games. He pointedly welcomed Gadaffi when he was president. Wizzy…☎ 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Apartheid South Africa did have relations with Taiwan - the changes (and welcoming) of Libya all happened after apartheid ended though. As far as African countries, South Africa only had strong ties with Malawi, led by Hastings Banda's pro-western policies. There were occassional dealings with other African countries though, such as the Nkomati Accord (Mozambique).Greenman 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all!
Another question: Where did non-white, non-South Africans stay during Apartheid? Say a Mexican or Japanese business person were to be in South Africa. Would they have to stay in sub-par hotels?
- I'll ask my parents to double check, but I'm 90% sure they could stay in the regular hotels. Generally, the Apartheid mentality was less negative towards non-black, non-white races than to black races. Artagra 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure myself, but there was a big incident when the Japanese international swimming team (this was before isolation I presume) was not allowed to practice in the "whites only" olympic pool. Banes 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Though as far as I know, Japanese people were regarded as "honorary whites", and therefore enjoyed the same privileges, as opposed to their Chinese neighbours, who were regarded as non-white. It was a ridiculous system. — Impi 07:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not that the Japanese were above these shenanigans. I think that when Margaret Thatcher visited Japan she became an honorary man. Wizzy…☎ 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- All rather confusing really.... Banes 08:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the "Christian Nationalism" thing in the begining, where is that from? Has Apartheid been called "Christian Nationalism"? User:Dr.Poison
Improvement drive
Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Botha resigned under pressure from the US and Britain?
The quote 'On 13 February 1989, an ailing Botha, under pressure from the US and Britain, resigned and was succeeded later that year by FW de Klerk.' intrigues me. What exactly did the US and Britain do to warrant a special mention here? Greenman 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- P.W. Botha's downfall is more than adequately covered in his own article. As to what impelled the US and Britain to stick the knife in, one can only surmise: February 13, 1989 following very shortly after December 21, 1988, perhaps?Phase1 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Maps
I took down the SA map as it is a dupe from the South Africa page and there are already two more relevant maps there. Guinnog 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough: I've enlarged the Durban beach image to use up some of the white space alongside the article index.Phase1 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Petty apartheid
Should I make a page on this? It was a common term at the time?Guinnog 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I wont add a new header for this. In my opinion, the use of petty is not entirely encyclopedic. While apartheid was, in some cases, almost laughably petty, it did not seem petty to the perpetrators. Perhaps we can find a better word for "petty"? But it isnt that important, I mean, I dont plan to edit war over it or anything. Banez 17:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- That might be an idea. I personally have never heard the term, but as I was four years old when apartheid ended, it doesnt mean the term doesnt excist. Banez 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Petty apartheid" is even defined in The American Heritage Dictionary (here), so it certainly exists.--Ezeu 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great, then it should stay in the article, and preferably linked in the caption once the article is created. Banez 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, you too. The article is actually pretty good at the moment, I'll see if I can contribute...Cheers Banez 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Nice talking to you, you prodded me in an interesting direction there. The article is pretty thin, feel free to add to it. Guinnog 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem about creating articles like "Petty apartheid" – even for worthy educational purposes – is that those articles inevitably spawn a load more. For example, In South Africa, apartheid was immediately visible to the visitor – there were signs everywhere stating that certain facilities were for whites only. This was called "petty apartheid", as opposed to "grand apartheid" which was the system that reserved 87% of South African land for whites only.[2]Who's going to write the grand apartheid article when the petty one is finished?Phase1 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- There need be no inevitability about it. If someone proposes starting a "grand apartheid" page I would not recommend it, as I do not remember this term from my times in SA in the 80s, your ref appearing to be a modern extension of the concept applied by analogy to the Palestine situation. If you think the Petty apartheid page should be merged into this page, please say so; I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that. Guinnog 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've just realized that "grand apartheid" is already covered in the Background section, so have moved the "petty apartheid" mention to that section too. Hopefully, the circle has now been squared.Phase1 12:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Bop coups?
Can someone find out a ref for the events of the three separate coups-d'etat in Bophuthatswana? Specifically I feel sure that the one where the AWB were shot down in front of the TV cameras was the 1990 one and not the 1994 one. Please help if you can. Guinnog 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Merging Petty Apartheid into this article
I'd like to suggest merging Petty Apartheid into this article. The former contains very little information, while it really discusses what the latter does. No reason for it to be a separate article. brozen 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- The term Petty Apartheid does not only apply to South Africa. Its usage is much broader as you can see here.--Ezeu 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Petty apartheid contains absolutely nothing that isn't already in this article. As for Israel, that aspect is (or should be) discussed in Apartheid outside South Africa or even Racial segregation. My preference would be to see Petty apartheid blanked and redirected to this article. Alr 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- As the originator of the Petty apartheid article, I agree with you here. Guinnog 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Petty apartheid contains absolutely nothing that isn't already in this article. As for Israel, that aspect is (or should be) discussed in Apartheid outside South Africa or even Racial segregation. My preference would be to see Petty apartheid blanked and redirected to this article. Alr 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)