Talk:Apartheid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Apartheid was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Discrimination  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / South Africa (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Oligarchy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Oligarchy task force.
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Archive

Archives


At old location:

Untitled[edit]

At current location:

pronunciation[edit]

Can anyone provide the Afrikaans pronunciation of apartheid in IPA? Not necessarily in the first sentence but somewhere near the beginning. Lfh (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in IPA, but it's 'uh-pehrt-hait' Invmog (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA see Apartheid. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Commentary from a first language Afrikaans speaker: The IPA given in the article is emphatically incorrect. The second syllable is stressed but is definitely not extended. The first two syllables are brief, and to an English speaker may even sound clipped, unless spoken in a cape town drawl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.19.232 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

GOLD.[edit]

This article also seems to miss the real reason for the collapse of Apartheid.

By the early and mid 90s South Africa was sending abroad some 9bn dollars in gold bullion. This was used by a large number of other countries to support their own currencies. While these same countries depending on a regular supply of South African gold for their very existance nobody was ever likely to do any more than take the purely moral high ground against apartheid. The Nationalist government would simply stop supply the gold to anybody with ambitions beyond this and transfer the gold to somebody less ambitious.

The UN embargo mnever did much good as the goods wanted by South Africa would be paid for in gold anyway.

IT was only after the worlds currancies began to move away from gold reserves that the moral cries became louder and small scale action action began.

As always it's the money that talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is connected to Krugerrands and Dollar almost loosing its reserve currency status in 1980. Does anybody have more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.165.223 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs reliable sources, so if you can provide any suggesting this is a factor, please do. Greenman (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The Western economic sanctions caused huge harm to the people of South Africa - blacks mostly, of course. The sugestion of "moral high ground" is ironic, for the Wests "moral" stand caused far more harm than Apartheid ever did. South Africa still hasn't recovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate Article?[edit]

Here's the deal: as the name suggests this article is all about South Africa and apartheid. Now, this no problem, however, this is where people are sent when they click on the link for South African history from 1948 to 1994. But this this article is mainly focused on apartheid in South Africa and its cruelties and demise, not the general history of that nation. Things like South Africa's help during the Korean War is overlooked, as it should be in an article mainly about apartheid, but I'm wondering if there should then be a separate article created to include the general history of South Africa from 1948 to 1994 as it might be inappropriate to include every last notable and verifiable detail of South Africa's general history from 1948 to 1994 into this article as this article is already well-honed to the subject of apartheid segregation in South Africa. Invmog (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely support a separate article. This article is, quite rightly, specific to the subject of apartheid, but we should also have a more general history article for the period 1948 to 1994. I'd also suggest that we use Dablink on both the articles to give reader the opportunity to easily select the article they are interested in should they end up on the wrong one. Obviously the two articles will overlap to some extend; even in a general history article for that time period one will have to cover apartheids major events, but it can be done in less detail that this article and wiki linked where appropriate. There is a lot that happened during that time period that does not fit into this article, the Korean War being just one. First 4 SANAE bases were build. ESKOM, TELKOM and SASOL was established. Christiaan Barnard performed the first successful hart transplant... None of these has a place in an Apartheid specific article. --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with splitting them. If anything, perhaps a Scientific history of South Africa or expanding the already created Economic history of South Africa or Military history of South Africa. If the Korean War is important in your views, then create South African involvement in the Korean War. However, the apartheid regime was involved in all facets of life during that period and forking off would only create confusion and not add a substantial amount--TM 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Wikipedians who live in South Africa, are from SA, or are descendants of South Africans believe that apartheid was a horrible practice, just like segregation in the US and elsewhere, but we wouldn't call our government "the apartheid regime" as you and others have. As is natural we have a certain pride and respect in our heritage even if our predecessors made bad mistakes such as segregation and apartheid, and seeing as there a separate article for segregation in the US than there is for a period of history of the United States then it seemed only reasonable that a separate article be made to deal with the historical time period of South Africa from 1948-1994 apart from this article which deals primarily with the cruel practice of apartheid. Invmog (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, make it so. Separate article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I agree too, but that would be a massive project, should we suggest it at the WikiProject:Africa talk page or do we have any volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talkcontribs) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry; I forgot to sign -> Invmog (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I disagree. The history of South Africa from 1948-1994 cannot be separated from the history of apartheid, just as the history of Germany from 1933-1945 is indistinguishable from the history of the Third Reich. In the US, segregation, bad though as it was, was nonetheless a localized phenomenon confined to the southern states. In South Africa on the other hand, apartheid was the very base of the social, political and economic structure of the country as a whole. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is apartheid specific; it doesn't deal with South Africa's involvement in the Korean war or other topics. This article used to be about the general history of South Africa from 1948-1994, but it changed and now it's honed to apartheid. We don't need to change it, we can just create a separate article. When you say that in the US segregation was a "localized phenomenon confined to the southern states" I hope you realize that the area occupied by the Southern States is more than one and a half times as large as the entire nation of South Africa. Many of us feel as though an independent article which focuses on the general history of South Africa from 1948-1994 is justified. Also, there is a separate article for the racial policies of the Nazis and other article for the Third Reich although they are obviously overlapping subjects. There would of course be made mention of apartheid on the new article, but its main focus would be the general history of the nation instead of an in-depth look at one of their government's regrettably flawed policies as is the main subject of this article. As you can see from the segregation in the US article it covers different subjects than what is covered in the History of the United States (1865–1918) article (I know they had segregation longer but they also had it during 1865–1918.) Invmog (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As before, I concur with two previous editors that the article should not be split. 1) Apartheid is the most important feature of this period, being the basis of the country's political system and 2) that does not prevent other topics from being discussed in this article.
French Third Republic and Spain under Franco are two examples. Obviously, during these periods there were developments in France and Spain that were not directly related to the political systems under which they operated. The names of these articles don't prevent them from covering these developments (such as WW1 in France's case, and the withdrawal from Morocco in Spain's case).
If this article is deficient in its coverage, the answer is to expand it with your knowledge and research of the korean war, etc. This task will not be made any easier by splitting the article. BillMasen (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my intention was never to split the article; this article seems to be doing OK by itself. The proposed subject at hand is that some of the editors feel justified in created an entirely separate article without jeopardizing this one.

You said, "Apartheid is the most important feature of this period, being the basis of the country's political system" Was segregation against the Aborigines Australia's most important feature? Was apartheid the the basis for the entire government of the Republic of South Africa? What about their Constitution? Apartheid was a bad facet of the old South African government, not the government a bad facet of the old apartheid.

As far as just adding things onto this article: there is an article for SA's history from 1910 to 1948 and there's an article about South Africa's history from 1994-present. This article used to be the one in between, but it was renamed and then its focused shifted to dealing primarily with the institution and demise of apartheid, and then a good general history of South Africa article from 1948 to 1994 was passed over.

I don't need consensus on this page to create that article (because it won't directly change this article), but it would be a massive project and so I was looking for ideas and help. Invmog (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If created, expect it to be taken to AfD for discussion.--TM 01:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax, buddy. I wouldn't make an article if I wasn't prepared to discuss it. Besides, it would take me at least 5 months to get around to it and then untold weeks of work if I decide to spend that much time on it. Simply put: unless another interested editor or group of editors take the initiative then it's not likely to be a problem for you anytime soon. Invmog (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my words seem curt. Claiming you "don't need approval", while true, is impolite, especially on a talk page. Creating such an article is a content fork, however.--TM 04:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Was apartheid the the basis for the entire government of the Republic of South Africa? Actually, yes. It was a system of discrimination which subjected the majority of the population, and elevated the remainder to a priveleged status. What about their Constitution? What the government actually does is far more important than what it claims to believe in. The constitution of 1961 only claims that South Africa is a "republic", a designation which has included polities as diverse as Italy and North Korea, the USA and San Marino, Pinochet's Chile and the Soviet Union. As for the claims to be represent the will of God, I consider that no more revealing than East Germany calling itself the Democratic Republic. Apartheid was a bad facet of the old South African government, not the government a bad facet of the old apartheid. Any history of South Africa in this period will identify Apartheid as its most important feature. Therefore the article about SA's history is going to have apartheid in its name. Was segregation against the Aborigines Australia's most important feature? Ask the historians. If histories of that country in that period identify that as the most important feature, then rename that article. For my money, since aborigones don't constitute a majority, their subjection is not the primary feature of that country's later history, though it was the most important in previous eras.
As I said before, there is no obstacle whatever to adding non-apartheid historical material to this page. In fact, I think it would be a great improvement to the article. Why don't you do that? What if we rename the article to South Africa in the apartheid era?BillMasen (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, NamibiaTM, you're right; I should have been more civil. I wanted to point out that I didn't want to spend a lot of precious time discussing things that I wasn't planning on spending time on for least the next 5 months, probably more.

Bill Masen, in keeping with me trying to spend less time on Wikipedia I didn't want to get into a long discussion about an idea that I may never act upon anyway. If I wanted to spend a lot of time on Wikipedia we could add stuff to this article I just thought that not all historians would consider the segregation of apartheid in South Africa that nation's "most important feature" (as in fact there had been forms of segregation in SA and the USA for hundreds of years before "official" segregation and apartheid.) Even for the period from 1948 to 1994 many South Africans would feel swindled if their most honorary mention was a system which almost all of them are ashamed of and deeply regret. Many of them are proud of their infrastructure which they built in that time and the first successful heart transplant Christiaan Barnard performed in the entire world which happened in SA, etc. I thought that this article did such a good job with dealing with apartheid that it would muddle the information add things about involvement in foreign wars or the South Africans success at providing electricity without interruption to their nation (something that the current ANC fails to do, among other things.)

Anyway, so the conclusion of the matter is count me out from any serious editing for about 2 months and then I'll be without access to Wikipedia for three months and so when I get back at the end of 5 months I probably won't care to spend the amount of effort it would take to get a History of South Africa (1948-1994) page up and running, but if I do then it'll probably get shot down anyway, so until then we needn't discuss this tangent subject ad nauseam. Invmog (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't about the feelings of South Africans or anyone else. I think it is a great shame that a great part of my own country's history is defined by a venal empire. I suppose the lesson is, yet again, that we shouldn't define ourselves by our country's history, or hold ourselves responsible for it.
You are of course correct that segregation existed in south africa before 1948. However, the system of apartheid was regarded as a new departure, both by its supporters and by its critics who had authored the formerly existing discriminatory legislation.
I do believe that your suggestions would add to the article, not muddle it. BillMasen (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if you insist, if I find that I have spare time or after I get back in 5 months, having your consent, I could very well add stuff to this article in the future about other aspects of South Africa during that time period. Invmog (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Two seperate articles should certainly exist, one covering Aparthied in South Africa and the other covering the History of South Africa from 1948 - 1994. What has been stated above regarding the overlapping of the two articles is of-course true, certain events will be referenced in both articles as the history of South Africa during that period will always be dominated by Aparthied. But if Wikipedia wants to be all encompassing then it must have a complete history of South Africa during the Aparthied era 1948-1994, however at the same time Apartheid is an important enough topic to have an in-depth article of it's own, seperate from the History of South Africa during that period. It's quite logical really. 41.181.56.160 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This debate misses the point of the real problem, which is this: there is no article formatted to describe Apartheid-Era South Africa as a distinct political regime. The article on the Union of South Africa has at the infobox the Apartheid-era flag, but links directly to the article for present-day South Africa. Imagine if the article for the German Empire included both Wilhelmine and Weimar periods, because the state was still technically called "Deutsches Reich" after the revolution. This problem might or might not necessitate a separate article (I would lean towards yes), but thinking about this or a new article as one for a historical country, rather than for an era or a particular (albeit essential) aspect of the social structure is the solution. Then there is a place for things like South African involvement in the Korean War, or whatever else. TLDR: I want an infobox. 144.89.178.89 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Apartheid" does not solely refer to south africa apartheid. Apartheid is a more general term, and wikipedia should reflect that. Right now the article insinuates as if Apartheid existed only in South africa alone, but that is incorrect. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

unsourced POV edit removed[edit]

Someone thankfully removed a biased and unsourced edit to the article but perhaps the IP editor just never heard of a talk page before so while I don't agree with just about all of what this editor said I'm putting it here in case they want to talk about or find out why it was removed. It said:

"Let's not forget that the majority of areas where in fact "blacks only" if not specified by law or mandate. Making a relatively safe area for whites to live and go to school in was not a lot to ask for. Also, why is there no mention of "mother tongue education" as this was actually meant to further black education in black regions. Without any travel or fees required. Schools were built with white tax money (as black were not required to pay tax) and subsequently, and ungratefully burned down in demonstrations against the white government regime. Just another reason to blame the whites for not educating the blacks i suppose?"

Some points are kinda interesting, but the tone is very unWikipedian and most the argument sort of defeats itself not to mention clear POV and no sources but feel free to comment. Invmog (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lot's of the language used in the article is polemical and prejudicial. --41.135.17.23 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a good point to make - anybody from South Africa or knowing its history would care to add this info to the article? Zezen (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy of apartheid[edit]

I have removed the following text. This is important stuff and ideally needs to be developed into a section about the philosophical background to apartheid and how the thinking changed over time. However, the text I've removed was not coherent or properly cited, so I have moved it here rather than attempt to rewrite it:

However, Werner Eiselen, the man who led the design of apartheid, argued that the government could not sustain segregation and white supremacy.[citation needed] He also, in 1948, proposed apartheid as a "political partition" policy instead of segregation in public facilities. Hence, the idea behind apartheid was more one of political separation, later known as "grand apartheid," than segregation, later known as "petty apartheid." Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd is considered the most influential politician in the growth of apartheid and described it as "a policy of good neighbourliness".[1]

Zaian (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


The introduction is biased and incorrect. Apartheid is not based on "white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule". That is simply false. Grand apartheid is philosophically against the supremacy of any one group - i.e. majority rule. Afikaner rule is a separate matter entirely to Apartheid. I suggest a re-write by an editor who is not so biased against Afrikaners.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.218.220 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I AGREE THIS ARTICLE IS A SHAM. A SHAM. TO SAY THAT AFRIKANERS BELIEVED IN RACIAL SUPERIORITY. THE WHITES WERE 10% - 15% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION, THEY KNEW VERY WELL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY CLAIMED RACIAL SUPERIORITY. THEY WOULD BE CHALLENGED ON THE BATTLEFIELD BY AFRICA'S ARMIES. NO IT WAS THE SOVIET UNION THAT PERSISTED WITH THAT PROPAGANDA LIE TO SEPARATE AND BREAK WHITE SOUTH AFRICA FROM ITS BLACK CAPITALIST ALLIES - UNITA, RENAMO, BOTSWANA AND MANY OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORTED THE WHITES IN SOUTH AFRICA. DO YOU THINK 3 MILLION PEOPLE DIED IN ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQUE, ZAIRE, BELGIUM CONGO, TANZANIA FOR CHARITY? NO THEY DIED TO HELP THE WHITE CAPITALISTS, CAPITALISM, TO SUPPORT THEM ETC. VS. THE SOVIET UNION WHO WANTED TO DESTROY THE WHITES OF SOUTH AFRICA. THE USSR SOLD THIS RACIAL SUPERIORITY LIE TO BREAK THE ALLIANCES BETWEEN THE SOUTH AFRICAN WHITES AND ALL THEIR OTHER PRO-CAPITALIST BLACK ARMIES IN AFRICA. THE WHITES WANTED SEPARATE COUNTRIES TO REMAIN IN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY. THAT WAS ALL. THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS WHO WAS SUPERIOR. THEY JUST HAD TO CHECK THE ENTIRE AFRICA VS. THE WORLD TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE. BUT THE SOVIET UNION WANTED ALL THE SOUTH AFRICAN WEALTH. SO THEY LIED AND DISTORTED TO CREATE DIVISIONS BETWEEN EVERYONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.171.251.81 (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GOLD addition[edit]

I missed a couple of words from my original input. The figure should have read $9BN...a month.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More GOLD.[edit]

It was a speech by Henrik Verwoerd in Pretoria that probably best summarises the South African situation with Apartheid and the gold exports.

     "Nobody is going to bother South Africa while they need our gold".

This may have been recorded in "Die Transvaler".

According to the 1960s British newspaper "Daily Worker", Field Marshal Montgomery had offered his services to the Nationalist government

        "to clear the blacks out of South Africa".

Unfortunately I don't whether there was ever an answer to this offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of Communism Act[edit]

I suspect anti-communism was an excuse for that repressive law, given the early Cold War date; however, I don't have a reliable source on hand backing up that supposition. However, the Cold War and McCarthyism are both well-known facts, so I simply stated those facts without the suspicion. Nonetheless, communism was probably a pretty handy scapegoat... 192.12.88.7 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

McCarthyism had nothing to do with suppression of communism in South Africa. Zaian (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

ANC strategy to end Apartheid and "people's war"[edit]

The problem I have with this section is that the source used, while generally respected, makes a number of exceptional claims (like most of the ANC exiles were armed soldiers and the 1994 election was "so chaotic that no accurate result could be computed"). These claims, which are not generally supported by most other sources make me question the reliability of the source overall.--TM 10:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is based on a single source, and uncritically reproducing the points argued by that source results in a POV section, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It would be far better to use facts cited in that source to improve other parts of the article. Anonymous editor, if you are willing to do that, great, otherwise I'm inclined to remove the whole section to the talk page until someone else does. Zaian (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two sources cited for this section, including a trascript of the original Green Book which was adopted by the ANC as a strategy document in 1979. The transcript of the green book was translated by the previous ANC minister for cultural affairs and should therefore be very reliable. As such I will endeavour to list additional sources which also concurs with the information in this section. As most of the article highlights the situation and strategy of the incumbend government during Apartheid, it would seem pertinent to also state the strategic rationale employed by the ANC as main detractors of the policy of Apartheid. This therefore should rather evolve into a more prominent section and could even become an article in it's own right. Feel free to add data as you wish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.222.166 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, an analysis of the ANC's strategy is valid in this article, but however many sources you find for the text that you have added, it doesn't change the fact that this whole section is derived from the SAIRR publication and pushes the SAIRR publication's agenda. You need to merge the content with the rest of the article, otherwise it will remain a POV section. Zaian (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be entirely possible to add to the section from other sources whose opinion may not be shared by the SAIRR, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.222.166 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's also an option. Are you offering, or are you suggesting that someone else should do that? Zaian (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think creating another section is a solution for this section. This section should be deleted and entirely rewritten using a variety of reputable sources.--TM 05:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the section, since the anonymous author didn't make the suggested improvements, and why should others have to clean up his/her POV work? Zaian (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

International recognition of the Bantustans[edit]

I have added a section dealing with the extent to which the Bantustans where regarded as sovereign states by other countries. I feel this is germane to the article given that this goes to the point of Bantustan independence; the SA gov at the time wanted desperately to have the BS states as independent polities while most of the rest of the world disagreed. Further, I think it is important that Israel's very cosy relationship with the apartheid gov be recorded somewhere, and this is as good a place as any.Eccohomo (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted; none of this constitutes recognition; the main source used is highly questionable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Israel and South African relationships were up and down. In fact in a UN vote on whether to bring in sanctions against South Africa, Israel was the only country to vote for them. Israel needed to "hate" South Africa in order to make friends with the rest of Africa. After the Sixday war, when Africa severred all ties with Israel, only then did they crawl to South Africa to be friends. Even now they are both in very similar conditions, both states who give preference to one ethnic group over another. The only difference is that the Palestians have some sort of homeland (or area), the White South Africans have none. Israel never recognised the Bantustans because then other countries would threaten to sever ties with Israel such as Europe and the US. Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Applicability of Template:Infobox former country[edit]

Before i'd do something stupid on my own (like adding the template in question), I would like to know if anyone thinks that this template is applicable?
I, for one, think that this template is very much applicable - Because it discusses an era of which the white race was dominant, which isn't the same as today in which South Africa is multi-racial.
Your reply is very much wanted. --Jjulio Milagros Ccesar (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well South Africa has always been multi-racial. The only difference between this South Africa and the one under apartheid is that there are multiple races in the business spectrum. Political parties are still either Black or non-black, the president has to be a black anti-apartheid activist (just like the president had to be white under apartheid). I will accept you add that template once you add one to America, when it was unofficially under apartheid too. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So, is that a NO, or a YES? --Jjulio Milagros Ccesar (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Err... the president has to be black just like he had to white under apartheid? which country are you talking about ? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
@Jjulio it is a NO :) @Seb, South Africa. I think I read it somewhere where because of the Broederbond or something the National party only allowed white male calvinists to be president. And now of course I can't imagine a non-black non-ANC non-Anti-apartheid activist becoming president? Bezuidenhout (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about calvinist and Afrikaner, but certainly under apartheid the president, by law, had to be white. There is no law in present-day SA that says the president needs to be black. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not officially Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You're making soapbox statements, and this is not the place. Zaian (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, but apart from my soapbox statements, I think this is a no because apartheid wasn't exactly a "nation", sure the flag (but not COA) changed in 1994, but just like America transformed into a more multi-racial (for example that black people had to give up their sear in buses etc.), I think South Africa did the same. However some people vaguely put a date to when SA "transformed", most commonly in 1994, but 'whites only' signs were coming down even in the eighties. On a serious and unopinionated note I think it's a no from me, the situation is different to for example the Union of South Africa/Republic of South Africa. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a No, definitely the same country. Zaian (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 'International Recognition of the Bantustans'[edit]

This section was removed. I am not an expert, but a quick web search shows that international recognition is an important topic and it was, indeed, limited. I don't know about the 2nd paragraph yet, or the claim, by the person who removed this that the sources are not good enough. So I'm bringing this to the talk page, so that we can consider putting at least parts of it back. futurebird (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's simple: there was no recognition. The TRNC has a trade-mission in the UK; that doesn't mean it's recognized by the British government. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think an edited version of this portion should be restored to the main article. I think readers need to know about the complex position that aparthied occupied in the world, and that other nations (such as Israel) played a role in enabling the SA government to comitt the human rights attrocities associated with aparthied. To simply state that there was 'no' recognition oversimplifies things a bit; there was never full recognition, but Israel did, in some crucial respects, treated the Bantustans as though they were real countries. The point about the TRNC supports my argument. The relationship between the UK and the TRNC is analogous to that between the Bantustans and Israel. The UK treats the TRNC as though it is a country, in some respects, even if it stops short of extending the same sort of recognition it would extend to France, for example. It is impossible for a polity to build a trade mission in a country unless the country believes, on some level, it is dealing with another country. Contrats the TRNC with Western Sahara, or many other unrecognized states; the UK would never allow such entities to build trade missions in London, because it does not regard them as even remotely country-like.

And the point about the trade mission ignores the fact that the Israeli government hosted offocials from these countires and sold weapons to their governments. Again, this shows that Israel may not have believed the Bantustans were actually fully-flegded countries, they did extend some sort of recognition to them; how is it possible for a govrenment to openly sell weapons to an entitity which it does not recognize at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.30.135 (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

International Recognition of the Bantustans[edit]

Bantustans within the borders of South Africa were classified as ‘self-governing’ or’ independent’. In theory, self-governing Bantustans had control over many aspects of their internal functioning but were not yet sovereign nations while independent Bantustans (Transkei, Bophutatswana, Ciskei and Venda; also known as the TBVC states) were intended to be fully sovereign. In reality, lack of economic infrastructure meant all the Bantustans were little more than puppet states controlled by South Africa.

International recognition for these new countries was extremely limited. Each TBVC state extended recognition to the other independent Bantustans while South Africa showed its commitment to the notion of TBVC sovereignty by building embassies in the various TBVC capitals. Israel was the only internationally recognized country and UN member to afford some sort of diplomatic recognition to any of the Bantustans, though formal acknowledgment of the Bantustans as fully-fledged countries never occurred.[2] In late 1982, the Ciskei Trade Mission opened in Tel Aviv, flying its own flag and staffed by two Israelis, Yosef Schneider and Nat Rosenwasser, who were employed by the Ciskei Foreign Ministry.[2] Bophuthatswana also had a representative in Israel, Shabtai Kalmonowitz.[2] In 1983 Israel was visited by the presidents of both Bophuthatswana and Ciskei, as well as by Venda’s entire chamber of commerce.[2] During this visit Lennox Sebe, the Ciskeian Prescient secured a contract with the Israeli government to supply and train his armed forces.[2] Initially, six planes – at least one a military helicopter – were sold to Ciskei, and 18 Ciskei residents arrived in Israel for pilot training.[2] In 1985 Israel received Buthelezi as Chief Minister of KwaZulu during an unofficial visit in 1985.[3] Further, Taiwan encouraged business deals between Taiwanese investors and homeland industries.[4]

References[edit]

Error in Introduction?[edit]

In the opening header, it reads:

"...apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1993."

Is this an error? Does this refer to the general election of 1948? I am by no means an expert. Rfreed314 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism that I reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Rfreed314 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is worth mentioning that "Apartheid" was not used to describe the racially motivated polices in 1948. The term came later. 1948 is significant because of the National Party's rise to political dominance which, in turn, led to specific laws and policies. Racially discriminatory policies were already in place long before. Using the term to describe South Africa's racial laws and policies before the time of Verwoerd is applying it retroactively, which is not necessarily wrong, but should be clarified.41.160.161.117 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If anything, the term came a couple of decades earlier and was used by Malan in political debate as an alternative to segregation before the end of World War II. Giliomee, for example, documents the term's genealogy in The Afrikaners and other publications. The term "apartheid" is used repeatedly in the NP's election manifesto and other campaign documents from 1948. Perhaps you're thinking of "separate development," which replaced "apartheid" in official NP discourse later on. Sgelbman (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Publications Help?[edit]

I am aware this is not an appropriate place to post this but, I am certain that the Malaysian government is not allowing the site to contact anyone about publishing and distribution. I cannot find a copy of this book for sale anywhere. Could Wikipedia source a point of sale or help the author to get some sort of book deal? I noticed that the emails to the site are also not being answered. Maybe all communications are blocked somehow? I know that socio-political apartheid aginst the Chinese and Indian minorities is being done, also LGBT is being suppressed in Malaysia, so this could also add to the reason for this book to be published. I think the authors site has references to LGBT support, which Malaysia's extreme section of Islamists hate. Just wanted to shine a light on some degenerates and give some authors a hand. See site below :

http://malaysiandemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ajttmhob.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.150.138 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Awkward titling?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the title here "South Africa under apartheid" and not just "Apartheid"? The vast majority of sources point to Apartheid as a piece of South African history. Why does the title have to call out "South Africa"? It strike me that this is a somewhat awkward attempt to differentiate between actual apartheid, and the various analogies to apartheid in other contexts that have been made over time. I'm sure this discussion has been had before, so I only ask that some more involved editor point me in the direction of that discussion. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, as an article "South Africa under.." would refer to EVERYTHING that occured under that time (such as improved healthcare and the economic boom), but instead this article focuses on apartheid. On the other hand people sometimes refer to what is happening in Israel as Apartheid, but this is very contraversial as that is actually a very different situation (in Israel the "oppresors" are Jews, who are the majority, while in SA whites are a minority, also in Israel Arabs are allowed to vote, and have almost the same rights as Jews). Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
"sometimes refer to what is happening in Israel as Apartheid" - If someone claims that what's happening in Israel is apartheid, they are wrong b/c Apartheid refers to a specific thing that happened in South Africa. If someone claims that what's happing in Israel is like apartheid, they may be correct (don't want to wade too far into that debate).
I know this is off-point, but is "Jews, who are the majority," true? If you combine the population of the Palestinian territories and "Arab Israelis" (or "Arab citizens of Israel", whatever the politically-correct term is) are Jews a slight minority? NickCT (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, your first statement was kind of irrelevant because I meant that, I know there aren't signs saying "non-jews" for benches. Secondly I think your second point is off-topic for thie discussion. But for my own interest there are over 5.7 million Jews in Israel and an extra ~500,000 in West Bank, so thats 6.2 million, as apposed to 5.3 million Palestinians in Israel/WestB/Gaza. But I don't classify Gaza as part of Israel anymore, especially since it has mostly Palestinian control (with the exception of the military) and has virtually no more Jews living there. So that can possibly bring down the arabs to 3.8 mil arabs. Either way Jews are a majority, and a 75% Majority in Israel itself, wheras whites in SA made up a majority in NO province or region, let alone a country. Apart from that, the article shouldn't be placed at its current title. If we keep it as this then we should start a demgrophical section and maybe an economical section on the "secrets of apartheid-South Africa". Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Well this thread doesn't seem to have generated much comment, but there doesn't appear to be anyone arguing "South Africa under apartheid" is a logical title. Would anyone oppose a move request being put in for this page to simply be titled "Apartheid"? NickCT (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a long history over several years of debate over the name - perhaps you want to read the archive arguments and see whether you still want to pursue the change. Greenman (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to any RfCs or move requests in recent history (i.e. the past three years)? NickCT (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Changing the name would not be helpful. This article is about South Africa and its apartheid system, its background, consequences, and so on. If the article were just "Apartheid", people would want to focus on merely that term, and start introducing modern day usage, and other unhelpful stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think our point is that the term "Apartheid" refers to "South Africa and its apartheid system", so including South Africa in the title seems sorta redundant. I don't feel too strongly about this, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of move request/RfC/straw poll to try and demonstrate consensus. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Arpatheid also took place in South-West Africa (Namibia), so having South Africa in the title implies that this article is not fully inclusive, which it is. Besides, when people think "Apartheid", they think of the system in South Africa and Namibia that was in place from 1948 to 1994, and Apartheid already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Western influence[edit]

This part is pure Reagan and Thatcher apologetics.

Other Western countries adopted a more ambivalent position. In the 1980s, both the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, in the USA and UK respectively, followed a 'constructive engagement' policy with the apartheid government, vetoing the imposition of UN economic sanctions on South Africa, justified by a belief in free trade and a vision of South Africa as a bastion against Marxist forces in Southern Africa.

"Ambivalent position." "Constructive engagement."

This goes against Wiki's policy of not using weasel words and phrases.

Reagan and Thatcher never spoke out against racism. There is nothing in their lives that suggest that they should have felt even the least bit ambivalent about what went on in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Apartheid: 1993 or 1994[edit]

In 1993 the last of the apartheid legislation was abolished; Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa has information. Essentially, apartheid had to be ended before everyone could vote!

Grant McKenna (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Racism in South Africa redirect[edit]

Resolved

Redirect has been changed to broader racism article. HelenOnline 08:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does "Racism in South Africa" redirect here? That should be a separate article there. Racism of all kinds existed wayyy before Apartheid even started (before 1948 there was an informal apartheid just like in America that existed) but even now there is still wide-spread racism and prejudice, maybe an article of Racism against blacks and also against whites should be made? Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should have a separate article, in that Apartheid is over, but racism in South Africa is still a problem. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the Racism in South Africa redirect to Racism instead of here. HelenOnline 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)



South Africa under apartheidApartheid in South Africa – I think this title would be better as it would match the category title and as it would emphasise Apartheid which is the subject of the article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk). Also, as mentioned in an earlier discussion, "South Africa under apartheid" actually refers to anything and everything that happened in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 - the proposed title focuses specifically on the apartheid system.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. As per nom. Crisp and clear title. -DePiep (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conflicted The proposed title suggests we should have other "Apartheid in X" articles. However that would be a mistake because while people talk about "apartheid" here and there (to disagree with some usually political position), there is no apartheid except for South Africa in the historical period described in this article. I know there are other "apartheid" articles, but they are named by a false analogy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Response No more than the current title suggests we should have other "X under apartheid" articles. My first preference would be to rename this article Apartheid but as that doesn't seem to be possible Apartheid in South Africa is second best. Changing the name of this article would not make it more or less likely that other "Apartheid in X" or "X under apartheid" articles would be created. If that is your concern the way to address that is by getting any such articles deleted, not through the naming of this article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have thought that this title was cumbersome and misplaced for years. First off, Apartheid in Namibia/South West Africa was quite real and different than apartheid in South Africa. Quite worthy of a separate article IMO.--TM 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed with TM. (By the way, Johnuniq, as defined under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the crime of apartheid (a crime against humanity) needn't be exactly identical to South African apartheid. Under the Rome Statute's definition, Israel can be called an apartheid state. Additionally, Rhodesia is another example, besides Namibia/South West Africa, of an historical apartheid state. Apartheid is not a purely South African phenomenon.) — Life in General Talk/Stalk 15:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry to breach NOTFORUM, but those examples are political assertions not based in reality. Yes, there are similarities, and the word "apartheid" can be stretched to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, but there was only ever one true apartheid, while we have Apartheid (disambiguation) for the other cases also described as "apartheid". Still, I have to get with the times, and it is true that words get watered down and extended as time passes, so I'm not objecting to the move. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Van Schalkwyk apology[edit]

Regarding this edit, I've reverted, since every news source I can find refers to this as an apology, although I agree the words quoted in the article are ambiguous. The source claims it as an apology so let's rather leave in for now and search for the full text to verify. Greenman (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversions like this are one of the reasons I have stopped editing Wikipedia. While I appreciate the acknowledgement, frankly it is hard to asssume good faith when one has observed repeated examples of a) reversions that suggest waiting for some unspecified period; b) ambiguity as a defence, c) the reversion war, d) the apparently neutral review in which friends of the reverter get involved.
It is self-evident that Mr. van Schalkwyk's words do not represent an apology. You acknowledge as much. At best they can be attributed to the NNP as an entity rather than the individual who occupied the leadership position at that time.
In the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/11/southafrica.andrewmeldrum) two phrases are cited verbatim on the matter of apology; a BBC article covering the same press conference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4429307.stm) also cites item 1:
1) "The National party brought development to a section of South Africa, but also brought suffering through a system grounded on injustice,"
2) "No party ... could hope to successfully atone and move ahead in the same vehicle,"
Neither quotation represents an apology. Neither reflects any personal sentiment. The first is an acknowledgement that apartheid was a mistake; the second is merely an allusion to what a party can or cannot expect to get away with tactically.
You are obviously knowledgeable about South Africa. I assume you are familiar with the context in which Mr. van Schalkwyk made these remarks - disbanding the National Party to join that of his former enemies. He was slated at the time by FW de Klerk and faced harsh criticism from NNP supporters (see the Guardian article). He earned a reputation in the Afrikaans press as something of a quisling never mind becoming the subject of much derision.
Social psychology and communication science teach that messages from which a communicator will benefit are never as credible as those made when nothing is at stake. Mr van Schalkwyk's words hardly compare to those offered by messrs de Klerk (on more than one occasion), Vlok and Wessels: none of whom stood to benefit from what they said when they said it. Mr de Klerk withdrew from the Government of National Unity. Mr Vlok only heaped humility, if not humiliation on himself. Mr Wessels' remarks at the TRC are self-incriminating - a step considerably further down the path of contrition than apology. (see Leon Wessels)
The suggestion that "... the source claims it as an apology ..." is disingenuous. Both sources resort to editorializing. They find it necessary to frame Mr. van Schalkwyk's words as an apology rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. Consider the event that the articles were covering. What is germane: that the National Party is finally being disbanded, that the leadership is sacrificing the party to protect their political careers, or that there is an apology by another apartheid-era politician. In deciding your answer consider that Mr Wessels apologizes in 1990, messrs de Klerk and Vlok in 1997. Mr van Schalwyk waits 8 years (or 15 if one is parsimonious). When Mr Vlok washes the feet of Rev Chikane the South African Council of Churches responds: ".... Vlok and his former government colleagues still [owe] the South African people a full confession." I wonder what they made of Mr van Schalkwyk's words.Suidafrikaan (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. However, it is not self evident since there is no link to Van Schalkwyk's full statement, but numerous sources describe it as an apology. They may all be wrong, but there needs to be a reliable source making this claim. Let's find the full statement, and let's find a reliable source that frames the statement in the same way as you do. In the meantime, the claim can be flagged with an appropriate template so that others can investigate further. Greenman (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Precursors of Apartheid[edit]

In the article there is a section that reads:

"in 1797 the Landdrost and Heemraden of Swellendam and Graaff-Reinett (the Dutch colonial governing authority) extended pass laws beyond slaves and ordained that all Hottentots moving about the country for any purpose should carry passes."

The problem with this statement is that the Dutch had already surrendered [1] [2] the Cape to the British on 16 September 1795. In short, there was only a BRITISH colonial governing authority at the time, and no Dutch authority. The new British Commander at the Cape, Major-General Craig, was very clear about his intentions towards the white "Dutch" Afrikaners ("Boors", as he calls them), as can be seen from his own 12 April 1796 letter to his bosses in London. He proposes to arm the indigenous Hottentots to intimidate the "Dutch" Afrikaner citizens whose welfare had been entrusted to him [3] [4]:

"Amongst the measures which I have been anxious to carry into effect for some time past has been that of collecting and arming a body of Hottentots. Nothing I know would intimidate the Boors of the Country more..[...]... I have assurance of near 200 who ought to have arrived some days ago...[...]... I have promised to arm and cloathe them, to give them rations, and sixpence per week, on condition of their engaging not to quit His Majesty's Service for a year."

The above provides both the required references and the essential background to events at the Cape at the time.

References:

  1. ^ http://databases.tanap.net/cgh/main.cfm?artikelid=25615 "Cape Archives: Resolutions of the Council of Policy of Cape of Good Hope C.231, pp. 540-544"
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muizenberg
  3. ^ Theal,G. McCall (1897). "Records of the Cape Colony, Vol.1", p.354. Government of the Cape Colony, London
  4. ^ http://archive.org/stream/recordsofcapecol01theauoft#page/354/mode/2up

Cfogge (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

BulbBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The end of Apartheid and the end of Communism[edit]

There has been some small mention of the West seeing Apartheid as a bastion against Marxism.

However, I feel that this needs to be stressed. Apartheid was kept afloat by US and European loans and investment. As soon as it became clear that the USSR was finished, that money dried up. The West had no more use for a government that was founded by people who had been jailed during the Second World War for being Nazi sympathisers, a system which they had lost millions of men in defeating.

It's no coincidence that Apartheid and the Berlin Wall came down within a year of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.77.168.5 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading[edit]

Resolved

Redirect has been changed to broader racism article. HelenOnline 08:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is not about racism in South Africa, it is about historical Apartheid. Two different things. I do research and I'm looking for anti-White racism in modern South Africa. This page is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see Racism in South Africa redirects here. It is about state-sponsored racism in South Africa. The general racism article and Julius Malema#Racism controversies and hate speech convictions might help you. Helen (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) See also Employment Equity#South Africa (which is not considered racism post-apartheid). Helen (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, however I was looking more for something like this [1], [2]. I've found South African farm attacks but it focuses only on the farm attacks while excluding anti-White racism in media, work employment, education and so on. For example, on 8 January 2012, after giving a speech at the ANC Centennial 2012 celebrations in Bloemfontein, South Africa, president Jacob Zuma sang the "shoot the Boer" song. If the president of South Africa sings songs about shooting anybody, and especially Boers (White South Africans) then there's a serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
We have crime and we have Employment Equity, but these issues are not necessarily about racism even though some people might have that opinion. My personal view is that there is some anti-White racism in the political arena, but anti-White "racism" in general society is not a major issue. Other people may differ, and someone may even feel strongly enough to write a Wikipedia article about it one day. Helen (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Section and/or Article for Misconceptions?[edit]

There is a lot of info that holds that some of the official facts of the conditions of Apartheid are at least somewhat arguable. Is anyone looking into setting up a page or section that covers these claims? CarringtonEnglish T CFlag of the United Kingdom.svg 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My personal impression, as a South African, is that several articles on South Africa need a lot of work to clean them up and improve neutrality. I am trying to do what I can but I am only one and we don't have an army of editors with capacity to do radical editing (versus monitoring articles for vandalism). HelenOnline 07:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dating of student protests seems to be wrong[edit]

"One such protest was conducted on both University of Illinois campuses in the spring of 1977 influenced by a similar protest at Columbia University in 1985."

Something's not right here. The later event can't influence the earlier event. 79.97.91.65 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the confusing part which did not tally with the source cited either. HelenOnline 18:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. A history swap will be done with existing page history at Apartheid--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Apartheid in South AfricaApartheid – The title is not inclusive enough, as Apartheid was also was in place in South-West Africa (Namibia), plus, when people think "Apartheid", are they really thinking about anything else. Charles Essie (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support With respect to Charles, I'm not sure I understand the nomination. However, the proposed title already redirects here, so WP:CONCISE applies, and you're certainly right that when people think "apartheid" that this is what they're thinking of (i.e., WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although it's already established as such). Finally, WP:COMMONNAME applies as well. This system was called apartheid. The phrase "apartheid in South Africa" borders on redundant, and is generally only going to be used in comparison to similar systems elsewhere (e.g., Jim Crow laws) or to an audience that is just learning the term (e.g., schoolchildren). --BDD (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support apartheid as a system of laws only happened in South African and Namibia. Bevo74 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - "apartheid" unqualified always refers to South Africa. The fact of the redirect further bolsters the argument. - htonl (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The soft disambiguation page doesn't really serve any benefit. The other uses of the term, such as the crime of apartheid, are sufficiently covered by the hatnote. Neljack (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support but can we include a section about Namibia and slightly rescope this article? Red Slash 05:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and I agree with Red Slash's suggestion, Namibia and South Africa were basically the same country until 1990.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per htonl above. —Bruce1eetalk 07:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Move to Apartheid, slightly rescoping and generalizing the article to a broad concept article, and spin out Apartheid in South Africa to cover specifically the the period of of official South African apartheid. Apartheid is a word, albeit foreign, and primarily associated with the South African practice, but it has a longer history, slightly more broad than South Africa, and significantly widened in modern usage. It is more than the system of laws only happened in South African and Namibia. "Apartheid" unqualified does not always refers to South Africa, although when it doesn't, a comparative allusion is always there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014[edit]

The following sentence is 100% incorrect - it even says at the bottom [dead link]!

"Colonialism and apartheid had a major impact on women since they suffered both racial and gender discrimination. Oppression against black and coloured women was different from discrimination against men. They had very few or no legal rights, no access to education and no right to own property."

This person was never in South Africa during apartheid. Never. It is absolutely 100% untrue.

Here's an article on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Africa

Check in the right hand column: Females over 25 with secondary education. Secondary education means high school.

68.9%

68.9% of South African women went to high school during apartheid. Apartheid was from 1948 to 1990. That's 20 years ago! Females over 25! that had high school: I repeat: 68.9% of South African women went to high school during apartheid. 68.9% of the women have high school.

South Africa had the highest literacy rate in Africa.

South Africa was not a Middle Eastern country where the women didn't have rights. They went to school. You've probably seen the 1992 movie Sarafina? Where Whoopi Goldberg, a black teacher and a black school girl dances around, singing songs? The black South African school girls went to school. 68.9% of the South African women, over 25, have high school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarafina!_(film)

"no right to own property" - untrue "no legal rights" - also untrue - Mandela even defended black women in court. Just watch the 2013 movie "A long walk to freedom".

Please remove that sentence because it is 100% untrue.

Thank you for help,

Best regards,

Wynand Meyering.

Wynandmeyering (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I left the first sentence in. Women did not have equal rights to men, that much is true. HelenOnline 14:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I grew up in South Africa during apartheid, and remember e.g. married women not being able to open a store account without their husband's permission. This source covers some improvements in women's property rights in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. HelenOnline 15:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

dompas[edit]

The dompas was so-called because it was introduced under Johannes Strijdom, not because it means "stupid pass" in Afrikaans.

197.87.92.48 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Communists have written a lot of rubbish here[edit]

Now what must we do? We that know the truth? They quote from communist literature. What must we do that know that the truth is different? Must we now go and find literature that disproves them or WHAT!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.48.223.241 (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Proposed change to second par[edit]

"colonial times under Dutch rule" change to "the former South African Republic" Reasoning:

  • There are multiple acceptable citations for this, but after looking at the existing citation, it can/should remain and additional citations added.
  • A very simple and completely adequate and undeniable citation would just be the actual racist constitution and laws of that former country.
  • It is a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV edit
  • This was legislated racism in Southern Africa, with a pass system, for: "coloured people"
  • All people of SA should be mature enough to deal with this at this time
  • One could also expand on this and add that in the ZAR, all "coloured people" were forced to have a pass, after the discovery of gold, people of other races were forced to live in ghettos outside cities. Although, all I want to edit at this time, is only the replacement of the five words with five other words, as stated above.

Any comments/additions before I do this edit? Zarpboer (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my POV as per above is incorrect, I do want to bring in the legislated and forced racial segregation of the ZAR, as this is one of the places where this crime on humanity started/was promoted or made somehow "acceptable" also, it was not just racism, but racialism, any comments, help with where this caould go, if it all? Zarpboer (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Having now researched, from neutral sources, I wish to develop and improve this extremely important page as it assists many people to understand Apartheid, what it was, where it came from, how it developed and how it became a heinous crime against humanity. Proposed new heading below, please edit and develop on this talk page, as Apartheid has many strong POV.

It is important for the many coming generations of Africans of all races to understand how terrible and how heinous this crime was.

Please edit the section below, so that we can build this in a WP:NPOV manner, with consensus and discuss your changes below, in the changes section (new heading) and please do not edit here to avoid confusion

Early History of Apartheid[edit]

Apartheid did not suddenly happen one day in 1948 when an Afrikaner Broederbonder awoke and decided that it was a good idea to oppress the Black race. Black people have been discriminated, dehumanized, oppressed and stolen to be sold as slaves in overseas foreign white countries for many hundreds of years in Africa and Southern Africa. From the first day that white Europeans arrived in Africa they viewed the Coloured races as dirty ungodly savages. Racial segregation, racialism and racism has a very rich and often violent history in South Africa. The technology that eventually resulted in the application of large scale separate racial development developed from the initial racism to the township or legislated ghetto Apartheid of the late 19th century. After the discovery of Gold in the South African Republic, all non European races were forced to stay in ghettos outside cities. Reasons used by the Dutch ZAR Government to justify this forced separation were often that blacks were dirty and that racial segregation was required for health and hygienic reasons. It is these ghettos that developed into townships which kept races apart in South Africa and that eventually gave birth to the full scale separate racial development legislation or Apartheid.

The european races, as well as other races, have been discriminating against each other for centuries. In Africa, black races were viewed as uncivilized animals and entire tribes were captured and sold as slaves. Internationally the practice of slavery began to cease after 1833, when Britain also outlawed slavery. In South Africa, slavery however did not cease. It was replaced with a system of indentured workers, which is still a form of slavery. From the first day that white Europeans arrived in Africa they viewed all the Coloured races, those of the San through to the Black tribes, as dirty ungodly savages. Racial segregation, racialism and racism has a very rich and often violent history in South Africa. The technology that eventually resulted in the application of large scale separate racial development developed from the initial racism to the township or legislated ghetto Apartheid of the late 19th century. After the discovery of Gold in the South African Republic, all non European races were forced to stay in ghettos outside cities. Reasons used by the Dutch ZAR government to justify this forced separation were often that blacks were dirty and that racial segregation was required for health and hygienic reasons. The stated public view of the British overlords of the time was of white race superiority and that the black man was inferior to the white race. With the vast majority of development in South Africa occurring around the extremely rich gold fields of the Witwaters Rand, this is also where the beating heart of the policy of Apartheid was further developed, influenced and formulated. Zarpboer (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
To understand the history of Apartheid and how it developed into a crime on humanity, the untenable essentialist and typological conceptualizational race point of view has to be understood. The social commentator, Martin Warburg said "Races are not equal. What is more, they never have been" and "People – and groups of people – are simply different or, if you prefer, unequal", he added: "As the technologically developed world and one less so clashed, inequality was exposed and races became shorthand for the cultural and cognitive asymmetries between peoples". It is also these perceived differences in races, their cultural development and technology that led to racial exploitation and justification in terms of slavery, colonialism as well as the heinous crime of Apartheid. However, the domination of one race over another in Southern Africa was not exclusive only to the European race. The stronger, bigger and more powerfully developed Black race displaced the San race. The superior weapons technology of the Zulus was used to dominate, displace and destroy during the Mfecane. Similarly, in Africa, you also found Europeans held as slaves to Black races and racism is not an invention of or limited to, any specific race. Stronger and more technologically advanced races, have been dominating one another from ancient times and racial subjugation is not a recent invention. It is this belief that races are so different, that races could not live together with their differences, and that races are and could never be equal, that led to legislation and laws that was based on race.

Apartheid in South Africa rested on the dehumanization of other racial groups by the European race and the incorrect but strongly held belief that the European race is superior to other races. From the first day that white Europeans arrived in Africa they viewed all the Coloured races, those of the San through to the Black tribes, as dirty ungodly savages. Racial segregation, racialism and racism has a very rich and often violent history in South Africa. Zarpboer (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Slavery[edit]

Slavery is a very old principle where people of all races are treated as property. In Africa it was more common for the more technologically advanced Europeans to enslave people from Africa but European races were also captured in Africa and sold as slaves. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies. All races have been dominating and exploiting each other for centuries. Internationally the practice of slavery began to cease after 1833, when Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act which outlawed the practice of slavery. In South Africa however slavery did not simply cease. The British replaced it with a system of indentured workers in 1835, which was still a form of slavery. Many Europeans, Blacks and other races were held under the indentured worker system in South Africa.


Colonial racialism and segregation[edit]

In Colonial times the Khoikhoi were segregated from the Europeans, staying in kraals and outside of European settlements, in their own settlements. In 1797 the Landdrost and Heemraden of Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet (the Dutch colonial governing authority) extended pass laws beyond slaves and ordained that all Khoikhoi (Hottentots) moving about the country for any purpose should carry passes. This was confirmed by the British Colonial government in 1809 by the Hottentot Proclamation, which decreed that if a Khoikhoi were to move they would need a pass from their master or a local official. Ordinance No. 49 of 1828 decreed that prospective black immigrants were to be granted passes for the sole purpose of seeking work.


Racialism and segregation during 19th century[edit]

The Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892 instituted limits based on financial means and education to the black franchise,[14] and the Natal Legislative Assembly Bill of 1894 deprived Indians of the right to vote. Racialism was also institutionalized in the ZAR country (1852-1902) and discrimination on the basis of race was prevalent. Even coloured British subjects were forced to reside in ghettos outside cities with Asian and black races, whilst white races were free to live anywhere. The ZAR Government was extremely racist and excuses often used for segregation was: "sanitation and regard to public health necessitated that measure of segregation". During the Second Boer War, the British exercised racial segregation and kept the white boer women and children in separate concentration camps to the black women and children. The number of dead black children and dead black women are unknown but are estimated to have exceeded that of the white women and children, there is scant information regarding the native camps as any information in regard to the native camps were "incidentally furnished" with information about the working of the white refugee camps. Even the total number of natives (black people) in all the camps were only estimates (80 000) and death rate estimates are on average of around 50 to 271 per thousand per month. In 1903, British Lord Alfred Milner argued eloquently, in a public speech, for white race superiority and stated convincingly that the black race was inferior to the white race.

Racialism in the early 20th Century[edit]

In 1905 the General Pass Regulations Act denied blacks the vote, limited them to fixed areas and inaugurated the infamous Pass System.[16] The Asiatic Registration Act (1906) required all Indians to register and carry passes.[17] In 1910 the Union of South Africa was created as a self-governing dominion, which continued the legislative programme: the South Africa Act (1910) enfranchised whites, giving them complete political control over all other racial groups while removing the right of blacks to sit in parliament,[18] the Native Land Act (1913) prevented blacks, except those in the Cape, from buying land outside "reserves",[18] the Natives in Urban Areas Bill (1918) was designed to force blacks into "locations",[19] the Urban Areas Act (1923) introduced residential segregation and provided cheap labour for industry led by white people, the Colour Bar Act (1926) prevented black mine workers from practising skilled trades, the Native Administration Act (1927) made the British Crown, rather than paramount chiefs, the supreme head over all African affairs,[20] the Native Land and Trust Act (1936) complemented the 1913 Native Land Act and, in the same year, the Representation of Natives Act removed previous black voters from the Cape voters' roll and allowed them to elect three whites to Parliament.[21] One of the first pieces of segregating legislation enacted by Jan Smuts' United Party government was the Asiatic Land Tenure Bill (1946), which banned land sales to Indians.

Please edit the above and discuss your edit in the section below Zarpboer (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Apartheid: Discussion[edit]

  • I currently have multiple acceptable academic and historic citations to add to the above, which ones to use, we can discuss as we go?
References sofar proposed to be used: THEAL, Early history of South Africa, JUTA Legal Library, Eybers, Select Constitutional Documents, THEAL, History of SA Vol4, various Media24 publications, Aversive Racism, Dovidio and also maybe Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches Zarpboer (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is quite obvious that "How Apartheid developed" needs to be explained in order to understand it more completely as from reading the present article, I did not. In fact he present article needs general improvement as it is v shaped in terms of bias,perceived bias or perceived POV.
  • Proposed future development of sub sections on how the dehumanization of black people grew the feelings of white superiority and white race supremacy. Addition of early racism, early racialism, early racial separation, development and violent enforcement of racial laws, legislation and institutionalized racism, the father and the mother of Apartheid, and how they gave birth to Apartheid. All this we can discuss once we can achieve consensus on the History and Development section? or now?

Regarding my POV: I do consider myself neutral as I do not have any strong feelings for pro Afrikaner, pro Boer, pro Colonialist, pro Black, general pro White, etc. That said, I am a normal human person, so I do have bias and of course the same as you, I cannot objectively see my own bias. My intentions with editing here is simply to produce a high quality, accurate, historically and academically factual encyclopedic quality entry. Not to promote any specific point of view. Please Help Me. If nobody responds, I will presume general acquiescence and proceed with this edit. Zarpboer (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Just to be clear: I intend to replace the above with this present section: "Precursors of apartheid" - Presently this section is extremely well written vs my still poorly written first version draft. To add, the present section is mostly about eloquently pushing British POV and has to be removed/replaced entirely. Anyway, the section also skips the ZAR. The Boers were also part of developing Apartheid, mainly this needs to be added to understand how the idea of townships started. In the present article the idea and actual townships started in the 1950's with the infamous group areas act. - This is not the whole history and seems biased, is misleading and more importantly, it is not complete. It also does not explain in a short summarized, easily read and commonly understandable way, that Apartheid (which this page is about) developed over hundreds of years, with many contributors. Instead it is an apologetic explanation of the "precursors to Apartheid", without anyone actually fully accepting credit for their contributions to the development of practical Apartheid. So for clarity, this proposal is for the replacement of "Precursors of apartheid" with a new History and Development (to be developed with some of that content...) and to be written in a more direct and easily understandable (common) fashion, so it is more suited to a general encyclopedic audience and not an academic doctorate degree submission... Zarpboer (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

1st Paragraph[edit]

"Under the 1806 Cape Articles of Capitulation the new British colonial rulers were required to respect previous legislation enacted under Roman Dutch law[13] and this led to a separation of the law in South Africa from English Common Law and a high degree of legislative autonomy. The governors and assemblies that governed the legal process in the various colonies of South Africa were launched on a different and independent legislative path from the rest of the British Empire."

This to be removed entirely. It only serves to explain the British ordinances of 1828, whereas the British could extremely easily have deemed new black immigrants as excluded.. This can easily be seen when looking at the events of 1835... Either way, the differences between English Common Law and Roman Dutch law does not equate to contributing to the development (or even as a precursor) to Apartheid or the Apartheid State but as an apologetic explanation of the British promotion of racism and racist policies.

2nd paragraph[edit]

In the days of slavery, slaves required passes... - Slavery deserves at least a paragraph as it adds to the European views of the time, as well as to the dehumanization of other races, the enforcement of the idea that black people are somehow of lesser value or importance to white Europeans and did contribute to the development (and as an actual pre cursor) to the racist policies of racial separation and separate development. Propose to add Slavery as a sub heading, and with a paragraph explaining what is was, how it worked and how it contributed to the philosophy of Apartheid. Apartheid is not only a reference to the Apartheid state, but it also was(is?) an idea. -- The rest of the content of the paragraph, to be added to the section above.

3rd paragraph[edit]

To be removed. The fact that the British promulgated slavery abolition act or stopped being slavers at a point in time is not relevant to the development or history (or even as a precursor) to Apartheid, and only serves here as an apology or explanation of British POV. Either way, they simply replaced the word slave with the word indentured. To be replaced with a single sentence, saying that "In 1835 the British replaced slavery with a similar system of indentured workers, this to comply with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833." this to be added to the slavery sub section, to where it is best suited as it will deal with slavery and how it contributed to Apartheid.

4th paragraph[edit]

The first sentence to be used as is, but placed chronologically after a similar sentence about the ZAR, to tie in with the pass laws of the ZAR, the forced racial segregation, withholding of franchise to other races, etc. Similarly, the 1905 events demand multiple sentences as well as an explanation of the racial segregation policies as they relate to the Group Areas Act of 1950, The actual Group Areas Act uses much of he same terms, structure and language as the 1905 version. This has to be expanded upon and citations/references added, so that readers can also look and read the actual historic documents and that they are also easily available to the same reader/user. This is also of significant interest mainly to show how the system of Apartheid developed and grew as well as understanding the massive scale of oppression that black people has been subjected to, over centuries of European subjugation as this does demonstrate how the crime of Apartheid grew to become supported and accepted by millions of people of one race, that believed that they were superior to millions of people of another race. The rest of the paragraph to be used, "as is" except to expand the 1913 land act, in it's current version it does not really explain why it contributed (even as a pre cursor) to Apartheid, it needs to be expanded to include the importance of land in the majority of black African cultures and how this Act was designed not to take land from other races, and not only to prevent other races from owning land or property deemed to be in white race areas, but to significantly break down the self worth and future value and prospects of any other race than the white racial grouping more specifically so when viewing this prohibition from the cultural perspective of the discriminated racial grouping. This perspective factor itself is frequently overlooked by European authors. the rest of the para after the land act, to be added as is.

5th paragraph[edit]

this is an important paragraph and should be added mostly as is, except for this " Amid fears integration would eventually lead to racial assimilation" should be :"Amid fears that racial integration would eventually lead to assimilation" and "The commission concluded that integration would bring about a "loss of personality" for all" to :"The commission concluded that racial integration would bring about a "loss of personality" for all" Zarpboer (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was there Apartheid? By an Afrikaner himself =====[edit]

Two main reasons:

1. Ian Smith, of Rhodesia, said: "We wanted to maintain all our standards!". South Africa had high standards. 1st world standards. The largest economy in Africa. It had the 8th largest stock exchange in the world 1983. A Rand that was worth more than the US dollar in 1973 - it is currently trading at R11 for $1. The JSE is the world's 19th largest stock exchage. Unemployment is 25%. The country was one of the top 10 in terms of patents registered. Amnesty international said 30 people died in police custody during apartheid every year - it's 900 people a year that are dying in 2013! Crime is the 1st or 2nd highest in the world. The educational system is one of the poorest rated in the world etc. etc. We saw what would happen. We wanted to avoid it.

2. The Soviet Union had tried to overthrow South Africa decade after decade, the South Africa Communist Party is the 2nd oldest political party in the world. We didn't want to give up all our farm land, our banks, our mines because the ANC demanded it! Because of black nationalism. Nationalisation. The Soviet Union demanded it.

To say that we wanted to rule over the masses of poor people of Africa - no we tried to create independent internationally recognized countries - why did we create embassies? Why did we increase the literacy rate from 10% in 1955 to 93% in 1990? Egypt that was had a recorded history of 10,000 years, yet today it has a literacy rate of 75% in 2013. We didn't want to rule over people by force!

Things were far more complex. There's 100 factors that can be mentioned. One such a factor was that the ANC had an alliance with the USSR since 1927.

Google ANC president JT Gumede visiting Moscow in 1927 telling Joseph Stalin he "Has seen the promised land".

Don't give us nonsense on Wikipedia. Telling us POV = Point of View. So who's POV do you now only accept? The POV of the USSR? of Communists alone? Is that only the POV Wikipedia accepts now? Only the ANC's view and USSR's view is now accepted on Wikipedia on Apartheid - the creation by Afrikaners. POV now = the USSR's view. The Afrikaners have no right to even describe Apartheid. Their POV is unimportant.

It's absolute Politically Correct nonsense! Absolute POV nonsense! This is history! Yet we get POV and PC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.228.192.153 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)