Talk:Apartheid

Archives
At old location: Talk:Apartheid/Israel Talk:Apartheid/Archive1 Talk:Apartheid/Archive2 Talk:Apartheid/Archive3 Talk:Apartheid/Archive4 Talk:Apartheid/Archive5 Talk:Apartheid/Archive6 At current location: Archive 1 (2005/09/03) Archive 2 (2006/05/16) Archive 3 (2007/01/15) Archive 4 (2007/03/04) Archive 5 (2008/01/22) Archive 6 (2008/07/14)

Summary??!

There should be summaries on articles of this length. Totally impossible to understand w.o. reading the whole thing... --79.160.97.59 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• totally agree, incredibly long, not synthetic at all--afa86 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"inferior services"

"...There was a deliberate policy in "white South Africa" of making services for black people inferior to those of whites, to try to "encourage" black people to move into the black homelands. Black people ended up with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indians and coloureds...." Do you have any proof of that? As I do recall it, the services for each group were paid for from the budget for this group. The budget was determined by the taxes generated by this group (+ subsidies by White taxpayers). So the quality (or quantity) of services was dependent on these amount. Monetary income differences determined of course the amount of tax money available.

Also explain In what way the services available to Blacks were different to the average service levels in Africa. I guess there is a reason, why many Blacks chose to live under White rule with their feet.

I see. So their demands for majority rule were just a misunderstanding? Incidentally, did any blacks immigrate come from outside sa (which would be true voting with their feet)? The system you describe was only in place for the last few years of Apartheid, and in any case was a pure stitch up to insure that whites got the most of "their" tax money back. BillMasen (talk)

YES! Many, in fact hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants moved to South Africa from north of the border and from the homelands. Many people from Mozambique tried to get into South Africa to be "suppressed" by walking through the Kruger National Park, many were eaten by lions and those who made it was deported, but they continually tried again and again. If the information in this article is true, then I must conclude that Mozabicans are masochists. Adi Schlebusch (talk)

So prove it, dude (sources). Sounding off on the talk page doesn't impress anyone. If apartheid was such a brilliant deal for them, why didn't blacks like it?

Even if services were superior to neighbouring African countries (whoop di doo!), that does not prove that they weren't artificially kept low. BillMasen (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More references, please

As a quick glance at my user page will demonstrate, I cannot claim to be completely unbiased in this issue, but it seems to me that this article could be greatly improved if it had more references. Currently much of it seems to read as POV even if it is NPOV fact, a problem which could be amended if resources supporting the claims were to be provided. -- WolfieInu 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Struggle"

Could we use a word other than "struggle" in this article? As in "anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa". The word is such a favorite of socialist propagandists that anyone else that uses it automatically loses a bit of credibility.Lyle (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Struggle seems rather appropriate and used correctly in this context. It is the term that was and still is most often used by the driving forces behind the struggle , the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. The Tripartite Alliance was and still does consists of a large number of socialist propagandists (some of them deserving of a bit of automatically loses a bit of credibility). Google return 239 hits just on the ANC's website alone ("anti- apartheid struggle" site:anc.org.za).

One should remember that the anti-apartheid struggle was not a clearcut fight for democracy, many of the participants wanted to see a communist regime take control and there was strong backing from Cuba [1] [2] [3] and the former USSR [4].

Even today in the democratic South Africa there are strong overtones of socialism [5] [6] [7]

Some refs: ANC website, ANC website, ANC website, ANC website, RSA Gov RSA DOJ, the African National Congress ...google for more if you want

Also see: African socialism

--NJR ZA (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

There is way too much leftist propaganda on this page. I'm sure a lot more emphises can be put on all the things that the white government did for the black people, like building them schools, hospitals and universities and supporting the homelands economically.

The article creates the impression that apartheid was racism, while it was, in essence, separatism. User:Adi Schlebusch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The apartheid government and its supporters often tried to promote the idea that apartheid was kind to the blacks. I don't think it's a view that can be supported with any real credibility in the face of all the repressive and grotesquely racist actions of the apartheid government over more than 4 decades. Zaian (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is the lack of references as stated by Wolfie above. Referencing the information will give it far more credibility and a NPOV. I'll work through some of it to see what we can do. --NJR ZA (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of racism? Mine is "racial supremacy". Racial segregation is not racism. You talk about the "repressive and racist actions of the apartheid government". Of course it is possible to name unfortunate incidents in any country's or system's history. The Sharpville "massacre" for example, was carried out by a few policemen, whose lives were threatened by the protesters. I concede that too much violence was being used in that specific instance, but this does not mean the system was repressive. There have, for example been instances were American forces have used too much violence: Vietnam, Hiroshima, Irak etc. but this does not make the American liberal democracy a repressive system. User:Adi Schlebusch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Racial segregation is very frequently racist, especially when imposed by one side on another. I am not talking just about repressive actions by the police. The whole political system of Apartheid was premised on white racial superiority. Any number of quotes from the architects of apartheid can be found to support this. Zaian (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid was not based on white racial superiority. The proponents of apartheid was Calvinists who believe that everybody is stained by sin. Nobody is inherantly better than anybody else. God however, created a diverse universe and that should be respected. Apartheid was based on the principle that every ethnic nation's culture are to be respected and should have the opportunity to develop along the lines of its own set of principles (and not be forced to develop along the principles of liberal individualism and rationalism). If you read the "quotes from the architects of apartheid" against this background it will make more sense. You have to remember that, in SA there was also a difference of opinion. Even to the extent that some believed in white supremacy. You should therefore be careful whose quotes you consider. We should constrict ourselves to the mainstream NP policy. There was a minority group under the leadership of Dr Hertzog, who left the NP in 1966, who critisized Dr Verwoerd's policy precisely because of this difference. User:Adi Schlebusch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I generally read the quotes from the architects of apartheid in the context of the apartheid government's actions, but there are plenty which don't even need that context: "Either you are the boss, the equal, or the inferior. If you are not the boss, you are a man's equal... it is so clear and logical. If you say you do not want to dominate the Native, it means that you stand for a policy of equality." (Johannes Strydom, later Prime Minister, in 1948). Even if you believe that apartheid's policy aims were sincere, the "best intentions" were never properly implemented anyway (I suspect you'll agree with me on that). The land allocated to homelands was too little (even according to Tomlinson and Eiselen, Verwoerd's own experts), there was insufficient commitment to the required expenditure on the homelands, and there were massive inequalities everywhere in the system - real education decreased from R8.70 to R4.90 per black child between 1954 and 1965, while for white children it increased from R50 to R75. In practice, which is where it counts, apartheid was always undeniably a system of white racial supremacy. Zaian (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, concerning your quote on Strydom: The idea of separation and equality for the different ethnic-nations is that everyone is the master (“boss”) in his own country. Therefore whites could not vote in black countries and vice versa. There always was equality before the law, anyway, but not individual political equality in each other’s country (just like today where you don’t have political rights in another country).

I don’t know where you got the figures you quote for expenditure on education. Mine look completely different. It is important to consider that the illiteracy rate in the greater South African region in 1920 among Whites was 2.1% and among Blacks 90.3%. During the heyday of Apartheid under Dr Verwoerd, the tempo of educational development quickened sharply, especially for Blacks. Seven universities were established in the 1960’s. Two for Whites, one each for Couloreds and Indians and three for Blacks. Between 1959 and 1967 the school attendance for whites rose by 18.1% (to 744,647) and for Blacks by 59.3% (to 2,233,504). The increase in university attendance was even more remarkable (Whites by 60.8% and Blacks by 126.4%) In 1958 a total of R152,400,000 was spent on education. By 1967 this amount was doubled to R303,850,000 (Du Preez: Key to a Continent). This figure includes the expenditure by the Dept of Public Works on the erection and maintenance of educational buildings and other infrastructure as well as the expenditure for education by the department of Bantu Affairs.

The expenditure by the different departments of Education as such in 1966 was R54 million on Whites, R39 million on Blacks and less than 7 million on Coloureds and Indians. (Unesco: Apartheid-its effects on education, science, culture and information, 1968,). That totals less than R100 million.The the rest (304 mil – 100 mil = more than R200 million) was spent by other departments, the bulk of which was for the erection of schools and supplying of facilities. Most (I’m still looking for the exact figure) of this went to blacks because of their dramatic increase in school attendance.

Even if all these expenditures are taken into account, there is still a disparity of approximally R153 per White pupil compared to R63 per Black pupil. This disparity should be understood in context. Simply put, you should compare the British expenditure per pupil in the UK to its expenditure per pupil in the colonies. You will find a much greater disparity (The same would be true for the expenditure on education in the colonies of France, Belgium, Portugal and Spain). The point is that the Whites in South Africa was at that stage a developed community (much as the European communities), whereas the Blacks were in an early stage of development (as was the communities in the African colonies of Europe. Both their educational needs and their potential for generating money were much lower than in the developed communities. Even today you will find that disparity between the first- and third world countries.

In 1967 most of the black teachers had only a st 6 with a basic educational diploma, whereas the white teachers almost all had at least 2 years tertiary training. Needless to say the per pupil cost on salaries would differ markedly. Also, because of the budget restraints, the dept of Bantu Education introduced afternoon sessions for primary school Blacks. This resulted in a much hightened output by the available infrastructure.

Instead of running Apartheid down for giving inferior education to Blacks, they should be praised for their efforts and the phenomenal results. In 1951 Blacks in the greater South African Area (including homelands) numbered 12,671,000 and Whites 2,642,000. By 1970 they were 21,447,000 and 3,751,000 respectively (Van Rensburg: Bevolkingsontploffing in SA). During this time and in the face of the population explosion, they managed to increase the literacy among Blacks to more than 50% and more than 90% among the 7-20 age group. Even the poison-spitting Unesco 1967-report on Apartheid had to admit that “the first priority in African education is mass literacy and the extention of primary education at the lowest level. In this field there is no doubt that the present South African government has achieved results.” (Unesco: Apartheid, ibid) --Adi Schlebusch (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Strydom meant whites were superior to blacks, period. They were quite blunt about their racism in the late 1940s - which is of course what the white electorate wanted, and responded to by voting for apartheid. The sophistry only came later with Verwoerd's "good neighbourliness". My figures are from Ernst Malherbe - Education in South Africa, 1977, quoted in "White Tribe of Africa" by David Harrison. You're fighting a losing battle trying to persuade anyone that apartheid was benevolent to the blacks. Zaian (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is a losing battle trying to persuade you, because liberals generally are not open-minded. But at least there is still a few of us that will always hold to the truth. --Adi Schlebusch (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservative :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Adi Schlebusch: It's nice to see that there are still sensible people out there, who don't buy into political correctness, and objectively review all the facts. Too bad scientific research is discredited if it doesn't suit the politically correct agenda of mainstream society. You have my deepest respect.

Well, they didn't think it was benevolent to the blacks. Blacks ought to know.

This is a discussion page for improving the article. May I suggest that you conduct your racialist love-in elsewhere? BillMasen (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Adi. I've seen some value judgments and partial claims in this article. I've also seen the statement of a lot of facts with no references. I'm going to hang out some citation needed signs and edit out some of what i perceive to be POVs or biased statements. Not changing any content until some sources are up.

Gregie156 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight name change

Shouldn't the title be "South Africa under Apartheid"?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why; apartheid isn't normally capitalized. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a title. If any change is to be made, "under" should be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't the title be "South Africa during Apartheid"? You wouldn't say "The United States South under segregation".--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Too Hidden

i dont see anywere were it says about the economy of sa under apartheid, i seriously think this article was solely created to try and brainwash people that sa under apartheid made it the worst economy on the african continent and that all the whites wanted to do was kill all the blacks and rule the continent from their ethnic group. I know apartheid was bad, but someone must write about what they ACCOMPLISHED. Hitler was a good ruler, only if u exclude his hatred and what he done against other races (and his foreign policy), theres nothing racist about saying that, Hitler was only the worst and most evil man to live cuz he killed so many innocent non-christian whites. Technically, every president before JFK was racist in not giving rights to blks. In australia, blacks werent allowed to live like whites until after WW2. but they still dont talk about it, cuz they didnt give a name to the segregation that was impossed (unlike south africa). Weither it was the national party that made south africa the way it was or not, the article still says SA UNDER APARTHEID (1948-1994), so we must show how the country developed under this period rather then saying just all the negatives that the goverment did. now that was a mouthful Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So include, using verifiable sources, the "acclomplishments" of apartheid.

If you arbitrarily ignore Hitler's agression and genocide, what's left? The way he cheated his way to power with a gang of thugs? His cosmic vanity and propaganda? The way he encouraged Germans to think that their GErmanity was more important than their humanity? I could go on. Where was the "good leader" part?

Likewise, if you remove the racism/racial segregation idea from Apartheid, what's left? Not much, although you are welcome to try and dig it out. BillMasen (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Accomplishments"

Wow, User:Bezuidenhout, have you any idea how offensive it is to argue that, despite all the abuses of apartheid, it had many great "Accomplishments" and that blacks were actually better off when apartheid was in place? I suggest that you (1) look for real references (not youtube videos), (2) check your spelling, (3) move the section to the right level in the article (currently it has "Negotiations" as a subsection of "Accomplishments", which I suppose is true in one sense, but is probably not what you intended...), and (4) try to get some clarity of thought - are you suggesting that it got better during apartheid, or has got worse since then, or both? Zaian (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this article aparentley only refers to apartheid, not the actual real situation of the country during this period of time, i deletd this section to help sort out disputes. It is making people think im racist and 'any judgment of the good points of apartheid' is aparentley a crime, unlike judjing america when it too, went through a period of 'apartheid', i am simply not going to bother to carry on, as it will only ,make people hate me more and make me sound like a verwoerd. --Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's problematic. You'd run into the same difficulties inserting text about the "accomplishments" of slavery, or for that matter of racial segregation and discrimination, in the US; or, for that matter, of the benefits of German policies towards the Jews in the middle of the 20th century. The solution is always WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid TODAY?

Well, as you all know, if the government puts an end to apartheid, this does not necessarily mean that it's really ended amongst the population. So, is it just me to not read anything about the situation TODAY? Shouldn't it be resolved whether everything is really peaceful or democratic, or whether there are still traces of race separation? Although the article is in past tense (Apartheid was...) I'm asking myself whether it's really over. Are there any ZAs here who could tell about the current situation in their country? :) -andy 92.229.133.36 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From the article itself: Apartheid was a system of legal racial segregation. The key is that Apartheid is defined as discrimination/racism enforced by law. Using the term in the past sense is therefor correct as Apartheid ended when the laws were abolished. Any current acts of discrimination and/or racism amongst the population is just that, discrimination or racism, not Apartheid. There are some Legacies of Apartheid still around and it will actually be good for the article to have a section on those. Examples are the townships, lower literacy and life expectancy among black people, higher unemployment among black people and the fact that many houses in previous white areas still have an extra outside toilet that was for the exclusive use of the black cleaning lady and/or gardener.

Today there also laws that some consider reverse-Apartheid, such as Affirmative action. Obviously there are still black/white racism to some extend. As you have stated, just because the government removed the laws it does not mean that racism disappears among the people, you will find many examples of this in the media, search News24 or IOL if you want. The most recent notable cases of racism actually was not between white and black, see Xenophobia in South Africa for details.

As far as average middle class living is concerned, I'll give you an example of the cul-de-sack I live in. The couple in house #1 is a white Afrikaans male and Portuguese female. House #2 is an Indian male and English speaking white female. House #3 is a divorced middle age while lady and her mother. House #4 is a black couple. House #5 is a black couple. House #6 is a black couple. The couple in house #7 is a white male and Indian lady and in house #8 is a Chinese couple. --NJR_ZA (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This needs saying over and over again, apartheid is "separate development", supported/enforced by the nation state. Lots of people suffer racism, in some places populations have been moved round by fiat, and those people may or may not live happily with their new neighbours. But the touch-stone of "apartheid" is always the state dividing the population into "communities", issueing different ID cards to the different groups, and granting them various different rights and obligations. PR^talk 16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "apartheid" is a nearly meaningless political term today, used to mean "any practice I consider discriminatory". It is used to inflame and demonize, but carries little weight other than semantic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)