Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverting additions

There is a tendency by Ziain to revert all changes that does not meet his personal criteria. As far as I am aware there is no requirement that anybody who wants to contribute should be logged in. All changes made by me can be verified (I was a journalist in South Africa in the period 1980 to 1998 and I helped record the history of South Africa through the more than 7000 articles I wrote during this period) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks for entering into a discussion. There is no requirement, but usernames, edit summaries and participation in discussions all help to build trust in other contributors' 'good faith'. This is vital for a collaborative project like this one. For instance, if your contributions were linked to a user page mentioning your status as a journalist during the era under discussion, others could ask you to assist with sources. Please do not use loaded phrases like "There is a tendency for Ziain (sic)..." and "his personal criteria". I make a solid effort to explain my criteria for the changes I have made, and I have often encouraged others (yourself included) to do so. If your changes can be verified, please provide sources. If a particular phrase causes debates about neutrality, the disputed text needs to be rewritten collaboratively. Zaian 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Zaian can help us in explaining why the references added to the changes were not acceptable

I would suggest that you add those references to the article, not to the edit summary, as is standard practice in both print and Wikipedia. I would also find it more polite if you would address me in the first person. I maintain that the paragraph needs to be rewritten with a NPOV, as you are currently the only one adding the loaded term "classic terrorist" to the text. Please also refer to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I am now backing out of this discussion. Zaian 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If the US National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism describes the ANC's strategy post-Sharpeville as "terrorist", then I think it's a valid description - providing it's referenced to show that it represents a single POV. "Classic terrorist", however, is a bit woolly and meaningless, and more suitable for an op-ed than an article that aspires to neutrality. I hope the current revision is acceptable to all POVs. Humansdorpie 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes Humansdorpie has made. The tactics are in fact described as terrorist by some, but there's an explanation of why these tactics were adopted, as well as a reference to those using the term, so that their agendas can be investigated. This is sufficient for anyone can make up their own mind based on the information provided. Greenman 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really true?

"the (apartheid) government even collaborated with Israel in developing nuclear weapons?"

I am finding this hard to believe. And further still hard to understand why Israel, with a Jewish population, and such a strong sentiment of being against white supremacy. Why would they collaborate with a Nazi-like organization?? Is there more information about this if it's true or can we just remove this if it is false? --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. Israel's involvement in SA's programme is generally accepted. SA dismantled its nuclear programme under IAEA supervision shortly before the end of apartheid. Zaian 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, South Africa and Israel's collaboration on the development of weapons went much further. Israel helped South Africa to upgrade old Mirage III fighter aircraft (called Cheetah in South Africa).The standard SA Army assault rifle, the R4 , was also jointly developed by Israel and South Africa during the apartheid years. Other areas of military co-operation included the development of unmanned aircraft, tanks and uniforms. Most Western countries as well as Taiwan and Israel supported the old South African government right up to the end.

Yes its all true, what's so surprising, it was the cold war, no one wanted the USSR gaining control of Africa, good on them. This doesn't mean Israel supported apartheid (although the current traitor government seems to think applying apartheid style forced removals against Jews in Yesha is really cool, but thats another can of lokshen). I'm currently working with two ex-military engineers who remember being constantly berated about apartheid by the Israelis they worked with. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the alleged Israel-South Africa technological collaboration is yet another conspiracy theory of dubious origin as there is no evidence supporting it.
The article suggested by Zaian as a source cofirming the theory, fails to provide any evidence either. In fact, quoting from that article "In September, 1979 a flash over the Indian Ocean detected by a U.S. satellite was suspected of being a South African nuclear test, in collaboration with Israel (this event is known as Vela Incident). No official confirmation of it being a nuclear test has ever been conducted, and multiple expert agencies have disagreed on their assessments." That is, this article confirms the dubious status of the theory rather than verify it.
I believe that articles in wikipedia should correspond to the highest standards and rely solely on facts rather than rumors. Therefore unless reliable evidence can be found, this conspiracy theory should be removed. Tomer Ish Shalom 16:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a detailed argument, as I'm not an expert on this topic, but since my 2-line comment has prompted a 3-paragraph response, let me at least reply. I provided the link because the user asked where he/she could find further information. At the time I made the link, the article said "Assumed by many analysts to have been a joint Israeli-South African test". A reference to those analysts would be useful. Clearly, official Israeli government confirmation is going to be hard to come by, whether the claim is true or false. However, it is probably not fair to call it a conspiracy theory either. I don't object to your removal of the reference to Israel from this article, though, as it was not properly cited as it stood. A better place to discuss this is Talk:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction. Zaian 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel and South Africa did indeed co-operate in many military-technological fields, a fact which has been acknowleged often in the past and is not exactly a secret. This co-operation was conducted mainly due to necessity, as both South Africa and Israel were relatively isolated, and in similar strategic situations against Soviet-backed forces. In South Africa's case, it was the Angolan and Cuban armed forces in Angola, and in Israel's case it was the surrounding hostile Arab states.

As for specific areas of co-operation, there is as yet no conclusive proof that the Israelis offered any assistance to South Africa's nuclear weapons program. In fact, the seemingly totally different enrichment methods used by the two countries would count against such co-operation or assistance. However, areas in which SA and Israel are known to have co-operated are the following: ICBMs (the RSA and Jericho range), air-to-air missiles (the R-Darter and Derby are almost identical), UAVs, vehicle armour, tank fire control systems and the upgrade of Mirage III airframes into the Cheetah standard. In addition to that, Israel sold 9 Reshev-class (Sa'ar 4) patrol boats to SA in the early 1970s, along with a complement of Gabriel missiles; allowed SA to licence-build a version of the Galil assault rifle (known as the R4) and supplied at least 38 basic airframes for use in the Cheetah program. In return, SA is thought to have sold Israel at least one G5 howitzer and to have contributed some of the funding for Israel's first spy satellite.

Amidst all this though, it's worth remembering that the two countries co-operated for self-interested strategic reasons, and not for any ideological reasons. It was a productive partnership that benefited both countries at a time when their respective security situations were rather tricky. Incidentally, referring to apartheid-era South Africa as "Nazi-like" serves in my mind to cheapen the Nazi adjective. While the apartheid-era SA government's actions and policies were reprehensible, they were miles from the acts and policies of the Nazis. — Impi 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chapter and verse on Israel/South Africa nuclear co-operation is at Advena. Maybe Tomer Ish Shalom wants to reinsert the link recently removed?Phase4 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have three things to say about this matter:

  • Any statment made in a wiki article must be verifable. That is, hard evidence, e.g. internal document or an eyewitness testimony, should exist to which one can make reference. Reference to another article can not be considered a verification.
  • The Advena article pointed to by Phase4 mentions an Israeli-SA collaboration on ICBM but not on a nuclear program. Anyway, that article only puts forth propositions without establishing them.
  • As pointed out by Zaian, a more appropriate place for this discussion might be Talk:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction.

Tomer Ish Shalom 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Erudite discussion of the SA/Israel nuclear co-operation issue continues at Vela Incident talk page (Recent developments)Talk:Vela_Incident#.22Recent_developments.22 et seq.Phase4 14:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move

This page was moved to Apartheid by HOTR (talk · contribs) but I have moved it back as there was no prior discussion for this move. The name History of South Africa in the apartheid era is the result of consensus following much controversy over the use of the term in contexts that had little to do with South Africa (see Talk:Apartheid for archived discussions before the page was renamed). Any major move like this should be discussed first according to Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Zaian 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See belowHomey 03:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by Kuratowski's Ghost

A rather silly edit that deserves to be reverted PDQ. The editor should consult Samora Machel and hang his head in shame!Phase4 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia articles aren't intended for promoting dumb conspiracy theories. I will look into what nonsense is in the Samora Machel article tomorrow. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Missed that you had reverted my chnages. Can you cite any official investigation that found that South Africa sabotaged Samora Machel's flight or that holds South Africa responsible for Lockerbie? Get real. Adding rubbish like this to articles borders on vandalism. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You're at it again and I've reverted you again. You really must take note of the statements made in the relevant articles and the evidence provided in support of the statements. You might not agree with these statements but if you don't you should discuss your concerns on the talk page – where others can enlighten you – instead of simply vandalising the articles by blanking them. Thanks nonetheless for your interest and the time taken to edit Wikipedia articles.Phase4 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Your conspiracy theory is labeled clearly as speculation ("suspected of sabotaging"), and not presented as fact. Also, the fact that Pik Botha and his delegation didn't take the flight is surely fact, not speculation? Why did you remove that paragraph then? dewet| 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, get real. Blaming SA for Lockerbie is pure nonsense and you know it. The Samora Machel conspiracy theory is worth mentioning as something historically interesting in its own right but should clearly be labeled for what it is. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This latest contribution fits well with your earlier efforts: "vigilante justice"! Six-guns at the ready! Are you editing an encyclopedia or gun-slinging at the OK corral? Come on Kuratowski's Ghost, you can do better than that!Phase4 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Next step, request for arbitration. Again, wikipedia isn't for promoting crackpot conspiracy theories. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Letsby Avenue, then!Phase4 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please cool off! There is room for compromise. You're not even necessarily disagreeing, just insisting on your own wording. Aggressive blanking, name-calling and threats take us nowhere. Wikipedia is not about calling things "conspiracy theories". It is about saying "A claimed B in source C" and giving suitable encyclopedic context to the statement. SA's suspected involvement in the Machel crash is mentioned, with suitable disclaimers, in many respectable sources. The wholesale removal or downplaying of it in this article is not appropriate. I suggest a return to the original text but with more emphasis on the unproven nature of the allegation. SA's alleged involvement Lockerbie is perhaps more of a fringe theory - it is dealt with in great detail on the Pan_Am_Flight_103 and Alternative_theories_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103 pages. If it is included here, this needs to be given more context. Zaian 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming this article "Apartheid"

It's quite silly *not* to have an article called Apartheid in favour of having a long title such as "History of South Africa in the apartheid era". Does anyone honestly think that most users are not going to come to this article looking up "Apartheid" and reading the first sentence, which defines apartheid, it is already written as if that is the title. This must be the only general encyclopedia in the world that has no entry under "Apartheid". Time to move it back, it only makes sense. Now that there is an Apartheid (disambiguation) page the reason that the article was originally moved no longer exists ie the "other" apartheids are now dealt with via the disambig page freeing us up to have an article on the principle meaning of the word. Homey 03:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the redirect as it is currently; in fact, it provides much more context to the reader, and a user looking up only "apartheid" will be transferred there automagically. As the disambig page proves, there's no single, homogenous concept of "apartheid" other than its dictionary definition, but there are a number of implementations of it that matter. Therefore the qualifying title of the article. dewet| 06:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, there used to be two articles, Apartheid and History of South Africa. They were largely redundant, and the Apartheid article had lots of cruft in it relating to people's attempts to use the word "apartheid" as a bludgeon against regimes they didn't like. Naming it History of South Africa in the apartheid era has the advantage of insulating it from the silliness, and also shows how it fits into the History of SA article. It's normal for an article on the history of an entire country to be split up into smaller articles (see the U.S. history article for an example).-- 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Homey has a point. Wizzy 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Having an Apartheid (disambiguation) page provides an outlet for the cruft you speak of thus allowing an article to exist with the straightforward name of Apartheid which would be only on the main use of the term ie South African apartheid. The title History of South Africa in the apartheid era is far too long and, frankly, unencyclopedic.Homey 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle I strongly agree with you. The present unhappy compromise is best explained by looking at the AfD discussion on Apartheid (disambiguation). Basically there are people who find it unacceptable that apartheid is used in anything but the historical sense. Albeit they are fighting reality, but that is why we have this; to avoid offending the many Israeli-POV people who cannot abide their policies even being compared to RSA's on a disamb page of the project. If the disambig page is deleted, we'll need to keep the status quo (or find a different solution), so I would certainly hold off at least until that is decided. --Guinnog 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Note Apartheid (disambiguation) has been created by Homey, and is currently on AfD. -- Heptor talk 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link Heptor. Yes people should vote on this since it does impact on this article. Homey 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really se how the disambiguation page impacts this article. I too think it is better to move this article back to Apartheid. Saying this, I do not claim to be an expert on Apartheid, and if people who edit the article think otherwise, they are probably right. The disambiguation page should however be deleted. Disambiguation is needed when one word have many possible meanings, like Gorilla and Gorilla (computer_game), not when somebody calls George Bush a gorilla. -- Heptor talk 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: What I said about disambiguation is in accordance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The nominator for the AfD explained it in his rationale for nomination. -- Heptor talk 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is properly named. The title "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" is spot on. Whatever schisms there are about the term "Apartheid", eg. Israeli apartheid, Gender apartheid etc. should be dealt with elsewhere. --Ezeu 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree that the debate on Apartheid (Disambiguation) has nothing to do with naming of this article - I simply don't see how Homey made the connection, and I have no intention to participate in the debate. I posted the above note after he started talking about renaming the article. -- Heptor talk 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Passive voice

"South Africa was suspected of causing the crash..." By who? Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By just about everyone at the time I seem to recall! It was the most obvious explanation for it. Which is not to say that it is what actually happened of course, but it is certainly verifiable that people thought it at the time. --Guinnog 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did apartheid seperate what each group build?

I'm curious was the apartheid system so bad? It seems it kept the cities the Whites built to themselves and the areas the Blacks built to themselves. What was the problem? Because one group did not advance the land as much? Volksgeist 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on the moral aspects of the system that was severely lacking. In practice, however, blacks were given a disproportionally small area to live on, while the whites claimed the "prime" land in all the major cities, as well as huge stretches of arable agricultural land. That's a good part of why townships formed — blacks were designated a "suitable" area just outside city borders (from which they had to commute in) without any real infrastructure. Lastly, the "self-governance" that the black homelands had was only that in name; all their doings were veto-able by the government and closely monitored. dewet| 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and various laws which made life impossible. Group Areas Act (designation of certain areas as "black" or "white"). Immorality Act (I think that's the slang name - made the very act of sex between individuals from different racial categorisations illegal). The Pass Laws, which made it basically impossible for people of any "race" to travel freely within the country. Bantu Education - in a certain widely quoted speech Verwoerd makes the incredible observation that since "the Bantu" will forever have manual labour jobs there's no use kidding them by giving them the same level of education as everyone else, so the education system as used in "black" schools was grossly sub-standard. The 1976 riots and the Soweto tiots ocured because the government wanted to force "black" pupils to learn in Afrikaans. etc. Very little that's acceptable about that! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what I was getting it... It seems the Whites kept the cities THEY built. A lack of education I don't understand because again Whites were keeping their educational system from Europe... but the Bantu areas, what could they really learn? When Whites got to Africa the continent was thousands of years behind the rest of the world, and pretty much still is. Volksgeist 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Whites and Blacks are artificial constructs, made and used by racists, which is why they have no official status in any country or with any scientist today. Did you hear that the human species originated in Africa? --Guinnog 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? Because last time I checked they were plenty of groups in the United States willing to give scholarships over Whites to people who had lower grades/test scores because of their 'race.' The whole nonsense that race is an "artificial construct" is a result of the liberal media that goes against common sense. Even now they are finding certain genes that affect intelligence and anger, pretty soon this whole ridiculous house of cards is going to tumble. It makes no difference where humans originated or evolved because they still adapted to their environment through physical characteristics and, whether the liberals want you to know this or not, mental characteristics. Volksgeist 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, given half a chance "the Bantu" can learn computer programming, DSP, linguistics, music production and mastering, VST plugin design, something like 6 spoken languages, a whole bunch of programming languages, how to access Wikipedia from a mobile phone (among various other things), also currently trying to learn quantum programming... Oops, I forgot that using yourself as an example violates WP:NOR; sorry about that. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Feed not the troll. --Ezeu 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The urge not to feed the troll, but slap it around the head a couple times, is almost overwhelming. To claim that "Whites built the cities" is to wilfully ignore the fact that A) Blacks were intentionally given substandard education and prevented by law from being employed in skilled positions, and B) That it was cheap black labour that built the cities, and mined the gold, etc etc etc. Besides, the comment about "Africa being thousands of years behind the rest of the world" is a complete non-sequitur. After all, the indigenous inhabitants of Brazil were "backwards" compared to the rest of the world when European colonists first arrived, but today Brazil's Embraer is the third largest airliner manufacturer in the world, behind Boeing and Airbus. Nice work for people who were thousands of years behind the West, eh? — Impi 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying that the United States is the way it is today because of the Native American population -- which were thousands of years behind the West as well. Whether you realize it or not, Whites make up a near-majority of the population in areas such as Sao Paulo in South Brazil. Actually SP wants to leave Brazil because their economy is so much bigger then anyone else's (wow -- wonder why?). And guess where Embraer is located? Yup, you guessed it cowboy, Sao Paulo. There goes your attempt at a ridiculous comparison. Volksgeist 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is off topic. Please take this conversation to User Talk:Volksgeist. This talk page is about the article, not about personal theories on race. Zaian 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering what people thought of moving the article to a shorter name, something like History of South Afirca during apartheid. It would conform better to Wikipedia naming standards, and somehow seems less cumbersome to me. Any thoughts? P?ll (Die pienk olifant) 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above named Renaming this article "Apartheid.--Ezeu 19:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations for sanctions

Humansdorpie today gave two citations for the actual implementation of sanctions against South Africa by the United States, Britain and 23 industrialized nations in the 1980s. The first [1] says:

"In the South Africa case, however, economic sanctions were applied piecemeal over a number of years, often halfheartedly, and at their height were far from comprehensive. The most significant sanctions, embodied in the U.S. Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986, were imposed only after Congress overrode a presidential veto, and administrative enforcement was reportedly weak. Even the CAAA, however, affected only some trade and financial relations, and except for the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Denmark), other countries' sanctions were even less stringent. Thus, by the summer of 1991, the UN arms embargo had been in place for over a decade, an OPEC oil embargo for a similar number of years, and expanded U.S. sanctions for over five years. Yet the white government and the two major black opposition groups (the African National Congress and Inkatha) – though closer than previously – were still struggling to find common ground on which to begin constitutional negotiations. Assuming that reform is achieved and that South Africa does not degenerate into bloody civil war, sanctions will have made a modest contribution to the happy result[my italics]."

The second citation relates to an ex-parte action by Shell UK against Lewisham Borough Council. Neither citation, in my view, justifies the bold assertions made in the "Sanctions" section.Phase4 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

link to disambiguation page

Hello there. Apartheid redirects to this page. As we are all aware of Apartheid has become a concept used in various contexts outside South Africa. Therefore I urge you to ensure that this article keeps a link to Apartheid (disambiguation). Bertilvidet 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a really silly link. Come on, folks - "Apartheid" is Afrikaans and refers to South Africa.Timothy Usher 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
May I remind that the article's title is "History of South Africa in the apartheid era"? The dab page, the necessity of which is disputed, does not refer to the term "History of South Africa in the apartheid era", as the dab link suggests. Apartheid (disambiguation) does not disambiguate the term "apartheid"; it serves as a search aid for other articles where the word "apartheid" is used, which is a blatant contravention of WP:DAB. Pecher Talk 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So delete the disambig page, or has someone already tried that? --Coroebus 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that failed, so now they are evidently trying to delete any *link to* the disambig page. Homey 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please! Some of us would really appreciate it if you didn't let the Israeli apartheid / Apartheid (disambiguation) unwinnable arguments spill over onto this page in the form of a revert war. Zaian 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher and Pecher, you both know better than to vandalise a page by removing a disambig link. Homey 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. Let's show some respect to the editors dealing with South Africa and conduct this debate at its relevant places, such as Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation). Bertilvidet 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. It shouldn't spill over to this page or this article. Removing this pointless activism-motivated link is the best way to ensure that the issues are not intermixed.Timothy Usher 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sporting sanctions

There's no mention of the Gleneagles Agreement or the sporting sanctions that effected the South Africa national rugby union team or South Africa cricket team.GordyB 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First usage of the term?

The article claims that the term was first used in a speech by Jan Smuts but does not give a quotation. According to the discussion page for the word "apartheid" in Wiktionary, the term does not appear in the speech. Furthermore, the earliest usage found in the OED is from 1947 (a quotation from 1929 being in Dutch or Afrikaans, I'm not sure which), a whole thirty years later.

Can Wikipedia substantiate its claim that Jan Smuts coined the term? If so, it would be useful material for Wiktionary; if not, perhaps it should be removed. — Paul G 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It was added in this edit in 2002. This quote occurs in a Smuts speech on 27 May 1917 at the Savoy Hotel in London: "Instead of mixing up black and white all over the country, we are now trying to keep them as far apart as possible in government". It's possible Smuts coined the word "apartheid" elsewhere in the speech, but we'd need an actual quote to back up the claim. Zaian 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read the speech, which is fascinating as it captures the spirit of apartheid. The word itself does not appear in the Savoy Speech. I would therefore recommend that it be deleted as the origin of the word. It is more likely that Gilomee's book quoted below cites the correct source. I had the feeling that it was later than 1917. I have put an abreviated portion of the speech below. Andrew massyn
  • 1917, General Jan Smuts: Speech at the Savoy Hotel.

The superior civilizing race was lost in the quicksands of African blood,.. and it has become axiomatic that it is a dishonourable thing that there shall be any mixture of white and black blood….We have felt that if we are to solve our native question, it is useless to subject (black and white) to the same machinery of legislation. We have found that the ideas which apply to our white civilization do not apply to the natives and to give a political existence on an equal basis does not lead to the best results….The practice is being built up in South Africa of creating parallel institutions and of making the natives run on different but parallel lines to the whites….White and black are different not only in colour, but almost in soul…Instead of mixing up black and white all over the country, we are now trying to keep them as far apart as possible in government, (and) the forms of political government will be such that each will be satisfied and each will develop according to its own proper rights. Economically the native will go on working in the white areas.

During the evening, songs were given by Miss Ada Forrest and Mr. Edward Halland
The Wiktionary article now has a quote from 1798, antedating both the OED and the policy in South Africa by over a century. No doubt the word is not being used in the modern context in this quotation. — Paul G 08:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that this date was wrong: it's from 1963 (see the update to the Wiktionary article). — Paul G 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Hermann Giliomee's book, "The Afrikaners: Biography of a People" (University of Virginia Press/Tafelberg Publishers, 2003.) the first printed use of the term in its modern sense dates back to 1929. He writes (p 454):

The first printed record of the term 'apartheid', used in its modem sense, dates back to 1929. In addressing a conference of the Free State Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) on missionary work, held in the town of Kroonstad, the Rev.Jan Christoffel du Plessis said: 'In the fundamental idea of our missionary work and not in racial prejudice one must seek an explanation for the spirit of apartheid that has always characterized our [the DRCs] conduct.' He rejected a missions policy that offered blacks no 'independent national future.'
By 'apartheid' Du Plessis meant that the Gospel had to be taught in a way that strength­ened the African 'character, nature and nationality' - in other words, the volkseie (the people's own). Africans had to be uplifted 'on their own terrain, separate and apart.' Blacks and whites had to worship separately to 'ensure the survival of a handful of [Afri­kaner] people cut off from their national ties in Europe.' For Du Plessis it was not so much a matter of protecting privilege or exclusivity than finding a policy that concen­trated on the eie, or that which was one's own, and which promoted what he called the selfsyn, or being oneself. Implicit in this was the view that only identification with one's own ethnic community was authentic. Du Plessis envisaged the development of au­tonomous, self-governing black churches as a counter to English missionaries, who tried to produce converts by copying 'Western civilization and religion.' — HeervanMalpertuis 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Name change proposal

The name History of South Africa in the apartheid era is simply too long. I understand the concerns about renaming this article Apartheid so can we consider simply renaming it to Apartheid in South Africa? Homey 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's long but so is Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. I'm happy with the name as it is. As has been said before, the name was agreed after earlier, lengthy discussions on this talk page. Why re-open old wounds?Phase4 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, please. The change you suggest is transparently related to your goal of establishing "Apartheid" as a term that may be used equally well for Israel as South Africa, as seen in recent AfD's and elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for political activism.Timothy Usher 06:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue of naming the article was resolved long ago after much pain and discussion. An article about a historical period should contain the word "History" in its title. The renaming proposal does nothing but spill the conflict other "apartheid" articles over to this one; I'm not sure why Homey is so bent on escalating the conflict. Pecher Talk 08:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Those of you who have been heavily involved in the "Israeli apartheid" arguments - on both sides - may I respectfully request, again, that you don't start a similar unwinnable argument here? I think we are doing a fairly good job of keeping the peace between different political views on South African history, without a determined assault from the pro- and anti-Israeli sides. Zaian 09:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider myself rather on the anti-novel usage/anti-pointless link side, thank you.Timothy Usher 10:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry if I oversimplified the sides. I don't try to keep track on who is pro- or anti-what. I just see a bitter argument going on. Zaian 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Can this debate be re-opened? The current name of the article really does seem silly. Should the article on the World War II by called History of the world during the Second World War ? There are at least three problems with the current name:
  • Apartheid obviously refers to the political system that was in place in South Africa when not qualified in some way - the country qualification is therefore superfluous.
  • Calling the article History of Apartheid places unnecessary limitations on the scope of the article. Whilst there may indeed be a place for a separate article on the History of Apartheid, the main article should describe the system, provide relevant history and cover other topics that one would expect from a good encyclopaedic introduction to the subject.
  • A narrow interpretation of the current title would suggest that Apartheid is used here only to demarcate a certain time period and that the article is really about the History of South Africa which happens to have taken place between 1948 and and 1994.
Is there a particular reason why the English article deviates from almost all other languages in using this cumbersome name? Laurens-af 08:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
To make an extremely long story short, I believe that the article was placed at this name in an effort to insulate it from the insertion of material regarding accusations against Israel. I assume that this subject is discussed in the various talk pages for this article. This may (or may not) be less of an issue now that there is an article established (unfortunately) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid although that situation is not all that stable. (There also is an article Allegations of apartheid dealing with non-South Africa issues in general.) I believe that if this article were renamed to simply Apartheid (which currently redirects to this article), all sorts of editors, former editors and their sockpuppets (the categories may overlap) would come out of the woodwork and turn this article into something you probably wouldn't like. A compromise might be Apartheid in South Africa, although I can see an argument that this title would imply that apartheid exists outside South Africa, an issue that is currently side-stepped by the use of "allegations" in the titles of the the non-South Africa articles. If you are going to suggest a change, you might want to create a new section at the bottom of this talk page, and see what the "regulars" on this article might have to say. However, what I have written may give you an idea of how this article arrived at its cumbersome, rather ridiculous title. Ridiculous though it may be, it happened for a reason, and it may be that changing it will upset the current sort-of-balance that has been achieved. 6SJ7 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Reading through the various threads your conclusion on how the name was arrived at seems accurate. Whilst it may be convenient to label practices in other countries as Apartheid, it can hardly be the same thing even if those countries do some things that were done in South Africa. The problem with limiting the article to Apartheid in South Africa is that it would seem to exclude topics that logically belong with the main article on Apartheid such as the implementation of aspects of the Apartheid policy by South Africa in Namibia, which was under its control at the time. I'll take a few deep breaths and then perhaps hazard a new topic at the end of the discussion... Laurens-af 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

International Criminal Court vs. International Law

The "International Criminal Court" is not the same thing as "International law". Indeed, many jurisdictions do not accept the court's authority, and the court's charter or rulings do not inevitably set international law. Please be accurate in titles. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I know they are not. International Criminal Court correctly says that the US, Israel, China and Zimbabwe are the main countries constituting your 'many'. For most of the civilised world, including South Africa, the two terms are indeed closely related. Are you POV-pushing here? Please use accurate grammar in titles, and keep titles concise. Thanks --Guinnog 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Something that is not accepted by 1/3 of the world's population and economy can hardly be considered universally accepted. In addition, not everything the International Criminal court does is "international law", even according to those who accept it. "Closely related" is an opinion in this case not supported by any reliable citations; do you have any which show that the statue in question is accepted as International law? Also, please keep both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind, as they are both policy. And finally, please use accurate and verifiable titles, not those which cite unsourced opinion. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The United States, and several rogue states, choose to ignore quite a lot of international law as well. They also refused to sign on to the court or recognise its jurisdiction of the court. Just because the US ignores it doesn't mean it's not international law, it just means the international law isn't recognised universally (to put it charitably). If a state refuses to be a signatory to the Geneva Convention does that mean the convention is not international law? No, of course that. So why would this be the case with the Rome Statute?Homey 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break, there are a lot of countries that do not accept ICC jurisdiction with good cause. "Several Rogue States"? Funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not get into a debate on whether rejecting the ICC is a sign of a rogue state. The point is that South Africa accepts it, and this article is about South Africa. It's more important to have a heading that is snappy; users may follow the link to the ICC to find out which countries reject it. --Guinnog 20:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not SA accepts it is a red herring, stating that it is international law implies that the ICC is automatically a purveyor of something it really isn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, not all facets of the Geneva Conventions are accepted as international law - it is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty applies only to states that agree to be bound by its provisions. Conventions are treaties, and this applies to the Fourth Geneva Convention as much as to anything else. If one can prove that parts of the Convention have gained the status of customary international law, that is one thing; but one must indeed prove that, it is not something that can simply be asserted as fact. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe and Jay, international law and "universally accepted" are different things.

Again, because there are a few holdouts doesn't mean it's not international law (see the Law of the Sea Treaty for instance) and the US flouts or remains aloof from several key elements of international law just as during the Cold War the USSR and Eastern Bloc rejected much of international law - that didn't stop it from being international law. By your agument, Moshe, there is no international law at all. It is POV to assert that something is not international law because the US rejects it. Homey 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, international law is a slippery beast, but it is quite clear that pronouncements by the International Criminal Court do not automatically become international law, not according to any country. If you have any reliable sources which state that they do, or that the apartheid provisions are indeed now part of customary international law, please bring them forward. Refusing to abide by something that is not customary international law is not "flouting" international law, it is correctly asserting domestic sovereignty and international law. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Spot on, Homey. And, again, this is not the place to debate the legitimacy of the ICC; that article seems fairly written and NPOV, but if you have a problem with the legitimacy of the ICC I suggest you raise it on that article's talk page. The ICC is a component of international law; it concerns law, and its purview is international. QED. If South Africa rejected the ICC, I think that point would be worth mentioning in the article, and I might have more sympathy with your edits. --Guinnog 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, see [2] for numerous references to the Rome Statute as international law. See for instance the book THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Justice for the New Millenium by Leila Sadat. Homey 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide specific references stating that the Apartheid provisions are part of International law, not Google searches and book titles. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Guinnog, it's incorrect to state as you have that the US, Israel, China and Zimbabwe are the main countries not party to the ICC; additionally, this is not the place to determine what constitutes "the civilized world." Jayjg's comments are spot on: ICC isn't international law. You might wish it to be, and perhaps it should be, but that doesn't make it so.Timothy Usher 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I couldn't disagree more, except with your statement that this is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of the ICC.
I don't think there is any need for a detailed justification. It is common sense that the ICC is part of international law; it is a law which is international. What more do you want? --Guinnog 21:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Once someone asks for proper citations for a claim, saying "common sense" doesn't cut it any more. Verify, or remove. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So what kind of law is it then, Timothy? What source do you have that says the Rome Statute isn't international law but is something else? I don't have the time to go through every book and article mentioned in the link I gave above just to disprove Jay on his latest POV mission but I suspect anyone in a university library can find a citation to the Rome Statute as International law by pulling any current book on international law off the shelves.Homey 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to Google searches or book titles are not proof of anything; please insert only verifiable claims into articles, as per policy. Stating "I don't have time" is not good enough. Also, statements like the link I gave above just to disprove Jay on his latest POV mission is yet another egregious violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; please desist. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Specifying the International Criminal Court is more direct and more informative. It's not our place, and this is not the place, to decide (much less pre-decide) what constitutes international law.Timothy Usher 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the current international regime a treaty becomes international law once ratified by 60 countries. There is no requirement for a law to be universally recognised for it to be international law. Homey 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey's logic is not making sense, instead of trying to actually show evidence for his claim that ICC rulings are one in the same as international law, he is arguing that it is our responsibility to show that it isn't. This is called proving a negative, once again your condescending tone cannot hide that. By the same logic you are using, Nafta and the European union laws should be referred to as international law since they are laws that are international. So please, cease this "just because a few holdouts don't support it" business.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice bit of POV-pushing, guys. Let me see; you don't like the ICC, right? If I am right, why is that? --Guinnog 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stick to the article, not speculation about contributors. As Timothy points out, "Specifying the International Criminal Court is more direct and more informative. It's not our place, and this is not the place, to decide (much less pre-decide) what constitutes international law." Have you come up with any reliable sources which assert that the Apartheid law is a recognized part of common international law? Let WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV be your guide here. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please answer Homey's point above, about 60 countries. This really seems quite straightforward, unless you have an axe to grind here. --Guinnog 23:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing about international law is particularly straightforward, and Homey's original research fails to clarify anything about it. What is straightforward is Wikipedia policy; rather than making unverifiable assertions, we instead cite reliable sources. You've been asked plainly and clearly to comply with these simple policies quite a few times, but have failed to do so, insisting instead that it is "common sense", that it is "quite straightforward", and using various ad hominem arguments regarding other editors. What is so hard about following policy, and providing some citations? Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please answer Homey's point above, about 60 countries, and show that it is original research. Otherwise it is you who are indulging in ad hominem arguments regarding other editors. I don't know, what is so hard about following policy, and providing some citations? --Guinnog 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. You are the one making the assertion that the statements of the ICC regarding Apartheid law are automatically common international law, and are now basing that claim on Homey's unsourced assertion that "a treaty becomes international law once ratified by 60 countries". This, however, is an "unpublished theory, data, statement, concept, argument, or idea, or a new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." That is precisely what the WP:NOR policy forbids. Please provide some reliable source indicating that the statements of the ICC regarding Apartheid law are automatically common international law. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay is right that there is a theory in international law that once a certain number of states have ratified a treaty or convention, it somehow becomes "customary." This is not universally accepted, however (the world is not a democracy), and what all states, scholars, etc., agree on is that international law is only binding in any practical sense on states that either accept the attendant obligations or are coerced into accepting them. The International Criminal Court was conceived with good intentions but is now falling far short of its aspirations; my personal prediction is that it will be replaced by something better sooner or later; in the meantime, it is misleading to equate those statutes binding upon a limited number of states to "international law." I certainly think apartheid should be a crime, but that's neither here nor there. --Leifern 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was me who said that, not Jay:) It has never been the case that a treaty or statute has to be universally accepted before its considered "international law" if that were the case we would have no or very little international law to speak of. The ICC is recognized by over 100 countries and it was "ratified" once 60 countries signed on to it. That some countries have not ratified the Rome Statute does not mean it is not international law, it just means that those countries have not signed on to it and do not recognize it.
Jay pointed out that it is merely a theory that if a certain number of states ratify a statute, then it becomes "customary." The Statute of Rome itself declares itself in force when 60 or more states have ratified it; but it is only "law," if you will, on those who ratify it, i.e., those who are party to the treaty. It is not law for those who don't accept the statute and/or the jurisdiction of the ICC. --Leifern 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am curious as to why Jay and Moshe have suddenly developed an interest in whether or not the Rome Statute is international law? This wouldn't be connected to their argument that the use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa an "epithet" and the fact that the Rome Statute provides an obstacle to their argument, would it? If so, it seems you're trying to alter reality to fit your argument. Particularly when even if, for some reason, the Rome Statute isn't international law but is some other sort of law (whatever label you'd give to a statute recognised as legally binding in over 100 countries - multinational law? Multilateral law? Treaty law?) that still means that calling something that is not South African "apartheid" does not automatically mean it's an epithet. Homey 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, you are speculating in writing: "This wouldn't be connected to their argument that the use of the term "apartheid" outside of South Africa an "epithet" and the fact that the Rome Statute provides an obstacle to their argument, would it?" Asking a question, and offering an answer amounts to speculation. Aside from that, I don't see how a ban on apartheid presents an obstacle to an argument about "Israeli apartheid" (sic) being an epithet. The problem is rather that some people - with a rather loose interpretation of international law and apartheid - hijack both terms for purely political purposes. In any event, your ideas about motive are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. --Leifern 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again you are speculating on the motivations of individual editors, don't do that. Furthermore you are really creating your own definition of international law, I don't see any citation that states that once a law or treaty is ratified by a certain number of nations, it automatically passes into the realm of international law. That is not only Original Research but it is just plain erroneous. As I stated above, by the same arguments you are using you could label international free trade and political agreements- even regional ones- "International Law", this clearly isn't the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Rome Statute states that it would be declared ratified and come into effect once 60 states agree to it.
As for my speculation regarding your motives - I'm not speculating, I'm asking a question. Perhaps, Moshe, you can tell us why you are suddenly so interested in the question of whether or not the Rome Statute is international law?Homey 07:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"As I stated above, by the same arguments you are using you could label international free trade and political agreements- even regional ones- "International Law", this clearly isn't the case."

Ok Moshe, us a definition. When does something become "international law"?Homey 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again your question is structered in such a way that it is essentially asking me to prove a negative. So I will ask once again, can you provide a citation that states "Once something is ratified by 60 countries it becomes international law"? Other than the odd google search or book title, you have presented nothing. Furthermore your loaded question is really identical to an outright accusation of duplicitousness, it is none to dificult to see that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

International law vs. Power

I think some of the discussion here is whether or not international law is possible in geopolitics where power is one of the key drivers. In this case, the laws are usually only enforced when they are aligned with the major powers. The international domain is a power game and thus international laws that sound good on paper are often not worth even the paper they are written on. This fact that international laws are unenforcable if a great power(s) decides to state that they are unapplicable does not change that the laws do infact exist. The trick is not to question whether the crime of apartheid, which is part of the Rome statute, is a valid international law, but whether or not power constraining international laws are actually fully binding on great powers. --Ben Houston 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't validly seperate these two questions, as pronouncements by those without meaningful jurisdictions are almost by definition not "laws".Timothy Usher 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a POV. The fact remains that the term "international law" is used to refer to laws that have been established in the international realm by treaty or convention regardless of whether or not they have been adopted universally. You might want to argue that they shouldn't be called "international law" but something else but until you are able to persuade scholars and governments that your preferred usage is correct your assertion remains POV. Homey 06:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that all international laws fall into this category. Even ones that the US or other major players have agreed to are regularly breeched with no consequence -- remember the US declaring a new category of people called "enemy combatants" to whom the geneva conventions do not apply. The US also recently decided to ignore a series of NAFTA and WTO rulings in Canada's favor (i.e. the "softwood dispute") -- they just said simply "too bad Canada, we don't agree with the rulings" -- these rulings, which Canada won after years of legal NAFTA/WTO procedures were supposed to be binding, well they weren't because most rules at the international level are in essence voluntary if you are a major power. --Ben Houston 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some sources

From "Courting disfavour", The Economist, April 12 2002

"The success in establishing a permanent international criminal court is a triumph for those who want to strengthen international law. But the Bush administration hates the idea, and the court has put America and its allies on a collision course"
"THE cause is worthy, but the timing is terrible. For its supporters, the dream of an international criminal court became a reality on April 11th. With ten more nations ratifying the treaty setting up the court, the number exceeded the 60 that were required."

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

International law
  • Nonstate actors in international law > Individuals

Historically, states were the only subjects of international law. During the 20th century, however, a growing body of international law was devoted to defining the rights and responsibilities of individuals. The rights of individuals under international law are detailed in various human rights instruments and agreements. Although references to the protection of human rights appear in the UN Charter, the principal engine of the process was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948; UDHR). The UDHR has been supplemented by an impressive range of international treaties, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). With the exception of the convention on genocide, these agreements also have established monitoring committees, which, depending on the terms of the particular agreement, may examine the regular reports required of states, issue general and state-specific comments, and entertain petitions from individuals. The committee against torture may commence an inquiry on its own motion. The broad rights protected in these conventions include the right to life and due process, freedom from discrimination and torture, and freedom of expression and assembly. The right to self-determination and the rights of persons belonging to minority groups are protected by the convention on civil and political rights. In addition, the UN has established a range of organs and mechanisms to protect human rights, including the Commission on Human Rights.

Human rights protections also exist at the regional level. The best-developed system was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has more than 40 state parties as well as a court that can hear both interstate and individual applications. Other examples are the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, which has a commission and a court, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1982), which has a commission and is developing a court.

In addition to the rights granted to individuals, international law also has endowed them with responsibilities. In particular, following the Nürnberg Charter (1945) and the subsequent establishment of a tribunal to prosecute Nazi war criminals, individuals have been subject to international criminal responsibility and have been directly liable for breaches of international law, irrespective of domestic legal considerations. Individual responsibility was affirmed in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols and was affirmed and put into effect by the statutes that created war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia (1993) and Rwanda (1994), both of which prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced persons accused of war crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force in 2002, also provides for individual international criminal responsibility.

[3] (emphasis added) Homey 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting source. What do you think it means, other than individuals from countries who have ratified the treaty are bound by its provisions? Do you have anything which deals with the apartheid stuff, and it being part of customary international law? Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think it means that Britannica's article on International law discusses the ICC? What do you think the quotation from the Economist at the top of this section means but that a reliable source is discussing the ICC as a component of international law?Homey 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says a lot of things, but it doesn't actually say what you wish it did. It's quite clear that citizens of signatories of the Rome Accord are bound by its claims, but that doesn't extend it to common international law. I'm not going to use original research to extend what Britannica says to unsourced claims. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"The success in establishing a permanent international criminal court is a triumph for those who want to strengthen international law" - the Economist. Homey 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quote; what original research edifice are you attempting to build on it? Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing The Economist of original research? Homey 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He is reminding you that you can not take a reliable source and use it to support a novel thesis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The Economist can do original research if it wants; newspapers and newsmagazines often do. But what does that have to do with my question? Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does basic reading comprehension constitute creating a "novel thesis"?

Why would the Economist say that the ICC is a triumph for those who want to strenghten international law if the ICC and the Statute that established it were part of international law? Homey 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference between saying that the ICC strengthen's international law, and saying that the ICC is international law.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you are admitting a relationship between the ICC and international law. That's progress. Homey 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re minor thing/name metonymy

Thanks Coroebus, your change 'is' better. I realized later that this type of minor metonymy is too common in language generally to seek it out for correction. Re signing with 4 tildes: I don't understand what this refers to but am signing by linking my name. Lumbercutter 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Lumbercutter


Should this article be moved to apartheid or should Apartheid outside of South Africa and Apartheid (disambiguation) be merged and moved to Apartheid? 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is "No". The longer answer is "Not without discussion and consensus first". However, there have been many previous discussions on the page name; some of them on this page, and the rest in the talk archives. The current redirect from Apartheid to this page is the result of that consensus. Zaian 07:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question

I guess that this might be a stupid question but I have to ask it. Since when did we use single-quotes in South African English? Or is this another one of those "cosmopolitan" practices from Cape Town (another one being utter ignorance about and insensitivity to African culture)? It looks bad in the article when you have single-quotes mixed with double-quotes in the same sentence. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger discussion

User:KimvdLinde [4] suggests merging Israeli apartheid into Apartheid. Are you in favour or opposed to this proposal?Homey 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • OpposedHomey 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed"Israeli apartheid" and "Apartheid" are separate articles. "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" is discrete too!Phase4 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Central discussions/ApartheidHomey 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)



The RfM is not directly about this page, but it will tought on the apartheid redirect, and as such, I think it is better to inform people here also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


It seems odd to me that the word "Bantustan" does not appear in this article outside of a "see also". - Jmabel | Talk 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the 1995 Rugby World Cup

I believe this article should mention the 1995 Rugby World Cup, as it showed the world that SA had overcome the apartheid. This is from the Rugby World Cup article: "The 1995 tournament was hosted by South Africa - the nation that originally tipped the vote that saw the first event take place. The tournament was the first that South Africa would actually play in, following the end of the international sports boycott. The tournament had a fairytale ending, as South Africa were crowned champions over New Zealand, which concluded with then President Nelson Mandela, wearing a Springbok jersey and matching baseball cap, presenting the trophy to the South Africa's captain Francois Pienaar. The moment is seen as one of the most emotional in the sport's history.[6]" This image could be added too:Image:Nelson Mandela 1995 World Cup.jpg


There are almost no referances made in this article. Therefore any fool could have come up with this. How can we regard this as truthful history without any grounds of proof? Even though I am not in favour of the use of referances (because the book or article or whatever the referance refers to could also have been written by a fool), I think it necessary that it be used here as anything referanced in Wikipedia is regarded as factual. Please, someone, referance this stuff. Scotteh 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AIDS - most of the AIDS in South Africa - see Duesberg - is a hoax. Good for getting a little international money. Poverty and drugs and tuberculosis are the problems - harder to fix and something the government could really get done instead of corruption. 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate section in the article entitled References. The article is entitled History of South Africa in the apartheid era which effectively ended in 1994. Why drag AIDS/poverty/drugs/TB/corruption into the apartheid era when you are clearly implying these are post-apartheid problems.Phase4 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


More than half the page seems to be missing since the last time I visited it. Sabotage?Panu Petteri Höglund 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Get references on this page, FAST. There are so many claims made and many seem presumptuous, with not a single reference at the bottom. Every other page on wikipedia has references at the bottom of the SAME PAGE. And why has half the text disappeared? Laikalynx 17:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


While no right-minded person (and I don't think there's a NPOV issue here) supports the actions I think it would be interesting to see the justification for introducing apartheid. The article mentions that the NP campaigned on such a platform but are there any quotes that might give any indication of their reasoning for such actions? Me677 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe part of the justification was the "Swart gevaar", the fear the government instilled in white workers of their jobs being taken. They also used a certain Bible verse taken out of context (I forget which it is) as a justification. Justification differs from the actual reasons they did it of course. -- Banes 10:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The justifications were complex. The interesting thing is that even some liberals supported the apartheid idea in the 1940's. Of course, at that time, a clear idea of what the policy would encompass hadn't yet emerged. One needs to take South Africa's unique and at times tortured history into consideration. The Bible verse theory is largely bogus. The theological justifications were much more complex, and an interested reader should consult Herman Giliomee's excellent book The Afrikaners: Biography of a People (University of Virgina Press / Tafelberg, 2003). Some of the justifications arose from missionary concerns about Christian conversion of black people by taking them out of their African cultural background.

Bear in mind the contemporary situation in other countries, e.g. the American Deep South and Australia, just to mention two examples. For example, white supremacy was established in Australia through the Emigration Exclusion Act, better known as the "White Australia" policy - enacted at federation in 1901 and only finally abolished in 1973 - and large-scale extermination of the indigenous population by European settlers in the 19th century. This type of extermination of indigenous peoples on the scale carried out in Australia is largely absent from South African history. What little remained of the indigenous Australian population was denied citizenship - and the vote - until 1962, despite the fact that they constituted no threat to the white majority. South Africa also does not have the history of mob lynchings of blacks by white mobs that the American Deep South has.

When it came to systematising racial segregation, the Nationalist government had plenty of precedents in other countries to draw on for inspiration. For example, when it introduced the Mixed Marriages act, it was justified on the grounds that 30 American states had similar legislation.

However, compared with other countries which started out as European colonies, South Africa was unique in many respects. Unlike the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, for instance, the Europeans never numerically dominated the subordinate indigenous population, nor did they consist of a small group of traders, functionaries and missionaries as in, say, British India. The demographic condition which arose was somewhere in between. At a time when colonialism was falling into disfavour in the post-Second World War era, the whites of South Africa found themselves in a situation not experienced by their counterparts in other contemporary ex-colonial societies. Although they dominated over the indigenous population socially and politically, they didn't dominate numerically, nor did they have a "home country" to return to like the French or the British in the various African and Asian colonies. Like Americans, they had long since cut their ties with their countries of origin. Moreover, South Africa was also unique in the sense that the dominant white group consisted mainly of two ethnic groups who were in constant political rivalry with each other. They would only suspend this rivalry in order to ensure white domination. As Giliomee points out, the Afrikaner people in particular suffered from all the neuroses and anxieties of numerically weak peoples - they had gone through the searing experience of the Anglo Boer war, and there was a real concern for national survival. In this sense, apartheid was a radical "survival plan".

It calls to mind a letter I read years ago in a magazine, in which an American recalls sitting next to a South African on a long flight. They struck up conversation, which soon turned to the topic of politics and race relations. The American expressed surprise that South Africans still struggled with issues that the Americans had long since overcome, to which the South African responded, "Yes, but it didn't cost you anything." Of course, this isn't entirely true - the struggle for equality cost America the Civil War, but there again, slavery was abolished in South Africa well before the American Civil War with far less fuss, and hardly any bloodshed.

Once established, there were numerous reasons why apartheid became a self-perpetuating system, even when similar systems in other parts of the world gradually declined or fell into disrepute (e.g. the American South following the Civil Rights era of the 1950's and 1960's, also bearing in mind that it took the United States 100 years to progress from the Civil War to the Civil Rights era). Consider South Africa's position at the tip of the African continent - a continent which, with few exceptions, descended into tyranny and economic decline in the post-colonial era. The double standards that the international community displayed in judging white and black governments in Africa also contributed to delaying the demise of apartheid. Whites felt they had nothing to lose by hanging on to minority rule - the alternatives seemed a lot worse. Tyrants, dictators and presidents-for-life like Kenneth Kaunda, Robert Mugabe and Julius Nyerere were at the forefront of the "struggle against apartheid", but subjected their own populations to such misrule that many of them even sought a better standard of living in the hated racist South Africa. To mention only one example, the late Julius Nyerere of Tanzania was hailed as a great leader. Western nations, especially the Scandinavian countries, poured aid into his country, while at the same time criticising South Africa. The fact that Nyerere was a tyrant who tolerated no opposition, reputedly had more political prisoners than South Africa, and forcibly moved more people to implement his version of socialism than South Africa did under apartheid was ignored. The Economist magazine recently described him as "the man who destroyed Tanzania". In his 1989 book, South Africa: the New Revolution, liberal economist Don Caldwell described these double standards as an insiduous form of racism, the enlightened message being that, in Africa, a government run by whites was expected to uphold civil liberties, press freedom, democracy, and human rights, but a government run by blacks was held to no standards whatsoever. A similar point was made by Keith Richburg in his book, Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa. Richburg was the Washington Post's correspondent in East Africa during the Rwanda massacres.

The cold war rivalry between superpowers also played a significant role in South African politics. This is a lengthy topic in itself.

The American psychologist Don Beck, who visited South Africa numerous times in the turbulent 1980's, wrote a booklet titled "The psychology of South Africa", in which he made the statement that apartheid is very easy to understand. All one has to do is sit on the moon, and contemplate planet Earth. The observer then comes to the realisation that the entire world is an apartheid society. Twenty percent of the world's population earns 80% of the income, and this 20% mainly lives in places like western Europe, North America, and a few other places like Australia, Japan, etc. These people try very hard to prevent the other 80% from flooding in and spoiling their lifestyle, through strict emigration laws, and even physical barriers. Now shrink this global situation down and put it on the southern tip of Africa, and - hey presto! - you have apartheid. Beck made the point that numerous other authors have made, namely that South Africa is a society which is a microcosm of the world. HeervanMalpertuis 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I read Giliomee's book too. He (and you) go a long way to explain why otherwise reasonable people could institute apartheid. You cannot help but sympathise with the plight the Afrikaners found themselves in. They wanted to be in control, to keep control of the whole country, and to do so as a minority, to ensure the survival of their values and their civilisation. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's how Giliomee (and you) describe their motivation. They also considered blacks inferior, wanted to assume and then maintain control over the economy, and they didn't give a flying **** how many blacks were hurt in the process. Because what Giliomee does, is blame a few Afrikaners like Verwoerd and Malan for all the evil deeds while exonerating practically the remainder of Afrikanerdom from the Broederbond down. He says the Afrikaners' intentions were good. Well I say that's irrelevant: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Judge people not by their intentions but by their actions. Remember the daily indignities of petty apartheid (calling the 10 year old son of the "master" "kleinbaas", being unable to sit on the "slegs blankes" park bench, having to hop off the pavement if a white person was on it, having to yessir-nosir at the behest of the most junior white government official) and remember the frequent cruelties of big apartheid (forced removals of entire populations, pass law summary justice "repatriations" to bleak "homelands", the lack of schools, hospitals, job reservation etc etc). And then you can write a "justification?"? Paul Beardsell 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, as to the "fact" that racial prejudice has been every bit as bad if not worse elsewhere I think that is irrelevant. You are not allowed to act badly just because others do. But, without excusing Americans and Australians (and all the other racist peoples around the world - because it seems given half a chance any group can be racist) I think South Africa does not compare well. What you write about these other countries seems correct mostly. But whereas the Australian immigrants did practically wipe out the Australian aborigines, there weren't that many to wipe out. It is not correct to say that more non-whites were killed in Australia than in SA. No, far from it: The percentage was greater but the numbers were lower. That there were no lynch mobs in SA is not correct. OK, the Americans had their own inimitable style, but SA lynch mobs there were. And whereas there were some racist laws, neither the Australian system nor the US one had apartheid as the central focus of nearly every law. No systematic body of US or Aust law said where you could be housed, fed, hospitalised, schooled, employed on the basis of the race group you were determined to belong to. Not that I mean to excuse the Australians or the Americans. But they weren't as bad. Or if they were, it excuses nothing. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: Let's understand the pressures the Afrikaners (and other white South Africans) were under. Some people I knew well and liked were supporters of Apartheid. Some still look back on the system with rose tinted glasses. But let's remember apartheid not as Giliomee would have us do, as some kind of necessary rite of passage the country had to experience; or as a good natured experiment by Afrikaners that they willingly abandoned when they realised it of their own accord that it wasn't sustainable. No. Let's remember that daily people suffered badly as a consequence of apartheid. Children separated from parents. Long commutes from segregated areas. Confiscation of good land followed by forced removals to poor land. Dying in the road because the white ambulance would not take you to the white hospital that wouldn't admit you. Having to double desk (if lucky) without text books. Having no sports fields, cinemas, electricity, tarred roads. No running water! No, none of this is ever discussed by the apologists of apartheid. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And the intellectual Giliomee? All the time I was in apartheid-era South Africa I never remember him ever condemning any of this. I don't remember him sharing a platform with the few Afrikaners such as Van Zyl Slabbert who did speak out. I don't remember newspaper articles or books by him condemning apartheid. No, he and many, many others practised the see/hear/speak no evil trick while they employed their thug-brothers (and there were a lot of them!) to push black people around to the convenience of White South Africa. And plenty English speaking white South Africans did the same, of course. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Beardsell presents a lengthy, largely hysterical rant, which degenerates into an ad hominem attack on the persons of a widely respected academic, and myself. He misses the point completely, and introduces several inaccuracies to obfuscate. Anything which contradict his views are cast aside as "irrelevant" - see his removal of my attempt to introduce some balance into the discussion page of "Crime of Apartheid." Like the apartheid ideologists, Mr. Beardsell appears to have some difficulty dealing with alternative viewpoints. He also doesn't seem to grasp the difference between between "explaining" and "justifying", and obtaining that elusive quality, "understanding."

In the first place, by your own admission, you clearly know nothing about Hermann Giliomee. You don't know, for instance, that he accompanied Van Zyl Slabbert (mercifully declared not quite beyond the pale) to Dakar to meet the ANC leaders when it was still a banned organisation. You obviously also don't know that he is a past president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, an honour he shares with anti-apartheid luminaries like Alan Paton, Dame Helen Suzman and former Robben Island prisoner, Stanley Mogoba. Giliomee's long-standing opposition to apartheid and the open debate he encouraged in the journal Die Suid-Afrikaan, of which he was a co-founder, are also clearly beyond your narrow field of view. You may still get away with hurling abuse at me, but lumping Giliomee with "apologists for apartheid" is a serious, and completely indefensible libel. I suspect that your real problem with Giliomee's book is that he tries to present facts, and doesn't stoop to the type of propaganda which certain sectors of the anti-apartheid lobby degenerated into.

As for the statistics on Australian racism, the sources I have consulted indicate that estimates of the number of aborigines present at the time of European settlement range from about 300,000 to one million. The current figures are about 30,000. Even if we accept the lower estimate, that's a substantial "extermination rate" which has no equivalent in South Africa. If you have figures which contradict this, let's see them.

To argue, as your do, that there was "no systematic body of US or Aust law said where you could be housed, fed, hospitalised, schooled, employed on the basis of the race group you were determined to belong to" is simply false. Such laws certainly did exist in those countries, and arguing over whether they were a "systematic body of law" is to engage in semantic gymnastics.

However, instead of merely making assertions, please present us with facts and references. If you have statistics on mob lynchings in South Africa, compared with the American Deep South, please present them. The last source I saw on America (Encyclopaedia Britannica, I believe), cited 4000 mob lynchings - largely of blacks by whites - between the 1880's and 1950's in America.

No tarred roads? No sports fields? Now you're really skating on thin ice! If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to flaunt your ignorance.

By stating "But let's remember apartheid not as Giliomee would have us do", you appear to advance the idea that we should selectively "remember", a project which certain ANC and Africanist ideologists are particularly keen to promote. They frequently exhibit the same intolerance of alternative views, the same penchant for social engineering, the same selective memory, and indeed the same racism that some of apartheid's worst monsters have shown. Much of your rant exhibits exactly the same racial prejudice - in you case, against Afrikaners - that you claim to abhor


Y'know, I've re-read what I wrote and whereas there is just the odd thing I would tone down just a tad, I stand by it. HeervanMalpertuis misrepresents considerably what I wrote and I ask him (and anyone else) to re-read what I wrote too.

I did not say there were no racial laws in other countries. I said that in other countries there was no systematic body of law put in place to regulate most parts of daily life by membership of a race group. That is not merely semantics. I did not say there were more lynchings in SA than in USA: I said there were lynchings in SA. I did not say anything which contradicts HvM about Australia - I specifically acknowledged that a greater proportion of Aust aborigines were killed. I clearly and repetitively made the point that whatever happened elsewhere that that was no JUSTIFICATION for what happened in SA. HeervanMalpertuis, in his "justification of apartheid", which prompted my response, above, seems to think otherwise.

In the "Crime of Apartheid" article HvM references above he inserted this para. He supports this further on the Talk page. He and other editors of that article pour scorn on the idea that apartheid was a crime. I replied thus. HvM does seem reluctant to condemn apartheid.

HeervanMalpertuis invoked Giliomee. I read his The Afrikaners soon after it was published. The implementers of Apartheid get too gentle a ride in that book. My "see/hear/speak no evil" categorisation in my earlier contribution on this page is entirely correct. Giliomee seems to fail to condemn practically anyone in his book, allowing practically everyone the benefit of doubt, he fails to find hardly anyone to blame for the dead end of apartheid Afrikaners were led into. The intellectual Afrikaners who masterminded the plan escape entirely, Giliomee allows their claim to good intentions to stand, uncritically. They continued implementing apartheid while, and this is my point, countless South Africans suffered unduly as a direct result of that policy, and this was obvious to anyone with open eyes.

WP articles, under the influence of some revisionist editors, seem to continue to gloss over the reality of apartheid. There seems sometimes to be a concerted effort to deny what apartheid was, to pretend it was an entirely moral, "justified", alternative system that was abandoned because it did not work very well, rather than a legal and brutal system of subjugation and domination of Whites over others. Here on WP some argue apartheid was not a crime. Malpertuis seems to. That's a denial of grand apartheid but petty apartheid is denied too: That almost all blacks had no access to sporting facilities, that almost all black townships did not have tarred roads is denied most recently here, too, by Malpertuis. That I do Giliomee the injustice of grouping him with these apologists is wrong of me.

What has happened in this exchange, in this section on this Talk page, is as if someone asked on the Nazi Germany talk page what was the "justification" for the anti-Jewish stance of that regime, and someone replied describing the reasoning behind the Nazi leadership's measures without getting close to condemning or criticising anything while glossing over all the ugly aspects, because they were unintentioned, or just denying anything bad at all. Justifying what happened there by denying the anti-Jewish measures, or saying Jews were discriminated against elsewhere, or justifying the holocaust by saying Stalin was worse. Because that is the style of argument used here in the "justification" of Apartheid. Note: I am not saying Apartheid was as bad as Nazi Germany, just that it was nearly as bad. In Apartheid there was no deliberate holocaust, but otherwise many measures and effects were similar. The comparison is apt as the Nazis were the others who, in the 20th century, did have a "systematic body of law put in place to regulate most parts of daily life by membership of a race group." [I am well aware of Godwin's law, by the way, but this truly is one of the occasions when comparison to the Nazis is apt.]

Paul Beardsell 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Beardsell's latest pronunciamento hardly justifies any further response. He is clearly of the view that the only legitimate function of any history on South Africa is to "condemn" people whom he has declared unfit members of the human race. Pursuing a neutral or balanced point of view is clearly not desirable.

As for comparing South Africa under apartheid with Nazi Germany, I will leave it to John Kane-Berman of the South African Institute of Race Relations [5] To quote Kane-Berman:

"In 1955 an American academic called Milton Mayer published a book entitled "They Thought They Were Free" in which he explored how it was that millions of ordinary and basically decent Germans were conditioned into going along with Hitler even though they suspected what might be happening in the death camps. This process of conditioning people into condoning great wickedness, rather than tendentious comparisons of apartheid with Nazi crimes, is where there is some sort of analogy between Germans in the 1930s and 1940s and white South Africans during the apartheid era. It is a subject worth study for the lessons that might be learnt about, for example, the dangers of stigmatising people."

Stigmatising people seems to be Paul Beardsall's goal - another example of "political vituperation" [6]. In pursuit of this goal, he attempts to discredit Giliomee's book, a tactic once employed by John Vorster, former prime minister of South Africa, when he berated Andreas Wassenaar's book "Squandered Assets" (about the profligacy and socialist policies of the Nationalist government) in parliament. Hopefully, as with Wassenaar's book, Paul Beardsell's attempts will merely increase sales of the book.

As Raymond Tucker pointed out, there is no need to exaggarate the evils of apartheid [7].

Also worth reading "They also didn't know" by Rian Malan, author of the acclaimed book My Traitor's Heart [8]

HeervanMalpertuis 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One further point worth mentioning: Of course, South Africa has seen many mob lynchings in its recent past, but the vast majority of these were by black mobs lynching other black people using the notorious "necklace" method, a form of mob murder once famously endorsed by Winnie Mandela. However, I stand by my earlier statement: South Africa does not have the history of mob lynchings of blacks by white mobs that the American Deep South has. This does not mean that such incidents never occurred in South Africa's history, but that they were extremely rare, especially so during the apartheid era.

HeervanMalpertuis 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say apartheid and Nazism were equivalent. John Kane Berman (article linked to above) is not denying that apartheid was bad. Further I am not against mentioning in the article all and any redeeming features of the South African system.

Justice (to take an example used in some of Malpertuis's references) was not bad, for example, if you consider that many courts throughout the land implemented all those terrible laws faithfully to the letter and the spirit they were written. Despite all those kind words written about the SA justice system, I never remember a magistrate saying, sorry, I cannot convict anybody under such an inhuman law. One or two judges tried it but they did not last. Of course, the "system" did not allow much room for the judiciary to challenge the law. But that is my point, again and again: The system was bad! And, in this case the (100% White) judges quietly went along with it, by and large, like Whites did in every other sphere of SA life.

Those quoted or reference by HeervanMalpertuis, above, are able to explain, perhaps, how Whites were able to do the see/hear/speak no evil trick. They do not say the evils did not occur.

From reading the Raymond Tucker article linked to above, I am sure Tucker would quickly agree that there is no need to gloss over the evils of apartheid, either. The implicit and explicit assertions by HeervanMalpertuis that I am exagerating the evils of apartheid do not hold water. There is not one exageration he has identified. I am *not* saying that there were not worse regimes elsewhere. What I am saying is that no one else's evils excuse your own. I am also saying that apartheid was pretty damn bad. Those who lived with equanimity through it should be ashamed of themselves. Those who took advantage of their countless priveleges based solely upon race (including petty issues such as tarred roads and sporting facilities), were they able to do so because they did know how other race groups lived, or did they just not care? If they were blind they chose to be. Perhaps it is that shame which leads to glossing over apartheid's evils now. This could be an "ad hominem" attack on HeervanMalpertuis or not: For all I know he carried Giliomee's briefcase when Giliomee accompanied Van Zyl Slabbert to meet the ANC. If the cap fits.

A reader of this encyclopedia's apartheid related articles must find a proper representation of apartheid when they read the apartheid related articles here. It must be possible to determine from the text of the WP articles that apartheid was a cruel and brutal system. Who denies this? A reader of this encyclopedia must be able to determine that apartheid meant forcible segregation of the races in every sphere of life, and that Blacks always got the short end of the stick or no end at all. The articles here to say that the Black schooling system was specifically designed NOT to empower blacks, that 10 times as much was spent by government on each white child than on each black child; that 3rd class train carriages were, by law, for blacks and 1st and 2nd class was reserved for Whites; that blacks had poor access, even in townships close to prosperous towns, to running water, to electricity, to phones. To hospitals. That the black state pension was much smaller than that for whites. That no black could legally employ a white, assuming he could get a permit to start a business in the first place. That they had to queue at separate windows for service at the post office and other government buildings. That hundreds of thousands of black families were forced apart, child from parent, wife from husband, by the pass laws. And all the foregoing was a subset of that enforced legally. But the dehumanising effect of all this on both Blacks and Whites should be described too. This stuff must be in the apartheid articles here otherwise apartheid is not fairly represented. Who says otherwise?

Of course it was worse in Stalinist Russia and in Cambodia. Of course China's purges were worse than South Africa's - comparison is ridiculous. Of course, people were tortured and killed in South America, too. Of course apartheid's excesses are easily overshadowed by Nazi Germany's. Economic mismanagement and wilful neglect of human rights was rife in many other African countries. All of that should be documented at WP and, mostly, is. And if anyone should write a "justification" of any of that, if anyone attempts to deny any of it, I hope someone jumps in and says so. Here too.

So, let's describe apartheid as it was, not as some now choose (not) to remember. So that someone consulting this encyclopedia gets a real understanding of what apartheid was.

Paul Beardsell 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No further comment necessary, except to say that the exchange started because PB broke one of the courtesies of WP, namely to impute bad faith to what I wrote originally, and clearly still does. Anyone who doesn't share his views is an "apologist for apartheid" (even when merely explaining what motivated the apartheid ideologists), just like the apartheid government, who branded anyone who disagreed with it a "communist". Other readers can judge for themselves.

HeervanMalpertuis 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid origins

"Although the creation of apartheid is usually attributed to Afrikaner-dominated governments, it is partially a legacy of British colonialism which introduced a system of pass laws in the Cape Colony during the 19th century. This was done with the object of regulating the movement of blacks from the tribal regions to the areas occupied by whites and coloureds, and which were ruled by the British. Pass laws not only restricted the movement of blacks into these areas but also prohibited their movement from one district to another without a signed pass. Blacks were not allowed onto streets of towns in the Cape Colony and Natal after dark and they had to carry a pass at all times. This was given the name 'dompas' meaning 'stupid pass'.
The practice of apartheid can thus be viewed as a continuation and extension of the segregationist policies of previous White governments in what is now South Africa."

This, which I quoted from the main article, is higly controversial, therefore a citation is needed.

Here are some other opinions on the topic I found on the Internet. They reflect a completly different point of view:


"By the mid-19th century, equality for all before the law was, in theory, a principle established by the British, regardless of the race or religion of the litigant.
In 1853, a franchise was established in the Cape, determined by a person's wealth, but not restricted in any way by race; as long as you were rich enough, you could vote whether black, white or mixed race.
In the 1870's, Rhodes changed the franchise to exclude 'unwesternised' peasant farmers. Natal also briefly had a nonracial franchise, although this ended in 1896.
In the run up to the creation of the Union of South Africa, the Cape Colony was alone in sending delegates who weren't European to the constitutional conference. But the Afrikaners were determined to deprive Africans and people of African ancestry of political power."

The story of Africa


"When the British arrived in South Africa in 1796, they quickly conquered the Dutch settlement that had been established in 1652, setting up a government under the English Parliament and British common law. This liberal, individualistic regime was inherently offensive to the Afrikaners—the Dutch settlers of South Africa—who enjoyed both slavery (generally of imported Chinese and Malays) and a system of law that granted no standing to the nonwhite. The Boers, as the Afrikaners were to call themselves, abhorred the intervention of the British, whom they considered agents of an imperialist power. Following Britain's abolition of South African slavery in 1834, the Afrikaners physically escaped the rule of the British crown in the Great Trek of 1835.
Moving north from Capetown and spilling the blood of several major tribes, including the fierce Zulus, the Boers founded the Transvaal and the Orange Free State (i.e., free of British domination), and proceeded to establish racist legal institutions. The Boers treated brutally, and denied rights to, the relatively few nonwhites who resided and worked in their agricultural economy.
The Capetown of nineteenth-century British rule was markedly different. That area experienced some of the most unconstrained racial mixing in the world. A large nonwhite population, the Cape Coloureds, participated in integrated schools, churches, businesses, and government institutions. And they voted. A color-blind franchise was explicitly adopted in 1854. As a port city, Capetown became internationally famous for its laissez-faire social scene (including miscegenation), rivaling New Orleans as a haven for sea-weary sailors. "

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

--TheSensei 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The above needs to be in the article! The article is much better than it has sometimes been, but the glossing over of much pain and suffering and injustice is still apparent. The seeming insistence, in the article, that the 1910 government inherited apartheid and the the 1948 government just put into law existing practise has just enough of a grain of truth to be difficult to argue against without doing some basic research. And TheSensei has done some: Well done! Please include it in the article. Paul Beardsell 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My (white) South African school education certainly failed to point out the Great Trek was a year after the abolition of slavery! And we seemed to study the trek every year. Paul Beardsell 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A big problem with an article like this is there is a large group of internet users who lived through apartheid. It's a natural tendency for those who benefited from said system and as an ethnic group/people have had a sour mark on their collective history wanted to diffuse the blame for it. We must make sure to maintain as absolutely a neutral point of view and not let certain wikipedians, on either side, alter history to comfort themselves --Aliwalla 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The question remains about the above quotes as to which group is trying to "diffuse the blame." These quotes tend to resemble the kind of propaganda once popular amongst the more jingoist sector of British imperialists during the 19th century, The British were depicted in the best possible terms, the Boers roundly condemned. Anyone familiar with not only South African history, but world history, should be sceptical. Without trying to provide a comprehensive history, let's just look at some of these statements, and provide a few counter-examples:

When the British arrived in South Africa in 1796, they quickly conquered the Dutch settlement that had been established in 1652, setting up a government under the English Parliament and British common law.

No, they didn't. In fact, the British were careful to avoid tampering too much with the legal system, and even to this day, South Africa's legal system is based on the Roman-Dutch common law [9] introduced under Dutch colonial rule, widely respected by lawyers as a liberal legal order. Much of the liberal aspects of Roman-Dutch common law were, in fact, eroded by the Westminster-style parliamentary system introduced under British colonial rule, in which Parliament was sovereign. The Dutch colonial system made no legal racial distinctions - these were largely social.

The Boers, as the Afrikaners were to call themselves, abhorred the intervention of the British, whom they considered agents of an imperialist power. Following Britain's abolition of South African slavery in 1834, the Afrikaners physically escaped the rule of the British crown in the Great Trek of 1835.

Ah, yes, when making propaganda of this nature, always link the abolition of slavery to the Great Trek. Since most Afrikaners, especially the wealthy slave owners of the western Cape, elected to stay under British rule, and many of those who left the colony were not slave-owners, abolition of slavery strikes one as an odd reason to pack up and leave. The causes of the movement known as the Great Trek were far more complex, but the unstable conditions on the eastern frontier of the colony, much of it exacerbated by British actions, were the most important. Leading Afrikaners such as Andries Stockenstrom supported the abolition of slavery, and played a leading role in trying to bring about a more just social order. He was often frustrated in his attempts to establish treaties with African chiefs by a racist clique of British settlers.

Moving north from Capetown and spilling the blood of several major tribes, including the fierce Zulus, the Boers founded the Transvaal and the Orange Free State (i.e., free of British domination), and proceeded to establish racist legal institutions. The Boers treated brutally, and denied rights to, the relatively few nonwhites who resided and worked in their agricultural economy.

It's also important to avoid all mention of the fact that the Zulus started the bloodshed (see, for example, the Wikipedia article on Piet Retief) [10], or the attack by the Matabele, which invited reprisals. It was an entirely different situation in 1879, when the British engineered a war against the Zulu in order to gain the upper hand in Zululand. Yes, the Transvaal and OFS republics did have racist institutions, although blacks had access to the courts. However, the British colony of Natal also practised widespread discrimination against non-whites - as did British colonies in other parts of the world.

The Capetown of nineteenth-century British rule was markedly different. That area experienced some of the most unconstrained racial mixing in the world. A large nonwhite population, the Cape Coloureds, participated in integrated schools, churches, businesses, and government institutions. And they voted. A color-blind franchise was explicitly adopted in 1854. As a port city, Capetown became internationally famous for its laissez-faire social scene (including miscegenation), rivaling New Orleans as a haven for sea-weary sailors.

Even under Dutch rule, Cape Town was something of a melting pot. As for "unconstrained", this is stretching a point. All historical records point to a highly stratified society, with whites, especially the English-speaking, on the top rungs, and coloureds, freed slaves and blacks in the lowest. As historian Hermann Giliomee points out, "More than in the eighteenth century, Cape society was now [1841] becoming polarized between whites and an undifferentiated category of people who were very poor and brown or black, and who could do little but work for whites." When plans for self-government under a qualified property franchise were announced by the Imperial government, it was opposed by a group of English settlers, under the leadership of Richard Southey, the governor's secretary, and Robert Godlonton. They feared that they would be 'swamped' by the 'Dutch and coloreds' and were so averse to the prospect of an 'unprogressive majority' that they preferred to stay under direct imperial rule HeervanMalpertuis 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

When one puts a {{pov}} tag on an article a standard boilerplate text is diplayed. This can now be seen at the beginning of the article but here it is, for ready reference:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

So, placing the tag requires explanation: What it is you think is not nuetral? No "discussion on the talk page" means no tag. Tag removed.

Paul Beardsell 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. User:Yakuman, please take a helpful approach and highlight areas where you feel the general focus is biased, specific statements that you feel are biased, which views you feel are not represented, etc. Without that explanation, it's not even clear whether we should be looking to remove pro- or anti-apartheid bias, or some other sort. We need a target: a specific list of concerns that can be evaluated and addressed, so that once they are addressed and consensus is reached, the tag can be removed again. Zaian 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)