Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive4

Mandela: The Authorised Biography

I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of Mandela's life and South Africa throughout this period. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated on the peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography" BillMasen 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronological Order

Since this is a history page, shouldn't there be some sort of chronological sequence to things? In its current state, it is difficult to see a clear progression of events in the article. I suggest a timeline or a resequencing of the subjects contained, unless somebody can think of a good reason against this course of action. 169.229.112.135 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate but equal

The phrase "separate but equal" was definitely used by the apartheid government - do a quick Google search for the term. Greenman 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that search reveals the phrase used in an actual quote from an apartheid government official. If you like, I'll leave the claim in the article but with a {{uncited}} tag. If the claim of separate but equal was made, it was disingenuous - a lie. The entire implementation of apartheid, and any number of quotes from Verwoerd and others, show that equality was not part of its mission. "What is the use of teaching a Bantu child mathematics", "Die wit man bly baas" (the white man stays boss), etc. Zaian 09:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DF Malan was horrified at the idea of separate but equal - see this 1953 Time magazine article. Zaian 09:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. See also [1] which mentions the wording of the separate amenities act (separate but not necessarily equal). Of course it was a lie in actuality, but the aim was used as a moral justification. I've also added {{uncited}} to the separate but equal article, so we can see if that attracts a reliable source. Greenman 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to "separate but equal". It's possible that the phrase was used, of course, but until we find a reference I don't think it should be mentioned. I think it is unlikely that it was ever used with much seriousness. Apartheid ideology was based on separation, with no requirement for equality. Zaian 16:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Union Flag

I would like to propose the removal of the Union Flag from the article. The flag is wrongly associated with the apartheid regime. Although it was the national flag of South Africa during apartheid, the flag is wrongly associated with the laws and attitudes of the apartheid government. It was the flag of the people of South Africa, many of whom did not agree with what was happening. The flag was first raised 20 years before apartheid was instigated and as such deserves more respect. It is insensitive to include it in such an article considering it's beginnings. It was politically neutral as it was the first flag representing South Africa's independance from colonial powers. Use of the flag in the apartheid article propogates stereotypes and misconceptions that those who still respect the flag are 'anti-black' apartheid-style Afrikaaners. 196.209.12.28 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(By "Union Flag" I think you mean the SA flag from 1928-1994, not the Union Flag of the UK.)

I don't think it's inappropriate to include in this article. For some people perhaps it was politically neutral, but many others on both sides saw it (and continue to see it) as a symbol of apartheid. Zaian 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The flag should stay. I'm not sure what you mean by 'wrongly' associated with the apartheid regime. For the entire existence of apartheid this was the flag used by the government, and it's strongly seen that way today. It would be detrimental to the article to remove the national flag of the time. Greenman 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

HIV/Aids

I'm removing the HIV/Aids section. Apartheid did a lot of wrong to the country, but it is absolutely insance to believe that it was the cause of the problem in South Africa today.

It also did do lots of good things to the country. Or why do you think South Africa was the technological most advance country in Africa?!

The government cannot be blamed for miners sleeping with prostitutes, even if the miners only went home once a month. Only being allowed to go home once a month, does not make it ok to sleep with a prostitute, and even if it was ok, still does not make it the governments fault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.2.170.152 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

So why is it not OK to sleep with a prostitute? For health reasons, of course. So if a forced government policy increases the likelyhood of a worker sleeping with a prostitute, then there is an obvious link. I'm poisoning the well here, but I accuse you of having a moralistic agenda. -- Riaan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.2.124.251 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Please take a deep breath and avoid letting this escalate into an unwinnable argument. Editing by consensus, and avoiding accusations - that's how things work around here. Zaian 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about long title

Why isn't this article simply called Apartheid? Almost all of the articles that link here probably use the one-word term. Spylab 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at Talk:Apartheid/Archive6, you will find that Zaian gave the definitive answer to this question on 23 June 2006.Phase4 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Literal translation of "Apartheid"

The article begins as: "Apartheid (literally "apartness" in Afrikaans) was a system of racial segregation....", however "-heid" in Afrikaans and Dutch is cognate with "-heit" in German and "-hood" in English. "-ness" in English meanwhile is cognate with "-nis" in German and Dutch, so if truly literally translated, shouldn't "Apartheid" be "Aparthood"? I propose that the article's beginning be changed to "Apartheid (literally "aparthood" or "apartness" in Afrikaans) was a system of racial segregation....".72.27.87.141 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. "Apartness" and "Aparthood" are both reasonable literal translations of the meaning of the word apartheid. They're both artificial words that don't exist in English, so there is no "correct" translation. However, -ness is a more common ending than -hood, so "Apartness" is better. "Aparthood" just sounds strange, so I don't think it should be used in the article, even if -heid is cognate with -hood. Google finds 19000 references to apartness but only 694 for aparthood. Zaian 06:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well actually "apartness" is a real English word, found in the Oxford English dictionary."Aparthood" sounds strange because it is an artificial word, however, just because a word sounds strange is no reason not to include it in the article (otherwise all artificial words used to approximate borrowed words should then be removed). In any event "aparthood" is the English construction (albeit artificial) that sounds closest to "apartheid" (and for good reason since -hood and -heit are related). It is true that -heid can be translated as -ness, but it can also be translated as -hood or -dom (e.g. "vrijheid" = "freedom" although literally it would be "freehood"). "Aparthood" would only sound strange, because -ness is more commonly used. My point though is that, even though the literal translation is not a proper English word, that if one was to literally translate "apartheid" one would get "aparthood", since the literal Dutch/Afrikaans equivalent of "apartness" would be "apartnis". I don't know the relative frequency of use of -hood and -ness, but it would seem that -ness is more frequent. Likewise I don't know the relative frequencies of -heid and -nis but it would appear that -heid is more frequent. I just thought it might make it easier for people to be able to understand the actually Afrikaans word itself. The Oxford English Dictionary does as much itself giving the meaning of "apartheid" as "the system of racial segration in force in South Africa etc." and then gives the origin as being from Afrikaans and literally meaning "separateness" (which is another word that can be used to translate it) and also breaks down the word into: "apart 'separate' + -heid (equivalent of -HOOD)" (no emphasis added). However, since "aparthood" is artificial and "apartness" is not, then as you said, its probably best just to stick with the latter.72.27.25.231 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Literal translations are really of use only to people attempting to learn the language being translated. They are otherwise inappropriate. The craft of a good translator is to be able to make non-literal translations that actually read like they were written in the language being translated to, without adding implications not found in the original. In a text of any length that can be very hard to do. At any rate, I'm not fluent in Dutch, but I am a germanicist, and I rather think that the OED makes the best possible choice of translation here: "separateness." Apartness isn't inaccurate, but it's awkward, and it isn't any more accurate. The other suggestions merely add problems. Arker 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate Development

Separate Development is the correct scientific term for that policy. "Apartheid" came up as a phrase during the National Parties election campaigns. Most likely due to its spelling in English "A-part-Hate" it became a loaded term to denounce and smear the policies of the late National Party. It should be stressed that the National Party intended to transform the "Republic of South Africa" into a White State, while the homelands (after being developed and getting a unified territory) should become independent states. After Verwoerd being murdered by the communist Tsafendas, the leadership of the National Party lost its Vision and the problems took their course. Protest and Unrest arose through the influence of foreign sponsored organizations like the ANC, forcing their way to power by crushing any opposition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhwn4wHwrIY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.250 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm finding it hard to know how to take that statement. Is it that you're saying the forced resettlement of most of South Africa's population was a reasonable proposition since the goal was to create a "White state" in South Africa? How would it have been possible to create the "homelands" without massive violence since it involved cramming over 70% of the population into less than a quarter of the available land? Is it that you feel most people in the outside world objected because the policy had an unfortunate sounding name as opposed to disliking its actual content? You also seem to be claiming that the Black population were happy with Apartheid and would not have protested if not for the ANC (who only existed because of external sponsorship) forcing them to do so with threats and violence. If so, how do we explain the fact that the ANC has won independently verified democratic elections on more than one occasion? The fact is that your contentions are contradicted by historical records and personal experience so I am curious as to how you arrived at these conclusions. Doc Meroe 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)