Talk:Apartheid/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Summary??!

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

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

Agree. The article has too much much to cover to include it all under one heading. It is hard to read. Ideally there would be more summary and separate articles created to cover subsections in more detail. --MartinezMD (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Qué!Vandagard (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"inferior services"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite frankly, there is so much politically-correct, subjective and biased comment and plain lies by statement or omission in this Wiki entry that I suggest the entire thing is deleted and a neutral official historian be asked to re-write it. As an Englishman who has lived in South Africa for the last forty years I have never read so much hogwash intersperced with rare momemts of truth in my entire life. Insisting that apartheid compares with Nazism is hilarious. Saying that it was worse than any other African 'system' is, frankly, laughable. Just look at Zim, the Congo, anywhere south of the Sahara. No. Start again. Prof 7 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a constructive contribution, please be specific about your suggested improvements. Saying "start again" is a ridiculous request. I see no mention of Nazism in the article, for example. The talk page is not a forum to sound off, but to contribute constructively towards the article. Greenman (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask yet again. If apartheid was so awfully jolly, why don't the majority of south africans want to go back to it? Either find your "official"(?) historian, suggest a specific contribution to the article, or clear off. It's that simple. BillMasen (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice little reference I scared up with a quick Google search.

[1]

Sorry; I forgot to sign. - Invmog (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. What exactly is that article supposed to prove? BillMasen (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More references, please

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

"Struggle"

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

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

One should remember that the anti-apartheid struggle was not a clearcut fight for democracy, many of the participants wanted to see a communist regime take control and there was strong backing from Cuba [2] [3] [4] and the former USSR [5].

Even today in the democratic South Africa there are strong overtones of socialism [6] [7] [8]

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

Also see: African socialism

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

And what's so undemocratic about socialism? Look at the Scandinavian countries, they're socialist and they're also amongst the most democratic countries on earth.

And to the non-South Africans on this talk page, I apologise for the behaviour of my countrymen, not all white South Africans believe that apartheid was a good thing.--Irish South African (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is in desparate need of citations and also a lot of trimming. It's full of waffle and repetition, making it almost unreadable in places. Zaian (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I take serious issue with the depiction of apartheid South Africa during the final years as everywhere in a state of constant upheaval. Having lived in South Africa, I've always found it distasteful that my experience seemed so idyllic when the entire country was supposedly in an uproar. I don't deny that there were horrible human rights abuses taking place, but I think we lose sight of the effectiveness of the South African propaganda machine. You could even say the majority of the country was in a violent state, but there were definitely regions that seemed pretty safe and secure. From what I remember, in the village where I lived (in the early 1990s) white children would roam freely in the streets without fear. No one ever pointed a gun at me (or them). My suspicion is that it was only the US media that made South Africa appear to be in the middle of a civil war.

Regardless of what you think about what I've just said, I think it is very apparent from these discussion pages that people with different colored skins had very different subjective experiences during apartheid. Please do not attack my character on this issue... because I'm firmly anti-apartheid and I'm only trying to make a point here which I believe to be very relevant. I also think the article would be better served by making a sincere attempt to portray the experiences of freedom fighters in apartheid (in their own words) as well as the architects of apartheid (in their own words). And these words should be presented in their entirety. While you might not like the architects of apartheid, they're the ones that came up with the apartheid idea and the best way to get an understanding of what apartheid was intended to accomplish is to get the story straight from the horse's mouth. In such a way, a clear picture should emerge and the readers will be able to judge for themselves. Personally, as a liberal Afrikaner I've been trying to get a handle on apartheid for years now but everywhere I turn I am frustrated by equivocation and misrepresentation of facts. It is important for me to understand where I should have seen clearly the horrible nature of what was happened, so that I can set my moral compass and continue to live as an ethical person. It might be offend you for me to say this, but I didn't see clearly that anything was wrong until I moved out of South Africa. It's about high time that we accept that not all Afrikaners were 100% behind apartheid, that white people were heavily indoctrinated with nationalistic agenda, and that there were (and still maybe are) some misguided souls who even sincerely believed they had the moral high ground. The issue is a lot more complicated in practice than it is made to sound. 130.54.130.245 (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)concerned about lack of objectivity

Oh, and not sure about that sign. It appears most of the petty apartheid signs were vandalized or stolen by 1989. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6D6173BF931A15751C1A966958260. 202.71.92.74 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)concerned about lack of objectivity

Slight name change

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

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

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

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

You know, I've never ever seen a Wikipedia article entitled "The United States of America under segregation," in fact, now that you bring it up, that article's name is "Racial segregation in the United States".... So couldn't we have a name change to "Racial segregation in the (Union, then later the) Republic of South Africa"? Or perhaps "Apartheid in the Republic of South Africa," or maybe just "Apartheid in South Africa"... Because that's the approach that the Wikipedians have used for the U.S.'s past shameful practices, and most white South Africans are just as ashamed of their past in that one area.Invmog (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the name better as "South African apartheid" rather than "South Africa under apartheid"; in short, I support the name change done by user:UKER -Invmog (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Too Hidden

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

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

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

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

Will do fellow. During apartheid the life expectancy of a black person increased so fast that a black person in South Africa would live the longest out of any black person on the continent. Apartheid created the 'South African NHS' (although it wasn't a great success). Apartheid's HDI has been falling since 1995, after a constant increase from the 1930s, by 1995, the HDI of South Africa (including Black people) was 0.78, almost enough to be classed 'developed'. Now it's 0.66, about Tajikstan's level. The Apartheid goverment had the lowest corruption rate in Africa, and would be tiny compared to the crazy current corruption. Literacy rate for Black people in 1994: 80% - all black people in South Africa were given the right to a primary education and if they wanted, even secondary if they really wanted (Like Mandela). Yes, during apartheid blacks were made in some ways inferior, which is definitely not correct, however , we mustn't be ignorant and just ignore the accomplishments.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Bezuidenhout is talking about "the "acclomplishments" of apartheid.", BillMasen, I think they're talking about the accomplishments of their government in other areas - even though Apartheid was bad. Usually, in order to understand anything properly one must know the context and I believe what Bezuidenhout is saying is that instead of having an article that only bemoans the evils of Apartheid, we should include that it was very wrong in many ways, but also include what was going on in Africa at the time, why the had Apartheid, and that not all Afrikaners are racists and evil, but they had some bad policies which brought about suffering - just like the U.S., and other nations. Invmog (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But I suggest you consider the question: why don't black people want to go back to that era if it was improving their lives? You say the HDI of SA improved "including Black people". Well I'm sure the number counted black people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their lives were better than they are now; it could just as easily mean that the standard of living of white people has fallen more than the standard of black peoples lives has risen. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but it would not fit with your belief that black people were better off before 1994.

Black people's well being has greatly fallen since the end of apartheid. Black unemployment has gone from 8% in 1994 to 30% at the current year, this definitly affects HDI. Another suggestion that white people's wealth has ironically increased is that white people are richer than the black people than ever. You will find that in one of the culture of south africa sections that whites were 4 times richer than a black person in 1994. Now it's nearing 6 times. Besides, white people make up only 10%, black people 80%. It would have to be a MEGA fall of standard of life for white people to even make a 'slight' fall. The contrast would probably have to be reverting the white people to that of the Afghans.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And, in answer to your questioin, they don't want to 'go back' to apartheid because they now have political power, their goal of becoming the sole ethnic group of the country is coming together as more whites are leaving. It would be the same as a polish family in newly polish annexed lands from Germany, desiring the land to be returned.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that black people in SA want to eliminate all of the whites is an unsupported and, yes, racially tinged POV. If you can substantiate your claims about increased black poverty, and you haven't provided a source yet, it is conceivable they could go into the article. BillMasen (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Nats had black education. And the result of the segregated education that they introduced was not a generation of well-educated, contented individuals, to say the least. Contrariwise, it was the generation which made the contemporary regime totally untenable. Tell me, why was that if it was such a brilliant education?

A word to the wise that has little to do with Wikipedia: defending the Nats' rule is not a good idea if you don't want to look like a racist. Back onto wikipedia: substantiate the idea that the majority of South Africans (by definition, not primarily white people) had better lives than they do now, using reliable sources, and put them into the article. If you can't do that, there really is nothing to talk about. BillMasen (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one the sections of apartheid that really anger me. Yes, black education was inferior to white education (despite being still the best for blacks than any other african country), it was a lousy system, only supplying the basic nessesities. And BillMasen, I CAN find the evidence for the improved quality of life. But then that would be a crime ;) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Accomplishments"

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

First off, sorry about my terrible spelling, I was being very impatient with my typing and wasn't checking my spelling. But more to the point, the reason why I wanted to create this section of the article was to show that Apartheid wasn't like a Nazi regime, or any other extreme racist society. I did this because the article might create an impression that the white people didn't bother to end apartheid, and only made life hell for non-whites. Many Germans are ashamed of living under the Nazi Germany, and not being against it, but South Africans want to impose that they did try in many ways that when South Africa was under apartheid, there were many white people who protested, and black people were given the right to live, have a home, and a homeland. Please do not take this the wrong way and relate it to Nazism.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Apartheid was very bad, as you well know, and the communist revolutionaries using apartheid to stir up hatred in South Africa and international sanction against the "Evil Apartheid Regime" and eventually take over the nation for communism (or a form thereof) is at least as equally bad as Apartheid, wouldn't you say? Many people ignore the fact (or don't know about the fact) that many native Africans actually migrated to 'Apartheid South Africa' because of the severe turmoil brought on from communist revolutionaries in the surrounding nations. Today, South Africa is one of the most violent nations on the face of the earth. Many things about Apartheid were very evil, and communism's ugly face in every aspect of South African's lives I would say, is also very evil. However, this article focuses on the first evil, and it celebrates the 'peaceful' ushering in of the next. Invmog (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Communism in South Africa today? Prove this fact, please.--TM 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I definitely would not say that the state which inherited these catastrophic social problems is anywhere near as bad as the state that created them. Then again, this is not a forum, so unless you have sources to back up thoise opinions and puit them in the article, don't use the cover of the talk page to sound off. BillMasen (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Say, I've got a good source which speaks briefly about the accomplishments of apartheid South Africa. Its copyright is 1985, so it still spoke of things like even though Western conservatives didn't agree with the apartheid policy that the history they had observed showed them that if the Marxist had their way it would be far worse. I have the book right here with me, it's "World History - and Cultures" and it was published by A Beka Book Publications and authored by George T. Thompson and Laurel Elizabeth Hicks, but if I'm not allowed to violate copyright laws by typing in its contents and none of y'all own the book, then how am I going to prove that the book exists and that it basically states that apartheid is bad but communism would be worse - how do I go about showing this book as my source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign; Invmog (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to make sure that the source achieves WP:RS.

Potential problems: the publishing company is a christian partisan publisher. Not that there's anything wrong with that: it does not in itself disqualify the book being used in the article. However, you will save yourself a lot of trouble if you find a countervailing view and present that, which will not be hard. You can probably find one in this very article.

I can't tell by looking at the site whether it is a vanity press or not. It doesn't appear to be, though. BillMasen (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, BillMasen. The Wikipedia: Reliable Sources page states in the opening paragraph that "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." And I think that in general many Westerners believe that South Africa is better than ever while the British and Afrikaans who live there have seen a steep downward trend, the following quote is from the Wikipedia page South Africa; "In post-apartheid South Africa, millions of South Africans, mostly black, have continued to live in poverty, as it has been difficult to compensate quickly for generations of educational and social neglect. Poverty among whites, previously rare, has increased greatly.[17] While some have attributed this partly to the legacy of the apartheid system, increasingly many attribute it to the failure of the current government to tackle social issues. In addition, the current government has struggled to achieve the monetary and fiscal discipline to ensure both redistribution of wealth and economic growth. Since the ANC-led government took power, the United Nations Human Development Index of South Africa has fallen, while it was steadily rising until the mid-1990s.[18] Some of this could possibly be attributed to the AIDS pandemic and the failure of the government to take steps to address it.[19]" - So I'm wondering if we could, in a NPOV way, reflect the minority view that South Africa is better because it no longer has apartheid but it is worse in terms of safety and economy. It doesn't need to a be a big section in the article, maybe just a brief mention. :::And here's an external link to what could be used as a reference :::[[9]] :::Invmog (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way - in speaking of Accomplishments I am in no way speaking of the Accomplishments of the flawed policy of apartheid, but rather, the accomplishments and the prosperity created by the South African government before 1994 compared to the comparative poverty of South Africa today. (Many of my relatives live in South Africa and they speak of extremely high gas prices, roads in disrepair, frequent power outages, high rates of crime, corruption in high places, ect., all of which were not issues in 1960 South Africa [10]) Invmog (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point to an "accomplishments" section. As mentioned above, this would be like "accomplishments of slavery". So, yes, white people had an artificially high standard of living and thought everything was rosy. It's fairly obvious that this came at a cost, or that some would complain that their privileges have been taken away, and hanker back for the 'good old days', but this is hardly an accomplishment. As for a discussion of the booming economy since the end of apartheid, or the vast expansion of roads, electricity and other infrastructure into previously unserviced rural areas, or the opening up of the country to global capital and the movement of people and the increase in crime and the drugs trade associated with this, or the failings of the current government, these belong in those articles. The current South African government is so far from communist it's laughable. But that's not relevant here. Greenman (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Presumably black people in SA do not think that the Nationalist era resulted in more accomplishments for them than the current era. Otherwise, they would want to go back to apartheid, right? And since the 6 parties in SA with the most votes (amounting to over 95% of the total) are not connected to apartheid it would seem that they don't want it back. And they know what's best for themselves, right?

Nobody is denying that the previous regime created priveleged and favourable conditions for white people. You need to substantiate the idea that it was better for black people than the current situation. If you can find anything to support that, it can be integrated into the article.

And as far as crime is concerned, if the Nats get the praise for the 50s and 60s, they also get the blame for the 70s and 80s, right?BillMasen (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill, the reference is in South African statistics. Becuase they are 80% of the population, any sudden change in statistics is extremely likely to have an affect/be an affect of them. And by the way, I can assure you that crime is 3 times worse now than it was in 1989. Invog made an exellent example with many quotes, that can be furthermore added to if looked up on the internet:(i hope you remembered to read his comment because it answers your question above.)

Thank you, BillMasen. The Wikipedia: Reliable Sources page states in the opening paragraph that "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." And I think that in general many Westerners believe that South Africa is better than ever while the British and Afrikaans who live there have seen a steep downward trend, the following quote is from the Wikipedia page South Africa; "In post-apartheid South Africa, millions of South Africans, mostly black, have continued to live in poverty, as it has been difficult to compensate quickly for generations of educational and social neglect. Poverty among whites, previously rare, has increased greatly.[17] While some have attributed this partly to the legacy of the apartheid system, increasingly many attribute it to the failure of the current government to tackle social issues. In addition, the current government has struggled to achieve the monetary and fiscal discipline to ensure both redistribution of wealth and economic growth. Since the ANC-led government took power, the United Nations Human Development Index of South Africa has fallen, while it was steadily rising until the mid-1990s.[18] Some of this could possibly be attributed to the AIDS pandemic and the failure of the government to take steps to address it.[19]" - So I'm wondering if we could, in a NPOV way, reflect the minority view that South Africa is better because it no longer has apartheid but it is worse in terms of safety and economy. It doesn't need to a be a big section in the article, maybe just a brief mention. :::And here's an external link to what could be used as a reference :::[[11]] :::Invmog (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here in the UK, white South Africans get stereotyped as racist with just once glance, and I think the page needs to demonstrate that white people had to accept the situation and try and make the best of it, as in helping the communities that are being segregated. --Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's just not right. Nobody forced South African whites to vote for the Nationalists/apartheid. The only anti-apartheid party had a grand total of 1 seat

Earlier on this part of the talk page I was wrong in saying that the new government instituted communism - what I should have said instead was that they were heavily aided by the communists, and in this article under the United Nations section it opens up with a quote from Che Guevara - the communist revolutionary from South America - only there is no mention of the fact that he was a stark communist. In the South African Border War section it does make mention that it was one of the closing wars of the Cold War but it isn't made too obvious that the communists were trying to take over South Africa by using soviet machinery, Castro's Cuban troops and going through Angola and Namibia to get to South Africa. Perhaps Lenin's quote, if y'all would allow it, should be added in the South African Border War section which went something like "Whoever controls the tip of Africa controls... I want it for communism." Although it's true that once in power the ANC didn't use a communist form of government though, and on Nelson Mandela's (or his autobiography 'The Long Road To Freedom') page it has a quote of him saying something like "There will always be those who say that the Communists used us ... who says we didn't use them?" I think the inclusion of these things in the article in a NPOV way will help ease the tensions of opposing POVs. The following is a link to website with an extreme POV - this is the first time I've ever found the wensite after looking up "communism mandela south africa" in google, but it'll probably give you a good idea of the poeple's point of view who think that Mandela was a crook - surely we can find a middle ground somewhere. [12] Invmog (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and concerning the earlier statement "And as far as crime is concerned, if the Nats get the praise for the 50s and 60s, they also get the blame for the 70s and 80s, right?BillMasen (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)" I will say that there is much evident to point to the fact that when the Commonwealth and the United States and the United Nations placed heavy trade sanction against South Africa in the 70s and 80s and so forth it made it pretty hard to be prosperous and it in fact resulted in more immigrant Africans losing jobs (who move to South Africa by the hundreds, while even in its flawed state of apartheid it was more safe and prosperous than any other nation in Africa at that time) and the sanctions which were supposed to help the native and immigrant Africans ended up hurting them because they hurt the people who owned the corporations. I did another search and found a Wikipedia article and it mentions how the sanctions hurt the native Africans who they were trying to help; "May 8, 2009 ... Disinvestment (or divestment) from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s, ... Britain to take up economic sanctions against South African though. ... they would harm the people we are most concerned about - the Africans and those .... Main article: Economic history of South Africa#Sanctions ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa - Cached - Similar" does this not even deserve a little more attention in this of all articles if we can put it forth in a NPOV way? Invmog (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (I later editted some of this message's content, so I'll sign again) Invmog (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another point I must make is that the huge sudden downfall in 1994 personally I don't think it's because of the race of the government, but because of the ACTUAL party thats in control. The amazingly stupid ANC has the most primitive ideas of controlling a country, ones not fit enough even for Afghanistan, but I seriously believe that the downfall was mainly contributed due to a whole new government.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if this because article is the redirect page for a section of the history of South Africa I suggest that either the distinguished service of the 2 Squadron SAAF in the Korean War be made mention, or, to make a separate page for the actual historical events that that time period and let this article solely focus on apartheid. Invmog (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with that (the first one). BillMasen (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apartheid TODAY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article improvement

I've come to the article because it is listed as in need of wikification. I think the main need is for reorganisation and for reduction of detail where it is covered in daughter articles, or could be covered in daughter articles. I'm going to make some changes now for that purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede was too long, and there is no need for references in the lede. It should summarise the content of the article. So I moved the material into other sections. Now the lede is too short; I can eventually help rectify that, but perhaps someone else will in the meantime. The next thing I am going do is to move most of the detail from the Legislation section to the daughter article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the action taken.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try and wikify a bit more. I've been thinking: this is an incredibly important article for 20th century history. It should really be moving towards GA and potential FA. I wonder if it could chosen as part of a wikiproject collaboration drive or something similar? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a go at it. Previously it was full of duplication and frankly quite a lot of waffle. I am working on consolidating into chronological order, which will help to solve the problem of duplication. Zaian (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question in my point of view, i would say yes most definitely apartheid still exists strongly, as mentioned above we all live in a mixed community nowadays, but certain groups of within these races will not mix, for instance, a strongly apostolic family will very rarely if ever even employ a person of different race, let alone socialize, The effects of apartheid seems to have a lasting effect and one wonders of it will ever end. Steve169.202.5.106 (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Effects of the dissolution of the Apartheid?

Perhaps a section should be added to highlight the multitude of problems that SA is facing after the end of the apartheid. For example, extremely high crime rates, corruption, HIV and white emigration. Mortician103 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to this. I would like to point out that it, was white, Western Europeans and their social institutions that built South Africa in to the great country that it became. Why should the builders of a society be disenfranchised from it. One only need look to Zimbabwe for what black nationalism leads to. This is not to say that blacks are genetically inferior. Rather their cultural institutions are not the same as western institutions, they do not have a cultural tradition of rule of law, private property and democracy. The post colonial period in Africa has been a great tragedy for this reason. It is very much like Orwell's Animal farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.3.120 (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Unless you have sources which can be incorporated into the article, your private opinions have no business here. BillMasen (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State (which is legal to reproduce here) has these things to say about South Africa as it is today:

"CRIME: Although the vast majority of visitors complete their travels in South Africa without incident, visitors should be aware that criminal activity, often violent, occurs routinely. Notwithstanding government anti-crime efforts, violent crimes such as armed robbery, carjacking, mugging, "smash and grab" attacks on vehicles, and other incidents are regularly reported by visitors and resident Americans..."

"SAFETY AND SECURITY: ... South Africa has seen a number of attacks directed at foreigners – particularly refugees or immigrants from other African nations. Many of the attacks were centered in Johannesburg and the province of Gauteng in low income neighborhoods and informal settlements, but incidents of mob violence have taken place throughout the country. Many individuals have been killed in these incidents and many more, both targeted victims and bystanders, have been injured..."

And, even the Wikipedia article "Crime in South Africa" states that "Hijackings and cash-in-transit heists particularly have been shown to be on the increase. The rape situation has become so bad that the country has been referred to as the "rape capital of the world"."

These were not the cases when South Africa had the bad policy of apartheid, but had better policies in other areas. Couldn't there be some honorary mention in the article that "Even though they apartheid and that was very bad, South Africa was the safest it's ever been. But today, that is no longer the case." Invmog (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Invmog, why are you so determined to find some praise for the apartheid system? Apartheid "was a system of legal racial segregation" and nothing more. Crime, poverty, unemployment and other social ills are completely divorced from this. If you're really determined to to praise the old government enter this on the South Africa page under history, this nonsense doesn't belong on a page about segregation.196.207.35.246 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been observing this talkpage for a while from a distance. Certainly, listing the present circumstances and complaining about them seems like a definite post-mortem excuse for apartheid and has no place here. However, what I am somewhat missing in this article is a word or two about the motivations for setting up the system. Simply saying that racism was the only motivation is short-sighted and does not allow future generations to learn from the past. Including a short paragraph on how good-willed people with (what were in their mind) good intentions justified the system would allow us to see how misguided one can be even with the noblest theoretical ideas in mind. In that way, people could actually learn a lesson here. (Of course, writing this according to NPOV is rather difficult...) Seb az86556 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it always have to be 'Apartheid South Africa'?

I mean, it was a Republic, it had a name of its own which didn't include 'apartheid' as it's associated with in many places on Wikipedia, and if we're going to call it 'apartheid South Africa' then why don't we call a portion of U.S. History 'segregated America'? Or at an even earlier date - 'America under slavery'? Some Afrikaners might be offended if all we call their nation when they were in power is 'apartheid South Africa' - while apartheid was wrong in many ways, the National Party did many good things as well. Why not 'South Africa when it actually prospered' or 'South Africa when they finally got their own nation before they lost it'? Just a thought. Invmog (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does it always have to be 'Apartheid South Africa'? I don't know. Does it always have to be "Nazi Germany"? Does it always have to be "soviet Russia"?

Black south africans seem to believe that the system which was supposedly set up to favour them did not in fact do so. I'll take their opinion on what's good for them over someone else's any day. BillMasen (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this article referring to Apartheid South Africa does indeed make sense. Just as articles about Cuba (1959 to 2008) will refer to Castro's Cuba or articles on the history of Britain will refer to Imperial Britain. It is part of history. Using the term is very dependant on context, Pieter-Dirk Uys was a performer in Apartheid South Africa since the context demands it, Anton Goosen however was just a South African artist as he was not politically active. --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged entire article/Here's why...

I gave the entire article multiple tags at the top, and here's why:

• It contains entire passages over several paragrphs that might or might not be true. When dealing with a contentious issue such as this one, I expect a footnote after every other sentence to make it waterproof.WP:VERIFY
• Some of the passages read like stories told by a bonfire at night, and they have no place here. WP:COMMON
• No explicit historical account on the motivations to set up apartheid is included that is well-referenced and would adhere to NPOV-policies.
• Since apartheid was primarily a legal system, more sources on legislation/laws are required with actual ad verbatim-quotes.

Seb az86556 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The tags are either unnecessary or redundant. Vandagard (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Television

South African television was indeed entwined with the effects of Apartheid, but I don't think it's fair to say that because it was divided up linguistically that this is evidence: Britain has the S4C Welsh channel, and America has its Spanish channels, etc. This is not specifically racist, but linguistic/cultural, and makes a fair amount of sense - most of the channels were for black languages, after all, and the channel announcers can speak different languages - the Coloureds and Indians would have watched SATV1 too, and TV2 and TV3 show a Nguni/Sotho split - not then classified as racial, but certainly practical (linguistic). If anything, the United States has a more apparently racist (though non-governmental) line-up, what with 'BET', shamelessly 'Black Entertainment Television' - explicitly race-specific, quarantining one ethnic group whose language is the same as the rest. Would it not be fairer to give specific examples of racist programming and news in South Africa? That was certainly rife, and would make the point much better.

Name Change

User:UKER came in and changed the article name to "South African apartheid". Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous name, they made the change without any discussion, ignoring reams of previous discussion on this topic. If you want to revisit it AGAIN, by all means do, but please have the courtesy to discuss and reach consensus before blasting ahead unthinkingly. Greenman (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply dropped by here and saw an article with a "ridiculous name" as you call it. Going by WP:BOLD and particularly WP:BRD, the thing to do was simply go ahead and change it to one which, while perhaps not perfect, at least I reckon is a better one. So now what I don't get is your reasons for the revert, and unless there really is one, I think it's you who is in violation of WP:DRNC. --uKER (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of a name change and I am in favor of a discussion before any change in the name is made. Invmog (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You understand you're going against the guidelines, right? WP:BRD suggests that if you see something wrong you just go change it, and someone is bound to revert it IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHANGE, but not just because you didn't ask before doing it. Again, see WP:DRNC. --uKER (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks UKER for reigniting debate on this page and its title. Have a look through the talk page archives and you will see plenty of agonising debate about what to call this article, which you may not have been aware of. However, the current compromise title isn't necessarily the best, and it is worth discussion whether to change it. The problem with "South African apartheid" and similar names is that they imply that this is just one of a number of equivalent manifestations of apartheid. In past debates about the name, "apartheid in Israel" has dominated that discussion. The term Apartheid applies primarily to Apartheid in South Africa (the original and only "official" use of the term), and in an ideal world the article should be at the name Apartheid, but the clarification in the title has been necessary to make it clear that paragraphs about Israel are out of scope. Zaian (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, South African apartheid sounds.. disgusting. It just doesn't make sense or flow. I guess it's because it doesn't exist anymore (well, not towards black people anymore) that it sounds so strange, and apartheid was a section of this nation's history. Also i agree with Zaian, although there is somewhat an 'apartheid' going in on some countries such as Palestine, but 'official' SA is the only country to currently use it. User:Bezuidenhout (talk) 23 Aug 2009

UKER, WP:BOLD does not mean boldly disregarding the archives and ignoring the previous consensus and the lengthy discussions that have already been held on this topic. :) I'm happy to hear other suggestions for the title again, but wouldn't support South African apartheid, primarily for the reasons Zaian has stated. Greenman (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What about "Apartheid in South Africa"? Pros/Cons? Invmog (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds alot better than 'South African apartheid' - and the name somewhat sounds more neutral. Segregation in the USA sounds better than USA during/under segregation. And at least Apartheid in South Africa just includes apartheid policies, while South Africa under apartheid could mean everything that has gone on in SA between 1948-1994. I am FOR 'Apartheid in South Africa. It will also solve the 'apartheid'vs.'Apartheid dispute.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I favour a name which shows that this is about a period of South African history. The name should have apartheid in it; it would be impossible to have an article about this period which wasn't primarily about apartheid, even if it is about other things as well. Just like Spanish history 1939-75 has the title Spain under Franco, even though there were obviously many things which happened in that period which were nothing to do with Franco at all.

In other words, I am happy with the current name, and would not support any move which removed either the "period" aspect or the "apartheid" aspect. BillMasen (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BillMasen. Wizzy…☎ 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed "Apartheid in South Africa". --uKER (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Would still including the period of South Africa's history and just changing the name to "Apartheid in South Africa" be a good compromise? What do you all think? Invmog (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Supposing we change the name to that;

1) what do we say when people start deleting things which are related to SA history in this period, but not directly related to apartheid? After all, the article would be called Apartheid in South Africa, not apartheid & a few other things.

2) Or alternatively, we could create an entirely seperate article: "history of South Africa 1948-94". What would the article "history of South Africa 1948-94" look like if it wasn't mostly about the development of apartheid?

3) If "history of South Africa 1948-94" was primarily about the development of apartheid, wouldn't it be a content fork next to the Apartheid in South Africa article? BillMasen (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the thing to do is create the article for the period and just make the apartheid-related titles redirect to it. --uKER (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'History of South Africa (1910–1948)' is what is used for another portion of South Africa's history. So should there perhaps be a separate article called the History of South Africa (1948-1994) and one called Apartheid or to be more specific it could called Apartheid in South Africa

On a side note: I don't necessarily see why there should be made reference to 'apartheid in Israel' seeing as how 'segregation in Israel' means the exact same thing, except for the fact that South Africa had apartheid and the U.S. had segregation and maybe likening the Jewish people to South Africans is easier for the public to swallow rather than likening the Jews to the Americans, or perhaps there could be a separate article for the so-called 'apartheid' in Israel.

Any thoughts or ideas? Invmog (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Apartheid did not only directly occur in South Africa. The apartheid government of South Africa continued the occupation of Namibia. I am all for a name change, but this is important to keep in mind.--TM 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, and yet the fact remains; apartheid only happened in places where the government officials spoke Afrikaans, and we all know that the Israeli government does not speak Afrikaans. What is the Hebrew word for segregation? Perhaps that could be the name of that article. Invmog (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not up to us what we call the article on Israeli faux-apartheid. A number of people have called it that, it isn't our job to produce a non-POV name. BillMasen (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So back to the issue at hand; what do we do about the name change or do we just do nothing at all? Invmog (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Summarising the above, so far there is no consensus on a change, perhaps a mild keep, if any. Greenman (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

UN Section

Say.. The UN section begins with a quote from Che Guevara, and I know that racism is bad and all that: that is well established, I was just wondering if any attention should be brought to the fact that Nelson Mandela himself as admitted the the help the communists gave him in coming to power and also that Che was an avowed Communist and that Lenin said something along the lines of "Whoever controls the tip of Africa controls the world... I want it for communism" and that the communists Cubans helped the communists in Angola fight South African Border War against South West Africa (now Namibia) and South Africa in order to bring communism to the country by force. Oh, and the war last from 1966 to 1989 and I my grandfather and an uncle fought in that war. Perhaps Che's statement was not purely for humanitarian purposes, but to support a larger communist agenda, and maybe we could ind another UN quote which points out the flawed apartheid but which doesn't come from a communist. Furthermore concerning the UN section: according to the Wikipedia article about South African Jan Smuts it says that he played an important role in the forming of the United Nations and unlike the League of Nation (which he also helped to form) the UN would have teeth. Should any of this about Jan Smuts be added? It is perhaps a bit off-topic and unnecessary. Invmog (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Invmog, (1) Any reader of the current article who is interested in Che Guevara can click on his linked name and read all about his Marxist views, which are stated in the first line of his article. (2) If you would like to expand on Nelson Mandela's workings with the communists then his article would be the place to do that, and substantiate the claims with reliable sourcing. (3) As for your own personal Cold War theories - those are Wp:OR and not relevant to the article in question. However, you are obviously free to check and see if there are published sources that come to a similar conclusion. (4) Material on Smuts could be relevant if cited. (5) As for the quote in question, it is notable and beneficial as it outlines that South African apartheid was being denounced in the UN as early as 1964. The fact that the individual making the claims was a notable world figure, who would come to be praised post-mortem by Nelson Mandela (as noted in Che's legacy section), is also fitting.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good quote, and could be appropriate at the start of a chapter in a book, but I don't think Wikipedia should use quotes in this way. Singling it out like that doesn't seem appropriate as a section heading in a NPOV encyclopedia, especially since Che Guevara is a polarizing figure. There are also many other international figures who played a more significant and more direct role in international opposition to apartheid. I think it should go, or should be used further down in the text. Zaian (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As for NM's collaboration with the communists, you should also consider NM's own quote on the matter:

'There will always be those who say that the communists were using us. But who is to say that we were not using them?'

A cursory look at south africa would suggest that the ANC got far more out of it all than the communists. BillMasen (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great; thank you Redthoreau! I, however, do not yet feel confident enough in my own editing abilities to make large changes on an article of this size, so if anyone else would like to incorporate into the article more things about "Nelson Mandela's workings with the communists" with plenty of reliable sourcing and some "Material on Smuts" which "could be relevant if cited" I would greatly appreciate it, because frankly I feel if I tried it myself in my inexperienced state it would only cause more hassle to fix my mess than it would if I just confess my inability. Have a great day! Invmog (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What is Invmog talking about? I'm not sure, and I doubt that he knows!Vandagard (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding of YouTube-video Ons vir jou Suid-Afrika/At Thy will South Africa

Whoever: Here's your chance to explain the rationale for adding this crap. At least three editors have reverted this addition numerous times by now. If you do not explain why you deem this link a necessity, we will continue to remove it. So. We're waiting. Go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(moved from talkpage/left there by IP)

• At Thy Will South Africa: Documentary Motion Picture: Describing the geographical & historical progression of South Africa & its complex social structure. With genuine footage of the various eras, narrated by the respective leaders from Jan Smuts, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, P.W. Botha, F. W. De Klerk & Eugene Terre'Blanche. Including an episode explaining the policy of Separate Development designated Apartheid

The Documentary discusses the historical events which inevitably established the previous status quo in South Africa with factual representations of South African & Neighbouring societies.

The economic and geographic alterations which evolved the political process from British Colonialism to Republican Independence.

Therefore a factual documentary demonstrating genuine footage from the different eras and narration with historical speeches by South African leaders, undoubtedly highly relevant to the subject of South Africa & Apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.53.1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, it begins with "bringing the light of civilized Europe to Africa" or some such... That's junk. Moreover, it was authored by the extremely right-winged Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation, and you're trying tho spam on their behalf. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you watch the whole documentary, since you (Seb az86556) claim to be an aficionado on African affairs, you would realise how objectively the facts are presented. The entity who published the material has no political affiliation and is dedicated to a fair and balanced dissemination of local and international news and information

I agree with Seb. Any documentary which begins with "the civilizing light of europe" is unreliable and should not be on wikipedia.--TM 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

a) Please sign your posts

b) refrain from vandalizing this talkpage

c) Do not add material until consensus is reached

d) As a matter of fact I've watched the entire thing, and it's propaganda for an apologist stance on apartheid. Now wait until other people give their input and reach consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seb and Thomas.macmillan put it very well so I can only repeat the main point they made: this is a kind of propaganda video which has no place on Wikipedia. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I watched the video, and the funny thing is this; apartheid isn't even mentioned. Not once. Although maybe the video could be wiggled into the Afrikaner nationalism page or perhaps even the Anglo-Boer War article along with clear warnings which explain that the video expresses right-wing Afrikaner views, even as a right-wing Afrikaner myself I see no need for this video to be on this page for this simple reason; apartheid is nowhere addressed in the entire video. A brief summary of a few years of the history of South Africa, maybe, but this article deals directly with apartheid. Invmog (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Having watched the entire documentary, I noticed you had only watched the first part of the documentary (Founding of A Nation). The Second part titled (A Republic is Born) Thoroughly covers the policy of Apartheid including a spoken narrative by former State President F.W. De Klerk, the man principally responsible for ending the policy of Apartheid in White South Africa.

Clear case of spam :) Greenman (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of De Klerk

Today, October 8th 2009AD, someone removed a chunk from the Presidency of De Klerk section, I didn't know if it had been discussed here at all but it looks like it hasn't been. It left a link broken and it looked kind of fishy so I Undid it by default. If anyone wants to discuss any improvement to the De Klerk section then this is the place to do it; all comments and suggestions are welcome. Invmog (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)