Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era/Archive 2

message: I don't know whether the following edit should make me laugh or cry: .  I hope it was an attempt at humor, maybe a satire on the Jews-caused-apartheid kooks. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.--Bcrowell 02:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: interesting edit

message: I can't find mention of the forced removals that took place from areas like District Six and Sophiatown to areas like SOWETO (SOuth WEst TOwnships). The removals had serious repercussions through the decades and have come back to bite us today (such as the rebuilding of District Six in Cape Town). I think they should at least be mentioned somewhere, or given a section of their own, which I am happy to do if required--Xiphon 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'd always assumed that Soweto was just a place name that came from an African language --- I'm always learning something new on WP! Sounds great to me, Xiphon, if you want to add something about this.--Bcrowell 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That's one hell of an ommission :) Feel free to add. See District_Six and Sophiatown as a start. Greenman 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a piece called Forced Removals as 2.3, as it is most directly related to the homeland system of 2.2. I welcome comments and suggestions, as well as thoughts on my adding a famous picture showing reistance graphiti in District Six prior to the move--Xiphon 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far Xiphon. However, many of the removals were not to homelands, rather to distant urban areas, such as the Cape Flats, Ocean View, Soweto etc, so the first sentence is incorrect as it stands. Greenman 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission 

message: Can anybody tell me concisely what articles exist that deal with contemporary SA history? It seems a little unbalanced to me to have one huge article about 3 million years of SA history, which subsequently isn't too detailed; and then one article about apartheid. Have I missed an article somewhere? I think we should try to redress this inbalance and spread the load a bit, i.e. more articles such as this one addressing specific issues or periods. Or am I just a voice in the wilderness here?--Xiphon 21:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apartheid was probably the most important and most documented. But spreading the load could be a good idea. For the different periods sounds good to me. Any other comments? Banes 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I might just add that the SA education system is broken up into three periods: 1924 - 1948 (Basically constitutional developments, NP comes to power and so on); 1948 - 1976 (Apartheid and resistance); and 1976 - 1994 (move to democracy). Perhaps we should look to adapt and employ this system?--Xiphon
I think History of South Africa should have more of the early stuff spun off into separate articles, so that it would be like History of the United States.--Bcrowell 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary History 

message: the lack of opportunities for the races to mix in a social setting entrenched white attitudes of superiority — often demonstrated in hostile, rude or patronising behaviour.
From last paragraph of apartheid from day to day, is laughably POV, IMO. Seeing as most ordinary white South Africans rarely encountered blacks, for obvious reasons, the opportunity simply didn't arise. Only the die-hards "often demonstrated" that sort of thing--Xiphon 12:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest being bold then, remove it. Banes 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that sort of section is inherently POV anyway due to its subjective nature. It probably should not be in an encyclopedic article. Impi 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph even contradicts itself. I have removed the last line, patronising behavior and such. I also changed the line before slightly to make it more more accurate as well as neutral. Banes 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Hey! Where is the Abolition of Passes Act? Is there a reason why it hasn't been included in the list of Acts/laws?--Xiphon 16:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows. Sigh...no-one reads this often enough.....Banes 09:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA 

message: The article, justifiably and understandably, tells of the harms done by and the struggle against apartheid.  I should be interested to read what were the reasons given for apartheid, what was the justification that the laws were given by the government.  I think this is lacking in the article and I should like to know about it.
:Well, the National Party (who implemented it), came to power in 48 basically on their Republican ideals, which appealed to the Afrikaners, and secondly what they termed 'black peril'. SA politics had always attempted to maintain white security first. For example there were strikes in the mines when the ratio of white to black labourers was increased from 1:3 to 1:10. As whites made up the biggest percentage of the voting body (blacks were excluded), it was important to cater to their interests. The justification was a little more complex. In short, events in the rest of Africa, notably the Belgium Congo, had shown what could happen if blacks were allowed to come to power, such as civil war, genocide etc. Therefore the government had to protect white interests, but to that end they had to maintain a minority government, which could only be done by suppresing the black majority. This led to their seperate development policy, i.e. the homelands. This is just a brief overview of course, but I do agree a more comprehensive explanation is lacking from the article.--Xiphon 05:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for apartheid 

message: Does anyone have a list of African states that had diplomatic relations with South Africa during apartheid? I'm just curious.
:South Africa was feuding with her Southern African neighbors, so, no relations there. As for the rest of africa, I dont know for sure, but I would assume not. SA did had relations with USA, Israel, and Iran (under the Shah). Other than that the country was completely isolated. ( Somebody correct me if I am full of it:-) Banes 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SA did have diplomatic relations with some African states, and at the very least conducted frequent diplomatic negotiations of sorts with its neighbours, which were ironically mostly economically dependent on SA (still are, in fact). I'm not sure about all the details though, I'll try look them up. — Impi 09:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe Taiwan and Libya were important ? I think that when Mandela (who was against sanctions ?) had to snub Taiwan to please China (when he was president), he decided he was getting too old for these games. He pointedly welcomed Gadaffi when he was president. Wizzy…☎ 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apartheid South Africa did have relations with Taiwan - the changes (and welcoming) of Libya all happened after apartheid ended though. As far as African countries, South Africa only had strong ties with Malawi, led by Hastings Banda's pro-western policies. There were occassional dealings with other African countries though, such as the Nkomati Accord (Mozambique).Greenman 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll ask my parents to double check, but I'm 90% sure they could stay in the regular hotels. Generally, the Apartheid mentality was less negative towards non-black, non-white races than to black races. Artagra 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure myself, but there was a big incident when the Japanese international swimming team (this was before isolation I presume) was not allowed to practice in the "whites only" olympic pool. Banes 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though as far as I know, Japanese people were regarded as "honorary whites", and therefore enjoyed the same privileges, as opposed to their Chinese neighbours, who were regarded as non-white. It was a ridiculous system. — Impi 07:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that the Japanese were above these shenanigans. I think that when Margaret Thatcher visited Japan she became an honorary man. Wizzy…☎ 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All rather confusing really.... Banes 08:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Black Consciousness Movement has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved, vote for it here! --Fenice 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: The quote 'On 13 February 1989, an ailing Botha, under pressure from the US and Britain, resigned and was succeeded later that year by FW de Klerk.' intrigues me. What exactly did the US and Britain do to warrant a special mention here? Greenman 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.W. Botha's downfall is more than adequately covered in his own article. As to what impelled the US and Britain to stick the knife in, one can only surmise: February 13, 1989 following very shortly after December 21, 1988, perhaps?Phase1 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Botha was forced to resign by his cabinet. International pressure played a role in the end of apartheid, but the article needs evidence to support the specific claim about a UK and US role in Botha's cabinet deciding to replace him with De Klerk. How did the UK and US stick the knife in at that point, if at all? The government had been ignoring international pressure for 4 decades. What made this case different? Other than the fact that he wasn't PW Botha, FW de Klerk wasn't an obvious reformer at that point either - this only became clear later. Zaian 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You undermine your own case, Zaian, by bringing F W De Klerk into the equation. Who in P W Botha's cabinet was strong enough to force him to resign, as you assert? Where is your evidence that the cabinet did it? To demonstrate there's still life in die groot Krokodil, P W recently gave his first interview in over a decade, and SABC refused to broadcast it last week. Here's a five-minute clip – enjoy!Phase1 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clip.  However, removing my  tag requesting references seems like an attempt to kill the discussion, which isn't appropriate just yet while we're still discussing, and no reference has yet been provided. It seems unlikely (to me and Greenman at least) that Botha resigned because of what the outside world thought of him, and we're asking for this statement to be supported. While debate is fun, I'd rather see referenced facts for an encyclopedic and historical article. Regarding the cabinet doing it, to quote Britannica in full, "Early in 1989 Botha fell ill and resigned his post as party leader, but he did not yield the presidency until he faced opposition not only from the National Party but from within his own Cabinet." I'm sure other sources are available - I know I've read an account of his resignation which can only have come from someone present at the meeting where the cabinet forced him to go, but I don't have the reference at hand. Zaian 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Bush Administration is attempting to construct a bi-partisan (joint Republican-Democratic) approach to SA around an all-party negotiated settlement which includes the ANC. Margaret Thatcher in Britain is attempting to use the leverage which her position on sanctions gives her over the SA government to press it to release Mandela, and her influence in the frontline states to help pressure the ANC to suspend the armed struggle as one of its strategies. This, she hopes, will lead the two prime protagonists into 'all-party' negotiations on the country's future."
The US and Britain saw P W Botha as the main stumbling block preventing the achievement of their objectives in South Africa. He therefore had to go.
The  tag should now be removed unless Zaian objects.Phase1 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's a useful paper written during a vital window in SA's history. It's a pity it's not in a searchable text form. I've now added a section on Western influence, mainly covering the UK and US policies, referencing this paper.  I've also reworded the section on Botha's resignation, leaving in the facts that we seem to agree on, but I moved the clause about the UK and US pressure so that it does not appear to have played a direct role in his resignation. I hope you agree that the paragraphs I've added are a good place to explain the US and UK policies and actions, and that the section on Botha's departure is improved, or at least not worsened by my changes. Zaian 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes are all good: I've tweaked them slightly.Phase1 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Botha resigned under pressure from the US and Britain?

message: I took down the SA map as it is a dupe from the South Africa page and there are already two more relevant maps there. Guinnog 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough: I've enlarged the Durban beach image to use up some of the white space alongside the article index.Phase1 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: Should I make a page on this? It was a common term at the time?Guinnog 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I wont add a new header for this. In my opinion, the use of petty is not entirely encyclopedic. While apartheid was, in some cases, almost laughably petty, it did not seem petty to the perpetrators. Perhaps we can find a better word for "petty"? But it isnt that important, I mean, I dont plan to edit war over it or anything. Banez 17:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be an idea. I personally have never heard the term, but as I was four years old when apartheid ended, it doesnt mean the term doesnt excist. Banez 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Petty apartheid" is even defined in The American Heritage Dictionary (here), so it certainly exists.--Ezeu 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, then it should stay in the article, and preferably linked in the caption once the article is created. Banez 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you too. The article is actually pretty good at the moment, I'll see if I can contribute...Cheers Banez 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nice talking to you, you prodded me in an interesting direction there. The article is pretty thin, feel free to add to it. Guinnog 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just realized that "grand apartheid" is already covered in the Background section, so have moved the "petty apartheid" mention to that section too. Hopefully, the circle has now been squared.Phase1 12:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petty apartheid

message: I'd like to suggest merging Petty Apartheid into this article. The former contains very little information, while it really discusses what the latter does. No reason for it to be a separate article. brozen 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Petty Apartheid does not only apply to South Africa. Its usage is much broader as you can see here.--Ezeu 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Petty apartheid contains absolutely nothing that isn't already in this article. As for Israel, that aspect is (or should be) discussed in Apartheid outside South Africa or even Racial segregation. My preference would be to see Petty apartheid blanked and redirected to this article. Alr 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the originator of the Petty apartheid article, I agree with you here. Guinnog 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Petty Apartheid into this article 

message: There was a substantial anonymous change by User:72.178.233.43 today, under the section Winds of Change regarding mercenary organisations.   I have deleted this section entirely for the following reasons:
* not cited; seems like original research
* speculative and POV
* too detailed for this section
* slanderous suggestion that Amnesty International funded paramilitary organisations
With the right citations, some of this material may be acceptable in this article, but it is too detailed and speculative in its current form.
It would also help if the author identified themselves rather than contributing anonymously.
Zaian 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how the user identity or lack thereof has bearing on whether contributed content has value. I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline suggesting that anonymous contributions are less worthy than those from users who have registered. SWalter 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A valid point. As I said, though, I reverted this contribution based on its dubious content, and posted my reasons above. The discussion page can then be used to rework the contribution into a usable form, but the original contributor has not yet done this.  Anonymous contributions are absolutely acceptable, but using a user name means that a contributor can build up trust. A contributor's reputation provides extra information that others can use to establish whether contributions were made in good faith. A user name also makes it easier to enter into discussion and collaboration.  See Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account#Benefits_explained.  Zaian 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winds of Change 

message: Were Whites legally limited from entering non-White areas?
:Yes. Mikker ... 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whites

message: "Apartheid" is a term that is in practical use to describe many apartheid-like discrimination and oppression situations in other nations besides South Africa. I note the link in a previous comment to Apartheid Outside South Africa now redirects to segregation which is not synonymous with that. The previous article Apartheid outside South Africa has been deleted and I note that it was deleted rather swiftly by only a couple of users and with rather light justification. I propose that the article be returned, with a link from the top of this South African Apartheid page. Alternatively, I propose that an "Apartheid" article entry begin with a disambiguation page, with "Apartheid Outside of South Africa" being one of the choices, with the other choices being at least South African Apartheid and Apartheid as a political epithet. Incidentally the description of apartheid in the epithets list is very weak. SWalter 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning the article Apartheid Outside of South Africa

message: I've removed some of the purple-prose POV from the HIV/AIDS section ("Amidst this turmoil, an even darker shadow began to move..."). I also took out some points relating to current HIV/AIDS policy in SA, which is irrelevant in an article dealing with apartheid. I'm still not entirely convinced that this section belongs in the article at all - any thoughts? Humansdorpie 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added in some of the deleted text to the main SA article. I also notice this article isn't linked from there, which I'll take care of as well. Guinnog 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV/AIDS 

message: I have added a short section detailing some of the legacies of the apartheid system - a couple of aspects of social and economic inequality - to help explain its effects and consequences in the context of present-day South Africa. Humansdorpie 12:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacies of apartheid 

message: I'm almost positive that the correct pronunciation is "a-part-HADE," and not the common Americanism "a-part-HIDE."  Can we add this in somehow?
Cornfused 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper Afrikaans pronounciation is A-part-HATE (quite literally).  The South African English pronounciation follows this closely, although I've heard both other versions.  There is an IPA transcription in the paragraphs further down, although I find it counter-intuitive for laypeople, which includes me.  We could try moving it up? dewet|✉ 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: I've reverted a few recent anonymous changes which lacked edit summaries. The changes I reverted didn't seem to have any merit, and since there was no edit summary motivating them, I've reverted them. While Wikipedia allows anonymous edits, it encourages users to get usernames and it also encourages edit summaries. Zaian 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous unexplained edits