Talk:Apartheid

See also

I think the list is bordering on being excessive. Nevertheless, I added a couple of links to articles about the legislative treatment of Maori within NZ. They are granted certain rights and privileges not given to other New Zealanders. The simplest example of this is separate Maori seats in parliament but similar legislated apartness exists in society. Sound familiar? Here is the opening sentence to the Apartheid article: "Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. "separateness", lit. "aparthood") was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 to the early 1990s" This is a quote from a source about the Maori seats I will shortly add to my "See also" link: "Separate representation has been indicated as a kind of political limbo, both irrational and reactionary to the point of apartheid. In the words of one foreign correspondent: 'The parallels between New Zealand and South Africa are ominous'. MOS:SEEALSO says: 'A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web.' Need I go on? User Turnagra, an active promoter of the Maori Renaissance has chosen, quite adamantly, to remove my additions as irrelevant with no connection to apartheid, and s/he has invited me to come here instead. Is racial separation policy in NZ worthy of including in the See also section? I was also going to add the post independence constitutions of Fiji, but I will hold off on that for a while. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Māori electorates and the Treaty of Waitangi are not even remotely comparable to apartheid, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. As with your other edit on Māori electorates, which Schwede66 rightly reverted, this edit not only paints an incorrect picture of the settlement process and Māori electorate seats. The source you provided isn't actually equating Māori electorates with apartheid, but rather quoting an article from the early 1980s to express that side of the argument. The very next paragraph reads:

But others claim a more positive attitude towards the existence of Maori representation. Politicians, for example, are anxious to endorse retention of the status quo, while Maori leaders of various party persuasions perceive guaranteed representation as a vital component of their cultural heritage, and defend the system as indispensable to Maori political aspirations.

The paper as a whole does nothing even close to equating these electorates with apartheid, and is rather examining them as something potentially able to be applied to the context of Canada's indigenous representation. I'd also like to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS again, given your initial comment. Turnagra (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

When you say that Māori are granted certain rights and privileges through having electorates, you display a lack of knowledge how the electorates came about in the first instance. Schwede66 21:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point which I think is blatantly obvious. The point is not comparing the negative intent, implementing and consequences of apartheid in SA with what applies in NZ. The connection is that both countries had/have a constitution and legislation in place that acknowledges and treats people differently based on their ethnicity. That is why I mentioned post-independence Fiji - and the issues around native Fijians becoming a minority. Apartheid was a policy backed by legislative racial distinction of the population. The policy on how to handle the Waitangi Treaty is, to an extent, the same - it treats people differently based on their ethnicity. This has nothing to do with the effect the SA and NZ policies have on Blacks and Maori, which is what you are focusing on. Of course Maori are not in anything like the same position the SA blacks were under apartheid. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You may not perceive it to be that, but there is absolutely an implication there focusing on the negative aspect. I think that's taking a way too overly broad interpretation of "see also" - if we included everything which treated people differently based on ethnicity, the list would be enormous and would dilute actual relevant links. If anything, we should cut down the "See also" links further to actual relevant examples, instead of such an unhelpful broad brush. Turnagra (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right to an extent, I do not see it that way, although I'm not even sure what 'that way' is. Logically, the ethnic groups to compare are black SAs and non-Maori NZers, not, as I think you are taking it, as blacks=Maori and whites=non-Maori. If you think my view is simplistic or rigid then I can see your point although I don't agree with it. Yes, we can look at other examples where ethnicity is built into a constitution. Going back only 50 or so years we would certainly be swamped with examples. As of today there would be fewer examples but probably more than one might think. I am not familiar enough with the Israel/Palestinian situation to comment except that there is clearly something amiss there. Back to the issue in hand. What is apartheid? An official way of separating races (as the article's opening sentence says) or an official way of keeping one race in a superior position? Both descriptions probably fit but I think the first is more neutral and more accurate. In any case there is a clear enough connection between the SA and the NZ situation to justify inclusion in the See also section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the fact that you just said the position of Pākehā New Zealanders is analogous to that of black South Africans during apartheid says it all, really. Turnagra (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you are once again blind to any balanced discussion on this topic, even to the point of putting words in someone else's mouth, says it all really. Now, I will revert your deletion of cited detail on the 'as is' section and invite you to establish consensus here first before any decision on it is made. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to take Logically, the ethnic groups to compare are black SAs and non-Maori NZers, not, as I think you are taking it, as blacks (equals) Maori and whites (equals) non-Maori? You clearly have a warped interpretation of race relations in New Zealand and so far have only been able to produce a source from the 1980s to back up your outrageous claims, as if race relations in NZ have not progressed in forty years. This has nothing to do with what "my view" is (since I know you think I'm a government agent, or something) but rather that you're making a massive, politically loaded statement, one which frankly doesn't hold any water. Turnagra (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the text, and the source that supposedly compares the Maori situation to apartheid is not accessible to me to see. Arguing what you or I think is not important. We need reliable sources making this comparison. I suggest sharing the full text of this source and any other sources, and let's evaluate context and reliability. Until then, please cease repeatedly adding to the article. Greenman (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra. Yet again, you are avoiding the issue. This is NOT about race relations, it is about legislation that separates people based on their ethnicity. You can stomp and shout as much as you like but until you address that point this discussion will go nowhere. You earlier tried to dismiss the source I gave. The point of the source is that a RSS, the publication, confirms that my view of one possible interpretation of the Maori seats is also held by others. That makes the source reliable for that purpose. The author does not have to say whether that interpretation is correct or not to be added to the See also section. @Greenman, the source is open to view in full online here Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See also 2

Keeping this discussion separate from the above, because it's more general - the whole "See also" section is way way way too long.

Firstly there's a random selection of articles about people/places/events actually connected to apartheid - e.g. Belhar Confession, JBM Hertzog, South African potato boycott. Why link Hertzog but not any of the other Nationalist PMs? Of all the events of apartheid, why the potato boycott? These articles about specific connected topics should be linked in the article proper if at all.

Then, secondly, all sorts of links to articles dealing with situations with various examples of racial segregation or discrimination. The "Maori electorates" discussed above is just one of these but others like Forced settlements in the Soviet Union, Millet (Ottoman Empire) are also dubiously related at best. Choosing which examples are "sufficiently similar" to apartheid will always be controversial as we see above.

Consequently my suggestion is that we limit the whole "See also" section. I would remove those articles that are specific apartheid events/places/people (which should be linked from the main article or from articles linked from the main article). I would also remove all other links included as examples of racial discrimination in other countries - these are covered by linking to Racial segregation and Racism by country, where they appropriate context can be included for each situation, rather than a context-less see-also link.

I would suggest, provisionally, that the remaining list of links would be:

• Apartheid in international law
• Apartheid legislation in South Africa
• Apartheid in art and literature
• Discrimination based on skin color
• Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid
• Index of racism-related articles
• Israel and the apartheid analogy
• Legacies of apartheid
• Music in the movement against apartheid
• Racial hierarchy
• Racial segregation
• Racism by country
• Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy

htonl (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support, agree that the section is currently overly long with too many tenuous links. Greenman (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree with your approach to culling the section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support makes a lot of sense and was where I was going to go before the above kicked off. I think we should just get on with this one. Turnagra (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - some sort of rationalisation is needed, and this is as good as any, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy, which is not an article, but a redirect anchored to a minor section on Human rights in Saudi Arabia that turned out to consist largely of unreliable opinion pieces. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support It is certainly far too long at present - and some are very tenuous, e.g. the word apartheid does not even appear in the Master race article. My concern is that the list will simply creep back up again - I know there is an Index of racism-related articles, as listed above, and wonder if an Index of apartheid-related articles would give a place for the less directly-related articles to be listed, rather than here? - Arjayay (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It probably will, but it will also take a while - what is Wikipedia if not a Sisyphus-esque task of rolling a boulder up a hill? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As we seem to have a consensus, I have made this change to the article. - htonl (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this page not titled: Apartheid in South Africa? The title 'Apartheid' would mean 'the concept of Apartheid' since it is non specific. Just as the page for 'Colonization' is not specific to colonization in any country Truth-proven (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Support apartheid has been defined by the International Criminal Court based on UN guidelines, Amnesty International, and many other international organizations to be more than just one historical instance (such as "Segregation," which sends users to a disambiguation page instead of directly to "Racial segregation in the United States"). This would solve the "see also" problem, since only articles related to the South African version of apartheid would be relevant. Catboy69 (talk) 11:56 PM, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - unlike "Segregation", the term "Apartheid" was originally coined in South Africa to refer to the system imposed in South Africa, making this the "original" apartheid. The page Crime of apartheid refers to the broader subsequent use. Having said that, this is a topic that has been discussed before with varying outcomes, and it needs to be discussed properly before any page move is made. Zaian (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Country" infobox

A user added a "country" infobox to this article recently. I have reverted it based on WP:BRD so it can be discussed here. Zaian (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion about this at Talk:Apartheid/Archive_9#Inappropriate use of the country infobox. Zaian (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

Apartheid → South Africa and apartheid – The page should be standardized to fit with other pages such as Israel and apartheid. Amnesty International identifies apartheid as "enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another" and applies the definition to countries beyond South Africa

References

– Catboy69 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• The ICC also defines apartheid as "systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group..." The Human Rights Watch also defines apartheid as a "universal legal term" as opposed to the history of just one country. There is also growing consensus that Jim Crow laws in the American South constituted apartheid. The term is increasingly being used to describe the crime of apartheid and not South African apartheid. It would make the most sense to send Apartheid to the disambiguation page directly and not to South Africa. That way the page move does not bury Apartheid in South Africa but clarifies it.

References

– Catboy69 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most results in Google Books refer to the South African system. Britannica also refers to the South African apartheid as just "apartheid".[1] While I think that at some point in the future that may change, for now it seems as though "Apartheid" as a proper noun refers most commonly to the long-lasting South African system, which itself was the origin of the word. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

support the general topic is the primary usage—blindlynx 21:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:Common names. The very word Apartheid is rooted in the racist policies of South Africa, and is addressed by everyone as such. People don't distinguish Apartheids apart from each other, as there is THE case of Apartheid that everyone knows when they hear it. Sure, some countries have had policies that have been compared to apartheid, and if you want to note criticism in the article, okay. But, the comparisons that people make should not change the title of the definitive case of Apartheid. Same reason why the article for Philadelphia isn't labelled Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), to distinguish it from Philly, Alabama. It is the city you think of when you hear the name Philadelphia. EytanMelech (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The system and the word itself originates in South Africa.Fagerbakke (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The South African system is the primary topic for Apartheid. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. That’s not how the word, alone, is generally used. This is like trying to abstract “the Holocaust” Zanahary (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose It’s a term particular to a specific situation in South Africa. Secondary and contemporary usages can be mentioned in primary article, but it is a specific historical term.Mistamystery (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)