The Apartheid reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Apr-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)

Apartheid

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or literally "aparthood" (or "apartness"). In English, it has come to mean any legally sanctioned system of ethnic segregation, such as existed in The Republic of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. The first recorded use of the word is in 1917, during a speech by Jan Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa.

Table of contents
1 Apartheid in South Africa from day to day
2 Motivations behind the implementation of apartheid
3 History of apartheid in South Africa
4 Apartheid in international law
5 See also
6 External links

Apartheid in South Africa from day to day

Many dry treatments of apartheid miss the point. The tragedies of apartheid were not just Sharpeville and an unpopular language policy in the schools. Apartheid was a policy which blighted the lives of millions every day. Lest we forget, this is what it was like for the ordinary South African day to day until at least the mid-1980's:

Non-whites were excluded from national government and were unable to vote except in elections for segregated bodies which had no power. Non-whites were not allowed to run businesses or professional practises in any of the towns, which were all designated white areas. Blacks (except for a few who had "Section 10" rights), being in excess of 70% of the population, were excluded from all but a small proportion of the country, unless they had a pass which was impossible for most to get. Implementation of this policy resulted in the confiscation of property and the forced removal of millions of blacks. A pass was only issued to someone who had approved work - spouses and children had to be left behind. A pass was issued for one magisterial district confining the (black) holder to that area only. Being without a valid pass made a black person subject to immediate arrest, summary trial and "deportation" to the "homeland". Police vans containing sjambok wielding police roamed the "white area" to round up the "illegal" blacks. The land assigned to blacks was typically very poor land unable to support the population forced onto it. Blacks were prohibited from holding many jobs and were not allowed to employ whites. Hospitals were segregated, the white hospitals being the match of any in the western world, the black ones being comparitively seriously understaffed and underfunded and far too few in number. Ambulances were segregated forcing the race of the person to be correctly identified when the ambulance was called! A "white" ambulance would refuse to take a black to hospital. Black ambulances typically had no medical equipment in them. In the 1970's each black child's education cost the state one tenth of each white child. Higher education was practically impossible for most blacks: They were not allowed to attend the world-class, white-only universities except on an exceptional basis. Good beaches were reserved for whites. Trains and buses were segregated. White trains had no third class carriages and black trains were overcrowded and had only third class carriages. Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones. Park benches were all labeled "Europeans Only". Public swimming pools and libraries were racially segregated but there were practically no black pools nor black libraries. There were almost no parks, cinemas, sports fields or any amenities except police stations in black areas. Cinemas in white areas were not allowed to admit blacks. Restaurants and hotels were not allowed to admit blacks (except as staff). Black areas rarely had plumbing or electricity. Black policemen were not allowed to arrest whites. Blacks were not allowed to buy most alcoholic beverages. A black would be subject to the death penalty for raping a white, but not a white for raping a black. Membership of trade unions was not allowed by blacks until the 80's, and any "political" trade union was banned. Strikes were illegal and brutally repressed. Blacks were taxed on income as low as R30/month (approx GBP15 in the 70's), the white threshold was much higher.

But that was just legal apartheid. Informally apartheid was cruelly practised on a one to one basis by a much larger number of whites than most now admit. Power corrupts and whites had power over blacks. The oldest, most dignified, best dressed black had better be ready to jump when told to by a white, even a juvenile. A white entering a shop would be served first, ahead of blacks already in the queue. Until the 80's the black would always step off the pavement (US: sidewalk) rather than the white. A white boy would be referred to as "klein baas" (little boss) perhaps through gritted teeth by a black; a grown black man would be referred to as "boy", to his face, by whites.

Apartheid pervaded South African society.

Motivations behind the implementation of apartheid

While we live in a world where most of us hopefully find such policies abhorent, it is interesting to examine what moved the apartheid policy makers and what view of the world was held by the countless number of otherwise reasonable people to justify such discrimination.

It is conventional to consider apartheid to centre on the beliefs that (i) other races are inferior, (ii) inferior treatment of "inferior" races is appropriate, and (iii) such treatment should be enforced by law. However, there were and are academic apologists for apartheid who hold that the South African implementation of apartheid was flawed, that apartheid was intended by its architects to be a system which would separate the races, thus preventing the "Whites" from being "swamped", but would treat the races fairly and equally. Herman Giliomee in his book The Afrikaners describes how many in the intellectual leadership of the Afrikaners were genuinely well-meaning. What he fails to explain is how, when faced with the daily cruelties of apartheid, the intellectual elite were able to play the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" game so well and for so long. The intellectual elite cannot escape criticism by virtue of their supposedly good intentions.

A case in point is the Afrikaner Broederbond document referenced below. Therein is afirmed the Afrikaner belief in democracy and in Christian principles. A democracy from which other races would be systematically excluded, and Christian principles which did not extend to treating their "Black" neighbours as themselves. In short this can only be explained by the now unacceptable but nevertheless possibly sincere belief by "Whites" that other races were indeed inferior or too "different" to be treated equally. Such a belief was, of course, very wide spread in the past and, unfortunately, remains popular among those of many races and nationalities today, even if it is a taboo in intellectual circles.

Perhaps the explanation that is required to "excuse" the otherwise mostly reasonable rank and file "White" South Africans is that once apartheid has been implemented (by them, often at the point of a gun) to the point where the victims of it are seen as aliens, as citizens of the nominally independent bantustans, in South Africa as foreigners bearing temporary work permits, then all responsibility for these interlopers is lost. The South African government attempted to create a first world and third world of statelets within the borders of the one internationally recognised state of South Africa. To many "White" citizens of first world South Africa the "Black" citizens of the third world South African bantustans were regarded in much the same way as illegal aliens are viewed in the European Union or the USA. It is perhaps possible to see the global first world third world divide as being apartheid in the round, so to speak.

But to allow rank and file "White" South Africans this defence is patronising. All should have known better - one does not have to be a member of any elite to know it is evil to bulldoze huts on good land, forcibly removing the inhabitants to unimproved bad land. "White" South Africans imposed apartheid on "Black" South Africans and the "Whites" are responsible therefore for the evils of apartheid. By contrast, the dreadful conditions of the starving Ethiopeans lacking fresh water and basic health care is not something for which residents of Europe voted or which is caused by them. Or did they? And is it?

Where South Africa differed from other countries is that at a time when other countries were dismantling discriminatory legislation and were becoming more relaxed on issues of race, South Africa was constructing a labyrinth of brutal racial legislation. That the implementation of apartheid was considered necessary by "White" South Africans might be best explained as being motivated by demographics (a minority race held sway over a majority race) and fear and, often, hatred.

History of apartheid in South Africa

South Africa was colonised by the Dutch and English from the 17th century onwards. As was typically the case in the African colonies, the European settlers dominated the indigenous population through political control and the control of land and wealth. In the years following the victory of the South African National Party in the general election of 1948, a flood of laws was enacted, further instituting the dominance of white people over other races.

The principal apartheid laws were as follows:

On 21 March 1960, 20,000 black people congregated in Sharpeville to demonstrate against the requirement for blacks to carry identity cardss (under the stipulations of the Pass Law). Police opened fire on the demonstrators, killing 69 and injuring 180. All the victims were black. Most of them had been shot in the back. Colonel J. Pienaar, the senior police officer in charge on the day, was quoted as saying
"Hordes of natives surrounded the police station. My car was struck with a stone. If they do these things they must learn their lesson the hard way."

The event became known as the Sharpeville Massacre. In its aftermath the government banned the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC).

The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761 on 6 November 1962 which condemned South Africa's racist apartheid policies and called for all UN member states to cease military and economic relations with South Africa.

In 1964 Nelson Mandela, leader of the ANC, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

In 1974 the government issued the Afrikaans Medium Decree which forced all schools to use the Afrikaans language when teaching blacks mathematics, social sciences, geography and history at the secondary school level. Punt Janson, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education was quoted as saying

"I have not consulted the African people on the language issue and I'm not going to. An African might find that 'the big boss' only spoke Afrikaans or only spoke English. It would be to his advantage to know both languages."

The policy was deeply unpopular. On 30 April 1976, children at Orlando West Junior School in Soweto went on strike, refusing to go to school. Their rebellion spread to other schools in Soweto. The students organised a mass rally for 16 June 1976, which turned violent - police responding with bullets to stones thrown by children. The incident triggered widespread violence throughout South Africa, which claimed hundreds of lives.

Internationally, South Africa became isolated. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations resolutions passed condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. An immense divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that do business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted.

These international movements, combined with internal troubles, persuaded the South African government that its hard-line policies were untenable, and in 1984 some reforms were introduced. Many of the apartheid laws were repealed, and a new constitution was introduced which gave limited representation to certain non-whites, although not to the black majority. The violence continued throughout the 1980s.

In 1989, F. W. de Klerk succeeded P. W. Botha as president. On 2 February 1990, at the opening of Parliament, he declared that apartheid had failed and that the bans on political parties, including the ANC, were to be lifted. Nelson Mandela was released from prison. De Klerk went on to abolish all the remaining apartheid laws.

On April 15 2003, President Thabo Mbeki announced that the South African government would pay 660 million rand (85 million US dollars) to about 22,000 people who were tortured, detained, or lost family members under apartheid rule. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up to investigate abuses from the apartheid era, had recommended the government to pay 3 billion rand in compensation, over the next five years.

Apartheid in international law

South African apartheid was condemned internationally as unjust and racist. In 1973 the General Assembly of the United Nations agreed the text of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The immediate intention of the Convention was to provide a formal legal framework within which member states could apply sanctions to press the South African government to change its policies. However, the Convention was phrased in general terms, with the express intention of prohibiting any other state from adopting analogous policies. The Convention came into force in 1976.

Article II of the Convention defines apartheid as follows:

''For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
(d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
(f) Persecution of organisations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.''

The crime was also defined in the formation of the International Criminal Court:

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime [1]

German attempt to introduce racial separation in Eastern Europe

In the General Government in 1940 the population was divided on different groups. Each group had different rights, food ratios, allowed strips in the cities, public transportation and restricted restaurants. Listed from the most privilaged to the least: See also: General Government

Ethnic apartheid in the Arab world

Institutionalized ethnic discrimination exists in many Arab countries. Jordan forbids Jews from becoming citizens. Palestinian refugees are generally treated as second-class citizens at best in their countries of refuge. Many Gulf states import large numbers of migrant workers from South Asia and other countries to do menial labour, who are often treated extremely poorly. Generally speaking, Arab countries recognize only Arabs as first-class citizens, though treatment of others ranges from tolerance to hostility in different places.

Religious apartheid in the Muslim world

Some Muslim nations deny non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians, some of the civil rights and voting privileges they grant to Muslims. Many Muslim countries consign non-Muslim monotheists to the status of dhimmis, both officially and by custom. Saudi Arabia in particular is notorious for very stringent religious laws banning the practice of non-Muslim religions, even prescribing imprisonment and the death penalty for attempting to convert Muslims to other religions. See the articles:

Apartheid in Israel

A number of organisations, including the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights (LAW) and the Islamic Human Rights Commission, allege that Israel is an apartheid state under the UN definition.

Apartheid in Fiji

Two military coups in Fiji in 1987 removed from power a government that was led by an ethnic Fijian, but was supported principally by the Indo-Fijian (ethnic Indian) electorate, which then made up approximately half of the population. A new constitution was promulgated in 1990, establishing Fiji as a republic, with the offices of President, Prime Minister, two-thirds of the Senate, and a clear majority of the House of Representatives reserved for ethnic Fijians, despite the fact that ethnic Fijians then comprised less than half the population. Ethnic Fijian ownership of the land (which was worked principally by Indo-Fijians) was also entrenched in the constitution.

World-wide condemnation of the 1990 constitution, and a brain-drain of many Indo-Fijian professionals and businesspeople, caused the Fijian government to revise the constitution in 1997. Amendments deleted most of the discriminatory provisions, and subsequent elections in 1999 brought a new government to power, with Mahendra Chaudhry as the country's first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister.

Another coup followed in 2000, with George Speight, supported by sympathetic offices in the Army and police force, seizing power, with the aim of ending Indo-Fijian influence in politics. Democracy, and the moderate 1997 constitution, were eventually restored, however. What is clear is that there is an element in Fijian society that has attempted, on a number of occasions, to institutionalize racial discrimination in that country.

See also

External links

External links to material about Israel