Talk:Apartheid/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Somewhat amazingly very little of what follows is about South Africa. Paul Beardsell 04:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid?

After a careful reading of this debate, I really have to side with Ed Poor and GrahamN: because the issue has been widely raised on the international scene, it is appropriate to discuss "Alleged apartheid in Israel" under this heading, as long as it is cited as an allegation rather than a fact, with sources, and balanced opposing views. GrahamN has provided sources, and I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned the Conference on Racism, where this became a major issue.

As far as I can tell, much of the early disagreement boils down to: "I don't agree with the allegation, therefore we should not include it in this article." That is not in line with Wiikipedia policy, as everyone here very well knows. This is not a fringe-view like Holocaust revisionism; it is a very serious debate that has become part of international policy and is still being discussed in the United Nations. Frequently. We do ourselves a disservice if we fail to mention such an issue.

As to whether it should be covered in this article, or given a heading and a pointer to a spin-off article, as Slrubenstein I feel it isn't the major issue as long as it is well covered. However, it is most appropriate to discuss here what apartheid now means in international law; and as such, spinning off to a new article may be premature, as the apartheid-in-Israel issue is entangled with the issue of wider international law. -- April

In its current state, I am now opposed to the material on Apartheid in Isreal in this article. In its current form, this material seems more suited to the article on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Here is why: as far as I can tell, the allegations against Israel are made primarily within the context of that conflict, and have not yet been made in the form of any official charge in a court of international law. If this article is going to have a section on "Apartheid in International Law," fine. And in that case, any (and all!) official legal proceedings against a member state in the UN should be discussed in this article. I draw a strong distinction between a report that there are people who believe that Israel practices a form of Apartheid (or even, people who believe that Israel violates International Law), on the one hand, and a report that some court or instrument or agent of Insternational Law is currently considering charges against Israel, its government, or members of its government. The latter would be appropriate to this article; the former would be appropriate for some kind of article, but not this one. Slrubenstein

As usual, I appreciate Slrubenstein's remarks. By the way, thank you also for your calm and reasoned commentary in discussion with GrahamN on another talk page (I forget which, exactly).

More to the point: there exists an argument or series of arguments against Israel (or its policies), on the grounds that Israel's treatment of Arab Palestinians violates international norms. Whether it's apartheid, racism, genocide, or crimes against humanity, you'll find someone ready to accuse Israel of it.

Regardless of my own opinion (which is staunchly pro-Israel) I suggest that the various charges be documented and attributed to the accusers.

Likewise, if there is some proponent who surmises or hypothecates that the recent treaties, formulations and definitions are part of some sort of plot to "get" Israel, then we should also write about this POV in the appropriate articles.

We already started this with the Jenin article. We reported the allegation of a massacre (genocide?), the investigation by various organizations, the withdrawal (or attenuation) of the initial allegation, and the final statements of all involved parties. Note that the Wikipedia never said that there was or was not a massacre in Jenin. We did only what we could: we reported what the various observers and advocates said.

I believe that we can and should treat other subjects, such as apartheid, genocide, Zionism and anti-Semitism in the same neutral way. --Ed Poor

The allegations are founded on the observation that Israel, like apartheid-era South Africa, formally classifies people according to their ethnicity, and affords them different legal rights and responsibilities according to this classification.

This statement is not full and it fails to represent the full information relevant to the issue. In particular, take notice of the fact that no serious entities have ever declared Israel's treatment of Israeli Arabs (i.e. with Israeli citizenship) apartheid-like; the claims only go towards Palestinian Arabs. Claims of discrimination have been voiced, and I am willing to move part of the debate to Discrimination. --Uri

Israelis point out that Arabs have precisely the same laws for their own people, and that many Arab nations refuse to allow Jews to become citizens of Arab nations. If the Israeli position is grounds for charges of apartheid, so is the Arab position.

Segregationists in the US South before the Civil Rights movement would "point out" that "our Niggers are better off than Niggers in black African countries". Civil Rights advocates would ask "So what? How is this relevant to the situation in the US?"

no it could be racism, anti-semitism or apartheid. It is not yet determined. You will need to add some support and put it in a different section. I'm no supporter of middle east arab countries Karl

I agree with your logic. However, it is also true that the Arab claims about Israel being guilty of apartheid are also equally not determined. The reasons for the current state of affairs could also be for other reasons. I agree that what I just added to the article can, and perhaps should, be rephrased as you said. Yet perhaps part of the claims about Israel having apartheid might also be rephrased somewhat? RK

1. These aren't arab claims at this point - it is true that arabs make the claim, and it is true that in some cases these claims are based on views other than aparthied is wrong - ie: it is arabs that should be on top. I believe that the Israel is an afront to Islam, because it is not a muslim nation would fit this.

It's not really clear what you're trying to say here.

2. Regarding torture - I think that a case can be made that there is almost no room for doubt that Israel uses torture. I am perfectly happy removing all the arguments about torture and leaving it that Israel uses torture as origanly stated.

It would be interesting to know how you feel about Iraq, which actually employs rapists for routine use against prisoners' family members, and Israel, which you claim "threatened" rape against a single individual.

3. regarding apartheid - I believe that a consistant set of actions equalling apartheid can be shown in the case of Israel.

Fine: amend the article to say, "Karl firmly believes that..." I must point out, though, that a set of actions in response to a present threat can arguably e interpreted differently than a set of actions in response to racist ideology in the absence of any threat. This article is not there to proclaim your beliefs as truth.

This is what this section is about. I firmly believe that Israel is engaged in aparthied.

Fine: amend the article to say, "Karl firmly believes that...." The article is not there to proclaim truth as you see it; it is there to fairly represent different viewpoints.

Other explinations exist, I believe that aparthied is the best. (Personally, I would be overjoyed to see Ariel Sharon and Yasar Arafat sitting infront of the ICC charged with crimes against humanity.)

other thoughts on apartheid and directions I may be headed in.

4. I believe that other countries *need* to be added to the list. What is apartheid? I believe that a much simpler deffinition can be made, and one that is far more usefull. I believe that Canada has engaged in behaviour that has things in common with apartheid. Residential Schools for Native Children, Chinese disporia from British Columbia being two quick examples. The difference between Canada and Israel is I don't hear anyone supporting the atrocities that Canada has committed. If I did, I probably wouldn't be spending my time with this article.

5. A list of people who are alegded or are anti-semetic.

How many terabytes does Wikipedia own? ;-)

sorry - clarification - people who are aledged or are anti-semetic listed in Wikipedia. I will wait until Desmond Tutu is again listed as an alegded anti-semite.

Israelis point out that terrorism in Israel arising from the intifada creates serious military and civil security problems which are being addressed with vigorous law enforcement efforts. They point out that "torture" allegations by Palestinians closely resemble claims of "police brutality" lodged against law enforcement in many countries. Authorities question the propriety of characterizing such incidents, even if actual, as the deliberate implementation of a racist policy, which is the meaning of "apartheid". Israeli have countered with the observation that such allegations, if true, are explainable in terms of over-zealous law enforcement.

This paragraph does not answer the charge by AI of torture. It sets up a straw dog, palestinians and attacks it. Further it throws in "police brutality" without ever quesioning AI. If you want police brutality, you have to at least partially discredit AI to do it.

I guess I ought to make a statement, as I just took a buzzsaw to the section on allegations of apartheid in Israel. I think that we need to really really re-think our approach on this. Serious allegations have been made in international fora, like the WCAR, like the UN, et cetera. It is our responsibility to find and report those allegations, and the responses. It is not our responsibility to make those allegations or rebut them ourselves. So, down the list of things I removed:

it is an absolutely heinous, slanderous thing to casually call Desmond Tutu or the entire "Israel is an apartheid state" movement anti-semitic. If people have called them anti-semitic, document who called them that.
Karl, nothing personal, I always remove requests for assistance within articles. This is Wikipedia; everybody knows that we ought to improve articles. What if that request stays there for the next 12 months?
RE: arab treatment of jews: this is a red herring in a section on allegations of Israeli apartheid. If you want to write a section on allegations of apartheid in Saudi Arabia, or something like that, find the allegations and write the section.
RE: the case of the Arab woman: really, we don't need specific cases unless they're famous, like the ones we picked for South Africa. AI can make their case for themselves, and we can link to it.
re: Israeli press freedom. Press freedom--or lack thereof--is not part of the definition of apartheid. As best as I can tell, this was saying that "Israel may have apartheid but we don't know about it, because there's no press freedom" which is so far into analysis that I really don't think it belongs. (Also, I'm a little surprised: many people strongly critical of the Israeli government champion much of the Israeli press as courageously open. cf: noam chomsky)

DanKeshet 16:06 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

regarding the following paragraphs under section of alledged torture:

A report prepared by the former state controller Miryan Ben-Porat regarding the Bet interrogation facilities from Sept 1991-Dec 1992 made the following observations:

"even after the release of the Landau Commission Report, the habit of telling lies did not cease among Shin Bet investigators. Some lied while testifying in court or other investigation and inspection bodies, others lied in reporting to their supervisors and others in the Shin Bet itself."

"The irregularities were not, for the most part, the result of not knowing the line between the permissible and the forbidden, but rather were committed knowingly. Veteran and even senior interrogators in the facility in Gaza committed severe and systematic deviations [from the regulations]. During the inspection period, senior Shin Bet commanders did not prevent these irregularities, whether by allowing the use of pressure methods not included in the file compiled by the Landau Commission, by ignoring restrictions with which the Landau Commission qualified the permits [it gave for using "moderate physical pressure"] or by refraining from rooting out these practices, as required by their position."

If there is no reason given why they were remove, I will put them back.

I removed them. The point, a single point in a bulleted list, is arguably acceptable: AI alleges; Israelis deny. If you want to expand it into a whole article on "Torture in Israel", then write that article--don't contaminate the existing article on Apartheid with endless POV debate trying to prove your point. You aren't going to get a chance to "prove" anything. This is an encyclopedia. It tells who said what. If you want to convince people of something, keep it to Talk (or usenet). --User:LenBudney

Why is there no discussion of the huge amounts of state-mandated torture in many Arab nations? Why single out only Israel, which likely has the 'least' amount in the region. This obsession with Israel only is bothersome. Further, this has nothing to do with the topic. If it did, then just about every Arab nation in the world would have to be classified as practicing apartheid! RK

Agreed; the motivation is primarily anti Israeli, if not outright anti-semitic. I only observed that if someone wants to discuss whether Israelis use torture, he should take it to a new article. Naturally, he will not get away with unsubstantiated statements anywhere in Wiki-land, but at least things will be somewhat organized. On a related note, the use of torture in the PA would make in interesting article! Between Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, and the PA authorities, those poor folks are really screwed, aren't they?

re Len: And I thought that the view that Israel does not use torture to be POV. I thought that the evidence is overwelming that it does use torture.

Karl: What in BLAZES are you talking about? Notice that I have not attempted to remove all allegations against Israel; nor have I attempted random, in-line, point-for-point rebuttal of said allegations. I have taken only steps required to help ensure balance.

Note also that random jamming of your POV text into an article is not just POV, it's also crappy writing. Part of the goal here is to produce a quality piece of writing. Your random anti-Israel insertions, attested or not, amount to vandalism. Get a grip on yourself and try to find a way to express your view (1) cogently, (2) articulately, and (3) without vandalizing others attempts to balance the record. --Len

re RK: From globe and Mail A23 Dec 12, Gabor Mate "It owes nothing to anti-Semitism that Israel is the subject of more critical scrutiny than are the neighbouring Arab autarchies, dictatorships and pseudo-democracies. No one mistakes the true nature of those regimes. No credible voices are raised in their defence, nor do the abhorrent Palestinian suicide bombings have any serious apologists. Only Israel's relentless and ultimately self-destructive expansionism, militarism and state violence find many supporters."

The motivation is not (necessarily) anti-Israel -- it is simply that this is where the most information is available to whoever wrote it. This is, of course, a problem across Wikipedia: a NPOV requires that as many views as possible are represented, but each individual can only write sufficiently from their own points of view, and perhaps others they are familiar with. The problem here is that there is still work to be done, and (possibly) the question of what to prioritise (which can be done in various ways: by personally prioritising it, and making it appear on recent changes persistently, by linking it, etc). -- Sam

Statements like:

For the last time, you idiot, "torture" is ALLEGED for the purposes of this article. If you think you can prove it, go try--in the relevant article

really are not an appropriate thing to be placing in edit summaries (which everyone sees in Recent Changes and becomes part of the permanent history of the article). Please, both of you stop the edit war. LenBudney; why is it necessary to have an extra "alleged" before a term in a list when the introduction of the list already has the word "alleged" in it? --mav 21:00 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

1,000 pardons; heat of the moment and all that. Karl is clearly seeking to subvert the NPOV of this article. (I have a POV, too! If I had my druthers, I'd delete the whole ridiculous section on "Apartheid" in Israel, since Israel clearly has no such policy. Israel certainly has racism, between Jews and Arabs, Arabs and Jews, and all sorts of other flavors, but that is not the same as an official segregationist policy.) Anyway, I think a quietus has been reached: I will not touch the new article on "Vicious Israeli abuse of Innocent Palestinian Lambkins", or whatever Elian has lately named it, for as long as I can refrain. Once it's somewhat taken shape, I will release myself from this promise and take a look at it. Meanwhile, I hope Karl will be courteous enough to leave the "alleged" in the Apartheid article, and feel free to knock himself out filling the other article with the heinous Jewish atrocities of which he no doubt has tons of proof. --Len.

Fair enough. I have often been blinded in the heat of the moment too. Karl could have left an explanation in the edit summary to point out that the second "alleged" was redundant. --mav

It isn't over yet - I've noticed that you, mav seem somewhat quick to take sides and assign motives to me. If you are trying for pax you aren't helping. Actually I didn't notice the other alleged. This argument will probably come up later, again. I said exactly what I meant - take the offending paragraph to discuss and explain what is wrong with it. That did not happen. I am going to take a look at the articles on NPOV and on various forms of anti-semitism and see what is alleged and what is stated as fact. I believe that a double standard is in play here. Karl

Perhaps a good read of the above thread is in order. If anything I was far more critical of LenBudney than to you. The only side I was taking was the side that wanted the edit war to stop. I also asked why LenBudney was adding the extra "alleged". --mav

Mav, out of deference to your observation of the other "alleged", I'll let Karl's deletion stand. Karl, your inability to distinguish fact from opinion is really disturbing. You seem to go around with a well meaning idea that you are here to tell the truth as you see it. There is a difference between that and the actual intent of this project, which is to provide accurate information. Since you can't seem to tell the difference, you will keep running into problems of this sort and wondering sadly to yourself why people persecute you so. (On a personal note, I really wonder who you are. How does a Quaker get so emotionally invested in Islam, and so anti-semitic?) --Len

I removed the following text, because it just really isn't related to this article, nor is it well-written.

While the Russian yoke of most of its imperial subjects is subsiding, except for resilient cases like Northern Caucasus, after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Chinese encroachment of culturally distinctive societies under its shadow has just begun, in light of the new "Big Game" to be played in Eurasia. The world is expecting to see pariah, diaspora peoples coming out of this region, treading the path of the old European Jewry, the Palestinians, the Armenians, the Kurds, etc.

Removed references to China.

Assimilation, acculturation, de-ethnicization, and co-opting local indigenous leaders are not apartheid and neither are structural social barriers limiting advancement of minorities. The comparison to British in Ireland also argues against calling Chinese policies apartheid since I don't know of anyone who has used apartheid to describe British policies in Ireland.

Even given the above, China might be worth mentioning if some prominent group alleges that China practices apartheid, but I don't know of any group that does so.

-- User:Roadrunner

-- User:Samo

I believe an article on Apartheid to focus entirely on South Africa - and not include the Middle East.

What goes on in Israel may be very much like Apartheid, but it is not Apartheid. Apartheid refers specifically to the policies of the Nationalist South African regime. Perhaps an article on "Palestine", "Palestianians", "Intifada", or "The Israeli Occupation of Palestine" would be a more appropriate place for this topic. Or perhaps a broader article could be made on all forms of ethnic, racial, and religious segreagtion. This is not due to a pro-Israel or pro-Arab bias.

As far as I know, no one on either side of the Israeli, Palestinian conflict makes an explicit 'biological' argument for separation as did Apartheid South Africa or the segregationalist American South.

You should take this up with the UN, not with us! Apartheid is defined in international law. The definition belongs in this article, I hope you agree. Israel stands accused of Apartheid as defined by the UN. This is relevant to this article. You may not like it, but it is true. GrahamN 16:56 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The reason people like to talk about "apartheid in <country X, which I dislike>" is because apartheid is a loaded word, handily pulling a baggage train of negative connotations and imputing the saint-like suffering of Nelson Mandela to country X's opposition. So applying apartheid outside of of its Nationalist South African context is, I like, a case of intrinsic POV. That the United Nations does it too is no excuse; the U.N. is an entirely political body, and it exists not to be impartial but to advance the agenda of (the curently controling coalition of) its member nations. It's definitely no exemplar of NPOV. But we can, and should, hew to NPOV by strictly limiting the scope of this article to Apartheid in antionalist South Africa. (Israel has its own sins, and they should be examined on the Israel page.) orthogonal 23:20, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You raise a valid concern. There are two possible meanings of the word 'Apartheid': the narrow one and the broad one. In the narrow sense Apartheid refers to the Afrikaner policy towards (as they called them) "non-Europeans". In the broader sense Apartheid means any policy which is equivalent to that of the narrow definition, just not limited to the South African context. I don't have any magic answers for resolving the resulting dispute about the term in the article. There should however definately be some information about the widening of the term in the article instead of just having headers "Apartheid in XYZ" as though this was some uncontested use of the term. A possible solution would be having Apartheid be the narrow definition, including a description of the origin of the widening of the term. And then have a prominent link (not just burried in "See also:") to a page describing the specific allegations of Apartheid-type policies in other countries. Banishing the wide definition from Apartheid would be a big mistake, however.

Just to be nit-picky: While it is true that many hold a view of Mandela enduring a "saint-like suffering", perception is not reality. Mandela was part of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the _military_ wing of the ANC. MK was responsible for bombings of civilian South African targets and infrastructure. So a comparison with the near-east situation is not far-fetched. I don't know who coined the phrase, but it is a very apt one: "One persons terrorist is anothers freedom-fighter." --snoyes 23:54, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article for a while. What a dog's breakfast it has become! At one time, beneath the stuff about South Africa, there was a fairly long section headed "Alleged apartheid in Israel" which explained who was doing the alleging, and specifically related the allegations to the definition of Apartheid in international law. This section has now been reduced to a single sentence, headed "Apartheid in Israel", which reports the allegations but gives no details. Several completely irrelevant paragraphs have been tacked on, which, in contrast, go into considerable detail about some other vaguely race-related naughtiness around the world. These have nothing to do with apartheid. I can only surmise that they were added by various members of Wikipedia's vast army of Zionist apologists, on the basis that two (or more) wrongs make a right. I'm inclined to delete them, and to restore the "Alleged Apartheid in Israel paragraph" as it was about a year ago. GrahamN 15:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Justifications For Apartheid

I feel the present article is lacking in only describing aparthied and what was wrong with it and failing to present the arguments for Aparthied. While we live in a world where most of us hopefully find such policies abhorent, it would be much more interesting for the article to go into what moved the policy makers and what view of the world was held by the countless number of otherwise reasonable people to justify such discrimination (a bit like the slave owners who claimed to be christians). I do not have the material to add, but I am sure it exists and think for completeness the article needs it.

Well, what were the "justifications"? People did things for their own reasons, in their own self interests. As such their actions are understandable. Maybe it is "understandable" you mean, rather than "justifiable"? Paul Beardsell 22:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even "understandable" is just too forgiving to be acceptable. Essentially the "justifications" of apartheid were (are?) the beliefs that (i) other races are inferior, (ii) cruel treatment of "inferior" races is correct, and (iii) such treatment should be enforced by law. Presumably this is what you mean? Paul Beardsell 23:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I been thinking (again): I reckon the word you want is "motivations". Paul Beardsell 12:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added to the article. Please feel free to edit boldly (as usual). Paul Beardsell 14:19, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV

I have returned to this article for the first time in quite a while, and have found it to be VERY POV. Now, I hasten to add that I mostly agree with the POV expressed, but I don't believe it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to be taking sides, no matter how "obvious" the morality of one side may be. At any rate, Wikipedia policy requires, I think rightly, a neutral point of view.

I have therefore edited the article to make it more neutral. The following sentences have been deleted and/or substantially rewritten:

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:

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

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.

The intellectual elite cannot escape criticism by virtue of their supposedly good intentions.

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 (often at the point of a gun) 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?

Notice the words like unfortunately, and dreadful and a host of other POV words. I repeat: I AGREE with this anti-apartheid POV, but as I said, I don't believe an encyclopedia that glories in its NPOV should be taking sides. Therefore, I cannot allow this POV to stand, no matter how strongly I agree with it. David Cannon 22:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. The paragraphs above didn't belong in an encyclopedia. 168.209.98.35 23:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

David, but you've knocked the life out of it. Doubtless what I wrote could be improved and doubtless there was some POV but I think a more sympathetic edit was possible. Somehow we are back to the dry account that I was trying not to repeat. Sure, I may not have had the balance quite right, but the questioning of the Europe-Africa 1st-3rd world divide as apartheid in the round has gone: That is how some "White" South Africans justified it to themselves - they were no worse than anyone else. It helps explain their justification of aparheid. That apartheid was motivated partly by hate has gone. That apartheid was implemented at the point of a gun by "Whites" has gone. That the "Whites" were responsible for the implementation of apartheid has gone. That some "Whites" were motivated by hate has gone. All that is is not POV. It is the truth. There is POV in your edit. It's not quite a whitewash, but nobody is culpable. I said Whites were culpable, is that really POV? You've swung it too far the other way. Why don't you have another, more moderate attempt? Paul Beardsell 00:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with your POV, but POV it is. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinfo, which allows SPOV (Sympathetic Point of View). I have no doubt that fear, greed, and hate were very real factors. BUT that is still POV. Yes, my version is "dry" - anything encyclopedic has to be. This is an encyclopedia, not a human rights brochure. An encyclopedia has to present the dry facts, not our interpretations of the facts, no matter now "obvious" our interpretations may seem. It bears repeating that I agree with your interpretations. But I do not agree that they belong in an encyclopedia. David Cannon 01:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue that your treatment is incorrect. What I am saying, and what you are not addressing, is that you have gone a step too far. Firstly, before considering that, consider that it is possible to go too far when doing what you have done, and recognise that I have already said I did not have it quite right. There are facts which (presumably) you don't dispute but which you have deleted. "Motivated partly by hate", is not POV, for example. Paul Beardsell 11:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I have an excellent and apt example. Have a look at Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission. This article is undoubtedly NPOV in appearance but that is all it is. In the supposed-interests of NPOV, I presume, it looks as though the TRC declared some type of draw in the moral-equivalence stakes. It looks NPOV but it is not. Paul Beardsell 11:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Even better: Is this NPOV? "...and what view of the world was held by the many otherwise fair-minded people to justify such discrimination"? Is that NPOV by the same (in my view too-high) standard you are applying? Paul Beardsell 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

more POV

I disagree with the idea that an encyclopedia (or any text) can be NPOV. All historical writing is POV by nature, and I believe it would be more accurate to argue over whether the current contextualization is palatable to Wikipedia readers. "While North American colonists committed genocide against the indigenous population and avoided the complications of living with a majority underclass, the South African colonists used apartheid to maintain white minority privilege without committing genocide against the native people." I believe this is accurate, but it puts apartheid in a relatively positive light and therefore would be considered POV. - Frida

I find that by omitting significant amount of information pertaining to South Africa such as its history and demographics you guys are not following the neutral point of view .On the contrary it seems that the article expresses the POV similar to UN and that means condemning SA policy of separate development. You are omitting alot of significant facts that may be crucial to the whole story. For example in the article on Mandela it is not mentioned at all that he was a communist party member, and author of the "how to be a good communist" pamphlet, that he was responsible for the acts of violence against civilians and an organiser of the guerilla camps funded by the Soviets. Even though ANC is still in formal alliance with SACP! That is unforgiving and hardly neutral. If you wish to be neutral you ought to include all the relevant facts and not just ones that flatter your POV. - someone else

Just edit the articles! It is difficult to strike the correct balance. But when you use the term "separate development" instead of "apartheid" then it is possible to see your POV too! Just as the POV is apparent of a UK Conservative Party supporter (and I am one) who refers to the "poll tax" by its official name, "community charge". You weren't responsible for the recently reverted "purpose" of black ambulances edit were you? Separate but equal was the public relations goal, not the actuality. I think the more facts are written about Mandela and about apartheid the weaker your position will look. Edit away, if you keep to the facts and to neutral language then it will not be reverted. Paul Beardsell 18:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes I was responsible for the ambulance and other edits. what reality is and what 'goals' are is not the issue here. This disparity is always the case everywhere. Nothing special. Thanx for your permission , I shall try to be as impartial as possible. -eenspaaier

Forget it ,man. i tried to edit and it was killed again! You broke your word. What's the point of editing if one can't? - Enspaaier

There is no record of you editing the article after my comment above. So nothing has been killed "again". I did not give permission, I am not entitled to do so, nor am I entitled to withhold permission. We are all peers here. Don't complain, edit! Paul Beardsell 08:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to your reverted edits: Black ambulance: That you say the purpose of an ambulance for blacks, unlike the purpose of an ambulance for whites, was not to treat them at all but to take them to the (faraway) black hospital and that this purpose justified not having medical equipment in the black ambulance simply shows "separate development" in its true colours. Similarly for your other points. Paul Beardsell 08:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your points won't survive if you use them in support of POV. Look at some of my earlier edits where I was accused of writing a human rights pamphlet and not an encyclopedia article. I was reverted too. But state the facts without POV and they will survive in the article. Paul Beardsell 08:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

paul, this is nor what i said. What i said was : race identification of the patient was necessary in obedience to Law which provided for separate amenities that is a Black ambulamece shall take a Black in to Black hospital, which was hardly "faraway". It was a nice thing to do on the parts of the whites to provide medical sevices at no cost to those who were not supposed to be there in the first place.-- Eenspaaier

Yes it was "necessary" for legal reasons. One of the many legal reasons which together was the system of Apartheid, which you still seem to support. "Faraway"? Just plot the locations of white vs black hospitals c.1980. Your view of the SA economy is typical of white SA attitudes of old and reminds me of a Van der Merwe joke: Koos was visiting London and was amazed to see 12 white men digging a hole in the road. "Jislaaik, just gimme a dozen kaffirs and I could dig that all by myself." Paul Beardsell 07:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverted addition by anonymous user

I just reverted a large section added by User:65.50.165.13 concerning Apartheid and Israel and left a message on his or her talk page. The diffs are here in case anyone wants to review them. I felt that with such extensive debate about Israel and apartheid on the talk page, it was not appropriate to add such a large section without the consensus of the community. If I did wrong, let me know. --Ardonik 23:37, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Aftermath

The article does say, at the moment:

Apartheid's most important role was to generate economic growth while satisfying the expectations of South Africa's white minority

No. Restricting movement, denying education, preventing entry to the professions, none of these generates economic growth. Paul Beardsell 16:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user added that section and I copyedited a bit later. I agree with you, but what we should put there instead? Do we have any literature that gives the "offical" take on apartheid's benefits? --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 21:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your quotation marks are around the wrong word. Surely you meant Do we have any literature that gives the official take on apartheid's "benefits"? I can scarcely believe that we can talk of apartheid in these terms: We should be talking of its costs. When we talk of the benefits of farming we do not consider the slaughter of animals as a cost: That is indeed a benefit of farming. By analogy South African's black population is once again reduced to 2nd class citizenship (at best) when the "benefits" of apartheid are discussed. Black labour was treated almost as it it were merely a natural resourse. Not your words, I know. Paul Beardsell 01:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "benefits": Promoted Afrikaans as the foremost language of power and politics in SA. Poverty problem of Afrikaners largely solved by job reservation. Cultural identity of Afrikaners preserved and promoted. All this at the expense of non-Whites and not to the overall well-being of the country. Paul Beardsell 01:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rant removed from article

Recently the following anonymous rant was added to the "Motivations behind Apartheid" section. I have some sympathy with the sentiment expressed, the paragraph just isn't encyclopaedic so I have removed it to here.

Please remove this insulting and condescending article that almost seems to justify apartheid in South Africa. The use of the word aborigine to describe indigenous africans is provocative to say the least. I wonder which editors read and felt that the logic of this article makes sense. If you came to africa in the last 400/500 years you can coin a hypenated name. We refuse to end up like native americans who are the ones with the hyphenated names rather than the settlers. If indeed the whites created apartheid because they didn't want to lose their identity why were the whites elsewhere racist. Perhaps it all stems from the same instinct they all possess i.e. that they are better than everyone else afterall their race was not being swamped in America or Australia or all those other places where they were creating or re-inventing new ways to discriminate against people of colour.

As I said, I find myself agreeing in part with this. On the other hand:

Aborigine is a flat descriptive word with no negative connotation in my mind.
We are all of us editors. Edit boldly, fix the article, don't complain.
What "hyphenated name" is this anonymous contributor going on about?
The anonymous contributor surely does not only think whites can be racist?

I think that this sentence in the article

Many sociologists find it interesting to examine what moved the apartheid policy makers and what view of the world was held by the many otherwise fair-minded people to justify such discrimination.

is an example of several which go too far. How do we know they were "otherwise fair-minded"? We would surely hesitate to say the same of the Germans who persecuted the Jews? (Or of the Israelis attitude to the Palestinians.) (Or of Rwanda.) (insert your favorite example here)

Paul Beardsell 13:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latest [square bracketed] version

Of course NPOV must be strived for. Where factual errors are made these must be fixed. But an apology for apartheid is not called for. And it cannot be justified by comparing it against perceived or real injustices perpetrated by the successor regime. But plainly many of the comments in the square brackets are explicitly false or are designed to give a wrong impression. I intend to remove the square bracketed comments and to adjust the article to be more factually correct. This will take some time and the only non-controversial way of doing so will be to provide facts and figures. So, to give but two examples, the Baragwanath point made in the square brackets will fall away when the number of beds per 100,000 populations is compared between White Johannesburg and Black Soweto. Similarly, the number of arrests under the pass laws and the proportion of urban blacks arrested under pass law legislation will destroy the pass law enforcement point.

Paul Beardsell 12:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, discussion and debate should happen here on the talk page, not in the article. Paul Beardsell 12:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fiji?

Why the Fiji coup d'état is linked from the Apartheid page? Neither the page's text, nor the link itself, nor the Fiji coup page gives any hint.