Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Smithington]

Now, before everyone piles on, let me make my point. Apartheid was obscene. There is no debate there. We are all on the same page. It was one tribe (whites) lording it over various other tribes (blacks) on a given piece of real estate. One tribe had advantages and opportunities not available to the other. Indefensible. But it’s not as if South Africa was surrounded by Switzerland, New Zealand and Belgium. It was surrounded by other very nasty regimes where one tribe lorded it over other tribes, and had all the benefits that came with power. In South Africa the only difference was that it was a white tribe lording it over black tribes. Yeah, I get it. The whites were ‘colonists’ and perhaps had no business being in Africa. But I don’t think that’s what bothered most Western people who vociferously opposed apartheid, and who saw it as the epitome of an evil regime. They were morally upset by images of white people oppressing black people. Perhaps they imagined their anti-apartheid activities as an extension of the American civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. But this wasn’t Alabama! South Africa was on the other side of the globe. And to get there you needed to fly over an awful lot of countries with equally nasty human rights records. Problem was, these countries were ruled by non-whites and therefore failed to meet the “white guilt’ criteria for getting bothered about.

I was just never as bothered by apartheid as some other people. Was it an indefensible system? Of course it was. But show me a country, anywhere in Africa, that served as a shining beacon of democracy and human rights? I can’t think of one.

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bigverne]

[Otherside]

Smithington, your point is valid.

Why was Apartheid so demonized while other similarly oppressive regimes were able (and continue) to carry on business as usual.

The West's perception is often just a reflection of themselves. South Africa went from being a close friend and ally of the West in the 1940s and 50s, to a complete international pariah by the 1970s, yet within SA itself, little had changed, only the world around it had.

In the US, it was very easy for those to see the injustices in SA as an extension of the injustices fought by the Civil Rights movement.

In the UN, SA became a very easy target for newly independent African and Caribbean states looking to make a mark on the world, and often looking to deflect from their disgustingly repressive regimes.

In the Commonwealth, these newly independent states pushed for SA's exclusion and often it made it part of the agenda for their meetings as the balance of power shifted away from the UK and the Dominions (Canada, Aus, NZ, SA) and towards newly independent states.

The fact that the policies of the regime were indefensible in the modern world meant the regime didn't really have a leg to stand on.

However, a lesson to be learnt is, that you can pretty easily get away with persecuting, oppressing, and ruling your people with iron fist for pretty much any reason imaginable, you better just make sure it's not based on race.

[Popocatepetl]

[Leon]

[bucheon bum]

[Titus]

[catman]

So when should black South Africans have been given the right to vote?

[bigverne]

[Kuros]

[stilicho25]

Titus, thanks for that tip. I had no idea India had such a harsh stance against homosexuality and find that I have not seen much in the media about this issue quite telling. Although I don't agree with many of your beliefs, the evidence you put together to support those beliefs is impressive. The inability of your antagonists here to do more than throw out one liners is telling.

[sirius black]

Its easy 'not to be bothered' when you aren't a victim of it. Probably one of the same people who post about how unfair it is that uni jobs are going to women. lol.

[Titus]