The real apartheid state.

Mouthwash

Escaped Lunatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
9,370
Location
Hiding
Take a good, long look.

Drink it in.

I could understand granting members of a particular ethnic group citizenship, sure. Plenty of states do that. I could also understand, in extreme scenarios, denying it to all members of an ethnic group. But that is quite, quite different from explicitly restricting citizenship to black people.*

Where is the outcry? South Africa was a pariah state even before the US abolished the Jim Crow laws, and Palestinian propaganda is so easy to understand and parrot around that the fact that Arabs in Israel don't have total and utter equality in every economic and social aspect of life is apparently now seen as apartheid as well.

You'd think that I'd have seen or heard something on this on TV or the Web throughout my entire life. But lo and behold, I stumbled upon it on Wikipedia completely by accident. Nobody that I know has heard about Liberia's citizenship laws, and hardly anybody really seems to care. Even a Google search only turns up a few cursory articles protesting it (one even appears to defend it, although it's some obscure African news source).

The obvious answer to this is simple: racism. The Arabs states can herd Palestinians into internment camps, deny them citizenship and basic living conditions, or expel them by the tens of thousands. But is it really important? Reading about this in the paper, it's just another tribal conflict in the unenlightened Muslim desert.

But Europeans, and especially Jews, are regarded as civilized. They are the enlightened liberal democrats bringing reason and equality to the Arab and African barbarians. :pat: It seems fundamentally wrong to us that members of our race should deny rights to others.

What happened in South Africa was a pretty typical sort of conflict aside from the fact that it was perpetuated by white people. Look at the equivocation: both Jim Crow and South African Bantustans are homogenized under the term "apartheid" rather than being acknowledged by what they were: entirely different political relationships.

*Kindly note the difference between ethnicity and race before posting, thank you.
 
Can you muster up something coherent for me?

you asked about a double standard, I explained it

we expect better behavior from our friends and allies, thats why we dont care much if a dictator brutalizes people but we do care if our enlightened ally does it too... unless they got oil
 
It's unfortunate that Liberia has this clause for citizenship. It reads not that different from the actual practice of Japan's citizenship laws. Ideally they will get rid of it.

The non-black folk of Liberia I highly suspect are among its wealthiest and most prosperous, socially connected citizens. Maybe not the tip top. I wouldn't know because I've never studied Liberia. But the non-African-descended folks living in Liberia probably do not constitute "The Real" apartheid like an actual apartheid situation of total oppression.
 
It's unfortunate that Liberia has this clause for citizenship. It reads not that different from the actual practice of Japan's citizenship laws. Ideally they will get rid of it.

The non-black folk of Liberia I highly suspect are among its wealthiest and most prosperous, socially connected citizens. Maybe not the tip top. I wouldn't know because I've never studied Liberia. But the non-African-descended folks living in Liberia probably do not constitute "The Real" apartheid like an actual apartheid situation of total oppression.

Could you possibly concede that this might just be a better thing to focus on than Israel?

This thread has flopped thus far, but I'll hold my breath for when Forma shows up.
 
Discriminating on citizenship status based on skin color isn't apartheid. Apartheid is a system of segregation of the races. Saying what supermarkets you can go to based on the color of your skin is apartheid, saying whether or not you can vote in the next election isn't.

Which isn't to say such discrimination is commendable or even defensible. Merely that its not apartheid.
 
Discriminating on citizenship status based on skin color isn't apartheid. Apartheid is a system of segregation of the races. Saying what supermarkets you can go to based on the color of your skin is apartheid, saying whether or not you can vote in the next election isn't.

Which isn't to say such discrimination is commendable or even defensible. Merely that its not apartheid.

Apartheid is now conterminous with any form of racial or ethnic discrimination these days.
 
Mouthwash said:
Look at the equivocation: both Jim Crow and South African Bantustans are homogenized under the term "apartheid" rather than being acknowledged by what they were: entirely different political relationships.
Apartheid was based on Jim Crow, dude. It was more comprehensive*. But it wasn't all that different. And the whole point of Bantustans were to fix a perceived problem with Jim Crow, namely the risk that black South Africans might regain the vote. As citizens of 'independent' Bantustans that risk was considerably lessened even if the white political climate in South Africa changed e.g. if it became impossible to gerrymander the more numerous and liberal Cape English into electoral obscurity. Arguably, that was always the chief threat to Apartheid, especially after the split of the United Party and the signing of the Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith in 1974.

* The Population Registration Act 1950 wasn't needed in America because there was less in the way of racial inter-mixing. In South Africa by contrast a quarter of the population could claim both European and African ancestry. Coloreds were and remain a distinct population group in South Africa and often quite 'white'. The South also didn't flat out ban non-whites from voting they just made it all but impossible. The whites in South Africa had to because blacks were a decisive majority and could if even a small fraction were allowed to vote cause problems.
 
Apartheid was based on Jim Crow, dude. It was more comprehensive*. But it wasn't all that different. And the whole point of Bantustans were to fix a perceived problem with Jim Crow, namely the risk that black South Africans might regain the vote. As citizens of 'independent' Bantustans that risk was considerably lessened even if the white political climate in South Africa changed e.g. if it became impossible to gerrymander the more numerous and liberal Cape English into electoral obscurity. Arguably, that was always the chief threat to Apartheid, especially after the split of the United Party and the signing of the Mahlabatini Declaration of Faith in 1974.

See?

* The Population Registration Act 1950 wasn't needed in America because there was less in the way of racial inter-mixing. In South Africa by contrast a quarter of the population could claim both European and African ancestry. Coloreds were and remain a distinct population group in South Africa and often quite 'white'. The South also didn't flat out ban non-whites from voting they just made it all but impossible. The whites in South Africa had to because blacks were a decisive majority and could if even a small fraction were allowed to vote cause problems.

An... apologist! Get the rope, quick!
 
Way to make it obvious that you have no knowledge about Apartheid. Did you get this example from the Young Zionist Handbook of Misdirection by chance?
 
See?



An... apologist! Get the rope, quick!

Oh, this must be the "Don't Read Posts" thread. Cool. Well, for your information, paper does come from trees. So check and mate.
 
Hygro said:
other people are doing bad stuff therefore isreal should be allowed to do bad stuff. QED.
 
Back
Top Bottom