Apartheid was not only necessary, but entirely justified.
This includes the police's handling of the 1976 riots, pass laws, the creation of bantustans and voting policies.
Can't argue with that logic.
>>878888
Quads confirms.
But, for real, is this Rosenberg?
/pol/ please go.
There was no place to separte the land so it became a black state and a white state?
>>878937
Rules state "please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago". Apartheid started in 1948, meaning that it is within the acceptible time period. If I were talking about the transition from Apartheid, that would be a different story.
>>878950
Sorry mate I don't understand your question?
>>878969
Apartheid is an "event" that ended in 1994, which was 22 years ago. Just sayin'.
Although it's not like the mods really care, they allow conversation about the Congo Wars (sometimes) and the Yugoslav Wars of Independence (usually).
>>879047
Although man people claim Apartheid ended in 1994 with the regime change, many aspects of the policy actually ended earlier. Pass laws and various other policies were repealled in 1986. Similarly in 1990 and 1991 more laws were repealed under De Klerk's leadership. And even though 1994 is the end of "grand Apartheid", we are still left with 46 years of events that meet the requirements of this board.
>>878969
Sorry, there was no way to just place all the whites on one place and all the blacks somewhere else?
Create two separated states.
>treating people like second-class citizens in their own homeland
wew
>>879142
Oh I see! Sorry for the misunderstanding. Segregation existed prior to Apartheid, starting with the foundation of the Union of South Africa in 1910 (meaning some areas were designated as "white" and other "black". What Apartheid changed is it recognized the diversity of black people in Southern Africa and sought to give them independent homelands where they could practice their culture and language freely. So in total 10 Bantustans (homelands) were created in South Africa and another 10 were established in South West Africa (now Namibia).
>>879180
The people you are referring to weren't citizens of South Africa. They were citizens of the independent homelands. A white South African can't expect to vote in the UK, same thing.
>>879142
The tl;dr of Apartheid is that the whites wanted to exploit the blacks as dirt-cheap labor for the gold and diamond mines and other crappy industry jobs. The point of the Bantustans was basically to put all the blacks who weren't working "somewhere else," while the whites lived in nice cities, and blacks lived in townships and essentially barracks by the permission of their employers.
It was economically disadvantageous for the whites to get rid of the blacks, because it would raise the cost of doing industry.
>>879188
Left out of this explanation is that the Bantustans were not really self-governed entities, and were not given money sufficient for infrastructure and growth. Furthermore, as regions they were disconnected and difficult to govern. Many of them, such as the Bophuthatswana regions were largely not in land that people could easily survive in (see the purple blotch in the middle of the Kalahari desert?), and often contained very little arable land.
The ethnic segregation of blacks into separate communities is part of the British theory of indirect rule. In pre-colonial times, peoples of various ethnic backgrounds would often live together in the same community, speaking different languages. British rule had the effect of driving boundaries between different ethnic groups, which led to great amounts of strife during the return to majority rule up until the present.
>>879201
This theory does not take into account the fact that segregation was present prior to Apartheid, and if the intention was to exploit black labour then the segregationist policies would have been able to achieve just that. It also doesn't explain why the National Party tried to minimize the number of blacks moving to the Townships, rather encouraging them to remain in the Bantustans and build them up. Evidence of this policy can be seen in the banning of building new homes in the Townships, the use of Pass Laws to regulate blacks moving to South Africa and in the difficult criteria a black had to meet in order to be classified as an "urban black".
>>879248
It is important to view the Bantustans as a work in progress. One cannot simply create an independant state overnight, look at the Congo for evidence of what happens when this process is done hastily. Funding the Bantustans is exactly what the Bantu Investment Corporation (BIC) was created for, funding issues were made more challenging when the international community didn't recognise the Bantustans due to misinformation by anti-Apartheid activists. This made growth a major challenge.
The placement of the Bantustans was done based on the places where the tribes were encountered during European expansion in the colonial period. Thus these were areas blacks had chosen to live in. Bophutatswana had large reserves of Platinum and its Eastern regions are even to this day successful agricultural regions. Kwa-Zulu is also a region with very rich soil and ample rainfall, ideal for agriculture.
Finally the idea that pre-colonial societies in Africa lived together harmoniously is erroneous. One needs only to look at Zulu expansionism under Shaka, the Mfecane and the various wars between these populations to see that.
>>879320
Its is true that Bantus migrated Southwards, however it did predate the Dutch arrival in the Cape of Good Hope. Some historians have placed their arrival in the Transvaal at 500 ACE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion#Southern_Africa
>>879338
>ACE
What?
>>879346
>>879347
After the Common Era. Sorry, I would have said AD but some people don't like that cos of it's Christian overtones....
>>879358
There is no after the common era, it is still the common era right now, in 2016 CE.
>>879304
>This theory does not take into account the fact that segregation was present prior to Apartheid
It does. Cecil Rhodes et al were doing the same thing. They kicked all the blacks out most of the country with the NLA so that they could define black workers as single males (ostensibly so they could pay them less), and force them to live in all-male barracks with a heavily restricted lifestyle (so that they could prevent alcoholism). The attempt to define workers as single males continued into apartheid SA, which is once again why they wanted to get black families (not workers per se) into the Bantustans.
The idea that SA would have ever relinquished their hold on the Bantustans to turn them into ~50 independent enclaves is ridiculous. No country on earth would ever do that. For starters, just think of the logistical nightmare of trying to build highways around them.
>Finally the idea that pre-colonial societies in Africa lived together harmoniously is erroneous
I never said that.
>>879363
I just checked and I stand corrected. Sorry about that
ow the edge
>>879358
>caring about what people think
>on 4chan
>>879369
Cecil Rhodes had nothing to do thing the land act. He died in 1902 and the act was passed in 1913. Furthermore the 1913 Natives Land Act did not relate to the compounds ("barracks") and mostly affected rural blacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natives_Land_Act,_1913).
But even so, the theory does not explain the need for a shift from segregation to Apartheid. Segregation would have made this exploitation possible, so why change from segregation to Apartheid?
Its not at all ridiculous to think that the hold would be relinquished because that was the plan (and actually what happened in some cases). The Transkei is a good example of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transkei).
> The ethnic segregation of blacks into separate communities is part of the British theory of indirect rule. In pre-colonial times, peoples of various ethnic backgrounds would often live together in the same community, speaking different languages. British rule had the effect of driving boundaries between different ethnic groups, which led to great amounts of strife during the return to majority rule up until the present.
This seems to me to imply a harmonious existence. I could not find any sources to back the claim up either.
>>879320
>The Bantus migrated around the same time as the Dutch.
It's the Afrikaaners' homeland too. The only outsiders were the crypto-jews who ran the shitty apartheid system, commonly known as the eternal anglo.
