World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Did Apartheid South Africa have a right to exist?
Are you asking about the country or the policy of apartheid?
Edit to add more detail
Are you asking if I think that the country had a right to exist or if it should have been dissolved entirely and started from scratch?
Are you asking if I think all of the Afrikaners should have left and left only natives? Are you asking if the policy should have been permitted?
It's pretty obvious if you think about it for more than one second.
I can answer that. Apartheid south africa had no fucking right to exist; the policies and the country. It should have been dissolved entirely long before it eventually was.
South Africa did start from scratch after the end of the Apartheid, if you know anything about how much the Apartheid government looted the state coffers bare before democracy.
Talking about Afrikaaners leaving and natives staying is disingenuous. Everyone wanted Apartheid sympathisers gone, and to coexist as equal citizens in the new democratic country.
I can draw so many parallels between Apartheid south africa and israel.
See. You obviously weren't actually interested in my answer. You just wanted to spew overly simplified nonsense. You didn't answer a single question I asked so that I could answer your question appropriately. SA didn't start over entirely. They didn't dissolved the state and then just decide on things like the border after apartheid. Apartheid was a policy. An awful one. South Africa is a place. So what the fuck are you even asking as you talk to yourself.
I mean, you can draw parallels with events from any 2 random countries. That doesn't make it the same. If anything a closer comparison would be the events with South West Africa. But that would have more to do with the territorial aspects than the apartheid aspects.
Oh i answered every one of your questions.
Borders absolutely did change internally in south africa, despite you claiming that borders did not. And i want to point out that israel is the occupying force in gaza and west bank, so if they go for a one state solution then borders would be internally changed. If they go for a two state solution borders would still be internally affected, so i don't know what you are complaining about.
South africa did start over from scratch, did you read about the new constitution drawn up, the overhaul of the apartheid laws set in place, the putting in place of a government of national unity, the democratic elections, the overhauling of the judicial system, etc. There was a whole fucking lot of change. And, let me repeat this from my previous reply, the apartheid government stealing the state coffers dry, so the new government started from scratch.
Apartheid wasn't just a policy, it was an ideology, a state of being for the racist minority, a hellish state of being for the majority. So fuck you for being reductive about Apartheid. This is the reason why so many south africans could and can always absolutely relate to the hell that palestinians are living through.
Israel is practicing a worse form of Apartheid, that is absolutely clear for any south african to see, so the comparison between israel and Apartheid south africa is more valid than many other comparisons.
Lastly, i was answering your questions because i have some knowledge on the subject. And fuck me for engaging with people on a social media platform all about engagement, right?
Jesus fuck. I wasn't reductive of apartheid. I was pointing out that apartheid was the policy and south Africa was the nation state. You are reductive of apartheid by trying to simplify it enough that Israel fits your definition of it.
And again, it did not start from scratch. There was a lot of things that were done and existed during the change. A constitution is only one part of a nation state. They already had international recognition. No one was disputing the borders of south Africa. Changing internal borders is an entirely different thing to changing international borders. Literally right next door was south West Africa. Which, if you really want to shoehorn this comparison is a clearly better comparison. But they had an entire civil war forming national and international boundaries. Seriously. It is clear you've just read a few lefty articles about how some people from SA say that Israel is an apartheid state.
But let me show you. SWA was a territory controlled by Germany until WWI (check), British gain control (check), UN defines it as mandatory swa governed by SA governed by great Britain (check), great Britain makes plan for SA to be independent and swa to be independent, but (now this is where things differ) SA is like nah and takes control, doesn't give it up, and institutes apartheid there as well. Eventually the whole region falls into a border war and closely intertwined civil war in Angola. And then we got Namibia.
There are a lot of parallels. But that doesn't mean it is the same. And when you try to make it the same it is reductive for both sides. The apartheid of SA and SWA is orders of magnitude above the restrictions in the west bank and Gaza. It ignores the backgrounds and why some of those things exist. It was made to have essentially an entire slave class in SA and SWA. Palestinians are not slaves. Arab Israelis certainly experience systemic racism in Israel. But not something that can be classified as apartheid.
Like what things specifically do you think qualifies it as apartheid.