Talk:Apartheid

	This Racism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs more sources. Out of date.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

The deletionists don't want you to know...

... this. The brutal slaughter Apartheid and suppression of innocent Sahrawi men women and children by the brutal racist settler colonialist Moroccan dictatorship by king has to be exposed to all four corners of the earth! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Look here even the anti-Sahrawi Wikipedia cannot deny all of the truth! Intifada! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I only removed it because you didn't provide sources to your paragraph-long diatribe.

Add some sources - specifically ones which refer to it as apartheid and aren't terribly biased towards something - and it'll be all good. You need to chill a bit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Liar! You want to hate Israel that's why you call it Apartheid but you are bought by the Morocco-lobby. And you ignore this, this and that. Just because the Morocco-Lobby is so strong that it keeps the Western Saharan Apartheid out of the media does not mean it is not real!!!! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.

If those are sources, why don't you add them in what you're writing? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That guy above is being tendentious and spouting Polisario propaganda. It is silliness. What he/she is referring to is the Western Sahara fracas. Basically Western Sahara is Western Morocco, it always was part of Morocco, and was liberated from the Spanish by Morocco, culminating in a peaceful march of Moroccans across the boarder. The racist claim is silly because Western Saharans, the Sahrawiya, are racially the same as Moroccans. A mix of Arab and Berbers (Amazigh). They are culturally basically Moroccans, if you go to Southern Morocco, a bit south of Marrakech, it's the same culture as Western Sahara. The brutal slaughter bit is also inaccurate -- at least now, though I honestly don't know if things were different under the previous king of Morocco, who was known as a brutal authoritarian and even tyrannical ruler. But at least today, there is no 'brutal slaughter' of Sahrawis going on now. And I am very skeptical that there ever was. Now, there have been police actions because the Polisario Front is a terrorist organization that every once in a while blows up something in Morocco or kills someone. But even here, it is exaggeration. The Polisario has been mainly quietist for a few years, probably because of the wall. Ah yeah, the wall. There is a security wall put up by Morocco's government because, again, the Sahrawi Polisario front are terrorists likes to blow things up in Morocco. But there is no apartheid going on there. Both sides are ethnically the same, racially the same, and before the Spanish took over Western Sahara they were part of the same country. All of that said, I think the Western Saharans do have some legitimate grievances and claims. 208.65.192.1 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is half this article not about South Africa?

I though Apartheid was what happened in South Africa. Why is half this article about something entirely different?

Because while Apartheid was a system in South Africa, the word "Apartheid" has been used to describe other situations currently happening in the world. People searching for "Apartheid" might want either, or both, and both sections equally apply to the word "Apartheid". -- Onychoprion (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the gender separation in some Muslim countries?

Apartheid generally refers to separation by some concept of race (or in practice separation by ancestry), not by gender, class, political belief, language, religion, sexuality, or anything else that is sometimes used to divide people. Certainly discrimination against women merits an article, but it doesn't belong here. --Annanoon (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there are some issues worth going into in more detail

For example, the religious aspects of Apartheid (We barely scratch the surface on this front), the tensions within "polite white society", the apologetics and the "look at Zimbabwe" argument and at the very least a brief assessment which - if any - of the claims of Apartheid apologists came true after 1994. Evil Zionist (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article doesn't talk about south African apartheid at all

Why not split the debate about whether Israel banning Jews from certain areas constitutes apartheid into its own article?

I don't see that anything would be gained by a split, and it's important to have a description of apartheid while considering if Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is similar. If people feel the article should cover South African apartheid in more detail, they can expand the article. --Annanoon (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

apartheid in brazil (see also section)

brazil's extreme poverty and inequality (which is largely defined in practice, albeit unofficially, along racial/color lines) has been likened to south african apartheid. in fact, there are scholarly comparisons between the inequalities of both countries. (no, i will not be posting any sources at this time because i don't feel like it. look it up.) this is something i would like to explore more with time. in the meantime, i will add brazil to the "see also" list. The G (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"However, Israel in its pre 1967 borders already is a state of all its citizens, so besides semantics there is no fundamental difference in the outcome of annexing the West Bank and offering its residence citizenship or creating "Isratine"."

That wasn't true in 1967, and it's even less true now. Look at how Arab Israelis are treated. Israel is an ethnonationalist state that prioritizes the Jewish majority over the indigenous Palestinian minority. Also, those familiar with the history of, say, the United States should know that just because ethnic minorities have citizenship, doesn't mean that the state is "for" them. African Americans during Jim Crow (and now) were (and are) citizens of the US, but that doesn't change the fact that the US is an institutionally racist country. Carthage (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)