I was telling my stepson about Apartheid since they don’t learn about it in school and referred to South Africa as the most racist country.
But in terms of the entire history of both nations, which county would you say was morally and ethically more wrong?
Is Apartheid or US slavery worse? Or is there just no comparing because they are both horrible?
These kinds of discussions are divisive and are rarely productive. There’s really no reason to get into a pissing contest with South Africa.
Sounds like a no-brainer if you stretch back to a few hundred years. Slavery was worse than segregation.
Of those two slavery is obviously worse, I suspect the segregation that persisted after the Civil War and the doctrine of separate but equal is likely a closer comparison. Between apartheid and segregation, by uneducated opinion is apartheid was probably worse - as blacks were deprived of their citizenship of their own country with the bantustans.
Zimbabwe is more racist than South Africa, and either are more racist than the United States. You don’t see African-Americans having their businesses stolen with the government’s approval just because of their skin colour.
How about a comparison of the countries at the same point in time. SA in 1950 vs the USA in 1950. It really doesn’t make sense to compare two countries at different points in time.
Is there any nation that wasn’t racist or the equivalent at some point in the last 400 years? OK, The Netherlands, maybe.
You do realize the Afrikaaners practiced slavery during the 19th Century don’t you?
We did it to the Japanese.
They did finally drop it in 1834, same as the rest of the British Empire (having stopped importation in 1808). And even then, the economy was never really a slave economy, the way the South was. Plantation farming wasn’t a thing here. Lots of slaves were skilled tradesmen, some were political prisoners from Batavia, and the natives (Black and Khoi) were never really enslaved.
But being forced to drop it was a small part of the impetus for them leaving the Colonies to found their own countries in the Great Trek. It was more likely dissatisfaction with the amountof compensation for freed slaves, though, as part of general dissatisfaction with British rule. Most of the Trekboers weren’t slaveholders in the first place. Didn’t suit their semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, really. And the Boer Republics** didn’t have slavery**, from the start. So “The Afrikaners practiced slavery during the 19th Century” is true, but overstating things a bit.
Do African-Americans have a vast majority of business and farm ownership despite being very much a minority overall? No?
And when did this happen in South Africa, anyway? I know it happened to Blacks when the Group Areas act kicked in…not so much to Whites.
Zimbabwe, of course, is a different matter.
What’s the prize?
Wait, are we talking just wrong on the race front here, or more wrong overall?
See “Hitler vs Stalin: who was more evil”…
Why not? What does some arbitrary “point in time” have to do with anything? We are not talking about emigration possibilities, are we? It is perfectly possible and meaningful to say, for instance, that in 1850 the USA was worse than South Africa in 1950. (I am not saying that is the case, though it is plausible. It is just an arbitrary example.)
Sure, it’s possible to say it, but then why not compare Rome 10 AD with France in 1970?
But especially the 19th century, when the West went through tremendous changes. Imagine the UK in 1800 vs 1900. I just don’t think it tells us much because the Western world was in a huge state of flux.
Well the apartheid didn’t end until 1994. And South Africa isn’t exactly some backwoods country, either. We’re talking the year Kurt Cobain killed himself, people were becoming aware of the internet, Bill Clinton was president and there was still Apartheid in South Africa.
So while slavery is obviously worse than apartheid, at least it made sense historically. Like, the way slavery ended and when, it doesn’t hurt my brain to think about, just my soul. But Apartheid was one of those things where you would you bring it up to someone who wasn’t very politically aware or was very young and they’d do a double take and say “wait… this is going on TODAY?”
Why do you say slavery was worse? At least slaves had a minimum of food and basic care to keep them working.
These people were forcibly removed from their homes, moved to the middle of nowhere and left for dead and told they weren’t citizens of SA anymore.
Families were separated and it was very difficult for non whites to get or keep jobs in white areas.
The brutality of SA against resistors or protestors is hard to reconcile. I remember watching Bishop Tutu just crying listening to people tell their stories after Apartheid ended and he was trying to help the nation heal.
We did that to the Indians, so we’ve got them on both fronts.
Both systems were horrible, but I can’t see how slavery is not worse.
Very true. And we used biological warfare on them.
Warfare is a deliberate act, the devastation of the Native Americans by European diseases was not.
If you’re referring to Lord Amherst’s blanket scheme, it’s more likely than not that it was never carried out, and pre-dated the existence of the U.S. by more than a decade.
Yeah, the “infected blanket” meme has been debunked for some time now.