←back to thread

358 points impish9208 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Simulacra ◴[] No.41879526[source]
I think it was the fishing trip with Mandela and then-Prime Minister F.W. de Klerk in 1990 that ended apartheid. Specifically when one of de Klerk's people got a hook in his hand, and a Mandela person cleaned and bandaged it. After that trip Apartheid was finally broken.
replies(4): >>41879733 #>>41879819 #>>41879877 #>>41884619 #
bdndndndbve ◴[] No.41879877[source]
What actually ended apartheid was international pressure and the white government's fear of a civil war. Economically isolated and vastly outnumbered, the apartheid government would have been completely removed from the country and had their property seized.

My understanding is Mandela was a respected leader who was willing to play ball and facilitate a peaceful transition where the white leadership got to keep all their property. That's why there's still massive economic inequality in SA today. Not to say Mandela wasn't admirable or that he didn't suffer, but it was a conscious choice to avoid outright military conflict at the cost of preserving an implicit racial hierarchy.

replies(4): >>41880185 #>>41880625 #>>41882929 #>>41883344 #
pessimizer ◴[] No.41883344[source]
> What actually ended apartheid was international pressure

There wasn't any international pressure. There was a withdrawal of the continual and embarrassing support from Britain and the US, the only people other than Israel who hadn't been overly troubled by Apartheid. First from Britain, because as bad as she was, Thatcher was nauseated by Apartheid, then from the US who would have had to actively intervene (as they are right now in a similar context) in order to preserve Apartheid. This was only 25 years after the US had ended its own legal Apartheid.

The US political class was largely indifferent to Apartheid (aside from periodic expressions of mild disapproval of both sides and condemnation of Communist-backed terrorism), so when they saw how the wind was blowing within SA ("fear of a civil war"), and that individual domestic politicians could be damaged or gain politically through their actions towards SA, the US supported the "coup" (as always) so they could keep doing business without interruption.

So I'd instead say popular pressure among citizens of the US and Britain against their own politicians, and the resulting withdrawal of Anglo-American support. Everything else but "international pressure" I agree with totally.

replies(1): >>41883453 #
DAGdug ◴[] No.41883453[source]
“ as they are right now in a similar context” You can be more direct about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians! All it takes for evil to succeed ….
replies(1): >>41883580 #
anovick ◴[] No.41883580[source]
There's no similar context because the Apartheid system that existed in South Africa has no resemblance to today's Israel.

In particular:

- There's no racial segregation laws; an Arab-Israeli can travel anywhere a Jewish-Israeli can. In fact, Arabic is an officially recognized language by the state of Israel, and throughout the country, every public service has signs in Arabic alongside Hebrew.

- Jews are not a minority in Israel, they comprise 78% of the population.

replies(3): >>41883732 #>>41884161 #>>41884235 #
1. Qem ◴[] No.41884235{4}[source]
> There's no similar context because the Apartheid system that existed in South Africa has no resemblance to today's Israel.

According to Human Rights Watch[1], Amnesty International[2], and many other human rights organizations, the regime in Israel today is in fact recognized as a system of apartheid. Mandela himself shown a lot of solidarity to the palestinian cause[3].

[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2022/02/qa-israel...

[3] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-p...

replies(1): >>41888715 #
2. robertoandred ◴[] No.41888715[source]
So, believe biased organizations or the dictionary. I'll go with the dictionary.