| Author |
Message |
    
Serenasailor
Veteran Poster
Username: Serenasailor
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 12:47 am: | 
|
Which system was WORSE?? Some say Jim Crow others say Aparteid? What do you guys think? Can anyone present evidence of which one was worse?? |
Lil_ze
Veteran Poster
Username: Lil_ze
Post Number: 780
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 01:07 am: |
|
the only evidence needed to prove that jim crow was "worse" (whatever that may mean), is that jim crow affected our nation.
aparteid was a political system that affected a portion of the dark race that dwell in the southern part of africa.
i personally don't care what the hell happens to (or happened) to the dark races of africa.
the history of the "white south africans" is quite amazing.
the boers trekked across africa, and were able to subjugate millions of black africans.
white south africans view their history as a miracle of god.
where god gave them the power to subdue the dark race in southern africa.
jim crow was used to hurt our people.
aparteid had no effect on our people.
so of course, jim crow was worse.
its a stupid question.
so the answer i gave is in accord with this reality.
|
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 01:38 am: |
|
ironically, besides south africans themselves, african american leaders, have been the soldiers behind the antiapartheid movement. I submit, then, that apartheid had everything to do with us, dummy! |
Lil_ze
Veteran Poster
Username: Lil_ze
Post Number: 781
Registered: 01-2006
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 02:28 am: |
|
yukio, just because a few "african american leaders" (leaders of what or who i do not know), have been "soldiers" (whatever the hell that means) in the "anti-aparteid movement".
does not mean it had anything to do with our people.
just because some black americans are involved in the anti-aparteid movement, does not mean that the aparteid system had ANY direct (or indirect) effect on our people.
do you get that yukio, you stupid slut? (see i can call names also) |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 02:48 am: |
|
Doesn't matter which was worse. They both were used to brutalize and dehumanize black people. You can't accurately measure nor compare anything like this. What's the point? |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 158
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:01 am: |
|
I agree with Ntfs. And Lil_ze; I think a lot the treatment of blacks in south africa DOES affect how other blacks are viewed globally. Just more evidence of blacks being treated like so much shit.
It is great that african-american condemned and fought to stop the aparteid. It is great that ANYONE worked to stop the bad treatement of others. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8527
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:20 am: |
|
Serenasailor,
Depends on where you were.
If you were in America's South prior to the Civil Rights Movement, you'd probably say Jim Crow was worse.
But if you were in Soweto, South Africa prior to the abolition of Apartheid, you'd probably say that it was worse. |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:58 am: |
|
Here is a sage comment: "Doesn't matter which was worse. They both were used to brutalize and dehumanize BLACK people. You can't accurately measure nor compare anything like this."
My mistake, I meant 'black leaders,' from the black churchs, black leaders, as in politicians, black leaders, as in black student protests, Black Student Union protests, etc...
Until recently, once 'african americans' identified themselves as black people, that is embracing their socalled race, and initiated their struggle as such, the problems in Africa, the Caribbean, etc...have been the problem of all black people.
I wonder when 'african americans' began to lose their blackness? I think it happened in the 80s, or was it the late 70s; it seemed like that was the moment when:
a) the black middle class began to rise
b)the post-civil rights generation was born w/o the passing down of a tradition of protest and self-awareness.
c)the black power movement was sabotaged and terrorized by COINTELPRO....
d) hip hop is born
|
Jackie
Regular Poster
Username: Jackie
Post Number: 450
Registered: 04-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 11:01 am: |
|
Yeah Yukio you stupid slut! wink wink LOL !!! Good points ! |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1889
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 12:22 pm: |
|
actually, my 'slutin' days, or to be gender specific, but sexist at the same time, i'm done soiling my royal oats!
as I reread my post, lil-ze, you are correct it was a few. that brings me to other issue. isn't it not true that for most of our history, that african american history, it has only been a few soldier fighting this war?
Most of us, or of you ol foggies, didn't belong to SNCC, NAACP, CORE, Panthers, etc....did you? But at the same time, these organizations the community institutions and were fed my these same institutions, oftentimes it was the black church! NO?
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7432
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 01:53 pm: |
|
LOL."soiling your royal oats", huh? OK, Yukio, it might be a lot less messy if you sowed your wild oats.
As for which form of discrimination was worse, it's like deciding whether you want to die by lethal injection or the gas chamber. But I will say that in South Africa the black majority was oppressed by the white minority and the feelings of complete impotency had to be painfully demoralizing. In the U.S. blatant Jim Crow was restricted to the South and there was some respite from public discrimination for those who migrated north. And although they were the exceptions not the rule, there were scattered pockets in northern areas where racial integration actually existed as was the case in my hometown which was integrated from the time of its inception in 1870. And this "ol fogie" did belong to and was very active in the NAACP youth council during the 50s and during the 60s hob-nobbed with a couple of Black Panthers. My particular experiences with the black church was that it tended to not want to rock the boat and was the last to become militant in The Movement. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 01:57 pm: |
|
LOL @ Cynique. Though it has been my experience that gentlemen that sow their oats wildly often do leave quite a few soiled messes in their wake... |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 02:01 pm: |
|
LOL! Yvettep, and I have not been messy at all, as far as I know...
Cynique: I wasn't directing my post towards you in particular, but making the point, or the suggestion, that most social movements generally include the majority of the population unless it is a civil war.
Although, that those you are not participating as organizers or part of organizations are involved through indirect means.... |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7436
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 04:04 pm: |
|
OK. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3583
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 06:11 pm: |
|
A similar question was asked of Nelson Mandela when he first came to the states and spoke publicly after he was released from prison. He said that we Blacks in the U.S. at least had some opportunities and that in SA they had none. I believe that things were much much worse in SA. Not that things were great over here, but not as bad as over there.
I worked with Amnesty International during apartheid and unfortunately it was their policy not to get involved in the internal operations of foreign governments - unless there was a death penalty case. I doubt if any of the groups that Y mentioned above could have made a difference. AI is the largest and most powerful human rights organization in the world.
|
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Mzuri: thats not what Randall Robinson, formerly of TransAfrica, explains in his book Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America. Black folk did "make a difference."
But of course, "making a difference" is relative. If you mean through military involvment, then no. But through propaganda, then hell yes!
Like the CRM here, black of in the U.S. played the role of publicizing the Apartheid, and putting pressure on the U.S. government. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3584
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 06:52 pm: |
|
I think what made the difference was the boycotts and/or embargoes. There weren't enough Black people here fighting for that cause to make much of a difference. I don't even know if anything has changed for the average Blacks in SA as far as their living conditions, income, etc. I hope they aren't still living in the abject poverty of before.
|
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Mzuri: yes, they are still living in abject poverty.
it was african americans and others around the world who pressured the U.S. to embargo S. Africa. Do you really think the U.S. did this on their own? Well, let me answer you....hell, no!
you don't need numbers, you need bodies to be used at the right place and the right time, and the right circumstances!
how did the civil rights act and the voting rights act come about? it wasn't king!
The television: it Bull Connor and the fire hoses blasting black folk, which was covered on television...AND, it was the Cold War! All of this violence directed at blacks made the U.S. look bad to Asia, Latin America, and Africa whom the U.S. did not want to side with the USSR. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7440
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 08:36 pm: |
|
You are right about the big impact Bull Conner spraying defenseless black people had, Yukio. After footage of this incident ran on TV, white folks were appalled. Suburban housewives were jumping on buses and well-to-do society matrons catching planes, priests and politicians car-pooling, all of them heading south to march with King and put an end to the cruel inhumanity of Bull Conner. And yes, Mzuri, as far as South Africa was concerned, boycotting was a good tactic. The entertainment world banned together and refused to accept any engagements there and even put out one of those "we are the world" video/records, called "I ain't gonna play Sun City" which I guess was big cooncert hall somewhere in South Africa |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 804
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:23 am: |
|
they are both terrible injustices to black people, who the hell came up with such a dumb ass thread? oh! jumpin jesus on a pogo stick, i should have known captain dumbass was at the helm. don't you have some delicious sweet ass light skinned women to put down? |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:08 am: |
|
Before I participate: Do Black Americans get a prize if we can "present evidence" that Jim Crow was worse? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7447
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Yes, an all-expense paid trip to one of those luxurious resorts in South Africa, courtesy of Serenasailor. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3710
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Jim Crow:
Lasted longer, killed an impoverished more people, was not destroyed but went underground.
By the way, the South Africans came and studied American Jim Crow laws before they set up Aparthied--as did the Nazis in the 30's. |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 808
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:57 pm: |
|
chris:
yeah because they used to just kill the africans. you don't know how many africans where killed, hell there are probably 5 of them getting whacked while your reading what i wrote. there is no measure for this. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3712
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:29 pm: |
|
there is no measure for this.
(I guess it all gets down to whose ox is getting gored, doesn't it.
Somebody would have to have the intelligence of a moron to come on a site primarily visited by African Americans and ask what was worse, which is another way of saying if you get shot in the ass I don't feel a damn thang.
I am old enough to have got in on the tail end of Jim Crow. I experienced it. As a kid I saw the signs that read, "This is Ku Klux Klan whiteland, stay out."
Forgive me for not bleeding for somebody else across the water, who likely sold my ancestors into slavery in the first place, and didn't have enough damn sense and unity, even though OUTNUMBERING white folks, and on their own territory and land, and with their own families intact, and villages and organizations to stick together and keep from getting screwed up the butt.
Take care of your own, Doberman. Handle your business cuz they still got the army, the police and all the finanicial power.
|
Eastwest
Regular Poster
Username: Eastwest
Post Number: 147
Registered: 12-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Actually Doberman black south africans are TOUGH.
They are HANDLING THE WHITES VERY WELL.
I Work with a couple of Black South Africans,
from what they tell me the Whites are Afraid.
|
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:37 pm: |
|
chrishayden, you know our ancestors did not come from s. africa.
this brings about another conversation. why do 'african americans' constantly blame africans for the slave trade when:
africans, like europeans and the rest of the world at the time, did not believe in 'racial differnce or racial solidarity.' So, africans sold their enemies, who were other blacks. europeans sold other europeans, because they were enemies. europeans enslaved other europeans.....
With that said, many africans fought against the slave trade! It didn't involve the entire continenet. Many Africans resisted this...what about those africans? Aren't them 'redeemable'? |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 173
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:48 pm: |
|
On a tangent, first black own mine is being planned in south africa soon. |
Serenasailor
Veteran Poster
Username: Serenasailor
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Well Asswipes it sure got you guys to talking. So •••• YOU AND YO MAMA TOO!! |
Serenasailor
Veteran Poster
Username: Serenasailor
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 05:42 pm: |
|
AND DICKWAD(EASTWEST) IF YOU CALL A.I.D.S/ BLACK ON BLACK CRIME THAT RAVISHING THE COUNTRY, AND LIVING IN SQUADLID CONDITIONS HANDLING THE WHITES WELL THEN YOU HAVE ALOT TO LEARN JUST LIKE YOU •••• BUDDIE DOBERMAN!! |
Fortified
Regular Poster
Username: Fortified
Post Number: 459
Registered: 04-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 05:58 pm: |
|
I am divided...
Regarding apartheid...How does a 10% minority systematically oppress, rape and pillage a 90% majority and have such lasting effects? I guess more planning and international assistance...Then there is the AIDS issue. The South African majority was crippled all around.
However...
Apartheid hit its peak during a time when people became more "liberal", that is why South Afrikaan business were suffering due to international boycotts. The Jim Crow era was worse because nobody from the outside forced the hand of the U.S. to stop their bullsh!t. The uprising came from within.
|
Serenasailor
Veteran Poster
Username: Serenasailor
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 06:27 pm: |
|
You took the words out of my mouth Fortified! Thand You!! Aparteid was a system that did not last for more than 40 years. Not only that ppl all over the word condemned it. However, no one condemned Jim Crow. Not only that Jim Crow was a system that was the direct result of SLAVERY!! Aparteid wasn't.
Aparteid was just a way for the white minority to control the Black majority. Thats it!! Jim Crow was a system imposed by former slave owners to return their former slave to a state of "slavery". Jim Crow lasted for almost 70 years.
Black South Africans had alot of Allies. Black Americans didn't!! |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 08:37 pm: |
|
I'm not sure which began first, apartheid or jim crow, but I will have to check this sooner than later. I dont think the length of time position is significant, and I really don't think either was better or worse. Clearly, African Americans are doing 'better' than S. Africans. Yet, that we are doing 'better' than many of our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean and Africa creates to the myth that the U.S. is not racist and that African Americans are just lazy...so that is a different kind of problem that we encounter. Similarly, black nations have to deal with another myth, which is their leadership is responsible for their poverty. While there is some truth to this, Africa and the Caribbean continue to be controlled by European and American money. Unfortunately, people confuse governmental positions and the like w/power. When in fact, the power that black presidents and the like have is always financed by the U.S. or some European country or a combination of them, or these multinationals.
Anwyas, one can argue that jim crow began once blacks were freed in the north at the end of the American revolution. Before the civil war and even after, most blacks in the north could not vote, and were excluded from unions and generally the industrial labor sector.
I am sorry to say that I am unfamiliar w/s. african history...as an african american, while apartheid has always been compared to jim crow, i knew my ancestors were w. africa, so that the little time that i have spent reading about africa has been about w.africa. but this will change! Anyway, here is what I got from Wikipedia; it basically states apartheid or an early version of this began in the 19th c.:
Racial segregation and colonialism prior to Apartheid:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Racial_segregation_and_colonialism_prior_ to_Apartheid
The first recorded use of the word "apartheid" (was in 1917 during a speech by Jan Christiaan Smuts, who later became Prime Minister of South Africa in 1919. Although the creation of apartheid is usually attributed to the Afrikaner-dominated government of 1948-1994, it is partially a legacy of British colonialism which introduced a system of pass laws in the Cape Colony and Natal during the 19th century. This resulted in regulating the movement of blacks from the tribal regions to the areas occupied by whites and coloureds, and which were ruled by the British. Pass laws not only restricted the movement of blacks into these areas but also prohibited their movement from one district to another without a signed pass. Blacks were not allowed onto streets of towns in the Cape Colony and Natal after dark and they had to carry a pass at all times.
The practice of apartheid can thus be viewed as a continuation, magnification and extension of the segregationist policies of previous White colonial administrations in what is now South Africa. Examples include the 1913 Land Act and the various workplace "colour bars". These laws flowed from the peace treaty signed between the Boer Republics and the British Empire at the end of the Second Boer War of 1899-1902. However, it is claimed that the original idea behind the concept of apartheid was more one of political separation (later called "grand apartheid") than segregation (later called "petty apartheid"). For instance, during the Second World War, Smuts' United Party government began to move away from the rigid enforcement of segregationist laws. |
Email This Page