wasn't apartheid the same thing as segregation
2006-12-15 09:51:21 · 14 answers · asked by Putis L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
yes it was
2006-12-15 09:52:48 · answer #1 · answered by Lick my @sss 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In South Africa, the native people were given back power over their native land. This is very different from America, where those of African descent were effectively "unwilling" immigrants (once they were freed) like any other poor immigrants (Irish, etc) that came in except it wasn't by their own choice.
Therefore I ask, why should they have been given total power?
Segregation was certainly an evil, but the way to address it is through teaching people to empower themselves, not give away power.
Additionally, could they have not taken more power by virtue of the vote? If a group expresses solidarity in a democracy, they can take control of their own future.
2006-12-15 10:05:16 · answer #2 · answered by jeffedl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apartheid was supposedly 'separate but equal' development started by DF Malan in 1948.
The Nat government didn't exactly hand over voluntarily. The sanctions that the rest of the world (apart from the US) had set up eventually started to bite and SA was going bankrupt. The reason Madiba wasn't elected long before was that blacks had no vote before 1992. FW had no choice but to allow a general franchise, so in 1994 the election happened.
Look up FW's famous 'crossing the Rubicon' speech.
Anyhow, by what right did the (very minority) settlers in what is now the US gain power over those who were already there??
2006-12-17 07:29:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apartheid is a form of segregation. However, in South Africa, blacks are the majority. We are the minority here in the United States. Power wasn't handed over, a black man ran for president and won the presidency. Having a black majority, and therefore a black voting majority, is probably what helped Nelson Mandela to be elected president. Many people, don't mean this in a bad way, would not vote for a black presidential candidate in this country.
2006-12-15 09:55:40 · answer #4 · answered by Joy M 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Probably because they saw the result of South Africa.
2006-12-15 09:59:54 · answer #5 · answered by profile image 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No one said they couldn't move back to Africa, and have all the power they wanted. And no it is not the same thing.
2006-12-15 09:58:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
11% of Americans were black; 10% of South Africans were white.
2006-12-15 09:59:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because SA was handed over to the majoity of the people, which is mostly Black. US is still mostly White, so Whites still run the country.
2006-12-15 10:01:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about all races, sexes, and sexual orientation?
The point is, race will not (or should not) determine how our country is run. As long as they know and do what is right for America and the Earth, they could be a Lesbian Black Woman, I am voting for them.
2006-12-15 09:56:29 · answer #9 · answered by myaspan 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it was never theirs to give power to in the first place. Give it to cheif running round-in-circles
2006-12-15 10:19:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the blacks are in the minority here.
2006-12-15 10:34:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋