| Revision as of 05:25, 22 August 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Israel: citations← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:20, 16 January 2024 edit undoDsuke1998AEOS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,953 edits Allegations of apartheid by country is a better target than the disambiguation pageTag: Redirect target changed |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{accuracy}} |
|
|
Controversially, arguments are sometimes made that the past or present actions of other nations are analogous to ], or constitute apartheid under the definition adopted in ]. <!-- where is apartheid defined in international law --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
===Israel=== |
|
|
|
{{R from less specific name}} |
|
Critics{{fact}} of ] argue that its treatment of ] is discriminatory and a form of apartheid, and refer to it as as a ] and/or an Apartheid state. Israel and its supporters argue that this comparison is ungrounded and unfair.{{fact}} The ] is often referred to by critics as the "]". |
|
|
|
{{R from move}} |
|
<!-- |
|
|
|
{{R from short name}} |
|
===Jordan=== |
|
|
|
{{R with history}} |
|
The State of ]'s Constitution denies ]s citizenship. (note: I keep correcting this and someone keeps putting it back. The Jordanian constitution doesn't define citizenship standards. The Law of Nationality of 1954 granted citizenship to everyone living in certain territories, but with regard to the West Bank, excluded Jews on the basis that they were all granted citizenship in the new Israeli state. There is no other exclusion of Jews from Jordanian nationality law.) |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
--> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
===Saudi Arabia=== |
|
|
]'s discriminatory practices against women have been referred to as "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid". Saudi Arabia's repression of religious minorities has also been described as "apartheid". Until recently, the official goverment ] stated that ]s were forbidden from entering the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Spain=== |
|
|
Some ]s in ] have argued that the ] that do not grant official status to the ] are a form of apartheid. Supporters of ] also call its illegalization "apartheid". |
|
|
|
|
|
===United States=== |
|
|
] was the law in parts of the ] until the ]. Some similarities between the situation in those localities in the U.S. and South Africa were: |
|
|
* The races were kept separate, and, ''e.g.'', schools for black and white children were unequal in quality. |
|
|
* Interracial sex and marriage were outlawed.{{fact}} |
|
|
* Blacks were systematically denied voting rights.{{fact}} <!-- all illiterates were denied voting rights, were they not? whether or not it was done "systematically" to prevent blacks from voting is a legitimate point, but this bullet makes it sound like there was some sort of LEGAL obstacle specifically denying blacks the right to vote, which was not, AFAIK, the case --> |
|
|
* ] was similar to apartheid etiquette. {{fact}} <!-- what does this mean? what was "apartheid etiquette"? --> |
|
|
Some differences were: |
|
|
* In the U.S. after the civil war, there was never a class of blacks who were not citizens; there were no "homelands" in the U.S., and families were not separated as they were in South Africa by not allowing men to bring their families with them to the areas where they worked. |
|
|
* Blacks are a minority in the U.S., but a majority in South Africa. |
|
|
* In South Africa, voting rights were denied to blacks outright, by denying them citizenship. In the U.S., denial of voting rights was enforced by local custom, by ] and other forms of terrorism, or by poll taxes and selective enforcement of literacy requirements. <!-- this seems to be what I was saying earlier...but also contradicts the assertion made above --> |
|
|
|
|
|
In a completely different analogy, based on the newly coined term "genocide" used to describe the ], the ] (CRC) made a 1951 presentation on ] to the ] entitled "We Charge Genocide," which argued that the federal government, by its failure to act to curb the lynchings, was guilty of ] under Article II of the ]. <!-- some expansion on this would be nice--what was the outcome of the presentation? More importantly, however, what does this have to do with apartheid? --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==="The West"=== |
|
|
Global apartheid is the view that rich democratic ] act in much the same way as white South Africa, by exploiting or ignoring the plight of people in developing countries, inasmuch as many White South Africans justified apartheid by regarding black South Africans as geographically removed from them, and therefore citizens of another territory. |
|