South Africa
The 2nd Boer War
The 2nd Boer War
- 1899- 2nd Boer War
- Ceci Rhodes- creating Zimbabwe
- Lord Kitchener
- Responsbile for winning the Boer War
- Winston Churchill
- English create the worlds first concentration camps
- Kidnap woman and children and put in camps- burn homes down and destroy farms
- Boer men have to come out to save homes and family- fighting on open grouds
- England wins Boer War- South Africa is under British control
- South Africa granted Commonwealth Status
- Began to economically rebuild SA
- Politcal structure dominated by the Afrikaans
- English back away and let the Afrikaans
- No one talking to the Bantus- represent 80% of the population (black)
- 20% of the population (white) domiate the country- economically, politically, socially
- Bantus create a political party- African Nation Congree (ANC)
- 1939- World War II breaks out
- Afrikaans support the Nazis because of England's actions in the Boer War
- Hitler believes in anti-Semitism- makes the Afrikaans believe that their superiority is simply science
- The Dutch Reform Church- becaomes the most vocal support for Nazi and against England
- 1948- Election
- Nationalist Party (The Dutch Reform Church
- solgan for SA until 1990
- Daniel Francois Marlan:
- Class individuals by race
- banned interbreeding
- 1950- Group Areas Act
- 1953-Seperate Amenities Act
- create white towns
- homelands act 1966
- 80% black 13% white
- Albert Luthuli
- 1960- Sharpesville massacre
- 70 were murdered 180-190 injured
- riots erupt
- state of emergency
- "spear of the nation"
- Ghandi isn't working
- charged with treason 1956
- acquitted 1961
- resorted to violence
- sentenced to life in prison
- Robben island
- 1964-1989
Subjunctive question
What if Nelson Mandela never stood up against apartheid, would someone else have done the same things and made the same decisions?
Quote
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity."
Nelson Mandela
321
3.Discrimination, violence, forgiveness
2.could the conflict have been solved civilly? Is it a good thing that SA dealt with is differently than in Israel/Palestine?
1. SA is a majority black checker board, and white is winning
Blog
To what extent was violence necessary for the end of Apartheid in South Africa?
Violence played a big part in the conclusion of apartheid in South Africa. Throughout the fight against apartheid many different methods were used, some civil some not, and of those the non-civil ones had they greatest results. The Europeans used many aggressive tactics at the beginning of apartheid, while the Africans only started becoming violent when they had no other options. The fact that the Africans were fighting back against the Europeans and risking their lives proved their passion for freedom. Violence was obviously necessary considering the civil approach failed, and violence helped encourage Mandela’s release; however, in the end it was peaceful negotiation that ended apartheid.
The Africans in South Africa began their fight against apartheid graciously through civil disobedience; however, it was soon discovered that their requests and concerns were not being addressed. Africans banded together after they were segregated from the Europeans and started participating in civil disputes, but even if they were civil they were given harsh punishments and sometimes killed. In the case of the Sharpsville massacre many Africans were murdered just for standing in a field. The protesters pushed forward against the gate and the guards began firing, “the firing lasted for approximately two minutes, leaving 69 people dead and, according to the official inquest, 180 people seriously wounded.” This was the last straw for many people who had originally dealt with apartheid non-violently, but obviously they weren’t given the same courtesy.
Nelson Mandela was not a violent man, but while he was locked away in prison the Africans took a violent approach against apartheid. After Mandela was thrown in prison for nothing but civil disobedience and organizing against the government, the African people realized that there was no other option than to become violent. Africans were being shot and killed in the streets so they began to retaliate by throwing rocks and matches at soldiers. This violence just resulted in many more Africans being murdered, but it caught the interest of the international community. The president needed to do something to stop the violence and fear within his country, so he began negotiations with Nelson Mandela and eventually released him from his life sentence. If the situation hadn’t been dealt with violently Mandela would’ve stayed in prison for the rest of his life and South Africa would still be the same today.
On the other hand, in the end peaceful negotiations and elections are what really ended apartheid. After Mandela was released he attempted to make his people more peaceful in order to create a stronger nation through forgiveness. He urged people to stop fighting and to go out and vote, and once he was elected he continued to promote peaceful reconciliation. Before Mandela’s release he peacefully negotiated with the men who put him in jail for so many years and his ability to be peaceful and forgive is what inspired and helped other people to forgive. Without peaceful negotiations after the violence apartheid wouldn’t have ended.
Violence was imperative for African natives of South Africa to get the rights they deserve. The civil tactics used at the beginning of apartheid did not change anything; it took retaliation to finally get the results that the African people deserved. In contrast, the actual end of apartheid came through peaceful negotiations and politics, but they wouldn’t have gotten to that stage so soon if it weren’t for the release of Nelson Mandela, and without violence that would not have happened. Although not ideal, violence was necessary for the end of apartheid in South Africa.
To what extent was violence necessary for the end of Apartheid in South Africa?
Violence played a big part in the conclusion of apartheid in South Africa. Throughout the fight against apartheid many different methods were used, some civil some not, and of those the non-civil ones had they greatest results. The Europeans used many aggressive tactics at the beginning of apartheid, while the Africans only started becoming violent when they had no other options. The fact that the Africans were fighting back against the Europeans and risking their lives proved their passion for freedom. Violence was obviously necessary considering the civil approach failed, and violence helped encourage Mandela’s release; however, in the end it was peaceful negotiation that ended apartheid.
The Africans in South Africa began their fight against apartheid graciously through civil disobedience; however, it was soon discovered that their requests and concerns were not being addressed. Africans banded together after they were segregated from the Europeans and started participating in civil disputes, but even if they were civil they were given harsh punishments and sometimes killed. In the case of the Sharpsville massacre many Africans were murdered just for standing in a field. The protesters pushed forward against the gate and the guards began firing, “the firing lasted for approximately two minutes, leaving 69 people dead and, according to the official inquest, 180 people seriously wounded.” This was the last straw for many people who had originally dealt with apartheid non-violently, but obviously they weren’t given the same courtesy.
Nelson Mandela was not a violent man, but while he was locked away in prison the Africans took a violent approach against apartheid. After Mandela was thrown in prison for nothing but civil disobedience and organizing against the government, the African people realized that there was no other option than to become violent. Africans were being shot and killed in the streets so they began to retaliate by throwing rocks and matches at soldiers. This violence just resulted in many more Africans being murdered, but it caught the interest of the international community. The president needed to do something to stop the violence and fear within his country, so he began negotiations with Nelson Mandela and eventually released him from his life sentence. If the situation hadn’t been dealt with violently Mandela would’ve stayed in prison for the rest of his life and South Africa would still be the same today.
On the other hand, in the end peaceful negotiations and elections are what really ended apartheid. After Mandela was released he attempted to make his people more peaceful in order to create a stronger nation through forgiveness. He urged people to stop fighting and to go out and vote, and once he was elected he continued to promote peaceful reconciliation. Before Mandela’s release he peacefully negotiated with the men who put him in jail for so many years and his ability to be peaceful and forgive is what inspired and helped other people to forgive. Without peaceful negotiations after the violence apartheid wouldn’t have ended.
Violence was imperative for African natives of South Africa to get the rights they deserve. The civil tactics used at the beginning of apartheid did not change anything; it took retaliation to finally get the results that the African people deserved. In contrast, the actual end of apartheid came through peaceful negotiations and politics, but they wouldn’t have gotten to that stage so soon if it weren’t for the release of Nelson Mandela, and without violence that would not have happened. Although not ideal, violence was necessary for the end of apartheid in South Africa.