I can’t believe I’m writing this after I literally just got back from writing that exam, but here it is. This post relates to some things I’ve learned in my South African class on apartheid. Yes, I’m about to relate aspects of apartheid with ongoing political issues in the US. I’ve considered several potential reactions to this post that include but are not limited to: outrage, agreement, empowerment, enlightenment, or any combination of the above.
As I studied and read for my Apartheid final last night, I couldn’t help but draw several parallels with ongoing political issues in the US. With regard to social apartheid in informal relations (sex) between ethnicities, I drew a parallel to women’s health in the US and with regard to petty apartheid (the segregation of waiting rooms, elevators, etc.), I drew a parallel to marriage equality. First, social apartheid and women’s health.
It should be noted that in the apartheid system, there were various pieces that affected the populations including the social, governmental, educational, territorial, and other aspects. Social apartheid mainly sought to legislate the private lives of South Africans and safeguard the “racial integrity” of whites. In addition to the prohibition of mixed marriages which was passed by law in 1949, the government under the National Party passed the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, which was an extension of a 1927 law which forbade informal relations between blacks and whites. The 1950 Amendment extended that law to include interactions between ethnicities (blacks, whites, coloureds (that’s actually not insensitive/derogatory here), Indians, etc.). According to one of my books,
“There was a weak type of Italian immigrant on the mines of the West Rand, declared one delegate to the Transvaal congress of the National Party, who were particularly mischievous. To tantalise the police, they ‘walked through parks on Sundays arm-in-arm with Native women, and the police were powerless to act.’ Though Minister of Justice, Swart, found mixed associations disgusting and had in fact addressed a meeting on the issue in Hyde Park 30 years previously, there was little more he could do. Unfortunately, he said, it was not practicable by law to prohibit white and black consorting other than what had already been done under the Mixed Marriages and Immorality Acts. ‘To do so would be to land yourself in a maze, where you would not know what to prohibit and what not to prohibit.’”
Here’s where the parallel comes in. The debates between pro-life and pro-choice advocates are that one wants to protect the life of an unborn fetus and the other side wants to protect the rights and health of the woman, respectively. You’ll probably be able to guess my opinion after I make my arguments, but here goes nothing anyway. The parallel is that “you would not know what to prohibit and what not to prohibit” with regard to abortion. Pro-lifers advocate the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion decades ago. Most pro-life advocates if asked, wouldn’t know what to make illegal or what punishments to establish if their goals were realized. Arguments I’ve heard include punishing the woman or punishing the doctor (really the only options I can see) if an abortion is performed. Will this really solve the problem and stop abortions from happening? Probably not. With this desired prohibition comes the problems that came before Roe v. Wade. These problems would undoubtedly once again present themselves if pro-lifers had their way. So, just as with the “problem” in South Africa, what do you prohibit and what do you not prohibit? Maybe this was a stretch caused by my ongoing sleep deprivation, but there’s my two cents regarding social apartheid and abortion.
On to petty apartheid and marriage equality. Petty apartheid (compare with grand apartheid [economic, educational, territorial]) involves well, the petty aspect of apartheid: segregation of water fountains, waiting rooms, train cars, etc. In 1949, the National Party government
“sought to impose separation of the public facilities used by whites and people of colour… the Railways and Harbours Act was passed which empowered the government to reserve train accommodation for the exclusive use of persons belonging to a particular racial group. The act was challenged in court. In Rex v Abdurahman in 1950 the appellate division held that a regulation which reserved a portion of all trains for whites but did not restrict them to those sections led to ‘partiality and inequality in treatment’ which was not authorised by the Railways Act of 1916.”
“Partiality and inequality in treatment”. Remind you of separate but equal? Women’s suffrage? The Civil Rights movement? How about the ongoing struggle by the LGBTQ community? Obviously the LBGTQ community isn’t as oppressed as non-whites were under apartheid or women or blacks were in the US were in their fights, but the key phrase here is “partiality and inequality in treatment.” I’m going to let you do most of the thinking for yourself on this with regard to that phrase and the LGBT community but let me say a few things first. America is not a theocracy. In fact, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The only argument against marriage equality in the US I’ve ever heard of are religious in nature. Additionally, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, federally non-recognized social security benefits between spouses, and harassment, violence and employment non-protection, among other things against LGBT people is further evidence of “partiality and inequality in treatment.” Yes, that phrase came out of a South African court decision but whatever happened to “liberty and justice for all”?
So there’s my South African learnin’ being applied to real life situations in the US. I guess I don’t have much else to say other than to promote the other post I’m about to write and publish today that follows this one. Hopefully I didn’t piss anyone off too much. But I warned you.
Source (yeah, I’m bein’ all academic n’stuff on my blog, so what?):
Liebenberg, B.J. & S.B. Spies (eds.), South Africa in the 20th century, pp. 322-24
No comments:
Post a Comment