Talk:20th-century South Africa

To be or not to be

I fear this article has not made it past the drawing board... Do we give it another try (if so, how?) Or do we say "Bye Felicia" and vfd it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to be a 'Create a foundation and others will come to build it' attempt. It doesn't actually have anything for travel a few months after creation.

I am not in favor of limiting the ideas for articles, but things like this are much better served by Wikipedia. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting to add some destinations. /Yvwv (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Here we are almost half a year later. What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyphenation of title?

I routinely add hyphens to adjectival clauses like "20th-century". "Century" in this context is not a noun such as it would be in the sentence "South Africa was governed under the apartheid system for most of the 20th century", but part of an adjective clause modifying the name "South Africa". So does anyone object to moving this article to 20th-century South Africa, and if so, why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing the name, without prejudice to what will eventually happen to the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

South Africa, an important WWII Ally?

In what way? A lot of the Afrikaners were Nazi sympathizers. What important things did they do for the Allies? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe English-speaking South Africans supported the Ally cause similar to the majorities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was a South African presence in the North African battles against Rommel. But whether they were "important" is subjective and relative. Probably overstating in my opinion. Gizza ^(roam) 01:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably almost as important an Ally as Nicaragua... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the word "important". Selfie City (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed the word, which seems to be the consensus, although I cannot judge its importance. See also w:World War II by country#South Africa (the comparison with Nicaragua seems out of place). –LPfi (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Western NGO opposition to apartheid etc.

There was no mention of the opposition against apartheid in the article, other than the hint about the country being welcomed back in the international community after the reforms.

I think it is worth a mention that e.g. Angola got a lot of support against the West-sponsored militia by leftist organisations in the west (whether it had any significance, I cannot say), and the demand for boycotts probably had at least some influence on Western policy. Even mainstream organisations, such as student unions, were involved.

The example about FIFA doesn't seem to be the best one, as it might have been a result of bribes, and the current cup (in Qatar 2022) isn't exactly a demonstration of FIFA's tendency to choose host based on respect for Human Rights.

–LPfi (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The opposition to Apartheid got more support from the USSR, Cuba and Libya than from Western countries. Of those countries, only the Soviet Union is mentioned, and only once. How long and detailed should the background be, considering that we should make it travel-relevant? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is of course a part of the bigger picture of the Cold War conflicts, where leftist movements (including the peace movement) in the West often were criticised of being naïvely lead by the Soviets. My problem with this is that it paints a picture of a unified West and neglects the influence of citizen power. In the current situation it reminds me of Putin's rhetoric of Russia against the West, which ignores both the concept of decency as seen by the international community (manifested in the Human Rights and International Law) and the power of citizens. For African readers who didn't experience the debate in the West, the article may give a very biased picture, likewise for younger European readers, or any reader that was behind the Iron Curtain at the time. Not even mentioning that South Africa was under boycott seems odd (I don't remember whether there was an official boycott or e.g. protest during major sports events, but certainly shop keepers were aware of it).

I don't want to add very much detail, but ideally wordings should be tweaked to a different tone, so that these aspects at least can be read between the lines, without adding more than a few sentences. It might take as much additional space as the Springbok incident and the FIFA World Cup take now.

–LPfi (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was a small part of the anti-Apartheid movement in the U.S. You are certainly right that public opposition to Western collusion with the racists had an effect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)