Comparative focus: Jim Crow segregation and South Africa apartheid

 

QUESTION 1: Why did whites in South Africa and the American South respond so violently to black protest movements? What was at stake?

            During apartheid in South Africa and the use of Jim Crow laws in America, it is evident that both nations have had applied the same discrimination or segregation mechanisms. In the process of using black protest movements, the whites were in fear of their safety. The enactment of these laws meant that blacks were not entitled to any form of equality. By responding violently to black protesters meant that it was easier for the whites to restrict blacks from getting employed, residing peacefully in their ancestral land, or enjoying any public utility that was meant for the whites (James, 2010). In South Africa, the government had formulated the pass law which restricted blacks from visiting main cities. The same laws required blacks to walk with their identification documents which in retain also increased the unemployment level of blacks (Bray et al., 2014). Therefore, by using violent attacks means that the whites were trying to protect the privileges they were enjoying.

            Nevertheless, the uprising of black protest was aimed at ensuring that segregation has been banned. Despite that, unrest continued to spread with various state organizations responding violently and with oppression. The whites in South Africa and the American South also promoted these oppressive actions through demanding anti-apartheid leaders and those opposing Jim Crow laws to be imprisoned. In South Africa, the reason as to why the European settlers responded violently to black protesters was because they felt blacks could outweigh them. After all, they were the minority in terms of their population (Jimerson, 2011). Furthermore, although in American South the natives (whites) were the majority, protecting their privileges meant that black rights were to be suppressed. All they wanted is to ensure that blacks have remained to be their servants.

             In South Africa and America, the Jin Crow laws and apartheid was something that was documented in the constitution. Because of these laws, blacks were segregated in impoverished regions. Such a scenario restricted them from enjoying their citizenship. As their motherlands, the black protest movement was meant to ensure that everyone was treated equally. In South Africa, for instance, the places occupied by the whites and the resources they enjoyed had been left to them by the European colonizers. After independence, the blacks wanted all that had been left to be theirs. Despite that, the whites were not willing to surrender or share such resources with them hence the need for frequently responding violently to black protesters. In South America, nothing was supposed to be allocated to blacks (Tischauser, 2012). America was their native land and blacks were only supposed to be submissive to them.

             In South Africa, the whites were not interested to be assimilated with any culture there. They left their local languages and culture to continue enduring. In South America, forced assimilation was based on the notion of establishing Africa-American culture. Because of this difference, the whites knew very well that black's civil rights movements were aimed at ensuring that everyone had embraced each other regardless of cultural, social, political, or religious differences. Despite that, whites in South Africa and the American South were not willing to take that into consideration (Nancy & William, 016). By responding violently to black porters and using state organizations meant that the whites were not ready to ensure that each person has been treated with equality.

            Naturally, when voting rights are extended to each citizen based on ethnicity, sex, or race, a country cannot have a true democratic system. Therefore, in the process of extending voting rights to blacks, whites in South Africa and the American South felt that it could have been possible for the blacks to champion their rights. On this basis, the reason for responding violently to black protesters was to ensure that blacks had always remained to be their subjects.

QUESTION 2: What other differences, besides the numerical ones, can you identify between the two situations?

1. a) Government policy- one of the primary differences between the two situations is that Apartheid in South Africa was established as a state policy of segregation and racism. Such a scenario was formulated and passed down from the highest government levels as writings in the constitution. On the other hand, Jim Crow laws were established as informal laws that everyone had to accept and follow after the abolishment of slavery. These laws were never documented in the constitution of America (Fremon, 2014). Even though both states utilized prohibitive laws to make Blacks occupy impoverished regions, Blacks in South Africa were stripped of their citizenship. As a result of that, Blacks were forced to occupy independently managed homelands so that the government can realize a white majority. To deter South African Blacks from leaving their homelands, pass laws were enacted. As it was formulated by the pass law, South African Blacks were required to walk with their identification cards as opposed to the situation that thrived in America.
2. b) Majority versus minority – according to the historical research conducted, in South Africa, the Black population was about 80%, and that of the whites was roughly 13%. South Africa used to be the home of the British and Dutch settlers. Although the blacks were not enslaved, the whites did not force them to be assimilated with their culture. Local culture and languages continued to prosper. Regardless of that, blacks were the majority segregating whites (Shireen & Arianna, 2017). In America, the situation was different. In America, the whites were the majority population discriminating the blacks. Originally, they had their own culture, language, and beliefs. But after forced assimilation, the development of Africa-American culture made them forget their ways of life (Tischauser, 2012). Because of that whites were native individuals while blacks were the minority being brought there as slaves.
3. c) Impacts of violent demonstration- Nevertheless, instances of violence between whites and blacks in South Africa and America were somehow different. In South Africa, peaceful demonstrations were used to champion civil rights. In America, Jim Crow laws resulted in violent protests in which most cases police could beat Black protesters. The level of violent events was extremely high in South Africa as compared to America (Fremon, 2014). Despite the "peaceful demonstrations" at times police could open fire to protesters of South Africa. A notable example is the shooting that occurred in Soweto school in the late 1970s and Sharpeville Massacre of the late 1960s (Bray et al., 2014). Ideally, the civil rights movements formed by the black protesters were based on the idea of ensuring that both races have confronted their problems in the same way in their stages of evolution.

 

 

References

Fremon, D. K. (2014). The Jim Crow laws and racism in United States history. Berkeley Heights, NJ : Enslow Publishers, Inc.

In Bray, M., In Adamson, B., & In Mason, M. (2014). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods. Cham : Springer Press

James, F.D. (2010). Who Is Black?: One Nation's Definition. Penn State Press

Jimerson, R. O. (2011). Passing the ancestral torch: The life, times, struggles, and legacy of Theodore Roosevelt Spikes. [Bloomington, Indiana] : Xlibris

Nancy, L.C & William, H.W. (2016). South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. Seminar Studies. Routledge Press

Shireen, A & Arianna, L. (2017). New Histories of South Africa's Apartheid-Era Bantustans. Taylor & Francis Press

Tischauser, L. V. (2012). Jim Crow laws. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood. Santa Barbara, Calif. : Greenwood