Talk:Racism in South Africa

Significant Rewrite Necessary

Lots of opinion and unnecessary information. See the list of comments handpicked from a blog?

Zvtok (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Most sources are reliable and cited for example ENCA and Al Jazeera are used instead of a more biased site such as SABC towards black people. DumaTorpedo (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And don't you think handpicked comments from anonymous individuals are opinion based? Seems to me this article is becoming VERY opinionated. Zvtok (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I see the comments have been removed. I do agree with that, as for the re-write. I do not see it being relevant any longer DumaTorpedo (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Just read this article. Agreeing with the view that a significant re-write is necessary. E.g. There is little mention of racist ideology which were driving forces behind colonial era racism and apartheid era racism, and that those ideologies persist exist in South Africa. These ideologies are well documented and were well publicised throughout the colonial and apartheid era, so it is really weird that an academic source like this makes little reference to them. There are also documented examples of how those ideologies persist post-Apartheid - they are missing too. The section on post-Apartheid racism is especially poorly written. It contains much conjecture and biased positions. It is really difficult to see the section as a coherent academic or factual treatise. Many quotes, for instance, are given out of context. It is necessary to show, for instance, that the Penny Sparrow statements are an example of the enduring legacy of racist ideologies despite being in a post-apartheid era that has universal suffrage. It is also incorrect to (i) attribute anti-white statements and sentiments as "racism" without qualification - in context, they are "internalised racism" as the speakers were victimised by colonial and apartheid racism, and have a perception that that victimisation persists even though legal barriers have been lifted. (ii) attribute conflict between non-whites as "racism" without qualification - in context, it is "internalised racism" as product of the deliberate colonial and apartheid ideological moves to foster distrust between non-whites. This too is document. I could go on, the the gist is, the entire article needs to be re-written by a team of Wikipedians who are committed to being academic thorough, knowing the knowledge domain in its full breadth and not just slivers that are convenient for populist agenda. Lundaling (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In my view, the problem is that the article conflates many different definitions and theories of what racism is, without acknowledging that it's doing so. The article should be completely rewritten to emphasize this complexity instead of ignoring it. This is a difficult task, because it involves navigating very sensitive topics that many editors are seemingly quite defensive about. But we shouldn't surrender to anti-intellectualism just because engaging with serious sociological research will lead to a lot of divisive arguments in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.146.55 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

Can’t the editors stop all this? DumaTorpedo (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

DumaTorpedo YOU are the vandal. You have repeatedly removed numerous blatant examples of anti-white racism such as:

• Government official Velaphi Khumalo's statement that "White people in South Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews. [You] have the same venom. Look at Palestine. [You] must be [burnt] alive and skinned and your [offspring] used as garden fertiliser"
• Knowledge Mandlazi's murder of 5 whites in Brits. Mandlazi stated in court he did it because they were white.
• William Kekana's murder of 3 whites, including a baby girl. Kekana stated in court he did it because they were white.

You have also added statements to the anti-black racism section such as:

• The black man who was fishing in eShowe who was shot dead. What you conveniently neglected to mention was that he was shot dead while fishing on a BLACK man's farm. When I appended the case to include the fact that the owner of the farm was black you removed my edit.
• The black man who was shot dead in Tarlton after stealing a tractor. When I appended the case to include that Magistrate's comment that it was not an act of racism but a criminal act you removed my edit.

You have intentionally attempted to create cases of anti-black racism that don't exist and deleted genuine, properly cited and referenced cases of anti-white racism. You have the audacity to state that you removed my edits because you found they were "Badly written and makes reference to personal judgment and opinion" when it is YOUR edits that are clearly biased and opinionated. It has become increasingly clear that you have an agenda of making it appear that anti-black racism is far more prevalent than it is and minimize any cases of anti-white racism.

I strongly recommend that DumaTorpedo is banned from editing this page and any others that involve racism in South Africa.Classical liberal za (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the cases that have been added that show so-called racism usually do not have sources that say they are racially motivated. The “racial” part is the victims own (uncited) opinion. This is thus not racism but part of crime in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. You have removed cases from the anti-white racism section where the perpetrator has categorically stated in court they murdered the victim(s) because they were white.

Furthermore, please stop merging the racism against Indian communities (post-Apartheid) section into the racism against black communities. Indians were considered a distinct ethnic group by the apartheid government and also by the current administration. This is illustrated by the fact that they comprise a separate category in the national census and quota application. Indian South Africans have never been considered black. Classical liberal za (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I presume you believe “black” implies African. This is not the case.”black” uncapitalized implies all those non-white, this has been so since the black consciousness Movement in South Africa led by Steve Biko in the 1970’s to create a positive connotation to “non-white” rather than be “non-“ something. I am not implying that the Indian ethnic group does not exist. Being of Indian ( and Asian) ancestory I of course agree with you that the Indian ethnic group in South Africa cannot be ignored, however even according to the freedom charter that the Constitution of South Africa is based around “ South Africa belongs to all those who this in it ‘b’lack and white”.... I don’t think such a profound document would leave out Indian and Coloured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the South African constitution or the rest of the legal system does it say Indian communities are considered black. Classical liberal za (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This was not what I explained. Read the full paragraph to understand that the cultural implications of an uncapitalized “black”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your explanation does not make sense. Just because certain individuals or organisations have, at certain points in time, have considered it expedient to use the phrase 'black' to apply to all non-whites does NOT make it the de facto norm. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most highly revered figures amongst the South African Indian community most certainly did not consider Indians to be 'black'. Why would the BCM's ideology carry more weighting than Gandhi's? Have you ever read a newspaper article or watched a movie where the phrase 'black' was used to apply to an Indian SA'n? I haven't.

The South African constitution was not based on the Freedom Charter although it did include some demands made in the Freedom Charter. It appears you are confusing the ANC's constitution with the South African constitution.

Again, you have repeatedly removed pieces of information from the anti-white racism section such as prominent political commentator RW Johnson's comment on Mbeki and Zuma's mobilisation of anti-white sentiment and veteran journalist Ed Herbst's comment on the SABC's bias with no explanation given. Please read the Wikipedia editing guidelines before making further edits. Classical liberal za (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Classical Liberal that DumaTorpedo has been using Wikipedia to voice his personal opinions and has been making changes to the page to fit his agenda and thus should banned from making further changes. Jansprat123 (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Admins, please also note that DumaTorpedo has been making unauthorized changes to my profile and other users must be aware that this individual may be changing their profiles as well. Jansprat123(talk) 03:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Even this talk page is being vandalized by DumoTorpedo and now by Herbst du preez. Jansprat123(talk) 05:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not once made any changes to this talk page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbst du preez (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure to which edits you are referring too, I did not edit this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Prevent abuse by wikipedia users

It appears that there is a disconnect between the spirit of wikipedia and the actions of overzealous individual users. To prevent wikipedia from becoming a source of one-sided views (and not facts), please block serial abusers from making further edits on wikipedia. This page is about Racism in all forms against people of all ethnicities and all colors and the information must reflect facts backed by references. Please prevent individuals abusing from making further changes to the pages. I will work with the Admins to identify these individuals. Jansprat123 (talk 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no one-sided views, in the same way users should contribute to the article in the correct manner by firstly inserting information in the correct categories and not create if unnecessary categories with no information, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the information on racism against Indian South Africans to “ Racism in Apartheid” as this is the time period that this information encompassed, it has thus been moved, not removed. DumaTorpedo (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have incorporated racism against Asians into Racsim against black communities as Asians in South Africa fall under this category, thus making the page more accurate DumaTorpedo (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You keep moving information all over the page, moving into categories you see fit and you keep removing links to other wiki pages. You have an option to create your own web page to express your personal opinions and views. Jansprat123 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to streamline th article, there is no reason to create new categories when there are ones that will suffice, as for the links to other wiki-pages, I do apologize for that I realize by error now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Bodene Benade and Catherine Reynders

What does everyone think of adding the case of two University of Pretoria students, Bodene Benade and Catherine Reynders? Bodene posted a video of Catherine using the K-word multiple times (swearing as a result of losing her phone and blaming it on black people). The students have subsequently been expelled from UP and did not complete their physiotherapy (BPhys) degree. Is it relevant?

Best, Waddie96 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Waddie96 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be relevant as it indicates racism among the youth still present — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indian South Africans are NOT 'black'

Due to the recent 'revert-war' on this article over the debate of whether Indian South Africans are considered 'black' I am providing a few examples that prove that Indian South Africans are not conventionally considered 'black':

1. In the South African national census Indians/Asians comprise a distinct category from that of black South Africans
2. In the application of quota systems at public universities in South Africa, Indian people comprise a distinct group.
3. The apartheid regime considered Indian people to be a distinct ethnic group evidenced by the fact that under the apartheid government created the South African Indian Council body in 1968 to deal with matters affecting Indian South Africans. Indian South Africans also received limited representation by the House of Delegates body, which was reserved for Indian South Africans, in the tricameral parliament from 1984-1994.
4. When 142 Indian South Africans were murdered and 40 000 more made internal refugees after targeting during the Durban Riots where numerous acts of murder, arson, rape, brutal attacks and looting against them took place by predominantly black Zulu attackers, Indians most certainly weren't considered 'black'.
5. Jonathan Annipen's (of the Minority Front) statement that Malema was "trying very hard to frustrate the democratic gains of social cohesion and nation building and is deepening the divide between blacks and Indians." Annipen, an Indian man of a political party which enjoys large support from Indian South Africans, has clearly drawn a distinction between Indian and black people.
6. Ayesha Fakie, an Indian South African who is the head of Sustained Dialogues at the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation in an article states "How we Indians benefit more from empowerment policies than black people..." This statement alone shows Fakie does not consider Indian South Africans to be 'black'.
7. The news article regarding the National Funeral Practioners Association's call to "ban all white and Indian funeral companies from black communities..." again draws a distinction between Indian and black South Africans.
8. A SASCO review of Black Economic Empowerment states "White people held 58.1% of senior management positions‚ black people held 22.1%‚ Indian people held 10.6%..." This shows that a distinction is drawn between Indian and black South Africans.
9. A SAHO article on the history of Indian South Africans states "These laws shaped the political, economic and social fabric and experience of black, Coloured, Indian and white people in South Africa.". Again, this shows a distinction is made between Indian and black South Africans.

I could go on and provide many more examples showing that Indian South Africans are not commonly considered or referred to as 'black' and don't generally self-identify as black either. Please stop merging the anti-Indian racism section into the anti-black racism section. Classical liberal za (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason why all those non-white were included in an umbrella term was that in is easier given the numerous ethnic groups in South Africa, I am glad though that we could reach a consensus. DumaTorpedo (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Classical Liberal Za it appears that you are driving a personal agenda. I cited the law, the Telegraph, the BBC and the Wall Street journal as well

official government statements. Please do not remove this again or a edit block will be possible. WP:DISRUPTIVE DumaTorpedo (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed DumaTorpedo, this information was factual and should be added to the page without further delay.However ensure that Jewsish communities are not included in the category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbst du preez (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So Indian South Africans are black? Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed guys, so consensus on Indian, Coloured and African communities all being black in South Africa ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is more enough evidence to proof so. In the FeesMustFall movement black was used as a term to define non-white. Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to revert the page back to the version where “racism against black communities” is seen as well as the sources cited. Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Vusumuzi it appears that your changes have been reverted. Do not engage in an edit war rather approach the editor in question and explain that consensus was reached and evidence was provided DumaTorpedo (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've observed something quite interesting. After DumaTorpedo's repeated reverting of valid edits to the page, against the talk page consensus and under the guise of correcting 'vandalism', administrator NeilN yesterday left the following warning on DumaTorpedo's talk page "Call good-faith edits "vandalism" again and I will block you." Directly after NeilN's warning to DumaTorpedo, a new account has been created under the name of 'Vusumuzi Mpofu'. Vusumuzi Mpofu immediately reverted edits to this article with the following comment "Reverted good-faith edits by user." Vusumuzi Mpofu also appears to agree implicitly with DumaTorpedo on the issue in question.

Another new account, 'Herbst du preez', which was created 10 days ago, has only edited 3 articles; Racism in South Africa, DumaTorpedo's talk page (to give DumaTorpedo a barnstar) and Johannesburg (an article which DumaTorpedo has also previously edited). Herbst du preez reverted the Racism in South Africa article and left the following comment "Disappointed that this appears on Wikipedia, can’t the admins do something about this?", a comment worded highly similarly to DumaTorpedo's previous comment on the talk page which stated "Vandalism - Can’t the editors stop all this?" Herbst du preez also appears to agree implicitly with DumaTorpedo regarding the issue at hand.

Either an incredible coincidence has occurred and:

1. three completely like-minded individuals, of which two created accounts within short span of one-another, one of which has heeded an admin's warning given to the other, who use very similar English terminology & phrases and edit the same articles, have converged on this page. OR
2. It is fairly obvious that all of the aforementioned accounts are operated by the same individual.

On Wikipedia this is referred to as Sock Puppetry and is considered an offence. It is typically performed to "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." It appears these are the exact motives behind this individual's actions. I will be investigating further. Classical liberal za (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that Vusumuzi and myself are linked. We are actually studying in the same Collage ( I will not be telling you where since that will reveal personal information) . After seeing how over-zealous editors removed cited and sourced information he was encouraged (by me) to join Wikipedia to ensure its objectivity. As for Herbst Du Preez he/she appears to simply be similar in his/her ideas as mine, just as Classical Liberal ZA and Janspart (who too implicitly agrees with all that classical liberal Za claims and Classical only ever having edited Racism in South Africa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I believe that unfortunately. No consensus has been reached as you have been unable to explain how Indian people are commonly considered black when the following are true:

1. In the South African national census Indians/Asians comprise a distinct category from that of black South Africans
2. In the application of quota systems at public universities in South Africa, Indian people comprise a distinct group.
3. The apartheid regime considered Indian people to be a distinct ethnic group evidenced by the fact that under the apartheid government created the South African Indian Council body in 1968 to deal with matters affecting Indian South Africans. Indian South Africans also received limited representation by the House of Delegates body, which was reserved for Indian South Africans, in the tricameral parliament from 1984-1994.
4. When 142 Indian South Africans were murdered and 40 000 more made internal refugees after targeting during the Durban Riots where numerous acts of murder, arson, rape, brutal attacks and looting against them took place by predominantly black Zulu attackers, Indians most certainly weren't considered 'black'.
5. Jonathan Annipen's (of the Minority Front) statement that Malema was "trying very hard to frustrate the democratic gains of social cohesion and nation building and is deepening the divide between blacks and Indians." Annipen, an Indian man of a political party which enjoys large support from Indian South Africans, has clearly drawn a distinction between Indian and black people.
6. Ayesha Fakie, an Indian South African who is the head of Sustained Dialogues at the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation in an article states "How we Indians benefit more from empowerment policies than black people..." This statement alone shows Fakie does not consider Indian South Africans to be 'black'.
7. The news article regarding the National Funeral Practioners Association's call to "ban all white and Indian funeral companies from black communities..." again draws a distinction between Indian and black South Africans.
8. A SASCO review of Black Economic Empowerment states "White people held 58.1% of senior management positions‚ black people held 22.1%‚ Indian people held 10.6%..." This shows that a distinction is drawn between Indian and black South Africans.
9. A SAHO article on the history of Indian South Africans states "These laws shaped the political, economic and social fabric and experience of black, Coloured, Indian and white people in South Africa.". Again, this shows a distinction is made between Indian and black South Africans.

According to the Employment equity act, the law in South Africa that grew BEE, Black South Africans are all those formerly oppressed in South Africa, furthermore the BBC, The government website, the Telegraph and the WSJ all reported that Chinese South Africans are black under law. Before removal of sourced ,factual information that was agreed upon in this talk page, please take time to read the sources cited. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the National Census, Indian South African's are considered distinct ethnic groups. The EE laws are contradictory as the latest proposed amendment makes distinction between black, coloured and Indian people . South African news sources such as the M&G, Daily Maverick and News24 DO NOT refer to Indian and Coloured people as black. South African news organisations by definition have a far better grasp of local issues than international sources such as the BBC and WSJ. Again, please explain to me why the SAHO, SASCHO, NFPA, MF, SDIJR draw a distinction between 'black', 'Indian', and 'coloured'? Classical liberal za (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So your opinion is that a proposed bill holds more substance than current regulations? I also cited News24 and M&G showing Chinese South Africans as black. DumaTorpedo (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As the currents regulations are contradictory (ie: Public Universities apply racial quotas that discriminate against Indian applicants in favour of black applicants) it makes sense to look past the scope of current regulations to establish clarity. Also, Taiwanese people were considered white by the apartheid regime and do not benefit from AA/EE laws to my knowledge, grouping all Asians as black is nonsensical.

Grouping all people who aren't 'white' as black gives no benefit to the reader whatsoever, creates potential confusion and provides no improvement to the state of the article. Furthermore, as it appears almost all cases of racism against Indian and coloured people documented in the article have been perpetrated by black people, it is even more nonsensical to place them in the same group. Classical liberal za (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Racism perpetrated against Indians is done by African Black Communities. Classical it appears you cannot distinguish between “black” and “Black African” unlike the law and the Wall Street Journal, News 24, The Telegraph, the Mail and Guardian and The BBC Vusi (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Classical Liberal za , as requested by you local sources have been added to prove that Indian and Coloured South Africans are “black”. Before reverting please consider reading these sources that include employment quota classification regulations. DumaTorpedo (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Classical, the page is now locked. Discussion is needed to solve this critical problem. As Vusumuzi and myself have pointed out, local sources have been added as requested by you earlier in the talk page to back up claims that Asians are black and there is a difference between “Black African” and “black” as a term. DumaTorpedo (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Need a section on Antisemitism and Islamophobia

There seems to be a separate page for Antisemitism which actually needs to be added to this page.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Antisemitism_in_South_Africa

Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansprat123 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree Jansprat. Should it be included in the racism against whites section or should a separate section be created? Classical liberal za (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Classical, In my opinion, it could be a section 3.3 "Racism against Jewish communities" under post apartheid. Following the current layout, the Antisemitism during Colonial and Aparthied time period should be common for all. The content should have sufficient information to capture the essence of the information in each section. A link can be added to the existing page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Antisemitism_in_South_Africa) for those interested in more detailed information. Thank you. Jansprat123(talk) 22:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. I believe it is critical we include the antisemetic PAGAD attacks in the late '90s. Classical liberal za (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Where to put new sections on religion?

I agree that there should be a section on both antisemiticism as well as islamophobia, new sections entirely right? DumaTorpedo (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. At some point I had added information on Antisemitism, Phumlani Mfeka call to arms by tweeting "A good Indian is a dead Indian" and information from Hate Crimes Working Group all of which have been deleted by either you or another editor. In any case, new sections 3.3 and 3.4 on Antisemitism and Islamophobia are needed so that we can start merging information from other pages. Jansprat123(talk) 15:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to ask ourselves whether Islamophobia is a form of racism. Antisemitism is definitely a form of racism as it implies discrimination of Jews (Jews are an ethnoreligious group - ie: they are an ethnic group/race with a common religious background) whereas Islam is a religion only. If we are going to start including all forms of religious discrimination, this page should be renamed to discrimination in South Africa. Classical liberal za (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobia particularly in South Africa will be a form of Racism as most Muslims in South Africa are black ( either Indian , Coloured or Africans) in the same manner that most ( there are Ethiopian Jews for example thus “most”) Jews are of a Semitic background ( in terms of ethnicity and culture) and that’s where the problem occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Classical that this page is not the best place to put anti-religious sentiments against Islam and other religions (like Zuma slamming Christianity) and is better off incorporating in this page ->> https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa Jansprat123(talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, so than no Islamophobia, Antisemiticism, or anti-Christianity sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to run around in circles here. As Classical has explained that Jews are ethno-religious group. There are Jews who practice other religions as well such as Jewish Christians but they still identify themselves as Jewish. So we can add Antisemitism to this page. Thank you. Jansprat123(talk) 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And African Jews? Who are of a different ethnicity to Middle Eastern Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Janspart in that case Muslims in South Africa are black if Jewish people are only of a Semitic background..... DumaTorpedo (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DumaTorpedo I can't say I agree with you. Jews are bound together by a common language (Hebrew), common cultural and customary norms and a common genetic lineage. I quote the following "The Nuremberg Laws, as they became known, did not define a "Jew" as someone with particular religious beliefs. Instead, anyone who had three or four Jewish grandparents was defined as a Jew, regardless of whether that individual identified himself or herself as a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community. Many Germans who had not practiced Judaism for years found themselves caught in the grip of Nazi terror. Even people with Jewish grandparents who had converted to Christianity were defined as Jews." Jews have been persecuted on racial grounds for centuries, THEY ARE A RACE. If you are a Jew that stops practising Judaism, you are still a Jew. If you are a Muslim that stops practising Islam, you are no longer a Muslim. Classical liberal za (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly have we chosen a fascist racist regime to define something that they hate? Secondly whose opinion is it that Jews are a race? Lastly if you are born Muslim and stop practicing Islam than you are still Muslim just not following the religion of Islam. Please refrain from personal judgement on Islam and Judaism as well as relying on the Nazis legislation to define a person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC) 

You are intentionally missing the point that Jews have been persecuted on racial grounds for centuries. From the third sentence of the wiki page on antisemitism "Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." Compare this with the quote from the Islamophobia wiki page "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism ..." Jews are a RACE, that is not debatable. Jews are a group of people who trace their genetic lineage to semetic ancestors who resided in what is modern day Israel. There are a few groups of Jews (Sephardic, Ashkenazi namely) but they both came from the same place. Ethiopian Jews also share some middle-eastern genetic markers. Secondly, the Nazi's racist ideology lead to my great-grandmother being shot soon after giving birth in the Warsaw ghetto. Please don't accuse me of 'personal judgement' when I know quite well what the effects of anti-Jewish racism are.

Islam is definitely a religion, not a race. There are black Muslims, white Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Burmese Muslims, Arabic Muslims etc. with completely distinct genetics, different languages and cultural customs. The group is far too broad to define as a single race. You are totally wrong in saying you are still a Muslim if you don't follow Islam. from the first line of the wiki Muslim page says a Muslim "is someone who follows or practices Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion."

Your argument is illogical and baseless. This article will include a section on post-apartheid antisemitism. Please feel free to open a new page on Islamophobia in South Africa, but it does not belong here. Classical liberal za (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Classical Liberal Za I am not attacking you or your family. I do have sympathy fro your family who suffered through the horros of the holocast. In the same way you know the effects of anti-Jewish racism I know my own religion and will correct and clarify Wikipedia on the fact that a Muslim not practicing Islam is still a Musim. However please refrain from personal experience to justify edits on Wikipedia as much as they may be valid. If you are going mb genetic markers than the whole eWorld can be traced back to Africa. There are many African Jews who are thus unique in culture in the same way there are many African Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please correct the Muslim page first then please - wikipedia needs to be consistent. Classical liberal za (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Classical Liberal Za I have corrected the Wikipedia page on Muslims. I am going to go ahead with the addition of Islamophobia in South Africa below racism against Jewish communities. DumaTorpedo (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have just checked the Muslim page and it appears your "correction" was reverted shortly after. As Jansprat said, Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination belong on Religion in South Africa, not here. Classical liberal za (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

black communities

Greetings fellow editors

Edits that explain the connotations of uncapitalized black citing reliable sources have been removed by vandalism. Can you please explain how the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph are unreliable sources and how this information is disruptive? DumaTorpedo (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Unconfirmed (anonymous) users reverted an edit and requested reference to this talk page. I await those users response.

The classification of individuals for the purposes of affirmative action has no bearing on being Perpetrators or Victims of Racism. Also it makes absolutely no sense to list Racism against Chinese prior to 2008 under "white communities" and put all incidents of Racism in 2008 and later, against the Chinese, under "black communities"!! Jansprat123 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Classification of individuals based on Affirmative action takes into account general use by the majority of South Africans and also mostly the effects of racial discrimination in Apartheid that to this day to an extent still exists. It is thus relevant. Also Pre-2008 racism against Chinese South Africans would still fall under black communities as the ruling indicated that this should have happened prior to 2008 due to oppression in Apartheid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

If edit warring resumes after protection expires then blocks may be considered. If editors cannot come to an agreement then please look to WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I don’t believe we can come to a consensus on this, would it be possible for an intervention? Sourced content and consensus was reached as well as all criteria requested ( sources, local sources) fellow editors was added. Despite this it was still reverted. For the sake of peace would it be possible for another opinion on this? All editors seem to have opposing viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You can hold a WP:RFC or use WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How was a consensus reached when "all editors seem to have opposing viewpoints"? To repeat myself, grouping all people who aren't 'white' as black gives no benefit to the reader whatsoever, creates potential confusion and provides no improvement to the state of the article. Furthermore, as it appears almost all cases of racism against Indian and coloured people documented in the article have been perpetrated by black people, it is even more nonsensical to place them in the same group. Classical liberal za (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Classical, there is a difference between “black” and Black African” to which you are referring to. I furthermore said “consensus cannot be reached” as Vusi, myself and Hersbt had diffent views to yourself and Jansprat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If there has to be a consensus, please stick to the topic on hand. The presentation of information on Wikipedia should be clear to a reader. The current layout succinctly captures the 3 different time frames and clearly shows the perpetrators and victims of Racism. Moving information all over the page into categories that are misleading and irrelevant to the topic on hand, is an attempt to obfuscate the readers. Jansprat123 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If a categorization of race is misleading than on a page on Racsim in South Africa then all categories should be removed. Why is factual information not acceptable? Credible local and international sources where cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"categorization of race"??? Just so that we are not running around in circles and discussing the same things over and over again, please note that the South African census has no concept of "black communities". The Hate Crimes Working Group likewise takes no consideration of this category in its description of Perpetrators and Victims. This category you want to introduce is irrelevant and misleading for the purposes of this discussion for reasons cited several times (see edit history) by me as well as other editors like Classical. Jansprat123 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite the census having no “black communities” the law in the country of the census does. This argument of misleading has been by myself, Vusi and herbst been attended to. It appears that your repetition of facts has caused me ( and fellow editors) to repeat ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Who says that the information on Wikipedia has to conform to categories created for Affirmative action even when the official government agencies for Census and Hate Crimes Working Group themselves doesn't consider it in their reports!! In fact prior to Feb 2018, there was no relevance of this category in this Wiki article itself even though the Chinese South Africans were reclassified as "black" in 2008! This is an arbitrary criteria introduced by you a couple of months ago and as been noted several times by several editors is irrelevant (as it has been for the past 10 years) and only makes the article more misleading for the readers. Jansprat123 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal opinion and attacks, it has also been noted by many editors to have been useful. Which is why we are in this situation. Your argument uses official government sources ( the census) and so does this one ( affirmative action and BEE) as for your claims that Chinese people are only black now, the ruling stated this was a mistake and in fact they have been considered black since Apartheid and post-Apartheid, if your opinion is that reliable sources such as the BBC, The Telegraph, the WSJ, News 24 and the Mail And Guardian are “misleading and irrelevant” then please refrain from adding this on Wikipedia. More information can be added as it appears a few editors ( despite most being able to, given the sources) cannot distinguish between “black” and African Black” — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

1. There is NO contention about Chinese South Africans being classified as "black" in 2008. You have cited references several times for the 2008 ruling even though no one is disputing it!
2. As can be seen in the government Census and Hate Crimes report, there is no mention of "black communities" as that category doesn't make any sense for those reports.
3. Similarly, that category is irrelevant to this particular discussion. It adds no additional value other than to create confusion and mislead the readers.
4. Further, this category was not present and not mentioned for the past 8-10 years since this article was created on Wikipedia!
5. As you have correctly pointed out, several readers especially non-South Africans are unaware of the difference between "black" and "Black African". They interpret these 2 terms interchangeably and hence it is misleading. This is exactly what I and the other editors have been saying all along!
6. Further, terms like "white-on-black" or "black-on-white" adds further confusion to the readers as it is not clear if this is in reference to Asians, Black Africans, Colored or Indians!
7. A simple mistake of using an Uppercase B instead of a lowercase b or vice-versa, can change the entire context. This is a nightmare to keep track of.
8. Therefore its in the best interest of the readers not to introduce this particular category in this article and instead use the terms Whites, Black Africans, Colored, Indians, Chinese and Jews to avoid any confusion to the readers. Jansprat123 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And then? Your personal opinion is that Wikipedia needs to remain outdated and incorrect and unreliable due to the grievances of a few? The census is found in a country that by law distinguishes between “black” and “Black Africans”, the confusion of international readers (clearly (not all considering the BBC, WSJ and Telegraph use “black” as non-white) can be simply solved with context, and considering that this is and Article on South Africa, it should follow South African English conventions. Jansprat the multiple sources cited where due to your and classical request for reliable local and international sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia doesn't have to follow "white" and "black", Affirmative Action conventions for all topics related to South Africa. This rule is not even followed by South African Government agencies themselves like the - Census Bureau or Hate Crimes Working Group. Neither was this rule followed for the past decade of this article being on Wikipedia. This is YOUR personal opinion that it should be introduced now on Wikipedia just as we are trying to clarify information on this page. You can cite as many references as you like to the 2008 ruling, it doesn't change the fact that the current categories are absolutely clear for all readers, South Africans and Non-South Africans alike. There is no ambiguity and also prevents editors from accidentally (or intentionally) changing the context by incorrectly switching between the words "black" and "Black". In fact if you read the article as it is currently, you can already see how many times "black" and "Black African" are ALREADY being used interchangeably!! For most people around the world, these 2 words are interchangeably used. Given the sensitive nature of this article, its all the more important not to introduce misleading or ambiguous categories. Jansprat123 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case your argument is too flawed considering it enjoys citing the census as does this one affirmative action and day to day South African law. I shall correct all “black” to “Black African” as there is a fundamental difference between the two. Prehaps it is due to the fact that you cannot distinguish that you believe non-one else can but clearly due to the “fact” that international and local sources with a massive international and local reader base can distinguish, it is your opinion that the categories are unclear ( unlike the millions of readers on the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph, Mail and Guardian and News 24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we move this to dispute resolution. Jansprat123 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jansprat, couldn't have said it better myself. I can't understand how this arbitrary grouping serves any purpose but to confuse the reader. Are we now going to change the word 'black' to 'Black African' everywhere it is used in a racial context on Wikipedia? Classical liberal za (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Vusi, classical I did suggest conflict resolution in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. DumaTorpedo seems to be saying that BBC and the Wall Street Journal consistently refer to Chinese people in South Africa as "black", without further explanation. This would surprise me very much, and make me doubt my own understanding of English. Perhaps someone can post a link which shows explicitly that BBC and WSJ prefer this word usage? (Not The Guardian or The Telegraph -- nothing they write surprises me anymore.) Ornilnas (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ornilnas, as requested evidence that “black” implies all those non-white ( especially Asians) in South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 09:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I seem to have completely misunderstood what you wrote above. Both articles from the BBC are articles *about* the fact that the South African legal system classifies Chinese as "black". In other words, the BBC thinks that this is so non-obvious to the regular reader that they chose to write two entire articles to explain it. I think this strengthens the case for either not classifying South African Chinese as "black" in this article, or make it very clear that this article uses unorthodox terminology peculiar to the South African legal system. (Also, can you sign your articles, DumaTorpedo? :) Just add four tildes (~) after your entry, and your signature will automatically be filled in. Right now your signature appears only because I signed it myself.) Ornilnas (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

?????

I am really surprised to see how one user is allowed to create so many accounts DumaTorpedo!! This individual has been involved in Disruptive Editing, Vandalizing talk pages, Vandalizing profile pages, Creating unnecessary RFCs, adding personal opinions, moving information randomly all over the page, deleting referenced information and has been repeatedly been warned by admins. We have wasted significant amounts of time trying to offer counter points to one individual posing as many and insisting on creating absurd categories. This is a tremendous waste of time of so many editors. This is ludicrous that Wikipedia even allows this! Jansprat123 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

RfC on connotations of uncapitalized black in South Africa

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to keep the current categories and not to use the word "black" to refer to Asians, Indians and Coloured. Jansprat123 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
RFC invalidated due to the heavy amount of socking. This RFC should not be taken as achieving consensus for anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Can black be used as a general term for Asian, Coloured and African communities in South Africa? DumaTorpedo (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Preferably not, possible with qualification/attribution. Use of Black for Asian defies conventions elsewhere. I would suggest that if used (due to government/local terminology in SA) that this be clarified in each use so that it is clear that this isn't the usually accepted definition of Black. If statistics are available on a white/non-white basis - it might make sense to organize the article on those lines (white vs. non-white (or Black per...)) - but I think non-white would be clearer in this context than black (per the definition of.... that includes also...).Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Non-white has negative connotations and “black” (read further up this talk page) which is why an uncapitalized black would be better considering this in an article on South Africa. I do agree that an explanation whould suffice in the form of a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Using "black" (capitalized or not) to describe Asians (with the possible exception of Austronesians) - defies conventions and use outside of South Africa - I profess a deep ignorance at current South African nomenclature - but as an English reader, I simply would not understand this the way you are intending. If non-white is currently a negative word - find some other term - but using a word that most English speakers would have to scare-quote as "black" (+receive a long explanation in parenthesis on how blacks include non-blacks in SA) - does not create something readable. A footnote is not sufficient in this case - you are using a word with an established meaning (in most of the world) in a country-specific manner that contradicts the general use of the word.Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is however an article on South Africa it is thus important to include regional conventions however I do understand the confusion that this may create however many South African Asians ( at least the community that successfully ( in law now) brought forward the motion) identitfy as “black” can this be ignored? To migate such confusion I do not mind creating a whole new page ( that this one can link to) to explain this.DumaTorpedo (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DumaTorpedo

• Not if it is not the WP:COMMONTERM for the word. Consider that the vast majority of readers are not South African (and you want them to learn about South Africa). If this were a unique, unused term (e.g. "ergjeroij") - you could use it after explaining it. But if it contradicts the usual use - then no (as a thought experiment - suppose some other regional English variation used "not" as "it is" - it would suffice to say that "in this article not is it is" - and then assume the reader actually read this (and didn't jump to the middle) - and use not as it is throughout). I think it is important, if this is indeed the case, to say that many of SA's Asians self-recognize as black, and that they are (? based on my reading here only!) legally recognized as black.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• An Asian community was the one who fought to be legally classified as “black” for BEE, They thus self-identitify as black.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs)

• I don't dispute that. However, until Merriam Webseter and/or Oxford are convinced to add Asian to their definition of black - we should not use this without a clear qualification in every single instance.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What about with qualification? I have already mentioned that I will not hesitate in the next few weeks to create an article explaining “black” in South Africa. While I do understand that Oxford and Merriam Webseter are important sources does the Asian Communities own opinion in South Africa ( and South African English and usage) not count? DumaTorpedo (talk) Good morning Wikipedia. Please may all editors be aware the above comment is not mine. My comment is only the one below. Thank you WentworthBoy (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think its better to say which race the person is instead of just saying black or else people could be confused. For example if it is said that a black man attacked a Indian man one would assume the black person is an African. But if we are to say that Coloureds, Africans, Indians, Asians are all black, then one would have to say that a black man attacked another black man. This will cause a lot of confusion. Also many of my people (the Coloureds) feel such that we are proud of our identity and would prefer to be referred to as Coloured instead of black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WentworthBoy (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Please note that throughout the world the words "black"/"Black"/"Black African" are used interchangeably. This means that all references currently cited in the page that use these words interchangeably now have a different meaning. For example this statement has completely changed meaning --> The F.W. de Klerk Foundation in 2016 stated "black South Africans are far more violent and racist towards their white compatriots than vice versa"

This incorrectly portrays Asians, Coloured and Indians as being "far more violent and racist"!! The introduction of this term in relation to Racism is intentionally misleading to the readers to both South Africans and non-South Africans! Jansprat123 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What about an umbrella term? Thus not removing distinct races but including all under “racism against black communities” considering many Asian/Indian South Africans consider themselves “black”? All errors in which black is used as Black African are used can be corrected, my people are not just “black” (although we do consider our brothers and sisters in the Indian And Coloured communities to be our “black” brothers) but rather “Black African” as in the Census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"All errors in which black is used as Black African are used can be corrected" -- Firstly, its not an "error". The words "black"/"Black"/"Black African" have been used interchangeably for decades. Secondly, references are given to support your statements. You cannot start "correcting" references. Thirdly, just about everyone agrees that introducing the term "black" into the discussion of Racism causes nothing but more unnecessary complications, distorts meaning and creates confusion to readers around the world. Thank you. Jansprat123 (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that “black” implies Black Africans on,y for decades is implicitly false, Steve Biko died for the black consciousness Movement that changed the connotations of black, second.y not everyone agrees with your point of view as you claim. And are we ignoring the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph, News24, M&G and the Asian community that self identify as black ( clearly as this identity right was fought for in 2008) do we have no say on our own identity? Must it be decided for us by others or ignored by? Furthermore myself and Vusi have offered solutions to migate confusion and allow international users access to explanatory information, is informationing people wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

By definition self-identification is the act of an individual assigning a particular characteristic or categorisation to oneself. It is imperative that people are always treated primarily as individuals and therefore it is grossly unfair to apply blanket categorisations to groups which certain individuals of those groups may object to. It is highly unlikely that each and every Indian, Coloured or Asian SA'n identifies as 'black' and there appears to be no broad-based surveys or other reliable measures to support this claim. I strongly disagree with the proposal that the term 'black' is used as an umbrella categorisation for all SA'ns who do not fall into the 'white' category.

Furthermore, as evidenced in the Indian South Africans are NOT 'black' section above, local media sources, individuals and organisations generally use the term 'black' to refer exclusively to 'Black Africans' and hence I must disagree with the claim that News24 and the M&G amongst other sources generally use 'black' as a blanket term except perhaps in context of the special case of discussion regarding BEE/AA laws.

Would it be possible for anyone to point me to a handful of everyday articles from mainstream SA'n media outlets where 'black' is used to apply to an Indian or Asian individual (outside of the scope of BEE/AA)? Classical liberal za (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So we are ignoring the Asian communities identification as “black”? If there was massive objections to Asians being black then why were Asian Communities successful in even getting the law to call us black? Furthermore there are two opinions to describe people who are not white: non-white ( with its negative connotations that NO ASIANS OR COLOURED COMMUNITIES IDENTIFY AS) or black ( since Steve Biko, The law, Asian Communities and the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph, News24, M&G use) should a term (non-white) reminiscent of Apartheid be used? Besides the census uses Black African in reference to the race and not “black” as “black” is a blanket term for all those non-white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the WSJ article posted regarding the reclassification of Chinese SA'ns as 'black' for the purpose of BEE opportunities, the ruling applied to only 10-12000 of the current 300 000 ethnic Chinese people currently living in SA (ie: only those that were citizens before 1994). In other words, only 3-4 percent of Chinese people in SA are considered 'black' for BEE purposes. As Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese SA'ns were given 'honorary white' status by the apartheid regime, they are not classified as 'black' under BEE legislation and receive the same level of eligibility as their white compatriots (ie: none).

Furthermore there is not a single mention of the phrase 'non-white' in the article so I am unsure why we need to find a replacement for a phrase which is not used. Classical liberal za (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The law states that all those before 1994 oppressed by the Apartheid regime are black for legal purposes I.e to alllviate economic disparity. Are we thus going to assume that a born-free Black African, Asian or Coloured person is not black? Despite being born to black parents? Non-white was suggested as a replacement and was used in Apartheid and by some international readers who are unaware of its negative connotations. Upon this topic should I start a new page explaining why black is equated to non-white in South Africa so as to migate confusion? The page can link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 07:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As it appears a misunderstanding has occurred I will reiterate; The only Asians that are considered 'black' under current BEE legislation are the small group of 10-12000 ethnic Chinese SA'ns who were citizens prior to 1994. The approximately 290000 ethnic Chinese people who arrived after 1994 are not considered 'black' in terms of BEE. Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean SA'ns, whether they were citizens before or after 1994 are not considered 'black' either.

More interesting perhaps is the fact that under current BEE legislation Black African, Coloured and Indian immigrants who arrived after 1994 are NOT considered 'black'. Therefore in terms of the BEE Act, a black Nigerian, ethnic Indian or Coloured Namibian who immigrated to South Africa after 1994 is not considered 'black' and not eligible for any BEE opportunities, benefits or programmes. This unusual paradox and idiosyncrasy makes the BEE Act a poor choice of foundation on which to base our definition of who is 'black'. Classical liberal za (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Classical I am once again forced to explain. Firstly classicals argument does not distinguish between: South African Indians and Indians,South African Black African and Nigerian (a separate ethnic group split by thousands of kilometers) and Ethnic South African Asians and Asians in general. Secondly “black” is a South African term and this was not not in dispute, furthermore ( As classical correctly pointed out on another discussion that if you are born to Jewish parents you are still a Jew) if one is born to black parents one is obviously black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you implying that Racism against Asians & Indians who are not South African citizens not be addressed in this article? Jansprat123 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your interpretation of my argument is to say the least odd. I am implying that “black Asians” and “black Coloureds” exist only in South Africa as the umbrella term of black instead of Non-white exists only in South Africa for South Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If its not already obvious, Asian/Indian visitors are not "black", neither are Asian/Indians with a work visa are considered "black" and as Classical has already clarified that the term "black" only applies to those who became citizens prior to 28th April 1994 which only applies to about 12000 Chinese out of 300,000+ Chinese in SA. In fact to add to this confusion,Chinese South Africans at one point were classified as "Coloured"! So, in anycase, we cannot use the terms "black" or "black communities" in this discussion without adding incredible amount of complexity and confusing the readers. Jansprat123 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jansprat distinguish between ethnic Asians and Indians in South Africa and current Asian/Indian immigrants, it is highly offensive to be grouped together as we ( the Ethnic Asians in South Africa) were persecuted as “black” for generations under Apartheid. Secondly despite the Asian in particular Chinese community being at some stage classified as Coloured, the Coloured community too falls under “black” thus all ethnic Asians and Coloureds in South Africa are black ( Since Classical pointed out that if one is born to Jewish parents one is a Jew thus of if one has black parents one is black) Jansprat ( and Classical) I once again ask for a distinction between Ethic Asians,Coloured and Black Africans and Immigrant Asians, Coloureds, Black Africans DumaTorpedo (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)DumaTorpedo

That's extremely confusing to any international reader. This article is not for South Africans, it's for everybody who reads Wikipedia. I would suggest we stick to clearly distinguishing between Indian, Chinese, and Black. Zvtok (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I do understand that, I am not asking for the removal of distict racial groups rather an umbrella term, also I suggested creating a whole new article explaining this to the international reader that can link to this article as well as a footnote.DumaTorpedo (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)DumaTorpedo

It appears no further progress will be made in this discussion. The majority of editors (5 vs. 2) are in favour of the term 'black' being used exclusively to refer to Black Africans as opposing to using it as a blanket term for all those who do not fall into the white category. Should we consider this RfC closed in favour of maintaining the status quo? Classical liberal za (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why close? There are those who say us coloureds don’t like being called black but as a Coloured my people do? Good points are raised that ignoring an entire community and many sources is not in the readers favour. WitbooiBrada (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Besides the status quo is wrong. WitbooiBrada (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What about all the points made by other editors as well? Are we going to ignore them? WitbooiBrada (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May I request an elaboration on which points in particular are supposedly being ignored? May I also request evidence be provided to support the claim that each and every Coloured South African prefers to be referred to as 'black' instead of Coloured? Classical liberal za (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! I am in favor of closing the RFC and moving forward. As editors have pointed out several times that the majority of the readers of this page are Non-South Africans. It is therefore extremely important that the information presented be unambiguous for international readers. Thank you. Jansprat123 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jansprat

Suggested Solutions to clarify matter (for international readers)

• Creating a new section to explain this ( though this is understandably unnecessary).

• A foot-note explaining connotations of black.

• A whole new page (I can create it myself) on black communities that can link to and explain this article.

We can’t close a discussion that is ongoing, what about the points myself and Vusi made? I still await a response.

Some of the Points raised:

• So we are ignoring the Asian communities identification as “black”? If there was massive objections to Asians being black then why were Asian Communities successful in even getting the law to call us black? Furthermore there are two opinions to describe people who are not white: non-white ( with its negative connotations that NO ASIANS OR COLOURED COMMUNITIES IDENTIFY AS) or black ( since Steve Biko, The law, Asian Communities and the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph, News24, M&G use) should a term (non-white) reminiscent of Apartheid be used? Besides the census uses Black African in reference to the race and not “black” as “black” is a blanket term for all those non-white.

• Your claim that “black” implies Black Africans on,y for decades is implicitly false, Steve Biko died for the black consciousness Movement that changed the connotations of black, second.y not everyone agrees with your point of view as you claim. And are we ignoring the BBC, WSJ, Telegraph, News24, M&G and the Asian community that self identify as black ( clearly as this identity right was fought for in 2008) do we have no say on our own identity? Must it be decided for us by others or ignored by? Furthermore myself and Vusi have offered solutions to migate confusion and allow international users access to explanatory information, is informationing people wrong?

• What about an umbrella term? Thus not removing distinct races but including all under “racism against black communities” considering many Asian/Indian South Africans consider themselves “black”? All errors in which black is used as Black African are used can be corrected, my people are not just “black” (although we do consider our brothers and sisters in the Indian And Coloured communities to be our “black” brothers) but rather “Black African” as in the Census. (From: Vusumuzi Mpofu (talk • contribs) )

Still awaiting response:

• Jansprat distinguish between ethnic Asians and Indians in South Africa and current Asian/Indian immigrants, it is highly offensive to be grouped together as we ( the Ethnic Asians in South Africa) were persecuted as “black” for generations under Apartheid. Secondly despite the Asian in particular Chinese community being at some stage classified as Coloured, the Coloured community too falls under “black” thus all ethnic Asians and Coloureds in South Africa are black ( Since Classical pointed out that if one is born to Jewish parents one is a Jew thus of if one has black parents one is black) Jansprat ( and Classical) I once again ask for a distinction between Ethic Asians,Coloured and Black Africans and Immigrant Asians, Coloureds, Black Africans

DumaTorpedo (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)DumaTorpedo

As I mentioned earlier that the majority of the readers of this page are international readers so the clarity of information for the international readership takes precedence. All editors agree that current categories unambiguously maps each individual in SA as belonging to one of these primary groups: White, Black African, Coloured, Asian, Indian or Jew. Beyond these primary groups, its a matter of personal opinion what secondary group should individuals be mapped to. Most editors agree that introduction of secondary grouping only adds more complexity and confusion and hence should be avoided. Jansprat123 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to respond to the points raised proves lack of evidence against the argument that cites the law, BBC,WSJ, Telegraph, News24, M&G And the Asian Communities and Coloured communities that fought to be called black and were persecuted for generations for being black as well as an argument offering viable solutions to migate confusion. Hardly personal opinion.

Furthermore why was the matter only “closed” when Jansprat and Classical personally could not respond to an argument in which it was proved that’s Ethnic Asian, Black African and Coloured communities are black (born to black parents or are black) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, There are already pages on Black Economic Empowerment, Indian South Africans, Chinese South Africans and Coloured where the context of BEE is already discussed. So we don't need to talk about BEE in this article as well. Secondly, There is no mention in the Chinese South African page that Ethic Chinese find it "highly offensive" to be grouped with Chinese South Africans who arrived later. This is a new spin that you have introduced. You are now talking about "Racism Against Ethnic Chinese" and "Racism against non-Ethnic Chinese". This is absurd. Finally, if you are an ethnic Asian and if you are a victim of Racism because of your Race or Ethnicity, the fact you were categorized as "white" then "Coloured" and then subsequently "black" at different points in time has no bearing. Jansprat123 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Jansprat I ask you, beg you, to distinguish between ethnic Asians and the immigrant Asian population. This is akin to claiming that all White people share the same characteristics. User:DumaTorpedo

It appears certain editors will repeatedly ignore facts that do not suit their worldview. To repeat points raised repeatedly by other editors and myself:

1. Only 10-12 000 of the 300 000 people of Chinese descent currently residing in South Africa are considered 'black' under the BEE Act
2. People of Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese descent are not considered 'black' under the BEE Act as they were granted 'honorary white status' by the apartheid government and thus did not experience the same level of prejudice as other groups
3. Considering the above, at absolute best, only 3-4 percent of the people in South Africa with Asian ancestry are considered 'black' in terms of the BEE Act. Therefore the claim that "all ethnic Asians and Coloureds in South Africa are black" is clearly not true.
4. All South Africans who immigrated to SA and became citizens after 1994, regardless of whether they are Black African, Indian, Coloured, Asian or any other race are not considered 'black' by the BEE Act.
5. Thus, if we are going to use the BEE Act as a basis of who is considered a member of a 'black community' in South Africa, any cases of racism against any person who is a post-94 immigrant, regardless of their race, will not be placed in the 'racism against black communities section'. This is clearly illogical and shows why the BEE Act cannot be used as a basis for who is 'black'.
6. The phrase 'non-white' is not used in the article and does not warrant inclusion so there is no reason to find a replacement for it.
7. The point of the article is for the information to be presented in such a way that any reader is able to quickly and simply gain an accurate understanding of the state of racism in South Africa. A reader should not have to spend time perusing footnotes or a different article altogether before they are able to understand the original article.
8. Qualifiers should only be used where absolutely necessary (ie: for unusual terms like "ergjeroij"), not for terms with a well established meaning.
9. Even editors who agree that 'black' should be used as an umbrella term concede that it will be necessary to ultimately give accurate definitions of race in the article. (ie: It will still have to be specified whether the victim/perpetrator was Black African, Coloured, Indian, Asian etc.) This nullifies the point of using a blanket term.
10. Every mention of the word 'black' or 'Black' in the article will have to be altered to "Black African" if a blanket term is used and on other articles for the sake of consistency. This is clearly impractical.
11. It's absolutely impossible that every Indian, Coloured and Asian person self-identifies as 'black'. There's no valid proof that even a sizeable minority of Indians, Coloureds and Asians self-identify as black.
12. Prominent local and international media sources frequently use the term 'black' synonymously with Black African. Here are a few examples:
    1. News24: "More coloured and black youth in South Africa are unemployed, involved in crime..."
    2. News24: "Coloured protest against black principal is racist"
    3. News24: "ban all white and Indian funeral companies from black communities is illegal..."
    4. M&G: "Tensions between Indian and black South Africans have existed throughout our history."
    5. M&G: "Young children — black, Indian and coloured..."
    6. BusinessTech: "14.4% by black South Africans, 8.9% by Indian South Africans, and 4.9% by coloured South Africans..."
    7. HuffingtonPost: "The education department wouldn't provide black and coloured schools..."
    8. IOL: "They realised that while there were Indian and coloured women who have this (degree), there weren’t any indigenous black women who had it..."
    9. BBC: "The laws give people classed as blacks, Indians and coloureds (mixed-race) employment and other economic benefits over other racial groups."
    10. The Telegraph "applications and contract tenders to black, Indian and mixed-race groups..."
13. The previous point illustrates that the claim News24, The M&G, The BBC and The Telegraph use 'black' as a blanket term is untrue.
14. This is a sensitive topic and therefore it is imperative that the utmost care and caution is taken in presenting the information in such a manner that any potential for confusion is mitigated. As local and international readers will likely assume 'black' to be synonymous with Black African, using a blanket term will introduce unnecessary confusion.
15. No editor has been able to able to indicate how the reader will benefit in any way by the use of a blanket term.

In addition, presenting the information in a literal "black or white" or "whites vs. everyone else" fashion is antithetical to the non-racial spirit of modern South Africa and plays right into the hands of racists and other extremists. Classical liberal za (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And the solutions offers to clarify? And Asian South Africans opinion on our classification? Classical I encourage you to read the responses and explanations to your argument before repeating them and allegeding others are not responding. Furthermore those who do not accept the non-white community have worked and suffered under a common cause and tried to make a negative term positive are generally those who are themselves scared of the new future where finally South Africa can unite in some sense and level out the common inequalities felt. User:DumaTorpedo.

I have surmised the following arguments in favour of using a blanket term and have already responded accordingly in my previous reply:

1. Media agencies generally use 'black' as a blanket term. This has repeatedly been shown to be untrue. See point 12 above.
2. All ethnic Asians are considered 'black' in SA. This has repeatedly been shown to be untrue. See points 1-5 above.
3. That 'black' should be used as a replacement for 'non-white'. It has been stated repeatedly that 'non-white' is not used in the article and therefore a replacement is unnecessary. See point 6 above.
4. "(The Ethnic Asians in South Africa) were persecuted as “black” for generations under Apartheid". This has been shown to be untrue. Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean were 'honorary whites' under apartheid. Only 3-4 percent of all current ethnic Chinese people in SA were citizens during apartheid. See point 1 above.
5. That the BEE Act groups Indians and Coloureds who were citizens before 1994 as 'black'. It has been shown why the BEE Act is a poor basis for defining who is 'black'. See points 1-5 above.

Have I missed anything? Having to repeat the same points over and over to no avail is frustrating but necessary when the same untruths are repeatedly stated as fact (such as News24, BBC, The Telegraph and the M&G using black as a blanket term and all ethnic Asians being considered black - both shown to be false). If we cannot come to a consensus now this will have to move to a DRR. Please note that you have not signed your last few posts so I have signed them for you as presently it is very unclear as to who is saying what. Classical liberal za (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Classical I have been forced to repeat my points, the sources I cited are clear in claiming and providing evidence that Ethic Asians, Black Africans an Ethic coloureds are black. We have been persecuted as black for generations. Furthermore your claims that beee is a poor basis for racial categories due to non-Ethic Black Africans ( Nigerians) and Asians (immigrant Asians) ans Nambian Coloureds was prooved false by this point:

• Please distinguish between ethnic Asians and Indians in South Africa and current Asian/Indian immigrants, it is highly offensive to be grouped together as we ( the Ethnic Asians in South Africa) were persecuted as “black” for generations under Apartheid. Secondly despite the Asian in particular Chinese community being at some stage classified as Coloured, the Coloured community too falls under “black” thus all ethnic Asians and Coloureds in South Africa are black ( Since Classical pointed out that if one is born to Jewish parents one is a Jew thus of if one has black parents one is black) Jansprat ( and Classical) I once again ask for a distinction between Ethic Asians,Coloured and Black Africans and Immigrant Asians, Coloureds, Black Africans DumaTorpedo

"distinguish between ethnic Asians and Indians in South Africa and current Asian/Indian immigrant". So what is being said is that if a post-94 Indian or Chinese immigrant to SA is racially attacked we must place the incident in the 'racism against white communities' section but if a pre-94 Indian or Chinese immigrant to SA is racially attacked we must place it in the 'racism against black communities section'? Can it not be seen how this is totally nonsensical? Furthermore, what about Japanese, Korean & Taiwanese communities that had 'honorary-white' status. Are they black too? Classical liberal za (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly any racism conducted against Indian or Asian immigrants is against Indian or Asian immigrants, a section entirely by its own. We (Ethic Asians) are a completely different group to immigrant Asians, do not confuse the two, it is akin to equating a Dutch immigrant community and Afrikaans community as one, not two different communities. Apart from that Asians are black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Classical for putting together all the points we have been discussing on this topic. It is very helpful. Duma, While I understand from your last comment what your concern is, please note that these groupings were not introduced by the editors but rather are the groups taken from the Census report. The discussion was always about how best to maintain clarity for all the readers around the world. So your allegation that all the editors who differ with you are - "scared of the new future where finally South Africa can unite in some sense and level out the common inequalities felt." - is just wrong!! Jansprat123 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated Jansprat, thank you for your incredibly valuable research & input. Agree entirely, especially regarding the "scared of a new future" statement which I found to be rather unfair. Do you see any possibility of any progress being made in this discussion or should it be escalated to a DRR? Cheers Classical liberal za (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi classical I noticed too that your alleged racism when we as the Asian community say we are black? That is very odd and grossly unfair accusing all communities who consider themselves black as “racists and extremists”?. Majority of the Ethic Asian community was oppressed as black under Apartheid ( Chinese and Indian people were who make up the majority of the Asian population) DumaTorpedo

Thank you Classical. I propose a survey if all the points you have listed are enough for the editors to consider this closed. Jansprat123 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea DumaTorpedo

Please note we are all aware of how RFCs are ended. Also Please keep your comments above the Survey section. Thank you. Jansprat123 (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like all editors to note that there was an unsigned response left to the survey by Herbst du preez here. The response was subsequently signed by DumaTorpedo here. DumaTorpedo then altered the response again to remove DumaTorpedo's own signature and make it appear that the response was signed by Herbst du preez here. The response also contained the same misspelling of "ethnic" as "ethic" that DumaTorpedo made in his own survey response. It is fairly clear that DumaTorpedo and Herbst du preez are both operated by the same individual. As I'm sure most editors are aware, this is referred to as Sock puppetry and is a serious offence. I will be submitting a WP:SPI. Classical liberal za (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited on Source editing to sign and format for those who forgot to ( As orlinas did for me) and mistook Herbstes for mine ( when you edit on source editimg one tends to do so) once I noticed the error I reverted it to migate confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User ID: Herbst du preez was created on April 12th 2018. The very thing this user did was to vandalize the talk page to support DumaTorpedo. Here are the 2 instances: Vandalism by Herbst du preez. Highly likely the same individual operating with 2 different accounts. Thank you Classical for opening an SPI. Jansprat123 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a surprise! In any case, editors, it looks we do have a broad consensus to keep the categories as they are currently. Unless anyone thinks we need to keep this conversation going, I am going to end the RFC. Jansprat123 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Not closing rewarding someone who has resorted to socking. --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are the points of different editors aggregated above by Classical liberal za enough to end this RFC? Please answer Yes/No. Yes: I believe that the current categories are accurate, unambiguous and in-line with SA Census and are clear for readers worldwide. Jansprat123 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC) No Jewish Communities are unseen in the census and points are ignored in which it is prooved that Ethic Asian and Coloured communities in South Africa are black ( black or born to black parents) and offers solutions to migate confusion.DumaTorpedo (talk) Yes: I fully agree. Let us keep this article accessible to the international reader. Zvtok (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC) No: Solutions suggested to help international reader. The Asian community and Coloured community are black and this should not be ignored.Vusi (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Vusi Yes: Everyone has made their points. The current sections are clear and leave no room for confusion or misunderstanding. Classical liberal za (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Yes: While I do think that it makes sense to mention how some South African laws categorize the various ethnicities, Classical liberal za's points do show that it doesn't make sense to just categorize Asians as "black" in this article with no explanation. This would only confuse people. Ornilnas (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC) No: clarification solutions were provided WitbooiBrada (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC) *Yes: Many of my people would prefer to be referred to as Coloured instead of black as we are proud of our identity and it would be confusing as most people believe that a black person is one who is black African WentworthBoy (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC) No: All Ethic identifications will be maintained (Coloured will still be Coloured and Asian will still be Asian) merely an umbrella term will be included and if you are born to black parents aren’t you black? Or is it only of you are born to Jewish parents you are Jewish? Consistency is key.14:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Herbst du preez Black (or black) should be used in its standard international English meaning - "relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin" - and not in the meaning in a specific South African legislation. As a side note - multiple participants here should read Wikipedia:Indentation - and the RfC in general here could've been formulated more clearly (I believe I have already !voted above).Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Yes: I have to agree with WentworthBoy, my grandparents and great-grandparents clearly and specifically identified themselves as coloured. They would object (strongly I suspect) to being identified as black. Zvtok (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Proposed Cases of Racism

Hi everyone, I have been reading through the talk page and edit history of this article and it appears there has been a fair bit of controversy between editors on cases of racism that have been included in the article. Due to the contentious nature of this page I suggest that potential cases of racism are posted below first for discussion before they are added to the page. Proposals should follow this format:

PROPOSAL: <section> | <case description> <citation(s)> <signature>

<discussion>

Discussion should take place indented below the proposal so that it is clear as to what is being discussed. Once it is clear a consensus has been reached as to whether the case warrants inclusion and that the description of the case is neutral and accurate it can then be added to the main article. A consensus must be reached as to whether a clear indication of racism exists in the proposed case. AsyncKomms^talk 16:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To start, I propose the following case:

PROPOSAL: Racism against White communities | In 2014 a 70 year old wheelchair bound Afrikaner and his family were assaulted and robbed. His daughter stated her father was forced to say "I love black people" during the attack. AsyncKomms^talk 16:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing this case as I believe it is fairly clear there was some degree of anti-white or anti-Afrikaner racism involved in this attack. AsyncKomms^talk 16:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that in many of these cases Race does play a role, however listing every case of Racism is in my opinion not the intention of this article. The international reader would want to gain more understanding of the 'essence', such as the historical roots of racism, the effects of Racism on multiple groups of people during different time frames, how it has morphed over the period of time, the perpetrators and victims of Racism in each period etc. In my opinion the article should also focus on institutions, political parties, people representing political parties who use it as a strategy by appealing to Racism. The article should mention important cases of Racism especially those that target an entire community. That would be my input. Jansprat123 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file White farmers stuff black man into coffin to burn.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

South African black communities

Hi, should Wikipedia use “black” to define “non-white” Communities? It’s more positive than being “non-“ something is it not? Rather dehumanizing to be non-black right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaRSA (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

DumaTorpedo/VivaRSA, All the editors except yourself thought that it was terrible idea. I am responding back to you here since you left a message on my talk page. I am not sure why you think being a "non-black" is dehumanizing! In any case, this topic has been discussed enough and enough time of the editors has been wasted on it. Jansprat123 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Penny sparrow racism.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

On user's issues with this article

There are significant issues with this article which should be addressed as soon as possible.

1. The article is excessively slanted towards recent events. South Africa has a long and notoriously ugly history of racism, but this history is only briefly mentioned in the article, with only two short paragraphs on South Africa's history of colonialism and apartheid. Instead, the vast majority of the article is devoted to covering South Africa's racial history in the post-apartheid era, with a detailed recounting of various racial incidents. A casual reader would come away with the impression that there has been a drastic increase in racism following the end of apartheid, which is certainly not the case.

2. The article recounts a series of racial incidents without placing those incidents in a social and historical context. Simply listing the bare facts involved without giving any context is ultimately misleading. We need to add information about the social issues and problems that lie behind racial tension in contemporary South Africa.

3. Most of the aforementioned racial incidents have been added by rival POV pushers, each seeking to prove that South African society is racist against "their side". Many of the sources look questionable, and should be carefully checked. The language used in the article to describe these incidents is inflammatory and hyperbolic, recounting lurid and gory details of supposedly racially motivated crimes. This is the type of language that is often used to stir up hatred and resentment and increase racial tensions. We cannot allow Wikipedia to become a platform for political extremists - no matter what their race or political affiliation is.

In conclusion, the article as written currently gives undue weight to events in post-apartheid South Africa, and there are significant issues with the tone and sourcing. The sections on colonial racism and apartheid need to be expanded. The section on post-apartheid racism needs to be pared back significantly, and more general information and social context should be added. CataracticPlanets (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

1. 1 Is there an apartheid page for this instead?
2. 2 Maybe leading introduction into the segregation history. Apartheid intro for context, without rehashing the whole thing.

My view: There is enough history that books upon books have been written about it. What we don't have is an account of post-apartheid racism and recent history. The title of this page reflects this content and it's the place for it.

1. 3 "more general information and social context should be added". I wouldn't remove anything but add to it instead. Due to the nature of virility, sometimes that is all you get. We can't NOT log these.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.66.104 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The bias use of citations

The collection of claimed violence and racism by the indigenous is much more cited yet on the contrary and identified social media valid evidence sees incidences of racism against the indigenous populace almost every week from recorded videos and much from journalists.

This article doesn't have the propaganda efforts of pushing a fake white genocide White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#South_Africa sent around the world in 2018 by white racists who had the resources and given an opportunity by international entertainment and narrative exploiters outlets. This is observed to connection to grease up the Land reform in South Africa, this equates to racism by portraying others racists for your own racist reasons. Untrammeled (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please use shorter sentences.

If I understand you, the way to fix this problem is to cite better reliable sources. Examples on social media are not reliable sources, because this would be original research. Are there any reliable sources you can recommend? Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

How convenient

The writer or editors of this article seem to be living under a rock of making whites more victim than everyone else, pathetic. Where are the stories of a Black child thrown off a bakkie by two adults to his death, stories of boers claiming to have mistaken people for animals and shot at them, where are the stories of the fast food restaurants on multiple occasions in Cape Town a city not only reputed as a Racist Excretory, getting dismissed for racism, the recent cases of a beach front targeting and removing people from the beach that sparked a protest turn out to shut that crap of a place, what about the assaults of individuals by groups of stupid young adults, what about the cases in Pretoria where certain bars are set out for a certain race, in Durban same things about racist bars. All these stories real others even put people in jail yet...no where to be found here.

The person who wrote this halfwit article intentionally lightens up the section of racism towards Black people, even sets out to make it sound condescending, picks up on very light stories, "Allegedly" is the word of the section even ends in one note phrases as if to make it like that phrase is all the issue to what happened, they write like they are apologist of the racists attacking Blacks in the section as light as the picked stories are to represent the whole racism on Blacks in South Africa in the World through Wikipedia, condescending, set to undermine racism on Blacks as existent at all in South Africa, attempt to make doubt of its existence at first read.

Seeing the authors vivid on writing about Blacks being racist to others even using tabloid to be truths of that section, where are the parts as vivid where blacks receive or received the hate of true racists? I see this article as a deciding reputation to assert your whiteness as innocence it will eventually catch up. The Springbok player Eben Etzebeth and his gang in Western Cape, how is his assaulting, using gun(s), case going? Your propaganda positioning in this article are already getting caught, a national team player is so confident to not even worry about getting recognized easily the way the environment allows him to, using his gun to assault multiple number of people at different occasions.

I'll dig up on other stories too that are not here, there's another one of a racist motivated white farm gang terrorizing a small black community. Dragging people into bakkies to do whatever they do, assaulting them based on their ideas of racism as they used slurs and reason of doing what they want to to those blacks. The funny thing the author with so much energy of writing up this article they conveniently turn stupid, racist apologist, skimpy when it comes to writing about racism on Blacks after 1994. I haven't seen anything about Orania a white only set up in this day and age, in Africa worse of all.

We all know Orania is a racist town for white people only. But to counter that we often hear the argument that Orania is "merely" a town where white people may exercise self-determination, i.e. not harming anyone – but is that really all it is? (Who are we kidding?)

Obviously, it's is dangerous to normalise racial segregation in the first place, because exclusion, of black and brown people, is hateful in and of itself. But there's more to this town than even that grotesque mindset.

Below is an excellent article explores the shocking reality of how Orania came about in the first place, and some paragraphs really stood out:

1. Large-scale eviction: "Orania’s founders did not settle on virgin territory, but on the remains of a half-realised 1960s project to build canals and dams along the Orange River. A community of 500 poor black and mixed-race squatters who had made their homes in the buildings left behind by the project stood between the new owners and their whites-only vision... ...What followed [in 1991] was one of the last large-scale evictions under apartheid. It was carried out by the future residents of Orania, with the assistance of beatings, pistol whippings and dogs.

2. A Clear Continuation of Apartheid: "By the end of the 1980s, the probability of losing control had already occurred to many Afrikaners, with some believing that impending democracy posed an existential threat to the white Afrikaans way of life. A few felt protecting that required becoming a demographic majority somewhere, rather than remaining a minority everywhere. So a small group of Afrikaners – Verwoerd’s daughter and son-in-law, Carel Boshoff, among them – purchased a strip of land on the southern banks of the Orange River, and went about setting up a volkstaat, or independent homeland, where Afrikaners would decide their own affairs."

As Orania becomes more and more popular amongst the worst racists, and we continuously see false claims of "crime-free Orania", even internationally, let's keep front and centre the hateful ideology it represents in reality.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/24/an-indictment-of-south-africa-whites-only-town-orania-is-booming

I'd recommend for any one interested in racism in SA post 1994 to do research themselves about the real situation of Racism in South Africa before thinking they've found information on this weak retard article. Untrammeled (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Everything you wrote is a complete conspiracy theory and unsubstantiated by any facts. It is well-known that apartheid racism and anti-black racism doesn't exist in SA in any significant fashion and the real problems currently is anti-white racism. 2603:7000:75F0:1680:8D14:F0CD:2D91:2DFC (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This article has no room for improvement by any standard; a request for its deletion

{{db-<Racism in South Africa>}}Untrammeled (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The way to request deletion is by starting a discussion by the procedure outlined at WP:AFD, but I would advise against it, because this is clearly a topic on which we should have an article. Much better would be for you to outline your complaints about the current content, which may or may not be valid, here in a civil manner without accusing people who disagree with you of racism. As it is the article clearly relies far too much on primary news reports rather than secondary academic sources about the topic, but that is unfortunately the way that many articles about contentious topics have been developed here. Do you want to help improve the article or simply be dismissed as a disruptive editor? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus reached. Untrammeled (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Racism in South Africa → Racism by Black people in South Africa – The renaming will correlate with the main concerns of the article if the evidence is taken as true and I don't have time to look into every citation but take it as valid without any review and how the article is written, sensationalism, propaganda or blatant lies aren't the concern that's being noted in the article but the final result is the one judged to fit the renaming if it is found wanting or very ridiculous or direct biases of racism interest or racist apologists nature those that detect that will do as they pleas as I've tried deleting this mess so rather it's worth for whatever it correlates with Untrammeled (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because that would result in POV forking the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Roger (Dodger67) How is this a WP:POVFORK while the article delivers correlation to the concerns of the nominated rename, your opposition is invalid it's the same article with the rename of the article logical to what's intended by this article, what's there to oppose then. Untrammeled (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Untrammeled The article currently does not (and must not) discuss only racism by black people. If it were to be moved as you propose it logically follows that the content about racism by other than black people will have to be removed from this article and instead covered in a different article - creating a POV fork. The solution to the problem of this article's current state (Undue, Primary, Recentism, etc) is to edit it to achieve a balanced article about racism in South Africa. Get rid of (most) of the news-based incident reports, instead use books and academic articles by sociologists, historians, political analysts, and other relevant experts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

      Well, it could, but then it would be a different article, and we'd need to ensure that people looking for the obvious primary meaning of the phrase were redirected to the Apartheid article or whatever (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). Maybe this article needs more balancing or whatever. I'm surprised that an article with this title would be primarily about black racism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

    • Dodger67 but this article is trying clearly enough to not discuss racism by other people other than the claimed racism by black people in South Africa. If almost all information and the simulated depth about racism in it is about blacks being perpetrators why don't we go all the way and allow the article to be what it's edited to be, in order for the same opportunity be allowed for other articles be written extensively about Racism by others in South Africa then someday all these articles about racism in South Africa be merged to be Racism in South Africa because from dubious citations to biases this article isn't about Racism in South Africa but leaning to Racism by Black people in South Africa type of direction, a lot lapses behind or editors aren't currently interested to having time to add, review it etc. for the benefit of the doubt, while the crucial fact is that the article has already been publicly published as being Racism in South Africa. Untrammeled (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and for some additional reasons. 1) "Black" isn't really that simple in Africa; wanting to name the article that is an Americanism or a Briticism (see Coloureds, etc.). 2) WP doesn't capitalize "black" in the race/racialism sense (nor "white").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can't see anything wrong with retaining the article as being about all forms of racism in South Africa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Racism in South Africa → Racism and Crime in South Africa – It goes beyond mere racism in South Africa it extends to criminal actions of already convicted criminals, discusses vividly about crime acts by criminals which is alleged by disputable evidence of tabloids that the source is from racism. Proven hoaxes also make up the article ie. white genocide/farm murders based on racism/genocides etc. It speaks of criminal acts extensively Untrammeled (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Untrammeled (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. And still no. The current title is absolutely fine and descriptive of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questin

What is Racism...??? Zee Mchunu (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

See Racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The soft approach

Racism writing against African people is written in a soft portrayal you could swear it's not racism but I'm amazed by the great and creative writing effort, in imagery and imagination dedicated to other passages about racism on other races, it eventually becomes very obvious. --41.113.18.111 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Refer: Racism Against Jewish Communities- Racism against Jews of Colour Edits Removed

Hi, good morning or afternoon wherever you may be :)

I wanted to discuss the page Racism in South Africa specifically racism against the Jewish Community. I understand it is a contentious issue, this is why I will only be modifying the language used which is not neutral and encyclopaedic and not adding the additional I added in the last edit. I nonetheless believe that the Daily Maverick which is a well known and reputable South African publication, and the official website of Jews For Peace also a large organisation are both reliable sources to use when discussing anti-Jewish racism. Do you propose a separate section for racism against Jews of Colour? On reading the pages history it appears that this would be the precedent for potential "inter-community" racism. I do believe that this perspective should be heard don't you? The whole page is based on lived experience and points of view, in particular viewing "Racism Against Whites" numerous interest groups (working for the interest of their communities) are cited . I am not saying this is wrong, hence the incorporation of the perspective of racism against Jews of Colour.

Thank you very much

An anonymous user just reverted the edits made in this regard, this user claims that legitimate claims of systemic racism against Jews of Colour is whitewashing racism against Jews. Furthermore that reputable local South African sources are "unreliable". I fear that an edit war may be incoming and will thus not engage in reverting removals of this content, I have however reverted this one as I believe perhaps the user may have missed the above message. While this entire page is understandably contentious are valid claims of racism and analysis of it is what it should be about, therefore I hope the editors please assist in fostering dialogue. I have attempted to however seem to lack the power to bring people out of anonymity to discuss this critical matter. Thank you very much AfroManTyg (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)AfroManTyg

Rethinking the article's formatting

The article has seemed to devolve into a scoreboard onto which every potentially racial incident is being listed and tallied for each ethnicity or skin colour. I don't think that's what an encyclopaedic article is supposed to be. What this article should be focusing on is 1) the reality that racism existed and still exists, 2) how people argue it manifested and still manifests, and 3) especially notable instances of racism.

What we should try to do is focus less on specific instances and more on trends.

To this end, in the contemporary section, I've started removing the less-noted instances of racism and left only those that have made a big impression internationally or nationally. Once I've removed the less notable cases, I plan to rearrange the article so that it's not so much focused on colour or ethnic tallies and more on racism existing and how it manifests itself in the context of South Africa's demography and history.

AWildAppeared (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Section about racism against Black Women

I remember reading this article a while ago and seeing that some type of institution had discrimination or sexual harassment against Black Women after apartheid, but I can't seem to find this incident anymore. Anyone know which version it might be under?

Kylenielsen (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2022 (2022)

History

how racism was applied in South Africa 105.245.110.240 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

History

How the effects of racism contributed to the current socio-economic challenges faced by blacks in south Africa 105.245.96.4 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

History

Racism in South Africa how it menifested itsself 105.245.104.198 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

South African attitudes to other African countries

The article (which lacks structure, balance and clarity) further seems to omit any mention of the widely reported prejudice/dislike/mistreatment/racism by South Africans (meaning black South Africans, afaik) against people (generally also black) from other African countries. The BBC cited this "black-on-black hate" as 'afrophobia' (in WP, a synonym for Anti-African sentiment), here. I remember also long-settled Zimbabwean shopkeepers being attacked and chased out of the country. More work to be done. Onanoff (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)