"Apartheid consisted of numerous laws that allowed the ruling white minority in South Africa to segregate, exploit and terrorize the vast majority: Africans, mostly, but also Asians and Coloureds - people of mixed race. In white-ruled South Africa, black people were denied basic human rights and political rights. Their labour was exploited, their lives segregated.
Under Apartheid, racist beliefs were enshrined in law and any criticism of the law was suppressed. Apartheid was racism made law. It was a system dictated in the minutest detail as to how and where the large black majority would live, work and die. This system of institutionalized racial discrimination defied the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
Steve Biko is an especially good example of a student activist who was allegedly murdered by the apartheid regime of South Africa and since then revered as a martyr of the movement and a civil rights activist:
"Steven Biko was a noted anti-apartheid activist in South Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. A student leader, he later founded the Black Consciousness Movement which would empower and mobilize much of the urban black population. Since his death in police custody, he has been called a martyr of the anti-apartheid movement. While living, his writings and activism attempted to empower blacks, and he was famous for his slogan "black is beautiful", which he described as meaning: "man, you are okay as you are, begin to look upon yourself as a human being". The ANC (African National Conference, governing party of South Africa) was very hostile to Biko and to Black Consciousness through the 70s to the mid 90s[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source] but has now included Biko in the pantheon of struggle heroes, going so far to use his image for campaign posters in South Africa's first democratic elections, in 1994." Steve Biko (I know wikipedia is bad but this was a good summary)
Apartheid in South Africa
More Info
This relates to the situation in Darfur, which is actually much "worse" given that it is a genocide. My questions are:
- What are the factors that make student activism effective?
- Why was the divestment apartheid movement of the '80s seemingly more effective than that of the divesement movement for Darfur today?
- Is student activism the way that human rights causes should be solved and campaigned for in the first place? Is it up to the students to campaign for human rights or should the government and international community be doing more?
- The connects to our in class thingy about solving genocide, what is the most effective solution? Does student activism only take place because the international community and politicans are too slow?
Also I want to let everyone know about the DAY OF ACTION FOR DARFUR tomorrow, Wednesday October 24th.
Social Justice Club will be hosting a petition drive in the foyer all day, where you can come by and sign the global petition for Darfur and learn more about it as well.
2 comments:
can i just say... this was an amazing and informative post. :)
i think that student activism is effective because of the strong opinions we have about the issues. when a lot of students all organize on one issue, they can definitely get the message across.
i don't think it's that politicians are SLOW... it's just that they have "more important things to do." they have a nation to run - not that this is more important than human rights, but it falls at the top of the priority list...
of course, student activism can bring attention to the issue so that the politicians will address it... in the end, no matter what we do, it's up to the politicians and world leaders to make things happen... a small group of students is unlikely to stop genocide all on their own.
-coe
I think that student activism is very effective when people really dedicate time to it. The more effort put in, the more positive results you'll see.
As Coe said, I also think that the government should be doing more to resolve human rights issues, but they have a lot of other things going on. It is easy for an activist group to protest against a certain cause because they may not directly be affected by the consequences of intervention. For example, many people may protest the Iraq war and they do so because they think our presence there is unnecessary. However, the government has a different perspective because if they do pull out of Iraq, they will have to face the consequences, but not necessarily the individual people protesting. (sorry if that's still unclear....) I think that activists are less likely to see both sides to a political issue (because they're nto directly involved, but I do think their work is necessary.
If activists adamantly protest against something, hopefully the government will recognize what people are saying and take action. However, this has not happened yet with Iraq or Darfur.
Post a Comment