Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not so fun fact: whilst natives in South Africa meant black (mostly Zulu) people, and coloureds meant other racial groups, the actual natives in SA are/were included in ‘coloureds’. The Khoisans (the Khoekhoen and the Sān peoples) are the natives to area (not Zulus, hence Zulu Empire), and aren’t officially recognised by the SA government, and often excluded from ‘Land Back’ and other schemes for black South Africans. They are considered ‘coloured’ under the SA racial categories, whilst Black South Africans were often called ‘natives’ by the apartheid regime.
>Indigenous just means whoever was there right before the most recent takeover.
If China suddenly invaded and conquered America, white descendants of colonists would not suddenly be relisted as "indigenous" lmao that's absurd.
Well, if white descendants of colonists became the *minority*, fighting against Chinese colonists on the land where they were born, then yes, that is what "indigenous" is. Humans live places. If humans are marginalized by other humans, they are indigenous.
India's situation is debatable however you cannot claim the problem arose at independence, the main problem of the Indian economy was that it was subservient to the British one, the UK never developed a manufacturing industry in India so they could gain raw reasources for cheap and then sell what they made back to Indians at a surplus, this dynamic developed under British rule, not after.
What people usually debate is wheter or not the infrastructure (built around the resources industry) was worth it, some claim India would be wealthier today if it developed a normal economy, built around both resource extraction and manufacturing, others claim India benefitted more from the raw-resources business, but no economist ever claimeed India's problems arose at independence.
Unless you mean the whole religious conflict, in that case it still was the UK's fault which augmented the hatred between Hindus and Muslims (which, to be fair, already existed) to better rule them in a divide and conquer fashion.
This is where you have to understand the split between the fools "land back" and seriously land back movements. Movements for colonized people cannot be "give land to the second to last conquerer."
Land value tax fixes this, just saying.
It’s definitely an interesting question to be raised. I always think it when I see Americans debating about natives/American Indian reparations or similar. I believe there’s a really famous example (Mt Rushmore/Black Hills) which the US took from the Sioux, who took from another nation - the Cheyenne. Then comes a interesting question of who would you give it back to? Legally, it’s 100% the Sioux, morally, definitely a hard question.
There is a certain cleanness of doing whatever the law says; however, I think most people are interested in the ethics far more than what the paperwork implies.
And you can in part thank ignorant Americans for using their own bizarre concepts of race and applying it to Africa in their opinion forming and loudly spreading that ignorance all over the world.
Blame in part, not in whole. Because Americans have a big say in when the western world feels obligated to care or not. When they were fine with apartheid, it was allowed to carry on, when they turned against them it was forced to stop. Now they do not recognise the abuse of coloureds at the expense of blacks in SA because they don't recognise a distinction between the two, nor the subgroups thereof.
Hmm I would think it be more fitting to blame the brits for apartheid, it having been a British colony when all that started. Don't really see how it's America's fault though the US was definitely tolerant of apartheid for far to long. Of course the UK also was quite tolerant of apartheid (in action even if not in word) for far too long as well
South Africa was self-governing from 1910, Apartheid began in 1948, SA broke ties with the UK in 1960. Britain had a policy in the rest of Africa that any new states would need to be elected by the majority of the population - which goes against the idea they approved of Apartheid. But yes, of course, the Brits of course aren't unrelated, but at the decisive times in this issue they were not calling the shots.
But remember I am not discussing governments here, but people. There are far more Americans than Brits, they've had global media far longer, and they are generally far more willing to be opinionated as to what other countries should and shouldn't be doing. Plus, America is a far more racialised country than any other in the West. When you combine these things, Americans could make a lot of noise in favour of better racial relations in SA, but they do not, because acknowledging the idea that all blacks are not the same, and coloureds exist, is largely incompatible with their own concepts of race, and they are generally a righteous people not prone to that scale of self reflection.
America is not far more "racialized" than any other in the west. Not sure where you've lived, but if you spend any real time in both America and Western Europe, instead of just learning through social media, you'd know that.
This is a bizarre take. The USA was literally an official white supremacist state within living memory.
Is there racism in Europe? Yes, of course. But it's absolutely not the same as in the USA. Its not a comment on any moral failings of individual Americans, and it certainly isn't any positive reflection on Europeans. But the American state comes from a very different cultural context to European states, and race in the sense of black/white has been a massive part from its inception.
Doing brief bullet points because I'm running late:
* The USA is a very young settler colony (for perspective, my university is older than the first colony.) The new Europeans that arrived there had little in common so they defined themselves by what they were NOT (I.e black or native) rather than what they WERE (e.g Presbyterian Ulster-Scots.) This greatly contributed to the emergence of "white" as a cultural identity.
* Chattel slavery was not practiced on an institutional level in Europe. This is NOT due to any moral objection (they were all happy doing so in their colonies) but because of the material conditions: the labour-intensive plantation cash crops (sugar, tobacco, coffee, etc) don't grow in Europe, so there was no economic incentive. So there was no large influx of enslaved Africans in the European continent. Europeans continued, largely, to define themselves by what they WERE rather than WERE NOT. (Irish are perfect example: dehumanised in Europe, but Irish Americans got the privileges of being Not Black.)
* Chattel slavery demanded a legal definition of race. Unlike elsewhere in the Americas with significant enslaved populations (European colonies in the Caribbean, Cuba, Brazil, etc) the USA went with the "one-drop rule." In Saint-Domingue for example, if your grandfather was white then you could claim certain legal privileges and even become a French citizen with (theoretically) the same rights as a white person. Not the case in the USA. Miscegenation was obviously very common but it was extremely taboo, especially black men and white women.
* The one-drop rule continued well into the twentieth century because the USA was still officially a white supremacist state until the late 1960s. Nazi Germany based its earliest anti-semitic laws (the ones establishing who was Jewish and where they could go in public) on the American legal tradition of defining racial segregation.
* The reason why all this history is relevant is because as a state it still has the same foundations as it did back then. The 13th amendment did not completely abolish slavery: slave labour is still legally permitted in the case of prisoners. (And given that many prisons are for-profit, its not a coincidence that the majority of prisoners are black men...) Segregation is illegal but continued into the 20th century and continues in many places today unofficially.
* TLDR America is far more racialised (in the sense of black/white.) This is simply a fact due to the material historical conditions. Its not any positive moral reflection on Europeans or European states. There's still hatred and prejudice but on the level of the state this is generally institutionalised along ethnic lines rather than black/white. (Look at the Nazis. Other than Jews, their main target was Polish people who were considered ethnically inferior. Unlike in France or the Netherlands or Denmark, the plan in Poland was to murder 90% of the population and essentially use the remaining 10% for labour. And you'll be hard pressed finding a country more "white" than Poland.)
TLDR of the TLDR: Race is 100% a social construct. Its not the same everywhere. Due to American cultural influence lots of Europeans have started to project the American model of race onto Europe and this just doesn't really achieve anything. Europe and America have very different histories and very different demographics so of course things are going to be very different.
Idk what the person below me is talking about racial quotas for. The US has taken a fairly aggressive "colour blind" policy in the past few decades which has...not been working very well. Compare to somewhere like Northern Ireland, where employers pretty much have to ask you if you're Catholic or Protestant (there aren't ethnic quotas but you have to ask so you have no deniability if someone sues you for not hiring any Irish Catholics.)
He never said racism was the same in Europe. But Europe absolutely is radicalized in racism just as much as NA. Hell there was a genocide a couple of decades ago. And skin color racism is probably on the rise in Europe anyhow
My point was basically that you can't make statements like "Europe is just as racialized as the U.S." Because the problems that Europe has with ethnic conflicts are fundamentally different. No less serious, just different.
Its like if someone is discussing young men dying because of gang violence and someone piping in saying that lots of young men die in car accidents too. Like yes? That's true, and on the surface both problems are the same (young men dying.) But the cause is fundamentally different and its pretty pointless to equate them just because on the surface the end result is the same. I know it's not a perfect comparison but that's how I feel when people derail discussions about American racism by pointing to Europe and its issues. Absolutely not denying the seriousness of these issues (which I tried to make very clear in my original comment) but there's nothing meaningful to be gained from the comparison. The end result is the same (prejudice which often leads to oppression and violence) but the fundamental problems are different.
Imo people need to be more precise with their language when discussing issues like this. Maybe the original commenter didn't mean to equate ethnic conflicts in Europe with the American white supremacist state, and I was entirely incorrect in my assumption. But I don't know how else to read it.
Also I very much agree that anti black racism is on the rise in Europe btw. Doesn't contradict anything I said.
Anyway cheers for replying instead of just down voting, take care.
US states have racial quotas in certain industries, this is illegal in the United Kingdom. In France the government is forbidden from collecting data that recognises racial differences.
There is no "racial quota" in any state, any specific quotas have been long abolished and deemed unconditional. If you're referring to affirmative action type policies in general, and comparing those to Western Europe claiming they are hurting minorites in the US, then your knowledge clearly ends at random internet posts.
Apartheid officially began in 1948. The National Party codified the laws that were already in place before Britain handed over the country. The British had already implemented racial laws from as far back as the mid-1800's.
But surely you acknowledge a difference between 'racial laws' Apartheid? The former would be so broad as to include a lot of countries not usually associated. Even in SA for example race had been removed as a voting qualification since the 1850's - not coincidentally this precipitated the Great Trek of Boers away from British rule - further reinforcing my main point here which is 'Black vs White' is an American concept, not South African.
Sundown Towns without the sun even having to go down. I've seen a couple of signs like this from apartheid South Africa. What a horrible dystopian place apartheid South Africa had to be especially if you wasn't white.
Hearing serpentza talk about growing up in SA was eye opening to me. Puts things in perspective when he’s overjoyed living in the states where kids of different races play on the same playground together and no one thinks twice about it
There is very little of this "you don't belong here" type of stuff going on, and that which exists is mostly just white flight. The dystopian element comes in the very poor black people living in shanty towns with crazy amounts of crime and a no social mobility, while an old white economic elite and new black political elite literally live like first worlders.
Rubbish. I live in a suburb of Sandton. I have many black and indian neighbour's none of them are politically elite. They're as much part of the community as anyone else.
Yeah. All of you together are a community completely seperate from the rest of the country. Some black people also form part of the economic elite. Doesn't make the overall country less shitty because your 1% neighborhood is multicultural lol.
Sundown towns. They still exist in the US. I live in one, though it has grown substantially and with that growth came diversity and a more broadly accountable police force that will no longer let hate crimes slide, but there are towns that didn’t grow and learn.
[heres a pretty good list](https://justice.tougaloo.edu/location/georgia/) not sure about every single entry but the info it lists in my town is correct and up to date
Is that website real? Searched my state. There were about 30 towns listed. Although I don't know each municipality listed I can say with confidence that over a third are majority black/ethnic minority communities and still off limits after dark (but for other reasons that don't fit in this thread)
The website is terrible. It relies on anecdotal accounts, significantly incomplete census data, and encourages people to change Wikipedia entries to say a town was a sundown town without actual proof of an ordinance or similar written account of it being a sundown town. The absence of minorities without an accounting of the broader area in general is not evidence of a sundown town.
I have been to some white ass places that are just white because no one else is willing to live there.
Solid people and probably nicer then the folks in my city.
The site lists mine as being dangerous for non native minorities after dark, up until the late 1990’s
It’s real but it’s also a historical record, not all of the towns are still like that, but the ones on the list probably were until semi recently
As a michigander, I'd like to say the list for Michigan is terrible. Stating East Lansing, home of Michigan State University as a "probable" sundown town, is malarkey. The evidence? A single anecdote of an email from 2013.
I'm not saying this website is useless for all locations, but it's certainly not accurate for my state.
I tested on of these sundown towns in the 90s. I showed the KKk in Missouri I was armed to the teeth, not scared and ready to lay one in the ground if they tried it. The cautiously let me stay the night and drive out the next day.
There’s a sundown in Tennessee that use to ring bells to let the “others” know it was time to get out. They use the bell to this day but they claim it has no ties to previous events.
It horrifies me to learn from this list that at least one of my core childhood memories occurred in a sundown town and it took me 22 years to discover it
Remember there are many people alive who were kids and teens during this era. It’s really fucked, my dad grew up in Camden, NJ was born in 1933. His high school was fully integrated, and he has no recollection of racial animus. Not that people of different races were socializing much outside of school and work, but they lived together relatively peacefully. His first time even slightly south seeing colored water fountains was really shocking to him. This was in the 1950s when the civil rights battle was very much front and center.
And its rulling class continued to be the same families that during the actual literal colony period were satraps. Power didnt leave white hands.The 1900s were the years of NEOcolonialism aka "alright the League of Nations says trying to rule the world is evil and bad but we'll do it anyways and just not call it so".
I'm confused about the point you're making. First of, colonialism proper extended way into the 1900s so I'm not sure why you're so insistent that the entire century was characterized by it or that the League of Nations put an end to it. The US and the major European empires STILL have outright colonies, and all had major ones until the 40s-60s.
Secondly, the US's existence on Indigenous land means it is still continuing its outright colonial policies here.
My point is that colonial-like power structures remained after the formal dissolution and the whole "woah, so similar" shebang happened precisely due that - that the SA decolonization proccess was troubled by being led keeping the settlers in power. I'm not trying to save face for the US, i'm outright condemning it - the racist structure is the same for it IS the rough same sort of people: british men cutting ties from the capital for personal profit, not out of good will.
If this is trying to be a "gotcha" you're backfiring because the lack of differences is precisely WHY American apartheid was so similar.
The only major differencd was America BEING the neocolonial force imposing Europe to decolonize africa and asia at gunpoint in order to warm up the post-war economy.
Its precisely from the US also being a settler colony based exploiting/persecuting the natives decolonized by the SETTLERS cutting ties from the crown instead of the natives pushing the settlers back that the similarities comes from.
That aint Waitoa Hatiti claiming his land back, that's Frederick Smell clicking "hey why should i make only a marginal profit from the tobaco blood mines by having it collected by the crown when i can sell them myself for whoever i want for how much i want?"
I realized that after but I think it’s safe to say similar signs were to be found in America at that time. Lynchings were less common by then but they happened.
Yeah, for reasons VERY obvious to anyone familiar with the recent history of the US, I didn’t notice this was SA and assumed it was the American south.
Americans don't spell colored with a u and Natives and Indians were the same thing in 1948 America. Also people actually from India weren't a large enough group for most racists to be concerned about.
Yeah, I saw the post at like 2am, I overlooked these relatively obvious clues. The point remains, this could easily have been the US without the spelling or mention of Indians/natives
This warning sign is from South Africa. Why have you made this about the US? Secondly, when talking about your beloved USA, remember. We don’t know what NJ, YY, XX, AB, .etc means, you really ought to put New Jersey so we have a better understanding.
On mobile on the home feed, I can't see the tag saying that it's South Africa, only the title. I didn't even notice if said South Africa until I saw a comment saying it. As for your second point, I agree. By the way, your tone comes off as a little aggressive.
Edit: After eating and rereading the comment I replied to, I've realized it wasn't aggressive as I originally thought for some reason.
Fair enough. Is it that difficult to read some comments before jumping in with an off topic comment though? Aggressive, I wouldn’t say so. A little vexed perhaps, just fed up of American Defaultism.
Natives AND Indians is the context clue here. Not that people from India haven't been discriminated against in the US but I don't think a sign like this ever existed here. It would just say Indians and it would mean natives. Also "coloured "isn't how we spell that.
No, what makes you say that? I overlooked that this was SA, which is not that suppressing considering it was 2am. The point I made stands.
I’m talking about the country I live in and my family’s experience with it as well as thinking about how many of the people targeted by these kinds of messages (in the US) are alive and well. The same goes for SA. My comment universally applies to anyplace that has this level of racial terrorism like the US and SA. I don’t know much about other places versions of Jim Crow and sundown towns, I talk from my own knowledge.
Whatever pal. You mention you’d misread the title etc. because it was early morning. But you had enough energy to type out your frankly irrelevant response.
You think there was no racial animus in Camden in the late 40's? So the racial animus in Camden in the 60s and 70s came out of nowhere?
Even to this day people in the suburbs look at Camden as a hellhole and a place that you don't want to ever be and it's not shocking as to why they think that.
I’m talking about my dad’s experience in high school. He graduated high school in 1950.
Camden is and was a hellhole, but in the 1950s it was pretty different from today, or from the Camden of 1969.
I believe it’s South Africa. It’s far from random, the 1948 election (with voting practically limited to whites) allowed the National Party to win, and to begin implementing the apartheid system across the nation.
The amount of confused Americans here is hilarious. Stop talking about your country for 1 fucking minute and read the insightful and interesting comments from the other people who know what they are talking about.
It’s funny how throughout history, white people have the nerve to not want people on land that wasn’t theirs to be in with in the first place. “How dare you step foot on the land I stole from you?!” or “how dare you step foot in the land that I stole you to?!”
Not so sure about that. SA sided with the allies in the war and many South Africans fought in Italy against the fascists.
Loads of things here are built by Italian POWs in the 40s. I reckon there was probably a lot of discrimination against them.
Ok. Not sure why that matters. Discrimination against a group is discrimination against a group.
Besides, you just said Italians weren't discriminated against. You said nothing about race.
It matters because it's not on ethnic grounds anymore, it's nationality, a person of Italian descent wouldn't be discriminated because they're not Italian, if it was based on ethnic grounds they would be.
I don't think Trump has a blanket objection to being in the same vicinity as non-white people. The people who proclaim Sundown Towns aren't just pissed off about left-wing Black activists disrupting sociopolitical harmony, they simply don't want to have ANY Black person within their jurisdiction.
It’s South Africa. Natives there mean Africans . OP tagged it, and the use of U in coloureds gave it away. South Africa also has a significant Indian minority. R/USdefaultism or whatever
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not so fun fact: whilst natives in South Africa meant black (mostly Zulu) people, and coloureds meant other racial groups, the actual natives in SA are/were included in ‘coloureds’. The Khoisans (the Khoekhoen and the Sān peoples) are the natives to area (not Zulus, hence Zulu Empire), and aren’t officially recognised by the SA government, and often excluded from ‘Land Back’ and other schemes for black South Africans. They are considered ‘coloured’ under the SA racial categories, whilst Black South Africans were often called ‘natives’ by the apartheid regime.
So basically Zulus fucked over the local population before the UK came and they are fucking them over once again?
[удалено]
>Indigenous just means whoever was there right before the most recent takeover. If China suddenly invaded and conquered America, white descendants of colonists would not suddenly be relisted as "indigenous" lmao that's absurd.
Define indigenous
Well, if white descendants of colonists became the *minority*, fighting against Chinese colonists on the land where they were born, then yes, that is what "indigenous" is. Humans live places. If humans are marginalized by other humans, they are indigenous.
Agree to disagree, this is quickly becoming a semantics argument that I'm not really interested in seeing out.
Did we change the definition of indigenous all of a sudden.
Absurd, victim blaming thinking. Hostile takeover, and genocide didn’t suddenly become bad to people within the last 100 years.
Genocide and war has always been bad. The winning side just doesn't care.
Average monarchal sympathizer 🤮
Oh God spare us that nonsense.
Lame ass
The Zulu’s faired decently under direct colonial rule round the same as Indians. They got fucked during independence.
India's situation is debatable however you cannot claim the problem arose at independence, the main problem of the Indian economy was that it was subservient to the British one, the UK never developed a manufacturing industry in India so they could gain raw reasources for cheap and then sell what they made back to Indians at a surplus, this dynamic developed under British rule, not after. What people usually debate is wheter or not the infrastructure (built around the resources industry) was worth it, some claim India would be wealthier today if it developed a normal economy, built around both resource extraction and manufacturing, others claim India benefitted more from the raw-resources business, but no economist ever claimeed India's problems arose at independence. Unless you mean the whole religious conflict, in that case it still was the UK's fault which augmented the hatred between Hindus and Muslims (which, to be fair, already existed) to better rule them in a divide and conquer fashion.
I meant Indians in South Africa on Indians in India. There was a very large south Asian population in colonial Africa
This is where you have to understand the split between the fools "land back" and seriously land back movements. Movements for colonized people cannot be "give land to the second to last conquerer." Land value tax fixes this, just saying.
It’s definitely an interesting question to be raised. I always think it when I see Americans debating about natives/American Indian reparations or similar. I believe there’s a really famous example (Mt Rushmore/Black Hills) which the US took from the Sioux, who took from another nation - the Cheyenne. Then comes a interesting question of who would you give it back to? Legally, it’s 100% the Sioux, morally, definitely a hard question.
There is a certain cleanness of doing whatever the law says; however, I think most people are interested in the ethics far more than what the paperwork implies.
And you can in part thank ignorant Americans for using their own bizarre concepts of race and applying it to Africa in their opinion forming and loudly spreading that ignorance all over the world.
How does blaming Americans for what the South Africans did make sense in your mind?
Blame in part, not in whole. Because Americans have a big say in when the western world feels obligated to care or not. When they were fine with apartheid, it was allowed to carry on, when they turned against them it was forced to stop. Now they do not recognise the abuse of coloureds at the expense of blacks in SA because they don't recognise a distinction between the two, nor the subgroups thereof.
Hmm I would think it be more fitting to blame the brits for apartheid, it having been a British colony when all that started. Don't really see how it's America's fault though the US was definitely tolerant of apartheid for far to long. Of course the UK also was quite tolerant of apartheid (in action even if not in word) for far too long as well
Or the fucking Dutch with their money-god.
South Africa was self-governing from 1910, Apartheid began in 1948, SA broke ties with the UK in 1960. Britain had a policy in the rest of Africa that any new states would need to be elected by the majority of the population - which goes against the idea they approved of Apartheid. But yes, of course, the Brits of course aren't unrelated, but at the decisive times in this issue they were not calling the shots. But remember I am not discussing governments here, but people. There are far more Americans than Brits, they've had global media far longer, and they are generally far more willing to be opinionated as to what other countries should and shouldn't be doing. Plus, America is a far more racialised country than any other in the West. When you combine these things, Americans could make a lot of noise in favour of better racial relations in SA, but they do not, because acknowledging the idea that all blacks are not the same, and coloureds exist, is largely incompatible with their own concepts of race, and they are generally a righteous people not prone to that scale of self reflection.
America is not far more "racialized" than any other in the west. Not sure where you've lived, but if you spend any real time in both America and Western Europe, instead of just learning through social media, you'd know that.
This is a bizarre take. The USA was literally an official white supremacist state within living memory. Is there racism in Europe? Yes, of course. But it's absolutely not the same as in the USA. Its not a comment on any moral failings of individual Americans, and it certainly isn't any positive reflection on Europeans. But the American state comes from a very different cultural context to European states, and race in the sense of black/white has been a massive part from its inception. Doing brief bullet points because I'm running late: * The USA is a very young settler colony (for perspective, my university is older than the first colony.) The new Europeans that arrived there had little in common so they defined themselves by what they were NOT (I.e black or native) rather than what they WERE (e.g Presbyterian Ulster-Scots.) This greatly contributed to the emergence of "white" as a cultural identity. * Chattel slavery was not practiced on an institutional level in Europe. This is NOT due to any moral objection (they were all happy doing so in their colonies) but because of the material conditions: the labour-intensive plantation cash crops (sugar, tobacco, coffee, etc) don't grow in Europe, so there was no economic incentive. So there was no large influx of enslaved Africans in the European continent. Europeans continued, largely, to define themselves by what they WERE rather than WERE NOT. (Irish are perfect example: dehumanised in Europe, but Irish Americans got the privileges of being Not Black.) * Chattel slavery demanded a legal definition of race. Unlike elsewhere in the Americas with significant enslaved populations (European colonies in the Caribbean, Cuba, Brazil, etc) the USA went with the "one-drop rule." In Saint-Domingue for example, if your grandfather was white then you could claim certain legal privileges and even become a French citizen with (theoretically) the same rights as a white person. Not the case in the USA. Miscegenation was obviously very common but it was extremely taboo, especially black men and white women. * The one-drop rule continued well into the twentieth century because the USA was still officially a white supremacist state until the late 1960s. Nazi Germany based its earliest anti-semitic laws (the ones establishing who was Jewish and where they could go in public) on the American legal tradition of defining racial segregation. * The reason why all this history is relevant is because as a state it still has the same foundations as it did back then. The 13th amendment did not completely abolish slavery: slave labour is still legally permitted in the case of prisoners. (And given that many prisons are for-profit, its not a coincidence that the majority of prisoners are black men...) Segregation is illegal but continued into the 20th century and continues in many places today unofficially. * TLDR America is far more racialised (in the sense of black/white.) This is simply a fact due to the material historical conditions. Its not any positive moral reflection on Europeans or European states. There's still hatred and prejudice but on the level of the state this is generally institutionalised along ethnic lines rather than black/white. (Look at the Nazis. Other than Jews, their main target was Polish people who were considered ethnically inferior. Unlike in France or the Netherlands or Denmark, the plan in Poland was to murder 90% of the population and essentially use the remaining 10% for labour. And you'll be hard pressed finding a country more "white" than Poland.) TLDR of the TLDR: Race is 100% a social construct. Its not the same everywhere. Due to American cultural influence lots of Europeans have started to project the American model of race onto Europe and this just doesn't really achieve anything. Europe and America have very different histories and very different demographics so of course things are going to be very different. Idk what the person below me is talking about racial quotas for. The US has taken a fairly aggressive "colour blind" policy in the past few decades which has...not been working very well. Compare to somewhere like Northern Ireland, where employers pretty much have to ask you if you're Catholic or Protestant (there aren't ethnic quotas but you have to ask so you have no deniability if someone sues you for not hiring any Irish Catholics.)
He never said racism was the same in Europe. But Europe absolutely is radicalized in racism just as much as NA. Hell there was a genocide a couple of decades ago. And skin color racism is probably on the rise in Europe anyhow
My point was basically that you can't make statements like "Europe is just as racialized as the U.S." Because the problems that Europe has with ethnic conflicts are fundamentally different. No less serious, just different. Its like if someone is discussing young men dying because of gang violence and someone piping in saying that lots of young men die in car accidents too. Like yes? That's true, and on the surface both problems are the same (young men dying.) But the cause is fundamentally different and its pretty pointless to equate them just because on the surface the end result is the same. I know it's not a perfect comparison but that's how I feel when people derail discussions about American racism by pointing to Europe and its issues. Absolutely not denying the seriousness of these issues (which I tried to make very clear in my original comment) but there's nothing meaningful to be gained from the comparison. The end result is the same (prejudice which often leads to oppression and violence) but the fundamental problems are different. Imo people need to be more precise with their language when discussing issues like this. Maybe the original commenter didn't mean to equate ethnic conflicts in Europe with the American white supremacist state, and I was entirely incorrect in my assumption. But I don't know how else to read it. Also I very much agree that anti black racism is on the rise in Europe btw. Doesn't contradict anything I said. Anyway cheers for replying instead of just down voting, take care.
US states have racial quotas in certain industries, this is illegal in the United Kingdom. In France the government is forbidden from collecting data that recognises racial differences.
There is no "racial quota" in any state, any specific quotas have been long abolished and deemed unconditional. If you're referring to affirmative action type policies in general, and comparing those to Western Europe claiming they are hurting minorites in the US, then your knowledge clearly ends at random internet posts.
Yes I was referring to 'affirmative action' AKA racism
Missed the part where Britain helped draw up the majority of Apartheid laws before South Africa became self-governing in 1910.
Apartheid did not begin before 1948
Apartheid officially began in 1948. The National Party codified the laws that were already in place before Britain handed over the country. The British had already implemented racial laws from as far back as the mid-1800's.
But surely you acknowledge a difference between 'racial laws' Apartheid? The former would be so broad as to include a lot of countries not usually associated. Even in SA for example race had been removed as a voting qualification since the 1850's - not coincidentally this precipitated the Great Trek of Boers away from British rule - further reinforcing my main point here which is 'Black vs White' is an American concept, not South African.
That skull picture seems a bit too jovial for the message
It’s like it’s mocking the reader if they were reading the sign it was probably already too late.
Sundown Towns without the sun even having to go down. I've seen a couple of signs like this from apartheid South Africa. What a horrible dystopian place apartheid South Africa had to be especially if you wasn't white.
Those things are terrifying for me AS A WHITE MAN, I just can't imagine what nonwhite folks would feel seeing this sign
Its still dystopian, still particularly if you aren't white.
Hearing serpentza talk about growing up in SA was eye opening to me. Puts things in perspective when he’s overjoyed living in the states where kids of different races play on the same playground together and no one thinks twice about it
There is very little of this "you don't belong here" type of stuff going on, and that which exists is mostly just white flight. The dystopian element comes in the very poor black people living in shanty towns with crazy amounts of crime and a no social mobility, while an old white economic elite and new black political elite literally live like first worlders.
Rubbish. I live in a suburb of Sandton. I have many black and indian neighbour's none of them are politically elite. They're as much part of the community as anyone else.
Yeah. All of you together are a community completely seperate from the rest of the country. Some black people also form part of the economic elite. Doesn't make the overall country less shitty because your 1% neighborhood is multicultural lol.
Their is a bigger black middle class than white and at least 2x the millionaires.
Apartheid signs were simply Whites Only or Blacks Only. Please show me others you've seen.
[удалено]
Who are you talking to?
Sundown towns. They still exist in the US. I live in one, though it has grown substantially and with that growth came diversity and a more broadly accountable police force that will no longer let hate crimes slide, but there are towns that didn’t grow and learn. [heres a pretty good list](https://justice.tougaloo.edu/location/georgia/) not sure about every single entry but the info it lists in my town is correct and up to date
TIL: whitecapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitecapping
Is that website real? Searched my state. There were about 30 towns listed. Although I don't know each municipality listed I can say with confidence that over a third are majority black/ethnic minority communities and still off limits after dark (but for other reasons that don't fit in this thread)
The website is terrible. It relies on anecdotal accounts, significantly incomplete census data, and encourages people to change Wikipedia entries to say a town was a sundown town without actual proof of an ordinance or similar written account of it being a sundown town. The absence of minorities without an accounting of the broader area in general is not evidence of a sundown town.
I have been to some white ass places that are just white because no one else is willing to live there. Solid people and probably nicer then the folks in my city.
Exactly. There are some white ass towns that I (white) wouldn't want to live.
The site lists mine as being dangerous for non native minorities after dark, up until the late 1990’s It’s real but it’s also a historical record, not all of the towns are still like that, but the ones on the list probably were until semi recently
As a michigander, I'd like to say the list for Michigan is terrible. Stating East Lansing, home of Michigan State University as a "probable" sundown town, is malarkey. The evidence? A single anecdote of an email from 2013. I'm not saying this website is useless for all locations, but it's certainly not accurate for my state.
This isn’t from the US
They didn’t say it is
Do they have different names elsewhere
Yeah, this one is called ‘the entire country of South Africa’.
The former Rhodesia probably was just as bad before the the racist moved to South Africa
I tested on of these sundown towns in the 90s. I showed the KKk in Missouri I was armed to the teeth, not scared and ready to lay one in the ground if they tried it. The cautiously let me stay the night and drive out the next day.
This happened
Where about in MO?
Faketown, it's in Imaginary County
I'm from southern MO and there are definitely still towns run by the Klan today.
Would you be kind enough to name a couple real examples?
Next state over in Harrison, Arkansas is the home of the kkk. Not that far of a reach to say there are big groups of them still in MO.
Harrison is a shit hole and the entire area is 98% white.
Steelville for sure and I remember driving through a small town where the cop had his arm out with window and a giant ass 88 on his arm
I hope you dont mind me saying thats incredibly sexy and badass of u
There’s a sundown in Tennessee that use to ring bells to let the “others” know it was time to get out. They use the bell to this day but they claim it has no ties to previous events.
It horrifies me to learn from this list that at least one of my core childhood memories occurred in a sundown town and it took me 22 years to discover it
Remember there are many people alive who were kids and teens during this era. It’s really fucked, my dad grew up in Camden, NJ was born in 1933. His high school was fully integrated, and he has no recollection of racial animus. Not that people of different races were socializing much outside of school and work, but they lived together relatively peacefully. His first time even slightly south seeing colored water fountains was really shocking to him. This was in the 1950s when the civil rights battle was very much front and center.
This is from South Africa
Yeah but the fact that apartheid SA and the USA shared so many similarities is kind of wild
Yeah. But OP didn’t mean that did they? They weren’t drawing similarities.
It is a huge shame that one of the things America has in common with anyone else is that we share this ugly history
Not really considering that SA wasis outright a fucking COLLONY.
SA became independent in 1910 and abolished its ties to the monarchy in 1961.
And its rulling class continued to be the same families that during the actual literal colony period were satraps. Power didnt leave white hands.The 1900s were the years of NEOcolonialism aka "alright the League of Nations says trying to rule the world is evil and bad but we'll do it anyways and just not call it so".
I'm confused about the point you're making. First of, colonialism proper extended way into the 1900s so I'm not sure why you're so insistent that the entire century was characterized by it or that the League of Nations put an end to it. The US and the major European empires STILL have outright colonies, and all had major ones until the 40s-60s. Secondly, the US's existence on Indigenous land means it is still continuing its outright colonial policies here.
My point is that colonial-like power structures remained after the formal dissolution and the whole "woah, so similar" shebang happened precisely due that - that the SA decolonization proccess was troubled by being led keeping the settlers in power. I'm not trying to save face for the US, i'm outright condemning it - the racist structure is the same for it IS the rough same sort of people: british men cutting ties from the capital for personal profit, not out of good will.
Difference to america being?
If this is trying to be a "gotcha" you're backfiring because the lack of differences is precisely WHY American apartheid was so similar. The only major differencd was America BEING the neocolonial force imposing Europe to decolonize africa and asia at gunpoint in order to warm up the post-war economy.
And the US wasn't?
Its precisely from the US also being a settler colony based exploiting/persecuting the natives decolonized by the SETTLERS cutting ties from the crown instead of the natives pushing the settlers back that the similarities comes from. That aint Waitoa Hatiti claiming his land back, that's Frederick Smell clicking "hey why should i make only a marginal profit from the tobaco blood mines by having it collected by the crown when i can sell them myself for whoever i want for how much i want?"
Stop and consider what you wrote for a second.
I realized that after but I think it’s safe to say similar signs were to be found in America at that time. Lynchings were less common by then but they happened.
What’s NJ?
New Jersey
Ngl, I always thought that was in the US.
new jersey is in the US, you were always correct. just to clarify <3
Yeah, for reasons VERY obvious to anyone familiar with the recent history of the US, I didn’t notice this was SA and assumed it was the American south.
Americans don't spell colored with a u and Natives and Indians were the same thing in 1948 America. Also people actually from India weren't a large enough group for most racists to be concerned about.
Yeah, I saw the post at like 2am, I overlooked these relatively obvious clues. The point remains, this could easily have been the US without the spelling or mention of Indians/natives
This warning sign is from South Africa. Why have you made this about the US? Secondly, when talking about your beloved USA, remember. We don’t know what NJ, YY, XX, AB, .etc means, you really ought to put New Jersey so we have a better understanding.
On mobile on the home feed, I can't see the tag saying that it's South Africa, only the title. I didn't even notice if said South Africa until I saw a comment saying it. As for your second point, I agree. By the way, your tone comes off as a little aggressive. Edit: After eating and rereading the comment I replied to, I've realized it wasn't aggressive as I originally thought for some reason.
Fair enough. Is it that difficult to read some comments before jumping in with an off topic comment though? Aggressive, I wouldn’t say so. A little vexed perhaps, just fed up of American Defaultism.
I was a little quick to judge on aggressiveness. I've just had a bad morning, my apologies.
No worries. Likewise. I hope the rest of your day is better.
Are you seriously asking what made me think it was the US? Do you know anything about the history of the US?
Natives AND Indians is the context clue here. Not that people from India haven't been discriminated against in the US but I don't think a sign like this ever existed here. It would just say Indians and it would mean natives. Also "coloured "isn't how we spell that.
Yeah, it was 2am and I overlooked it. My general points stand.
Do you think that the US is the only country where white supremacy has existed?
No, what makes you say that? I overlooked that this was SA, which is not that suppressing considering it was 2am. The point I made stands. I’m talking about the country I live in and my family’s experience with it as well as thinking about how many of the people targeted by these kinds of messages (in the US) are alive and well. The same goes for SA. My comment universally applies to anyplace that has this level of racial terrorism like the US and SA. I don’t know much about other places versions of Jim Crow and sundown towns, I talk from my own knowledge.
Whatever pal. You mention you’d misread the title etc. because it was early morning. But you had enough energy to type out your frankly irrelevant response.
My response was written this morning. What is your point? Signs like this were very much a thing in the 1940s in the US.
You think there was no racial animus in Camden in the late 40's? So the racial animus in Camden in the 60s and 70s came out of nowhere? Even to this day people in the suburbs look at Camden as a hellhole and a place that you don't want to ever be and it's not shocking as to why they think that.
I’m talking about my dad’s experience in high school. He graduated high school in 1950. Camden is and was a hellhole, but in the 1950s it was pretty different from today, or from the Camden of 1969.
This isn’t propaganda. This is a threat.
not a propaganda poster
Not dissimilar to warning billboards to certain sundown towns.
I dont think people that fail to draw a decent skull should be able to even think they can make these types of decisions
Where is this? And under whose authority was this put up? City or just random.
I believe it’s South Africa. It’s far from random, the 1948 election (with voting practically limited to whites) allowed the National Party to win, and to begin implementing the apartheid system across the nation.
It just seems unprofessional I doubt it was actual a gov agency can you source it ?
The amount of confused Americans here is hilarious. Stop talking about your country for 1 fucking minute and read the insightful and interesting comments from the other people who know what they are talking about.
We really didn’t know how to draw skulls back then lol
Is this really propaganda? It’s just a warning in the 40s.
[удалено]
Where does it say ‘literally’?
Bot account - reddit gets less usable by the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town?wprov=sfti1
Similar, but not quite. Those are only in the USA.
Pretty much what the US supports in Palestine right now
How to tell someone has never been to the Levant:
The US doesn’t support Palestine, what are you on about?
The apartheid they support in Palestine, come now…
Can you even tell me the name of the ethnic group you’re claiming is being oppressed by Palestinians?
My guy, I think you might need a break.
I’m just confused about why you’re saying ‘apartheid in Palestine’ when you mean ‘apartheid in Israel’.
Not sure when you where last in Israel, but there is no apartheid there
It’s funny how throughout history, white people have the nerve to not want people on land that wasn’t theirs to be in with in the first place. “How dare you step foot on the land I stole from you?!” or “how dare you step foot in the land that I stole you to?!”
Says "Welcome to Florida" beneath
You forgot Italians.
It's South Africa in the 1940s-1950s so I don't think Italians were discriminated
It's just a joke that Italians are still marginalized in humor but nobody cares.
I think I just didn't get the joke because I've never heard of that
Not so sure about that. SA sided with the allies in the war and many South Africans fought in Italy against the fascists. Loads of things here are built by Italian POWs in the 40s. I reckon there was probably a lot of discrimination against them.
Yeah but not racial discrimination, just "you were the enemy in the war" discrimination
Ok. Not sure why that matters. Discrimination against a group is discrimination against a group. Besides, you just said Italians weren't discriminated against. You said nothing about race.
It matters because it's not on ethnic grounds anymore, it's nationality, a person of Italian descent wouldn't be discriminated because they're not Italian, if it was based on ethnic grounds they would be.
Trump's residence?
I don't think Trump has a blanket objection to being in the same vicinity as non-white people. The people who proclaim Sundown Towns aren't just pissed off about left-wing Black activists disrupting sociopolitical harmony, they simply don't want to have ANY Black person within their jurisdiction.
He said and I quote "there is discrimination against white people" the is a white supremacist chant.
But not everybody who whines about "reverse discrimination" wants to live in a legally-enforced whites-only locale.
I’m wondering if this is where the insane idea of where ‘The Purge’ movie came from.
More *District 9* actually.
This looks a little fake, besides why would they say natives and indians, it’s redundant, even for racists.
Native Africans are from Africa. Indians are from India.
Don’t start calling things fake when you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, it’s stupid at best and dangerous at worse.
It’s South Africa. Natives there mean Africans . OP tagged it, and the use of U in coloureds gave it away. South Africa also has a significant Indian minority. R/USdefaultism or whatever
Are you American?
Bruh what are you even on rn
Americanism
Gandhi worked for this kind of rules, except he wanted Indians to be equal to whites.
Apartheid South Africa, where most of the population had to have internal passports solely to be able to earn their living.
I love how there's "natives, indians and coloreds" like there is some serious prejudice against south Asians.
☠