Discrimination

The term Apartheid was introduced during the 1948 as part of the election campaign by DF Malan's Herenigde Nasionale Party(HNP - 'Reunited National Party'). But racial segregation had been in force for many decades in South Africa. In hindsight, there is something of an inevitability in the way the country developed its extreme policies. When the Union of South Africa was formed on 31 May 1910, Afrikaner Nationalists were given a relatively free hand to reorganize the country's franchise according to existing standards of the now-incorporated Boer republics, the Zuid Afrikaansche Repulick (ZAR - South African Republic or Transvaal) and Orange Free State. Non-Whites in the Cape Colony had some representation, but this would prove to be short-lived.

This however only says HOW Apartheid began. The true meaning was because the white South Africans found it difficult to teach their technology to the local Black population and had to enforce a system so that they didn't mix with them. At the time (1948) around the world Black people (even in America) were considered second class, but here it lastes until 1994 because the white population were a minority ironically. If Apartheid did end (which is did) they feared that the uneducated black population would rush into towns and cities and not know how to properly function in those types of daily conditions. For example they tried lighting fires in their newly bought apartments as a method to keep warm. Obviously this didn't work. This has actually happened.

Racism and Discrimination exist EVERYWHERE. It is only the degree that changes.

Some people suggest racism is based on hate; others suggest the desire for superiority.

Some groups feel inferior, and discriminate against those it feels are superior (i.e. if we do not discriminate, we have no chance to compete).

In Japan, foreign athletes are restricted in most professional sports. In college running, for example, Japanese people 1) cannot run long distances as fast as many Kenyans, so they limit or prohibit foreigners from participation. Also, 2) Japanese fans do not want to see non-Japanese win (they say it is boring), so sponsors will not pay as much as when only Japanese are running.

Racism is everywhere. Some countries have strict laws against it, some have no laws.

The ignorant and those of low intellectual ability are unable to suppress their animal instinct to be suspicious of anyone who is different.

If I go to an office job in my kilt, listen to bagpipe music on my CD player and heat my smelly haggis in the microwave at lunch, what will be the response?

One might say that everyone in the office should find that acceptable, but by acting in those ways I have demonstrated my desire to be perhaps a little TOO unique for a team environment.

I probably wouldn't be dismissed from my employment, but people wouldn't include me in the social groups, and my chances for advancement would be practically non-existent.

If I become something that people don't/can't understand, I alienate myself. I'm not a "Scottish-American", not if I want to be accepted. I'm an American, and I should want to assimilate into this culture and become a part of the group.

Yes, I should certainly maintain the pride in my heritage, and I probably won't be able to completely overcome the accent, but I should do what I can to become a part of the culture.

Try to find a copy of the speeches that were given at Ellis Island when it was opened as a visitors center back in the 90's. One of the speakers spent her entire time discussing how we should remove the "hyphen".

In some countries, such as Britain and Canada, an attempt is being made to institute multiculturalism. In this theory, you consciously decide to accept the Scotsman even though he wears a kilt, eats haggis and listens to bagpipe music. You can go further, and try haggis to see if it tastes good, listen to bagpipe music to see if you like it, and put your kids in Highland dance class. The Scotsman can enrich the lives of those around him.

There is of course a significant group in these countries who would prefer the American model, largely because immigrants themselves rarely buy into multiculturalism. They are having a difficult enough time adjusting to life in the new country without giving up the food, dress and sometimes language they are familiar with. So, to extend your example, you find groups of Scottish immigrants who hang around together and refuse to wear anything but kilts, eat anything but haggis, listen to anything but bagpipe music, and speak Gaelic whenever they can. People get annoyed by this: "I don't see why I should try haggis. You don't see any of them trying our food, do you?"

In 1950, the Group Areas Act was adopted, barring people from living, operating businesses or owning land anywhere else but in the areas designated for each race. These acts, along with two others adopted in 1954 and 1955, became known collectively as the Land Acts. As a consequence of the Land Acts, more than 80 percent of South Africa's land "belonged" to the white minority.

In order to enforce the segregation of the races and keep blacks in "their place", the existing so called "pass" laws were tightened and laws forbidding most social contacts between the races and authorized segregated public facilities were introduced. Further more the laws established separate educational standards, restricted each race to certain types of jobs, curtailed nonwhite labour unions, and denied nonwhite participation (through white representatives) in the national government.

The cruel regime of racism in South Africa was upheld by an elaborate system of banning, an efficient tool in suppressing all kinds of opposition coupled with lying, persecution, torture and killings. In effect, the Apartheid regime affected every aspect of social, political, cultural, intellectual and educational life; publications, organizations, assemblies and not least the South African extra-parliamentary liberation movement - the African National Congress - ANC, as well as the individual freedom of travel or speech.

The banning of organizations or of individuals was originally authorized by the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, with many subsequent amendments; these laws were superseded by the Internal Security Act of 1982, which retained nearly all their provisions. The definitions of communism and of the objects of communism were very broad and included any activity allegedly promoting disturbances or disorder; promoting industrial, social, political, or economic change in South Africa; and encouraging hostility between whites and nonwhites so as to promote change or revolution. The main organizations banned under these laws were the Communist Party of South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC), and the Pan-African Congress.

More than 2,000 people were banned in South Africa from 1950 to 1990, labelled a communist or terrorist, or otherwise a threat to security and public order. The banned person would in effect be a public nonentity; confined to his or her home; not allowed to meet with more than one person at a time (other than family), hold any offices in any organization, speaking publicly or writing for any publication. Also barred from certain areas, buildings, and institutions, such as law courts, schools, and newspaper offices. A banned person could not be quoted in any publication. In spite of the elaborate and powerful regime of suppression, resistance prevailed, and Black African groups, at times with the support of whites, arranged demonstrations, strikes or sabotage etc. The black African young students protest in Soweto in 1976 against the attempt to enforce Afrikaans language requirements, turned into a bloody riot by the police, became the symbol of a just struggle that shook the world into reaction against the brutal apartheid system. It even caused some white South African politicians to call for relaxed restrictions, some even called for racial equality. But the government did not give in. The ban on opposition groups and antiapartheid activists were only lifted in 1990.

But by 1978 the illusion of peace and prosperity for the white minority rulers with continued apartheid was shattered. Most of the homelands were economic and political disasters, and the protests continued to grow. In 1983, 1,000 black and white representatives of 575 community groups, trade unions, sporting bodies, and women's and youth organizations launched the United Democratic Front. This sparked off a vast escalation of strikes, boycotts, and attacks on black police and urban councillors, resulting in 1985 in a state of emergency declared in parts of the country. A year later the government declared a nationwide state of emergency and embarked on a savage campaign to eliminate all opposition. During 3 years police and soldiers terrorised townships, destroying black squatter camps and detaining, abusing, and killing thousands of Africans, while the army also continued its forays into neighbouring countries.

The government tried to conceal the atrocities by banning television, radio, and newspaper coverage, but international criticism and actions were growing. Economic sanctions such as those imposed by the United Kingdom and the United States in 1985, fuelled the pressure mounting both inside and outside South Africa. Already in 1961 South Africa had been forced to withdraw from the Commonwealth due to its racial policies. Increasingly isolated as the last bastion of white racial domination, South Africa now was the target of global denunciation. Attempting to pacify unrest and criticism, the government abolished the "pass" laws in 1986. But still it was illegal for a black African to live in designated white areas, and the police held broad emergency powers.

Only in 1990-91 came the real shift of policy, and thus the unravelling of the much hated system was speeded up. In 1990-91 most of the legal basis for apartheid was repealed, but racial segregation continued in practice. During 1991 Parliament repealed the basic apartheid laws, including the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, and the Land Acts; the state of emergency was lifted. Many exiles were allowed to return, and many political prisoners were freed, including the imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela later to become South Africa's truly democratically elected first president.

The basis for real change came with the new constitution that granted voting rights to all South Africans irrespective of race. In the all-race national elections in April 1994, ANC won 63 percent of the vote and produced a coalition government with a black majority. On May 10 Mandela was sworn in as president of the new South Africa. The new constitution contained a long list of political and social rights and a mechanism through which Africans could regain ownership of land that was taken away under apartheid. The deeply entrenched social and economic legacy of apartheid will for some time scar the multinational South Africa.

The religions of the Book have all traditionally viewed same-sex activity with a horror that defies description.

• Christianity
• Islam
• (Some interpretations of) Orthodox Judaism

Religious hatred also extends to the following religions:

• Jainism
• Hinduism
• Taoism
• Baha'i Faith

But some denominations of Christianity and MOST denominations of Judaism now accept gay people with full equality. Also one tiny denomination of Islam (called progressive Islam) is gay friendly.

(There aren't many documented cases of non-religious-based persecution of gay people.)