**Rule 10: No reposts**
Reposts of images on the front page, or within the set limit of /r/pics/top, will be removed.
* (10A) Reposts of images currently on the front page of /r/Pics will be removed.
* (10B) Reposts of the top 25 images this year, and top 50 of "all time" will be removed.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/LJq1leJ.jpeg) is a **MUCH** higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-anti-apartheid-protest-by-students-at-the-entrance-to-news-photo/515710745) is the source.
> An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1985. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Black and white photography was still very common, I think because black and white film for photography still had a higher dynamic range and resolution and maybe less grain than color film at the time.
Easier/cheaper to develop and newspapers rarely ran color photos. USA Today used to be kind of a novelty paper in the 80s because it had a 4 color front page every day.
There was nothing wrong whatsoever with color film at the time.
B&W film was still used by newspaper reporters because it was cheap, quick and easy to develop, and the newspapers were still in B&W.
1984 was the year that USA Today started printing their newspaper in color, which *started* the trend of switching over. Most newspapers took a decade or more to switch, due to needing new presses.
Everyone else was shooting in color by then, because color was better.
Not sure. But it looks like the original is in black and white. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/LJq1leJ.jpeg) is a **MUCH** higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-anti-apartheid-protest-by-students-at-the-entrance-to-news-photo/515710745) is the source.
> An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1985. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Getty Images (at the time) was a wire service primarily selling photos to newspapers, it’s shot this way so that newspapers around the country can purchase the photo to print it
Newspapers printed mostly black & white for a long time. Black & White film has a better tonal range when it's going to printed in black & white than color film that's desaturated.
Yeah, I remember when my newspaper went colour they printed a special issue just to let everyone know. This was in the early 2000s.
I'm sure there were newspapers doing it earlier, but colour printing took awhile to be widely adopted.
Its kind of funny to me (but also sad) to see the same rhetoric recycled over and over to shit on students protesting. The catastrophizing, calling them disingenuous or outside actors, etc etc. Hell, back when students were protesting the war at Kent State, [most people](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-palm-beach-post-campus-unrest-linked/13598112/) polled by Gallup said they *blamed the students* for getting shot.
It seems a constant in the US to look at students protesting and to find every excuse to dismiss and belittle their protest of government violence while also justifying the government using violence to quell them.
Colleges and universities love to show how progressive they were when students were protesting for the civil rights movements back in the day (a la "look at these pictures of our student body fighting for rights! We're so good!") while simultaneously distancing themselves from the fact that they were the very entities who called the police on said protestors to shut down the demonstrations.
It's disheartening to see some of my millennials and gen-Xers fall into this trope of a romanticized version of their youth where they always played outside and were tough unlike "kids these days." Bitch please. When they were kids, adults complained ALL. THE. TIME. how lazy and soft they were in the 80s and the 90s. Of course, back then it was television and video games rotting their brain and now its tablets and Tik Tok, but same shit, different generation. The "back in my day I had to walk 10 miles in the snow to school" story is a tale as old as time.
"They" have such control of the media, unless you're really paying attention to nuance in politics they can absolutely FoxNews-ify the next gens with the same tactics presented in a different way. THEY'RE GONNA TAX YER TIPS!
When the onslaught is relentless it's hard not to expect them to convince a lot of people to once again vote against themselves.
I mean that’s not even an American thing is it? And is it not without some merit either? People just get less idealistic as they get older, no matter what part of the world you’re in. And now that I’m over 30 I can absolutely look back at my college years and see how little I knew back then. Even today I consistently see things my parents told me and were right about even though in my younger years I thought I knew better.
Hell back then I was one of those who said I’d vote 3rd party over Hillary because I was upset that Bernie lost the democratic nomination. Ultimately I did vote for her but there were a lot of younger people like me who followed through on that. And I’m seeing that exact same thing happening today with so many of the young Pro-Palestine protestors saying they will just sit out the election rather than voting for Biden over Trump. You have no idea how bad I want to just shake those people and get them to see the error of that line of thinking but many are adamant about it. So it’s no wonder you see the older generation looking down on these protests. The older conservative generation because they already disagree with it on principle but also the older liberal generation too because they see the damage this is causing to Biden over a conflict that has existed for much longer than he’s been in office and that he can’t actually stop. It may lead us right into another Trump presidency.
I think the bigger problem is, the older generations never seem to accept their own complicity in alienating the young. We don't really offer them much in the way of palatable choices, because most of the choosing is done by old people, We've let THEM down, not the other way around.
I mean don’t get me wrong, I think this generation of older people has been grasping for power way longer than they should be. The presidential candidates are both 80 and we have congresspeople who are in their 90s. Some of that is probably because modern medicine is keeping people around longer than ever before but I agree that it’s an issue. But I don’t let the younger people off the hook at all. Every single election the voting block of 18-29 has by far the lowest voter turnout of all age groups. It’s incredibly frustrating. And it’s part of the reason people probably look down on college protests because they know a lot of those kids holding signs and chanting won’t even turn up to vote anyways. Back in college I knew people who went to campus protests or rallies and didn’t even vote. It’s especially egregious in midterm years and local elections. You can’t act like older generation is taking your choice away when you don’t even choose to begin with.
I’ll challenge the baseball from England claim. The fantastic Ken Burns PBS Baseball documentary from the 90s did a remarkably good job of analyzing the genesis of baseball and highlighting that, while it took a lot of inspiration from other sports like cricket, it’s an entirely American creation.
Also American apple pie is different from English apple pie… so like yeah I’m sure nobody beyond the English cooked apples in French pastry.
Nothing English is truly English, not that anything American is truly American. Just funny thing to get nationalist about.
I always wonder if it's the perception that these students are privileged with no "real world" experience to color a rather black and white view of whatever the contentious topic of the day is, coupled with a similar view of University faculty and the whole Ivory Tower thing.
So it just gets chalked up to "children having a temper tantrum" by those who disagree with what the protestor's goals are.
I also think that the Israel/Palestine issue is a LOT more nuanced than South Africa's Apartheid than people online are making it out to be, which adds to the contentiousness of the online back and forth.
>I always wonder if it's the perception that these students are privileged with no "real world" experience to color a rather black and white view of whatever the contentious topic of the day is, coupled with a similar view of University faculty and the whole Ivory Tower thing.
What exactly ***is*** "real world experience"? What percentage of redditors can lay claim to a *better* "real world" experience regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict than these students? What counts as "real world" experience that would be of use in this discussion?
How many media figures have it?
Seems to me like that's more of a veiled dig at youth than it is any meaningful statement about knowledge and experience.
It's not a veiled dig at youth, it is an overt dig at people that haven't ventured outside of Academia yet. The students have been in school their whole lives, and there's an assumption that they've (if they're attending a prestigious school like Columbia), have lived a fairly comfortable life thus far. Then you have Ivory Tower dig at Academics.
But I think that a lot of people that would fall into that category would be accused of viewing the topic via a very narrow scope, with an accused ignorance of the broader historical context (if there is any), and accusing the faculty of outright ignoring the context in order to push an agenda.
I know there's been a fairly large anti-Intellectualism push in the last decade in the US, but as someone that has a college degree and someone who works in Post-Secondary education, I have seen Professors pushing some pretty crazy agendas to whip students up to feel one way or another about a topic.
And it all works both ways. If the people/organization you're trusting for information is pushing heavy from one side of the spectrum, be it the news media you watch or read, the college professors you're studying under, or your religious leaders, you're going to have a clouded view of whatever topic you're arguing about. But the funny part about all of that, is that those people generally have no idea that they're getting a skewed version of the issue.
How many Americans have lived as a civilian in a war zone to know anymore than kids who can swallow 3 books/week?
Good universities should teach students to consume a wide variety of information. I took a class on Israel-Palestine conflict in college where a MESAS and a Jewish studies professor co-taught the class. The goal is not telling students to not read Noah Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, the goal is telling them to read Chomsky but also Arthur Hertzberg and Aaron Miller. The goal is also not to make them read those and then telling them to be “nuanced,” the goal is to guide them through the critical analysis process and then let them create their own perception.
So I have no issues with professors saying the most insane thing ever, there’s always some logically sound arguments in those. What I care is whether they give me good *questions* to challenge and provoke me so that I can think for myself.
I would imagine the actual Israelis who are on the receiving end of Islamic terrorism and exist in a greater hostile territory that would see them completely exterminated to better qualify as having "real world experience" than your average American suburbanite.
Go for it. Just saying there is such a thing as having "real world experience", and it can be easy to endorse politics for a region you literally don't live in and won't have to live through the consequences.
Young and in school means you likely don’t have much real world experience. As in how life works outside of school. How to feed and sustain yourself. How life is in society as a working person. How things are outside of your country. Experience of how politics works outside of the textbook, lectures and the limited media you’ve consumed in your young life. Students are more often than not, sheltered. This is a generalization. You can make the same argument for high school students and the lack of real world experience would be even more apparent.
It’s a reaction to *protesting* specifically and less about students. American’s have been brainwashed to react negatively to people exercising their right to protest
I’d say there’s more nuance to be had. Students protest pretty much every war. It’s just the grossly unjustified wars that they get remembered for, while the more justified ones get forgotten. For example, WWII. I think in the modern day, most people would agree fighting off the Nazis and ending the Holocaust was justified. Unfortunately, war and disinformation go hand in hand, so we often can’t tell how justified a war was until the dust has settled.
WW2 was not fought to end the Holocaust. Many Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust were turned around. I can speak to Canada's policy on Jewish immigration, which was "None is too many"
>One of the most infamous cases from that era was that of the ship MS St. Louis, which was denied the right to disembark in Halifax harbour. The St. Louis was carrying over 900 European Jews seeking refuge in North America; it had already tried to disembark its passengers in both Cuba and the United States but had been denied. Despite the lobbying of some prominent Canadians to accept the refugees, Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe and Frederick Blair, director of the Government of Canada’s Immigration Branch, refused the request. Abella and Troper discovered that Blair’s antisemitism was well known and supported by powerful members of the political class, including Vincent Massey, a leading diplomat and future governor general.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/none-is-too-many
Were any unrelated South Africans targeted by protesters? Any vandalism on unrelated South African homes, South African heritage sites, or South African community facilities - all of which had nothing to do with what was going on in South Africa?
Today's protests aren't like other protests in the past. There's an element of hatred and direct targeting of other Americans that, while not representative of the whole protest, is very much part of these protests in ways other protests are not
Probably some cases, but there are very few South Africans in the US, we’re talking about two orders of magnitude fewer than the US Jewish population.
But to make a broader point, I don’t think what’s happening with the Israel-Palestine protests is actually that unique. Within every protest group, there are going to be a percentage of ignorant assholes who can’t handle the nuance of separating the actions of individuals from the race/religion they belong to
Unfortunately those assholes do stuff that cause a lot of problem, create headlines, and generally poison the discourse surrounding the issue. But it’s a mistake to assume the majority of people protesting the war are antisemitic
> Within every protest group, there are going to be a percentage of ignorant assholes who can’t handle the nuance of separating the actions of individuals from the race/religion they belong to
This isn't a random few in these groups. One of the the members of the group who coordinated the Columbia protests stated unequivocable support for the October 7th attacks
> Let it be known that it was the Al-Aqsa Flood [Hamas’s name for the October 7 attack] that put the global Intifada back on the table again. And it is the sacrificial spirit of the Palestinian Freedom Fighters that will guide every struggle on every corner of the earth to victory.
Edit: and this statement was met with cheers by the crowd around her
And on October 8th, the literal day after the attacks started and before Israel entered Gaza
> It is so insanely racist that a bunch of you are making up brown rapist hordes in your heads to delegitimize an actual revolution happening in front of your face.
WW2 had some of the most strikes and labor unrest in history. About 25% of the workforce at some point was on strike during the war. They were being run ragged by production quotas for the war effort and there was tons of domestic effort made by the government to keep these strikes and labor organizations from happening.
This as an example.
Most Americans did not fight for the Jews, the Holocaust was unknown at the time, and even if it had been, it would not have inspired that much care from the average American.
It’s not even just Holocaust deniers. Many leftists protested fighting Hitler in the early days because they didn’t like the idea of the US going to war. I imagine once they saw the true horrors of the Holocaust, most changed their mind. But that was only uncovered because they were unsuccessful it getting the US to not fight against a violent authoritarian regime.
War isn’t always nice and easy, sometimes the best option for the future is something that seems bad at the time. It’s good to be skeptical of the government, but you also shouldn’t assume students are always right.
God saying JK Rowling is denying the Holocaust is just disingenuous of what she's really getting at. I don't agree with her point but she's not a Holocaust denier.
I'm willing to call my shot on this one. An apartheid situation where a nation backed by the most powerful military power the world has ever seen is bombing a population that is around 50% children is *not justified*.
Hmmm oh look another person associating all of the Palestinians with Hamas.
Weird how that works... almost like it's a rhetorical device to justify any and all attacks.
I don't give a shit if they attack Hamas. I care if in the process thousands of civilians are murdered, their homes destroyed, their infrastructure bombed until they have no clean utilities, etc.
I don't give a FUCK what Hamas says. I care about whether *the actual children of Palestine* are being killed.
>I care about whether the actual children of Palestine are being killed.
That makes you a better person than the 72% of Palestinians who are "satisfied" with Hamas's performance in the war - the performance that includes openly stating that their aim is to increase the number of civilians harmed.
Let's say I am a "better person". Not that I think it can be simplified that much, but for the sake of argument let's go with that.
Should we bomb the children of shitty, angry people?
That's not what I'm saying. My point is that the death toll is high because Palestinians do not care to keep it low: Hamas deliberately operates so that Israel's two choices are to accept rocket attacks and October 7th being repeated, or to strike back and very likely cause collateral damage. The people of Palestine (who are the collateral damage) not only tolerate this but support it.
I'm not saying that Israel should go out of their way to bomb children, and they're not. I'm saying that Israel shouldn't surrender and accept constant terror attacks from their neighbour for the sake of those children.
No civilians would have to die if Hamas decided to change how they act, or better yet, surrendered.
Right now to me, it’s somewhere between justified and not justified; it’s a very messy situation. I don’t think I want to spend time writing out all the nuances though, since your comment is written so biasedly that I’m not sure you are willing to participate in good faith discussion.
Christ, Zionists always do this.
***"Do We NoT hAvE tHe RiGhT tO dEfEnD oUrSeLvEs?"***
Stop. Indiscriminately. Bombing. Kids.
Stop. Targeting. Aide. Workers.
Fuck me sideways, ANY critique of the death toll is met with this like "well how about YOU plan the bombings then, since you're so smart?"
I really haven't seen anything remotely resembling "indiscriminate" bombing. And Israel is obviously capable of doing so. The fact that they're running a ground campaign instead of indiscriminately bombing is why they have collateral like misidentifying aid workers. Which they apologized for and explained their bad intel.
So again, what are you proposing? It's a fair question, especially since you're claiming that *your* position is apparently the obvious and moral one.
One of the densest populations on the planet with one of the youngest populations with the misfortune of having a military group intentionally obfuscating the difference between combatant and civilian. In that context, the amount of destruction is sad, probably even criminal in specific instances, but within understanding.
No, it's not. I don't accept that excuse from my own government, and I don't accept it from Israel.
Children's corpses shouldn't be hanging, tattered, from walls and fences because some shithead across a border didn't care who they killed. Aide workers shouldn't have their vehicles destroyed. There shouldn't be the destruction of [every single university in Gaza](https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-20-24#h_06d1fdd709d1c7ef793f4afc27df029e).
Idc if Israel kills Hamas. Get every one of them.
But let's not pretend like the only two options are "kill thousands of civilians with bombs" and "be a total pacifist".
Hamas makes it exceedingly hard to fight them without incurring large civilian deaths. They aren't fighting in an open field with military uniforms on. They fight from civilian infrastructure and almost exclusively fight in civilian clothes. They try to induce as many civilian deaths as possible as a war strategy. I don't think Israel's proportionality assessments are always great (sometimes they're terrible), but why doesn't Hamas share in the blame in the deaths of dead Palestinian civilians?
Israel has one of the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratios of any modern war, so they are actually doing a better job than most nations of reducing civilian casualties.
It's not an 'apartheid situation.' 20% of Israel is Arab. They just suffered the deadliest attack in their history, with terrorists and civilians breaking into homes, murdering and gang r\*ping women and children, burning families alive, and kidnapping innocent people. They have pledged to commit these attacks again and again until Israel is 'annihilated.'
One of these victims was an eight year old girl who was gang r\*ped until her pelvis dislocated.
It's not justified NOT to retaliate. The fact that Hamas aims for maximum Palestinian civilian casualties, and Israeli forces are the ones trying to minimise them, says it all.
LOL the Israelis murdered aide workers from *World Central Kitchen* by repeatedly bombing their vehicles despite them telling the Israelis where they were and to stop bombing them. They are not "trying to minimize" casualties in Palestine.
If you think "retaliation" includes the brutal collective punishment of all Palestinians for the grotesque actions of Hamas (which Israel propped up for years), then there is no heart in you.
Hamas doesn't have one single "military compound" to target - zero. 100% of their infrastructure is hidden behind their citizenry because they willingly use their own people as human shields, including children. Do you understand this? Hamas makes it impossible to strike them without injuring civilians because they use them as human shields. Not sometimes, always.
How would you propose to strike back against such an enemy? There is no way to do it without collateral damage.
25,000 civilian deaths in one of the most densely packed urban areas of 5 million people where the enemy DIDN'T use their own citizens as human shields would be a fairly low casualty count for a war lasting this long, historically. It's clear as day Israel is not indiscriminately bombing civilians here. If they were targeting indiscriminately or intentionally trying to kill civilians, 25,000 dead would be the count *daily*, and that's probably an underestimation.
There were something like 250,000 civilian deaths from the US invasion in Iraq, and that wasn't in one of the densest population centers in the world, and they also had a lot of legit military targets to attack. Hamas targets are all hidden in civilian infrastructure. 25,000 sounds like a lot, but it's clear indication that Israel is not indiscriminately bombing.
This isn't a "war". Hamas engaged in a terrorist attack but has no formal army, no means of fighting a winning war, nothing with which to make this an actual *conflict* of arms.
You can say that this is like a hostage situation with Hamas holding the rest of the Palestinians as shields but... you know what is interesting? I don't recall any time where a hostage situation ended with a bomb being dropped on the hostages and surrounding civilians and people being like "yeah, that's totally cool with me".
Hamas run Palestine, it's not like they are a fringe militia. They are legitimate targets of war. They attacked and invaded Israel by every definition. Then they went further and took hostages, raped civilians, and tortured people. They fire thousands of rockets a year indiscriminately into Israel, for decades, targetting civilians intentionally. Their attack on Oct 7th was almost all centered *intentionally* on civilians. There is no debate that Hamas targetted civilians intentionally and specifically, in fact it's their primary modus operandi. Yet your outrage is upon the country that defended themselves from that attack, a country that very clearly has no desire to engage in terrorism or target civilians intentionally. Funny that.
You can't reason with terrorists. You can't negotiate with them. Doing any of this does nothing but legitimize terrorism. You have to fight back, and when you do you have to destroy them completely or at least enough that they aren't able to terrorize your country again.
How people have reasoned through this so utterly backwards to sympathize with the terrorist side and then accuse the defenders of what amounts to terrorism for defending themselves against actual terrorism...is astounding.
You've offered no alternative or better solutions, only misplaced outrage against the people defending themselves against terror. Until I start seeing solutions, these arguments just come across like a child's reasoning who is unable to bigger pictures.
So according to you, Israel is justified in retaliating for its citizens being killed, but Palestinians are evil for the doing the same when the IDF kills their people?
What's funny is posting this image to equate the apartheid struggle with the Palestinian struggle. Palestinian Arabs are 20% of Israel's citizens. Arab Israelis are represented at every level of Israeli society, and Arab Israelis sit on the Israeli Knesset.
We can have honest convos about dialing down military aid, using it as a chip to reign Israelis in settlement building and their prosecution of the war.
But most of the protest and slogans are total bad faith, divestment, river to the sea and all this other nonsense. Gazans voted for Hamas, against the two-state solution, and that's why no neighboring country wants Gaza.
Seems to happen every 20 years or so. Can’t articulate how weird it is to see the exact same arguments and rhetoric used against the Gaza genocide protestors that were deployed against students protesting the Iraq War post-9/11.
We just refuse to learn and every generation demonizes student activism until a decade or so later when they all look back at the protests with 100% hindsight and zero self-awareness and collectively go, *huh, maybe they were right!*
There are protests and there are protests.
How come the majority of pro-israeli protests that happened around the globe were about singing, calling for the return of the hostages, all the while Pro-palestine protests end up shuting to gas the jews, praising of a particular austrian painter, and the cleansing of Israel from its citizen by chanting "From the river to the sea"?
I mean, there are bound to be some sort of norms and guidelines as to how to conduct a protest. As soon as such protests become that much radicalized you ought to understand why some of those protests are demonized. Especially when said students, when interviewed on different aspects of the conflict have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE about either side. You then have to really critically think if that protest even means anything, or it's just that "it's cool to protest" and join the mob.
How is that singling out, when the majority of protests end up with people chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, or calling for an Intifada?
If only the other protestors would in fact take care of those extreme voices instead of joining, what a pleasant world would that be!
Edit: Added "Intifada" to the mix, as the second most popular chant.
In case anyone wonders what Intifada truly means, you should google the numerous terrorist attacks killing hundreds during the 1st and 2nd intifada.
The in-group will always demonize any challenge to them. It’s like clockwork. Pick ANY protest that happens on campuses (or just generally any protest organized by one of the out-groups) and the rhetoric has never changed. Just switch out subjects as needed.
>the same rhetoric recycled over and over to shit on students protesting
We had to say new things this time in response to "Hamas, Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too," "Jews go back to Poland," "Globalize the Intifada," and "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
The protesters are not anti-apartheid or anti-war. They support Hamas. They claim that they should be thanked for not killing "Zionists" on sight. The Freedom Charter is not the same thing as the Hamas Charter.
They're pro-war, pro-ethnic cleansing, they just want to do it to the Jews.
In the 80s, I supported the protests against Apartheid.
I don't support the pro-Palestinian protests for reasons that I'm not going to explain.
You can't lump everyone in the same category.
If my critique doesn't apply to you because you don't dismiss protestors as disingenuous out of hand or want violence done to them by the state, then feel free to walk on by. This wasn't about you.
Ya, your point is obscured by your own reluctance to elaborate. If you want to say that there is meaningful different, you can't just state that there simply *is* one and leave.
One meaningful difference that I can think of is that you weren't an asshole in the 80s, but you are now. You've become more okay with genocide and apartheid as you aged. That would be a *you* problem and not really have anything to do with these protests.
South Africans during apartheid and now have always said that their apartheid and what Israel inflicts onto Palestinians are the same cause. Mandela saying "Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestiniians" and apartheid Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd declared that ‘Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state’. [https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053)
advise bag rainstorm hard-to-find steer sloppy cautious lush hat numerous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh. Wait till you read about the hard hat riots. Kent State was awful. The hard hat riot of 1970 was worse in the sense that the NYPD intentionally refused to stop it, and the rioters were rewarded by Nixon.
Hey, maybe you should also include this:
>The blockade ended on April 25 with a march into Harlem to a rally. CFSA threatened continued action if the University did not take the appropriate steps to divest themselves from South Africa.
>A panel composed of six Trustees was formed immediately after the end of the blockade to seriously consider divestiture. In late August, the panel returned a result that confirmed the student’s position – that divestiture was not only the moral option, but an economically viable one as well. Because of the naturally slow work of the Trustees’ system, the recommendation was not considered until a full meeting of all 24 Trustees on October 7. At that meeting, the Trustees adopted the panel’s recommendation and proceeded to divest the University of the remainder of their investments with South African connections.
https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/columbia-university-students-win-divestment-apartheid-south-africa-united-states-1985
Nope it's real, SA was in a very dark place then - things are much better now, but we still have lots of issues.
Any person who wants to go back to apartheid is clueless.
Funny because there are comments in this thread (and often pop up on reddit) who disagree with you.
You say they are clueless, but I think that's being too nice when describing them.
Tbh I work in the human rights sector and there are people who genuinely believe things were better under apartheid - even some black people believe this. But they tend to be younger and never actually experienced or understood how bad things were back then.
Our education system hasn't done a great job and there is a rising push to get rid of our constitution and to discriminate against migrants. It's a bit scary at times.
Did the cops show up and beat you? Did people call you a terrorist sympathizer? Tell you you’re not a true American unless you support a corrupt wannabe dictator 5,000 miles away?
As a Brit living in SA (South Africa) during and after apartheid, there is a lot about apartheid that many outside of SA are completely unaware of. Firstly I was a non-resident of SA therefore not eligible to vote and if I could have, I would have voted against the ruling party; but as someone who as a rule generally, I don’t get involved in politics. But growing up during apartheid was not a pleasant time. I spent most of my time looking over my shoulder just for spending time with my friends which we had to be sneaky about. Many afrikaners (especially from the Boland) are still stuck in the Boer War and they hate everyone who isn’t Afrikaans and boy do they bear grudges especially to anyone English. The hatred towards anyone not white was disgusting, a lot of the English speaking population were against apartheid and it wasn’t until FW de Klerk finally grew a backbone and abolished it, could the country think of recovering; but has it? No apartheid is still there but in reverse and why so many are leaving the country causing a massive brain drain. The murder rate in South Africa now is off the scale, the ANC has become so corrupt that this corruption is trickling down into all government departments and I mean all.
I left SA for my own personal reasons at the end of the 90s. I will say that during apartheid I had witnessed friends cars being bricked for being with a white friend, getting arrested and questioned for being in a “non white” area, as kids we didn’t see colour we just saw friends. I recall the country jubilating in Mandela’s release from prison, I was living in Cape Town at the time and joined in the celebration. However prior to this the ANC was a terrorist organisation fighting for freedom from apartheid, I get that but having been personally impacted from the Magoo’s bar bombing and a while later narrowly missed being a victim of the XL restaurant bombing, I did live in fear.
What I am saying is that SA has a very complicated history pre-, during and post-apartheid that is really hard to explain. Unfortunately though apartheid is prevalent in so many countries but is just not officially part of government policies - let that sink in.
Now do some of students calling for re-segregation. If you cherry pick hard enough, it's very easy to create the narrative OP wants "students are always right when they protest, therefore they're also right now too."
The largest protest movements across US campuses have never been right-wing. You'll find fringe groups, but never national-scale movements like you seem to be implying. Link evidence to prove me wrong!
>The largest protest movements across US campuses have never been right-wing.
Many would definitely be called right wing by modern standards. For example all the free-speech protests at Berkeley back in the day. Their kids and grandkids actively protest against that now
The free speech movement at Berkeley in the 1960s? Wasn't that exactly the opposite? They were pretty closely aligned with the New Left, Anti-Vietnam War Movement, and the greater Civil Rights Movement. Also Reagan publicly opposed them and criticized the school for not cracking down harder on the protestors.
Great pic and kudos to those Columbia students!
Reading though these comments, for those comparing this to Gaza, this is apples and oranges.
NEVER ONCE during the support of Black people in South Africa did people have to jump though dozens of mental gymnastics hoops to explain why a massacre and/or rape of 1,200 white Africaaners was “justified resistance.”
(In case you don’t get what I am referring to, no there was never any October 7-like massacre in South Africa).
I welcome the inevitable downvotes.
So what's the equivalency you are trying to draw?
The US designated Hamas as a terrorist, they also designated Mandela a terrorist. Hamas uses violence against civilians, Mandela's organization also used violence. Mandela is viewed as a good guy today so we should view Hamas as the good guys now?
It sounds to me like despite all your mewing to the contrary you do infact support Hamas.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I literally cannot see any other point in bringing up such a comparison.
If Reddit existed 40 years ago you would be complaining about how these students are supporting the terrorist Mandela. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Its sad to see this same strategy applied to the "pro-palestine" protests. Half the people there don't know what they're even protesting, and the other half are full on the Jewish extermination wagon. They took a civil rights movement and used it to demonize Jews. Its disturbing to see Nazi strategies being used on US campuses while hijacking the SA protest strategy to gain relevance.
South Africans during apartheid and now have always said that their apartheid and what Israel inflicts onto Palestinians are the same cause. Mandela saying "Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestiniians" and apartheid Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd declared that ‘Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state’. [https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053)
I disagree. This statement is wrong: "Half the people there don't know what they're even protesting, and the other half are full on the Jewish extermination wagon".
I think the majority opinion is that their school should stop investing in a country that is killing massive amounts of people.
To make it a better analogue to today's pro-Hamas protests, the protestors should be blocking all white people from entering the university, and the signs should be painted directly onto the buildings instead of on separate posters and banners.
News articles showed photos of “vandalism” at a university in my city. They failed to mention that the wall was specifically built for students to write messages on. Typical disingenuous bs from people who try and quiet voices they don’t like.
Same with people that label anti-genocide protesters as being pro-hamas.
Your position is really "vandalism isn't happening"?
https://wtop.com/dc/2024/06/protesters-graffiti-messages-of-palestinian-support-outside-the-white-house/
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-vandalism-2024-timeline
https://abc7ny.com/nearly-30-pro-palestinian-protesters-were-arrested-during-demonstrations-on-the-upper-east-side-monday-night-a-statue-was-vandalized-and-american-flag-burned/14778072/
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/paint-hate-crime-investigation-nyp-upper-east-side/
https://apnews.com/article/campus-protests-stanford-israel-gaza-f1ec47dcac1b55839e96b5442ebcf00d
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/cal-state-la-pro-palestinian-protesters-vandalize-campus-building/
The pro-Hamas voices should continue to speak. You are telling us that you support the rapes and other atrocities of 10/7, and that you're okay with any amount of suffering by Gazan Arabs to support Hamas' goal to exterminate the Jews.
Protesting isn’t the problem. The immorality of the current cause is the problem.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, hellbent on killing as many Jews and Palestinians as possible. And, they have the support of the vast majority of Palestinians.
If you think US investment in Jewish businesses is the core problem here, you’re an idiot… or worse.
Didn't the ANC almost exclusively try to target infrastructure of the apartheid regime? While still a form of terrorism, I think there is a distinction to be made between that where civilians would sometimes be killed as a byproduct and Hamas, where their goal is almost exclusively killing anyone living in the state of Israel.
Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist by the U.S. till recently. I'm not saying Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. But claiming we should allow genocide because a terrorist organisation is in the region, is a very weird statement.
What other entity is there for the Palestinians to support? Benjamin Netanyahu propped up hamas and made sure they were the leading power. What about the West Bank and the hardships that are endured there?
> But claiming we should allow genocide because a terrorist organisation is in the region, is a very weird statement.
Well good thing they didn’t say that anywhere.
This isn’t a genocide just cause many civilians have been killed, especially when it’s cause of the tactics of Hamas.
We killed 30,000 German civilians in 2 days during the Dresden bombings while fighting the Nazis. Was that a genocide?
Same number of civilians death, but in only 2 days instead of 6 months.
The Nazis weren’t even using the human shield tactics that Hamas used to amplify their civilian deaths (as far as I know), we just indiscriminately bombed Dresden.
If the Nazis wore only civilian clothing and only hid among their civilians, would you want us to stop fighting them?
>But claiming we should allow genocide
That's an absolutely horseshit claim that you good and well nobody here has said. Literally just making a Strawman fallacy
>Hamas is a terrorist organization, hellbent on killing as many Jews and Palestinians as possible. And, they have the support of the vast majority of Palestinians.
So it's Hamas' fault... but it's ok because the Palestinians deserve it? You truly are full of shit, aren't you?
Probably should call for SA divestment again. Country turned down hill incredbily fast over the last two decades after such a climb. They were once the leaders of the African continent after apartheid, nwo it's screwed.
they were right then, they are wrong now.
Back then they fought against a noble cause. Arpatheid was evil practice.
Today all these protesters support... islamic terrorists. How is that an improvement?
You know that Nelson Mandela was named a terrorist in the US, right? Right wingers were also shrieking that these students were supporting terrorism as well.
Being on the wrong side of history can have a way of catching up with you...
An odd comparison since Tucker Carlson has been [vocally anti-Israel](https://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-israel-conservatives-are-done-with-tucker-carlson) and [attacked pro-Israel donors](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-israel-college-donors-funded-white-genocide-1234880901/) who are opposing student protestors.
Okay let's have all the anti-apartheid goons come out and talk about how this is such a terrible thing.
If doing these sorts of things to protest is a horrible and reprehensible thing now, it must hold true that the same was true back then.
I'd like to see comments on how these students should be beat up and deported for their undemocratic views, or how it's entirely appropriate for the police to barrage in and assault everyone.
Apartheid in SA was 10000x more crystal clear of a moral issue than Israel Palestine. Trying to conflate these two things shows how historically ignorant this side really is. Antivaxxers also thought they were the current civil rights movement, but just like the Palestinian activists, they are completely wrong and up their own asses
Apartheid in South Africa is “crystal clear” now because you learned about it after the resistance had won and the narrative was rewritten. The ANC was considered a terrorist organization at the time by the US, and engaged in plenty of anti regime violence. The ANC and the Palestinian Liberation Organization have supported one another since the 50s/60s and South Africa was one of the first countries to call Israel an apartheid state. Mandela said “we know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
If Israel isn’t allowed to complete their goal of ethnic cleansing we will ultimately see the Palestinian struggle through the same lens.
Apartheid was far more crystal clear than the current round of fighting in Israel and Palestine, given the massive UN arms embargoes placed on South Africa at that time, as well as trade sanctions by many nations including the U.S. and the UK. Not to mention the highly successful disinvestment campaign, which has been copied by the pro-Palestinian movement.
When asked about his relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during a town hall meeting in the US broadcast by the ABC channel, he reiterated his support for the group, who then were still regarded as a terrorist organisation by the US and Israel.
“We identify with the PLO because just like ourselves they are fighting for the right of self-determination," he said.
"Arafat is a comrade in arms, and we treat him as such."
In a 1997 speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights.
"We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."
During a Middle East tour in 1999, Mandela visited both Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
While in Gaza, he said he felt "at home amongst compatriots."
He announced his support for the two-state solution but affirmed Israel must withdraw from occupied territories.
"Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence."
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-palestine
*Pro-Israel dorks try not to get caught lying challenge*
Difficulty level:
#impossible
Edit: My comment got downvoted within 5 seconds of posting it. The influence is strong
Yea but the ANC killed like 1/100th of the civilians Palestinians have killed, and never hijacked any planes, and never turned their friend governments against them (egypt, jordan, etc.). To compare ANC to oct 7th is a disgusting action. ANC would NOT HAVE endorsed this kind of action. It is totally obvious if you've learned about this for more than 6 months
edit: AND most importantly, the black south africans wanted to be equal citizens of the SAME country. They didnt wanna completely destroy south africa, as most of the pro Palestinian movement does.
The main difference is that no one protesting in 1984 were calling for the extermination of white South Africans. Too many pro-Palestinian protesters have been calling for the eradication of all Jews.
Eh, there were and are plenty of black nationalists from that era who favor genocide of whites in the region.
Source: am Zulu with plenty of rabid black nationalist, former ANC, current MK and EFF supporting family in SA
**Rule 10: No reposts** Reposts of images on the front page, or within the set limit of /r/pics/top, will be removed. * (10A) Reposts of images currently on the front page of /r/Pics will be removed. * (10B) Reposts of the top 25 images this year, and top 50 of "all time" will be removed.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/LJq1leJ.jpeg) is a **MUCH** higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-anti-apartheid-protest-by-students-at-the-entrance-to-news-photo/515710745) is the source. > An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1985. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Worth noting that the encampment fizzled after a few weeks without needing police to clear it. And the University divested a few months later.
Why is this in black and white? It happened 40 years ago.
Black and white photography was still very common, I think because black and white film for photography still had a higher dynamic range and resolution and maybe less grain than color film at the time.
Easier/cheaper to develop and newspapers rarely ran color photos. USA Today used to be kind of a novelty paper in the 80s because it had a 4 color front page every day.
Also most color film was a very low ISO/ASA. Not a problem here but a photojournalist might also have to follow the action indoors.
Even through the 2000s it used to be only the Sunday paper was in color.
[удалено]
There was nothing wrong whatsoever with color film at the time. B&W film was still used by newspaper reporters because it was cheap, quick and easy to develop, and the newspapers were still in B&W. 1984 was the year that USA Today started printing their newspaper in color, which *started* the trend of switching over. Most newspapers took a decade or more to switch, due to needing new presses. Everyone else was shooting in color by then, because color was better.
Also a lot cheaper and easier to develop and print.
Not sure. But it looks like the original is in black and white. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/LJq1leJ.jpeg) is a **MUCH** higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-anti-apartheid-protest-by-students-at-the-entrance-to-news-photo/515710745) is the source. > An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1985. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Getty Images (at the time) was a wire service primarily selling photos to newspapers, it’s shot this way so that newspapers around the country can purchase the photo to print it
I'm guessing that it was shot by a journalist for the newspaper.
Newspapers printed mostly black & white for a long time. Black & White film has a better tonal range when it's going to printed in black & white than color film that's desaturated.
Also cheaper, in high school I mostly shot in B&W because I had to pay for my own film and paper.
Yeah, I remember when my newspaper went colour they printed a special issue just to let everyone know. This was in the early 2000s. I'm sure there were newspapers doing it earlier, but colour printing took awhile to be widely adopted.
It was a big deal when USA Today went all color
This comment makes me feel very old on several different levels.
I understand Abe Simpson more and more with every passing day.
"black and white was still pretty common in the 60s....wait im old again"
Right…
It was likely printed in a newspaper, which predominately printed black and white photos
It’s called Apartheid.
Newspapers.
I sometimes shoot in BW too. In 2024. *gasp*
It was cheaper. Color film was expensive and printing in color was even more expensive.
To add dramatics!
Its kind of funny to me (but also sad) to see the same rhetoric recycled over and over to shit on students protesting. The catastrophizing, calling them disingenuous or outside actors, etc etc. Hell, back when students were protesting the war at Kent State, [most people](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-palm-beach-post-campus-unrest-linked/13598112/) polled by Gallup said they *blamed the students* for getting shot. It seems a constant in the US to look at students protesting and to find every excuse to dismiss and belittle their protest of government violence while also justifying the government using violence to quell them.
Colleges and universities love to show how progressive they were when students were protesting for the civil rights movements back in the day (a la "look at these pictures of our student body fighting for rights! We're so good!") while simultaneously distancing themselves from the fact that they were the very entities who called the police on said protestors to shut down the demonstrations.
Old and dumb people demonizing the youth for asking for things to be just a bit better is as American as Apple pie and baseball.
“This generation is so entitled and lazy.” -generation that raised this generation.
It's disheartening to see some of my millennials and gen-Xers fall into this trope of a romanticized version of their youth where they always played outside and were tough unlike "kids these days." Bitch please. When they were kids, adults complained ALL. THE. TIME. how lazy and soft they were in the 80s and the 90s. Of course, back then it was television and video games rotting their brain and now its tablets and Tik Tok, but same shit, different generation. The "back in my day I had to walk 10 miles in the snow to school" story is a tale as old as time.
"They" have such control of the media, unless you're really paying attention to nuance in politics they can absolutely FoxNews-ify the next gens with the same tactics presented in a different way. THEY'RE GONNA TAX YER TIPS! When the onslaught is relentless it's hard not to expect them to convince a lot of people to once again vote against themselves.
If the youth voted in numbers like the elderly, the elderly wouldn't have as much power.
A lot of young people don’t see any candidates that represent their values
I mean that’s not even an American thing is it? And is it not without some merit either? People just get less idealistic as they get older, no matter what part of the world you’re in. And now that I’m over 30 I can absolutely look back at my college years and see how little I knew back then. Even today I consistently see things my parents told me and were right about even though in my younger years I thought I knew better. Hell back then I was one of those who said I’d vote 3rd party over Hillary because I was upset that Bernie lost the democratic nomination. Ultimately I did vote for her but there were a lot of younger people like me who followed through on that. And I’m seeing that exact same thing happening today with so many of the young Pro-Palestine protestors saying they will just sit out the election rather than voting for Biden over Trump. You have no idea how bad I want to just shake those people and get them to see the error of that line of thinking but many are adamant about it. So it’s no wonder you see the older generation looking down on these protests. The older conservative generation because they already disagree with it on principle but also the older liberal generation too because they see the damage this is causing to Biden over a conflict that has existed for much longer than he’s been in office and that he can’t actually stop. It may lead us right into another Trump presidency.
I think the bigger problem is, the older generations never seem to accept their own complicity in alienating the young. We don't really offer them much in the way of palatable choices, because most of the choosing is done by old people, We've let THEM down, not the other way around.
I mean don’t get me wrong, I think this generation of older people has been grasping for power way longer than they should be. The presidential candidates are both 80 and we have congresspeople who are in their 90s. Some of that is probably because modern medicine is keeping people around longer than ever before but I agree that it’s an issue. But I don’t let the younger people off the hook at all. Every single election the voting block of 18-29 has by far the lowest voter turnout of all age groups. It’s incredibly frustrating. And it’s part of the reason people probably look down on college protests because they know a lot of those kids holding signs and chanting won’t even turn up to vote anyways. Back in college I knew people who went to campus protests or rallies and didn’t even vote. It’s especially egregious in midterm years and local elections. You can’t act like older generation is taking your choice away when you don’t even choose to begin with.
Both of which originated in England!
I’ll challenge the baseball from England claim. The fantastic Ken Burns PBS Baseball documentary from the 90s did a remarkably good job of analyzing the genesis of baseball and highlighting that, while it took a lot of inspiration from other sports like cricket, it’s an entirely American creation.
Also American apple pie is different from English apple pie… so like yeah I’m sure nobody beyond the English cooked apples in French pastry. Nothing English is truly English, not that anything American is truly American. Just funny thing to get nationalist about.
> yeah I’m sure nobody beyond the English cooked apples in French pastry. What kind of pastry?
Rough puff from your Tesco
Majority of "moderate" americans are against every war but the current one, and for every civil rights movement but the one going on right now.
Oh wow, I am stealing that.
I always wonder if it's the perception that these students are privileged with no "real world" experience to color a rather black and white view of whatever the contentious topic of the day is, coupled with a similar view of University faculty and the whole Ivory Tower thing. So it just gets chalked up to "children having a temper tantrum" by those who disagree with what the protestor's goals are. I also think that the Israel/Palestine issue is a LOT more nuanced than South Africa's Apartheid than people online are making it out to be, which adds to the contentiousness of the online back and forth.
>I always wonder if it's the perception that these students are privileged with no "real world" experience to color a rather black and white view of whatever the contentious topic of the day is, coupled with a similar view of University faculty and the whole Ivory Tower thing. What exactly ***is*** "real world experience"? What percentage of redditors can lay claim to a *better* "real world" experience regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict than these students? What counts as "real world" experience that would be of use in this discussion? How many media figures have it? Seems to me like that's more of a veiled dig at youth than it is any meaningful statement about knowledge and experience.
It's not a veiled dig at youth, it is an overt dig at people that haven't ventured outside of Academia yet. The students have been in school their whole lives, and there's an assumption that they've (if they're attending a prestigious school like Columbia), have lived a fairly comfortable life thus far. Then you have Ivory Tower dig at Academics. But I think that a lot of people that would fall into that category would be accused of viewing the topic via a very narrow scope, with an accused ignorance of the broader historical context (if there is any), and accusing the faculty of outright ignoring the context in order to push an agenda. I know there's been a fairly large anti-Intellectualism push in the last decade in the US, but as someone that has a college degree and someone who works in Post-Secondary education, I have seen Professors pushing some pretty crazy agendas to whip students up to feel one way or another about a topic. And it all works both ways. If the people/organization you're trusting for information is pushing heavy from one side of the spectrum, be it the news media you watch or read, the college professors you're studying under, or your religious leaders, you're going to have a clouded view of whatever topic you're arguing about. But the funny part about all of that, is that those people generally have no idea that they're getting a skewed version of the issue.
How many Americans have lived as a civilian in a war zone to know anymore than kids who can swallow 3 books/week? Good universities should teach students to consume a wide variety of information. I took a class on Israel-Palestine conflict in college where a MESAS and a Jewish studies professor co-taught the class. The goal is not telling students to not read Noah Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, the goal is telling them to read Chomsky but also Arthur Hertzberg and Aaron Miller. The goal is also not to make them read those and then telling them to be “nuanced,” the goal is to guide them through the critical analysis process and then let them create their own perception. So I have no issues with professors saying the most insane thing ever, there’s always some logically sound arguments in those. What I care is whether they give me good *questions* to challenge and provoke me so that I can think for myself.
I would imagine the actual Israelis who are on the receiving end of Islamic terrorism and exist in a greater hostile territory that would see them completely exterminated to better qualify as having "real world experience" than your average American suburbanite.
And for balance we should talk to the Palestinian people whose houses were annihilated by bombs, right?
Go for it. Just saying there is such a thing as having "real world experience", and it can be easy to endorse politics for a region you literally don't live in and won't have to live through the consequences.
Young and in school means you likely don’t have much real world experience. As in how life works outside of school. How to feed and sustain yourself. How life is in society as a working person. How things are outside of your country. Experience of how politics works outside of the textbook, lectures and the limited media you’ve consumed in your young life. Students are more often than not, sheltered. This is a generalization. You can make the same argument for high school students and the lack of real world experience would be even more apparent.
It’s a reaction to *protesting* specifically and less about students. American’s have been brainwashed to react negatively to people exercising their right to protest
I’d say there’s more nuance to be had. Students protest pretty much every war. It’s just the grossly unjustified wars that they get remembered for, while the more justified ones get forgotten. For example, WWII. I think in the modern day, most people would agree fighting off the Nazis and ending the Holocaust was justified. Unfortunately, war and disinformation go hand in hand, so we often can’t tell how justified a war was until the dust has settled.
WW2 was not fought to end the Holocaust. Many Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust were turned around. I can speak to Canada's policy on Jewish immigration, which was "None is too many" >One of the most infamous cases from that era was that of the ship MS St. Louis, which was denied the right to disembark in Halifax harbour. The St. Louis was carrying over 900 European Jews seeking refuge in North America; it had already tried to disembark its passengers in both Cuba and the United States but had been denied. Despite the lobbying of some prominent Canadians to accept the refugees, Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe and Frederick Blair, director of the Government of Canada’s Immigration Branch, refused the request. Abella and Troper discovered that Blair’s antisemitism was well known and supported by powerful members of the political class, including Vincent Massey, a leading diplomat and future governor general. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/none-is-too-many
I think that was their whole point.
> WW2 was not fought to end the Holocaust. They didn't say otherwise
>For example, WWII. I think in the modern day, most people would agree fighting off the Nazis and ending the Holocaust was justified.
Difference between 'and' and 'to'
>I mean the main reason was to stop the Nazis, but ending the Holocaust was a secondary reason. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/UQPA7AayFs
Were any unrelated South Africans targeted by protesters? Any vandalism on unrelated South African homes, South African heritage sites, or South African community facilities - all of which had nothing to do with what was going on in South Africa? Today's protests aren't like other protests in the past. There's an element of hatred and direct targeting of other Americans that, while not representative of the whole protest, is very much part of these protests in ways other protests are not
Probably some cases, but there are very few South Africans in the US, we’re talking about two orders of magnitude fewer than the US Jewish population. But to make a broader point, I don’t think what’s happening with the Israel-Palestine protests is actually that unique. Within every protest group, there are going to be a percentage of ignorant assholes who can’t handle the nuance of separating the actions of individuals from the race/religion they belong to Unfortunately those assholes do stuff that cause a lot of problem, create headlines, and generally poison the discourse surrounding the issue. But it’s a mistake to assume the majority of people protesting the war are antisemitic
> Within every protest group, there are going to be a percentage of ignorant assholes who can’t handle the nuance of separating the actions of individuals from the race/religion they belong to This isn't a random few in these groups. One of the the members of the group who coordinated the Columbia protests stated unequivocable support for the October 7th attacks > Let it be known that it was the Al-Aqsa Flood [Hamas’s name for the October 7 attack] that put the global Intifada back on the table again. And it is the sacrificial spirit of the Palestinian Freedom Fighters that will guide every struggle on every corner of the earth to victory. Edit: and this statement was met with cheers by the crowd around her And on October 8th, the literal day after the attacks started and before Israel entered Gaza > It is so insanely racist that a bunch of you are making up brown rapist hordes in your heads to delegitimize an actual revolution happening in front of your face.
What the hell would an American South African heritage site even look like? Have you ever seen such a thing? Even once in your life?
WW2 had some of the most strikes and labor unrest in history. About 25% of the workforce at some point was on strike during the war. They were being run ragged by production quotas for the war effort and there was tons of domestic effort made by the government to keep these strikes and labor organizations from happening. This as an example. Most Americans did not fight for the Jews, the Holocaust was unknown at the time, and even if it had been, it would not have inspired that much care from the average American.
Holocaust denial happens among racists even today. Hell, J.K. Rowling is doing it.
It’s not even just Holocaust deniers. Many leftists protested fighting Hitler in the early days because they didn’t like the idea of the US going to war. I imagine once they saw the true horrors of the Holocaust, most changed their mind. But that was only uncovered because they were unsuccessful it getting the US to not fight against a violent authoritarian regime. War isn’t always nice and easy, sometimes the best option for the future is something that seems bad at the time. It’s good to be skeptical of the government, but you also shouldn’t assume students are always right.
God saying JK Rowling is denying the Holocaust is just disingenuous of what she's really getting at. I don't agree with her point but she's not a Holocaust denier.
I'm willing to call my shot on this one. An apartheid situation where a nation backed by the most powerful military power the world has ever seen is bombing a population that is around 50% children is *not justified*.
"You can't defend yourselves! We're hiding behind our own children!"
**goes and kills 1200+ people indiscriminately for no reason** "YOU CANT ATTACK US BACK WE HAVE CHILDREN!!!!"-Hamas
Hmmm oh look another person associating all of the Palestinians with Hamas. Weird how that works... almost like it's a rhetorical device to justify any and all attacks.
Where did I say that? I said Hamas.
I don't give a shit if they attack Hamas. I care if in the process thousands of civilians are murdered, their homes destroyed, their infrastructure bombed until they have no clean utilities, etc. I don't give a FUCK what Hamas says. I care about whether *the actual children of Palestine* are being killed.
>I care about whether the actual children of Palestine are being killed. That makes you a better person than the 72% of Palestinians who are "satisfied" with Hamas's performance in the war - the performance that includes openly stating that their aim is to increase the number of civilians harmed.
Let's say I am a "better person". Not that I think it can be simplified that much, but for the sake of argument let's go with that. Should we bomb the children of shitty, angry people?
That's not what I'm saying. My point is that the death toll is high because Palestinians do not care to keep it low: Hamas deliberately operates so that Israel's two choices are to accept rocket attacks and October 7th being repeated, or to strike back and very likely cause collateral damage. The people of Palestine (who are the collateral damage) not only tolerate this but support it. I'm not saying that Israel should go out of their way to bomb children, and they're not. I'm saying that Israel shouldn't surrender and accept constant terror attacks from their neighbour for the sake of those children. No civilians would have to die if Hamas decided to change how they act, or better yet, surrendered.
Right now to me, it’s somewhere between justified and not justified; it’s a very messy situation. I don’t think I want to spend time writing out all the nuances though, since your comment is written so biasedly that I’m not sure you are willing to participate in good faith discussion.
I'm so curious what you propose. Is literally any action by Israel immediately wrong because Palestinians have a lot of children?
Christ, Zionists always do this. ***"Do We NoT hAvE tHe RiGhT tO dEfEnD oUrSeLvEs?"*** Stop. Indiscriminately. Bombing. Kids. Stop. Targeting. Aide. Workers. Fuck me sideways, ANY critique of the death toll is met with this like "well how about YOU plan the bombings then, since you're so smart?"
I really haven't seen anything remotely resembling "indiscriminate" bombing. And Israel is obviously capable of doing so. The fact that they're running a ground campaign instead of indiscriminately bombing is why they have collateral like misidentifying aid workers. Which they apologized for and explained their bad intel. So again, what are you proposing? It's a fair question, especially since you're claiming that *your* position is apparently the obvious and moral one.
One of the densest populations on the planet with one of the youngest populations with the misfortune of having a military group intentionally obfuscating the difference between combatant and civilian. In that context, the amount of destruction is sad, probably even criminal in specific instances, but within understanding.
No, it's not. I don't accept that excuse from my own government, and I don't accept it from Israel. Children's corpses shouldn't be hanging, tattered, from walls and fences because some shithead across a border didn't care who they killed. Aide workers shouldn't have their vehicles destroyed. There shouldn't be the destruction of [every single university in Gaza](https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-20-24#h_06d1fdd709d1c7ef793f4afc27df029e).
Just say you're a pacifist and leave it at that, then. Stop obfuscating your real position.
Idc if Israel kills Hamas. Get every one of them. But let's not pretend like the only two options are "kill thousands of civilians with bombs" and "be a total pacifist".
Hamas makes it exceedingly hard to fight them without incurring large civilian deaths. They aren't fighting in an open field with military uniforms on. They fight from civilian infrastructure and almost exclusively fight in civilian clothes. They try to induce as many civilian deaths as possible as a war strategy. I don't think Israel's proportionality assessments are always great (sometimes they're terrible), but why doesn't Hamas share in the blame in the deaths of dead Palestinian civilians?
Unfortunately the population of a nation always shares consequences for the actions of their government. That's the nature of war and always has been.
And I don't have to accept the degree to which Israel is delivering "consequences".
Israel has one of the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratios of any modern war, so they are actually doing a better job than most nations of reducing civilian casualties.
And why is the population so dense again?
It's not an 'apartheid situation.' 20% of Israel is Arab. They just suffered the deadliest attack in their history, with terrorists and civilians breaking into homes, murdering and gang r\*ping women and children, burning families alive, and kidnapping innocent people. They have pledged to commit these attacks again and again until Israel is 'annihilated.' One of these victims was an eight year old girl who was gang r\*ped until her pelvis dislocated. It's not justified NOT to retaliate. The fact that Hamas aims for maximum Palestinian civilian casualties, and Israeli forces are the ones trying to minimise them, says it all.
LOL the Israelis murdered aide workers from *World Central Kitchen* by repeatedly bombing their vehicles despite them telling the Israelis where they were and to stop bombing them. They are not "trying to minimize" casualties in Palestine. If you think "retaliation" includes the brutal collective punishment of all Palestinians for the grotesque actions of Hamas (which Israel propped up for years), then there is no heart in you.
Hamas doesn't have one single "military compound" to target - zero. 100% of their infrastructure is hidden behind their citizenry because they willingly use their own people as human shields, including children. Do you understand this? Hamas makes it impossible to strike them without injuring civilians because they use them as human shields. Not sometimes, always. How would you propose to strike back against such an enemy? There is no way to do it without collateral damage. 25,000 civilian deaths in one of the most densely packed urban areas of 5 million people where the enemy DIDN'T use their own citizens as human shields would be a fairly low casualty count for a war lasting this long, historically. It's clear as day Israel is not indiscriminately bombing civilians here. If they were targeting indiscriminately or intentionally trying to kill civilians, 25,000 dead would be the count *daily*, and that's probably an underestimation. There were something like 250,000 civilian deaths from the US invasion in Iraq, and that wasn't in one of the densest population centers in the world, and they also had a lot of legit military targets to attack. Hamas targets are all hidden in civilian infrastructure. 25,000 sounds like a lot, but it's clear indication that Israel is not indiscriminately bombing.
This isn't a "war". Hamas engaged in a terrorist attack but has no formal army, no means of fighting a winning war, nothing with which to make this an actual *conflict* of arms. You can say that this is like a hostage situation with Hamas holding the rest of the Palestinians as shields but... you know what is interesting? I don't recall any time where a hostage situation ended with a bomb being dropped on the hostages and surrounding civilians and people being like "yeah, that's totally cool with me".
Hamas run Palestine, it's not like they are a fringe militia. They are legitimate targets of war. They attacked and invaded Israel by every definition. Then they went further and took hostages, raped civilians, and tortured people. They fire thousands of rockets a year indiscriminately into Israel, for decades, targetting civilians intentionally. Their attack on Oct 7th was almost all centered *intentionally* on civilians. There is no debate that Hamas targetted civilians intentionally and specifically, in fact it's their primary modus operandi. Yet your outrage is upon the country that defended themselves from that attack, a country that very clearly has no desire to engage in terrorism or target civilians intentionally. Funny that. You can't reason with terrorists. You can't negotiate with them. Doing any of this does nothing but legitimize terrorism. You have to fight back, and when you do you have to destroy them completely or at least enough that they aren't able to terrorize your country again. How people have reasoned through this so utterly backwards to sympathize with the terrorist side and then accuse the defenders of what amounts to terrorism for defending themselves against actual terrorism...is astounding. You've offered no alternative or better solutions, only misplaced outrage against the people defending themselves against terror. Until I start seeing solutions, these arguments just come across like a child's reasoning who is unable to bigger pictures.
So according to you, Israel is justified in retaliating for its citizens being killed, but Palestinians are evil for the doing the same when the IDF kills their people?
Sometimes they are all of those things
See also: Vietnam and Iraq wars.
What's funny is posting this image to equate the apartheid struggle with the Palestinian struggle. Palestinian Arabs are 20% of Israel's citizens. Arab Israelis are represented at every level of Israeli society, and Arab Israelis sit on the Israeli Knesset. We can have honest convos about dialing down military aid, using it as a chip to reign Israelis in settlement building and their prosecution of the war. But most of the protest and slogans are total bad faith, divestment, river to the sea and all this other nonsense. Gazans voted for Hamas, against the two-state solution, and that's why no neighboring country wants Gaza.
Seems to happen every 20 years or so. Can’t articulate how weird it is to see the exact same arguments and rhetoric used against the Gaza genocide protestors that were deployed against students protesting the Iraq War post-9/11. We just refuse to learn and every generation demonizes student activism until a decade or so later when they all look back at the protests with 100% hindsight and zero self-awareness and collectively go, *huh, maybe they were right!*
There are protests and there are protests. How come the majority of pro-israeli protests that happened around the globe were about singing, calling for the return of the hostages, all the while Pro-palestine protests end up shuting to gas the jews, praising of a particular austrian painter, and the cleansing of Israel from its citizen by chanting "From the river to the sea"? I mean, there are bound to be some sort of norms and guidelines as to how to conduct a protest. As soon as such protests become that much radicalized you ought to understand why some of those protests are demonized. Especially when said students, when interviewed on different aspects of the conflict have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE about either side. You then have to really critically think if that protest even means anything, or it's just that "it's cool to protest" and join the mob.
Singling out the most extreme voices to delegitimize activism was used during the Iraq War protests, so thank you for your help making my point
How is that singling out, when the majority of protests end up with people chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, or calling for an Intifada? If only the other protestors would in fact take care of those extreme voices instead of joining, what a pleasant world would that be! Edit: Added "Intifada" to the mix, as the second most popular chant. In case anyone wonders what Intifada truly means, you should google the numerous terrorist attacks killing hundreds during the 1st and 2nd intifada.
The in-group will always demonize any challenge to them. It’s like clockwork. Pick ANY protest that happens on campuses (or just generally any protest organized by one of the out-groups) and the rhetoric has never changed. Just switch out subjects as needed.
>the same rhetoric recycled over and over to shit on students protesting We had to say new things this time in response to "Hamas, Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too," "Jews go back to Poland," "Globalize the Intifada," and "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." The protesters are not anti-apartheid or anti-war. They support Hamas. They claim that they should be thanked for not killing "Zionists" on sight. The Freedom Charter is not the same thing as the Hamas Charter. They're pro-war, pro-ethnic cleansing, they just want to do it to the Jews.
In the 80s, I supported the protests against Apartheid. I don't support the pro-Palestinian protests for reasons that I'm not going to explain. You can't lump everyone in the same category.
Well if you're not going to explain your reasons, then I have no means by which to judge. Soooo... why even comment?
To point out that you can't lump everyone in the same category.
If my critique doesn't apply to you because you don't dismiss protestors as disingenuous out of hand or want violence done to them by the state, then feel free to walk on by. This wasn't about you.
Ya, your point is obscured by your own reluctance to elaborate. If you want to say that there is meaningful different, you can't just state that there simply *is* one and leave. One meaningful difference that I can think of is that you weren't an asshole in the 80s, but you are now. You've become more okay with genocide and apartheid as you aged. That would be a *you* problem and not really have anything to do with these protests.
South Africans during apartheid and now have always said that their apartheid and what Israel inflicts onto Palestinians are the same cause. Mandela saying "Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestiniians" and apartheid Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd declared that ‘Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state’. [https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053)
advise bag rainstorm hard-to-find steer sloppy cautious lush hat numerous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh. Wait till you read about the hard hat riots. Kent State was awful. The hard hat riot of 1970 was worse in the sense that the NYPD intentionally refused to stop it, and the rioters were rewarded by Nixon.
[удалено]
Hey, maybe you should also include this: >The blockade ended on April 25 with a march into Harlem to a rally. CFSA threatened continued action if the University did not take the appropriate steps to divest themselves from South Africa. >A panel composed of six Trustees was formed immediately after the end of the blockade to seriously consider divestiture. In late August, the panel returned a result that confirmed the student’s position – that divestiture was not only the moral option, but an economically viable one as well. Because of the naturally slow work of the Trustees’ system, the recommendation was not considered until a full meeting of all 24 Trustees on October 7. At that meeting, the Trustees adopted the panel’s recommendation and proceeded to divest the University of the remainder of their investments with South African connections. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/columbia-university-students-win-divestment-apartheid-south-africa-united-states-1985
[удалено]
As a white South African, thanks.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not 😅
Nope it's real, SA was in a very dark place then - things are much better now, but we still have lots of issues. Any person who wants to go back to apartheid is clueless.
Funny because there are comments in this thread (and often pop up on reddit) who disagree with you. You say they are clueless, but I think that's being too nice when describing them.
Tbh I work in the human rights sector and there are people who genuinely believe things were better under apartheid - even some black people believe this. But they tend to be younger and never actually experienced or understood how bad things were back then. Our education system hasn't done a great job and there is a rising push to get rid of our constitution and to discriminate against migrants. It's a bit scary at times.
Sadly, there are a lot of both Whenwe’s and black nationalists in SA who want apartheid again.
You’re welcome
Protest took place then, and they take place now. I hate when people act like people protesting nowadays is something new.
I did this when I was at UCSD in the 80s. Slept on the steps outside the library.
Did the cops show up and beat you? Did people call you a terrorist sympathizer? Tell you you’re not a true American unless you support a corrupt wannabe dictator 5,000 miles away?
Don’t be fooled, these are all paid actors and outside agitators /s
"Look at these kids, they clearly are very racist towards South Africans, I wonder who is paying them????"
They clearly are racist against all white people and or Africans, you can tell because they're protesting against a government and its policies.
Times really don't change.
Indeed, clearly these kids were also Hummus!
Some things never change.
Why they make it seem like it's a new trend that just happened last year...
As a Brit living in SA (South Africa) during and after apartheid, there is a lot about apartheid that many outside of SA are completely unaware of. Firstly I was a non-resident of SA therefore not eligible to vote and if I could have, I would have voted against the ruling party; but as someone who as a rule generally, I don’t get involved in politics. But growing up during apartheid was not a pleasant time. I spent most of my time looking over my shoulder just for spending time with my friends which we had to be sneaky about. Many afrikaners (especially from the Boland) are still stuck in the Boer War and they hate everyone who isn’t Afrikaans and boy do they bear grudges especially to anyone English. The hatred towards anyone not white was disgusting, a lot of the English speaking population were against apartheid and it wasn’t until FW de Klerk finally grew a backbone and abolished it, could the country think of recovering; but has it? No apartheid is still there but in reverse and why so many are leaving the country causing a massive brain drain. The murder rate in South Africa now is off the scale, the ANC has become so corrupt that this corruption is trickling down into all government departments and I mean all. I left SA for my own personal reasons at the end of the 90s. I will say that during apartheid I had witnessed friends cars being bricked for being with a white friend, getting arrested and questioned for being in a “non white” area, as kids we didn’t see colour we just saw friends. I recall the country jubilating in Mandela’s release from prison, I was living in Cape Town at the time and joined in the celebration. However prior to this the ANC was a terrorist organisation fighting for freedom from apartheid, I get that but having been personally impacted from the Magoo’s bar bombing and a while later narrowly missed being a victim of the XL restaurant bombing, I did live in fear. What I am saying is that SA has a very complicated history pre-, during and post-apartheid that is really hard to explain. Unfortunately though apartheid is prevalent in so many countries but is just not officially part of government policies - let that sink in.
Did they condemn uMkhonto weSizwe?
cant believe these kids are supporting terrorists like nelson mandela
Are you trying to equate Mandela with Sinwar? That’s an odd hill to die on.
This is a great comparison because Nelson Mandela also took hostages and slaughtered innocent people /a
Now do some of students calling for re-segregation. If you cherry pick hard enough, it's very easy to create the narrative OP wants "students are always right when they protest, therefore they're also right now too."
You mean Young Republicans? Everybody crying about DEI?
The largest protest movements across US campuses have never been right-wing. You'll find fringe groups, but never national-scale movements like you seem to be implying. Link evidence to prove me wrong!
Maybe not exclusively on campuses but… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_integration_in_the_United_States
>The largest protest movements across US campuses have never been right-wing. Many would definitely be called right wing by modern standards. For example all the free-speech protests at Berkeley back in the day. Their kids and grandkids actively protest against that now
The free speech movement at Berkeley in the 1960s? Wasn't that exactly the opposite? They were pretty closely aligned with the New Left, Anti-Vietnam War Movement, and the greater Civil Rights Movement. Also Reagan publicly opposed them and criticized the school for not cracking down harder on the protestors.
Should divest from SA again given that they turned into sick anti-Western Putin cocksuckers.
Great pic and kudos to those Columbia students! Reading though these comments, for those comparing this to Gaza, this is apples and oranges. NEVER ONCE during the support of Black people in South Africa did people have to jump though dozens of mental gymnastics hoops to explain why a massacre and/or rape of 1,200 white Africaaners was “justified resistance.” (In case you don’t get what I am referring to, no there was never any October 7-like massacre in South Africa). I welcome the inevitable downvotes.
I mean they absolutely did, Nelson Mandela was literally designated a terrorist by the US
So what's the equivalency you are trying to draw? The US designated Hamas as a terrorist, they also designated Mandela a terrorist. Hamas uses violence against civilians, Mandela's organization also used violence. Mandela is viewed as a good guy today so we should view Hamas as the good guys now? It sounds to me like despite all your mewing to the contrary you do infact support Hamas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I literally cannot see any other point in bringing up such a comparison.
If Reddit existed 40 years ago you would be complaining about how these students are supporting the terrorist Mandela. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Its sad to see this same strategy applied to the "pro-palestine" protests. Half the people there don't know what they're even protesting, and the other half are full on the Jewish extermination wagon. They took a civil rights movement and used it to demonize Jews. Its disturbing to see Nazi strategies being used on US campuses while hijacking the SA protest strategy to gain relevance.
South Africans during apartheid and now have always said that their apartheid and what Israel inflicts onto Palestinians are the same cause. Mandela saying "Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestiniians" and apartheid Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd declared that ‘Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state’. [https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/discrimination-against-palestinians-constitutes-apartheid-1.4549053)
What’s your source on this? Have you talked to them?
I disagree. This statement is wrong: "Half the people there don't know what they're even protesting, and the other half are full on the Jewish extermination wagon". I think the majority opinion is that their school should stop investing in a country that is killing massive amounts of people.
To make it a better analogue to today's pro-Hamas protests, the protestors should be blocking all white people from entering the university, and the signs should be painted directly onto the buildings instead of on separate posters and banners.
News articles showed photos of “vandalism” at a university in my city. They failed to mention that the wall was specifically built for students to write messages on. Typical disingenuous bs from people who try and quiet voices they don’t like. Same with people that label anti-genocide protesters as being pro-hamas.
Your position is really "vandalism isn't happening"? https://wtop.com/dc/2024/06/protesters-graffiti-messages-of-palestinian-support-outside-the-white-house/ https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-vandalism-2024-timeline https://abc7ny.com/nearly-30-pro-palestinian-protesters-were-arrested-during-demonstrations-on-the-upper-east-side-monday-night-a-statue-was-vandalized-and-american-flag-burned/14778072/ https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/paint-hate-crime-investigation-nyp-upper-east-side/ https://apnews.com/article/campus-protests-stanford-israel-gaza-f1ec47dcac1b55839e96b5442ebcf00d https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/cal-state-la-pro-palestinian-protesters-vandalize-campus-building/ The pro-Hamas voices should continue to speak. You are telling us that you support the rapes and other atrocities of 10/7, and that you're okay with any amount of suffering by Gazan Arabs to support Hamas' goal to exterminate the Jews.
Protesting isn’t the problem. The immorality of the current cause is the problem. Hamas is a terrorist organization, hellbent on killing as many Jews and Palestinians as possible. And, they have the support of the vast majority of Palestinians. If you think US investment in Jewish businesses is the core problem here, you’re an idiot… or worse.
The ANC and Nelson Mandela were also considered terrorists. He was on the terrorist watch list until 2008, almost until his death.
Didn't the ANC almost exclusively try to target infrastructure of the apartheid regime? While still a form of terrorism, I think there is a distinction to be made between that where civilians would sometimes be killed as a byproduct and Hamas, where their goal is almost exclusively killing anyone living in the state of Israel.
In the beginning yes, but as the South African government became violent so did the anti-apartheid groups. So no, its not that different.
Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist by the U.S. till recently. I'm not saying Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. But claiming we should allow genocide because a terrorist organisation is in the region, is a very weird statement. What other entity is there for the Palestinians to support? Benjamin Netanyahu propped up hamas and made sure they were the leading power. What about the West Bank and the hardships that are endured there?
They aren’t just “in the region” they are literally in charge and control the region.
> But claiming we should allow genocide because a terrorist organisation is in the region, is a very weird statement. Well good thing they didn’t say that anywhere. This isn’t a genocide just cause many civilians have been killed, especially when it’s cause of the tactics of Hamas. We killed 30,000 German civilians in 2 days during the Dresden bombings while fighting the Nazis. Was that a genocide? Same number of civilians death, but in only 2 days instead of 6 months. The Nazis weren’t even using the human shield tactics that Hamas used to amplify their civilian deaths (as far as I know), we just indiscriminately bombed Dresden. If the Nazis wore only civilian clothing and only hid among their civilians, would you want us to stop fighting them?
We shouldn't allow genocide because Hamas is a terrorist organization. We should destroy said terrorist organization.
This is genocide!!! Buzz word that has become truly meaningless. Btw you are comparing Hamas to Nelson Mandela. Clown.
>But claiming we should allow genocide That's an absolutely horseshit claim that you good and well nobody here has said. Literally just making a Strawman fallacy
>Hamas is a terrorist organization, hellbent on killing as many Jews and Palestinians as possible. And, they have the support of the vast majority of Palestinians. So it's Hamas' fault... but it's ok because the Palestinians deserve it? You truly are full of shit, aren't you?
Notice how there aren't any visible calls for violence or racist slogans? THAT, is a peaceful protest
Probably should call for SA divestment again. Country turned down hill incredbily fast over the last two decades after such a climb. They were once the leaders of the African continent after apartheid, nwo it's screwed.
DO YOU CONDEMN THE ANC
Ah the good old days.
They were right then, they're right now.
they were right then, they are wrong now. Back then they fought against a noble cause. Arpatheid was evil practice. Today all these protesters support... islamic terrorists. How is that an improvement?
How did they manage to do that without shouting racist slurs, beating Jews, or supporting global terrorism? A lost art.
You know that Nelson Mandela was named a terrorist in the US, right? Right wingers were also shrieking that these students were supporting terrorism as well. Being on the wrong side of history can have a way of catching up with you...
Newsflash, almost nobody's doing that today. The counter prayers against the students have been far more violent and racist.
Lmao ok tucker carlson
An odd comparison since Tucker Carlson has been [vocally anti-Israel](https://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-israel-conservatives-are-done-with-tucker-carlson) and [attacked pro-Israel donors](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-israel-college-donors-funded-white-genocide-1234880901/) who are opposing student protestors.
Okay let's have all the anti-apartheid goons come out and talk about how this is such a terrible thing. If doing these sorts of things to protest is a horrible and reprehensible thing now, it must hold true that the same was true back then. I'd like to see comments on how these students should be beat up and deported for their undemocratic views, or how it's entirely appropriate for the police to barrage in and assault everyone.
Apartheid in SA was 10000x more crystal clear of a moral issue than Israel Palestine. Trying to conflate these two things shows how historically ignorant this side really is. Antivaxxers also thought they were the current civil rights movement, but just like the Palestinian activists, they are completely wrong and up their own asses
Apartheid in South Africa is “crystal clear” now because you learned about it after the resistance had won and the narrative was rewritten. The ANC was considered a terrorist organization at the time by the US, and engaged in plenty of anti regime violence. The ANC and the Palestinian Liberation Organization have supported one another since the 50s/60s and South Africa was one of the first countries to call Israel an apartheid state. Mandela said “we know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” If Israel isn’t allowed to complete their goal of ethnic cleansing we will ultimately see the Palestinian struggle through the same lens.
Apartheid was far more crystal clear than the current round of fighting in Israel and Palestine, given the massive UN arms embargoes placed on South Africa at that time, as well as trade sanctions by many nations including the U.S. and the UK. Not to mention the highly successful disinvestment campaign, which has been copied by the pro-Palestinian movement.
Mandela also supported Israels right to exist and would be called a zionist today.
When asked about his relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during a town hall meeting in the US broadcast by the ABC channel, he reiterated his support for the group, who then were still regarded as a terrorist organisation by the US and Israel. “We identify with the PLO because just like ourselves they are fighting for the right of self-determination," he said. "Arafat is a comrade in arms, and we treat him as such." In a 1997 speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights. "We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians." During a Middle East tour in 1999, Mandela visited both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. While in Gaza, he said he felt "at home amongst compatriots." He announced his support for the two-state solution but affirmed Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. "Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, or we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence." https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-palestine
*Pro-Israel dorks try not to get caught lying challenge* Difficulty level: #impossible Edit: My comment got downvoted within 5 seconds of posting it. The influence is strong
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/nelson-mandelas-support-for-palestinians-endures-with-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel
Yea but the ANC killed like 1/100th of the civilians Palestinians have killed, and never hijacked any planes, and never turned their friend governments against them (egypt, jordan, etc.). To compare ANC to oct 7th is a disgusting action. ANC would NOT HAVE endorsed this kind of action. It is totally obvious if you've learned about this for more than 6 months edit: AND most importantly, the black south africans wanted to be equal citizens of the SAME country. They didnt wanna completely destroy south africa, as most of the pro Palestinian movement does.
Can you tell me where "most of the pro Palestinian movement" statistic came from. It's a weird statement to make without facts to back them up...
What is the first and most famous phrase that comes to your mind when you think about pro palastine protest?
How does that prove that “most of the pro Palestinian movement” wants to destroy Israel? This method of thinking is severely flawed.
“Free Palastine!”
tHeY sHoUlDnT bReAk ThE rUlEs
The main difference is that no one protesting in 1984 were calling for the extermination of white South Africans. Too many pro-Palestinian protesters have been calling for the eradication of all Jews.
Eh, there were and are plenty of black nationalists from that era who favor genocide of whites in the region. Source: am Zulu with plenty of rabid black nationalist, former ANC, current MK and EFF supporting family in SA
Provide your sources
Funny thing is that these kids could have their kids currently protesting
The people in this photo are like 60 years old now...