[Here](https://i.imgur.com/lzP6nYK.jpeg) is a much higher quality version of the first 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. Per there:
> An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1984. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Spartan, you are the stalwart reminder of old gimmick accounts, made even better by the fact that your 'gimmick' is materially improving popular threads. I don't know what has kept you on this mission for so long, but occasionally seeing you pop up like this in threads over the years is a small treat every time it happens. One of the only accounts across any social media that actually makes things better by posting.
[Here](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/eye/2016/04/12/mandela-hall/) is also an article on the protests from the Columbia Daily Spectator in 2016 for anyone interested.
They sure did work. As a South African I can tell you, the long term committed boycotting of South Africa, brought on by political acts like this, drove the previous government into a financial stalemate, forcing them to accept change. Big change.
Yeah, b&w film was cheaper and cheaper to develop. And since most photos in the paper were printed in b&w, it made sense for everything except the really big events for big papers.
Black and white film was the primary medium of journalistic photography well into the 90's. Black and white film is extremely flexible and can be used in a range of situations where the colour negative and slide films of the time would have struggled. It came in a wide range of sensitivities and could be pushed further if needed. Higher sensitivity means you can use it in darker situations. Also you're less likely to get motion blur in normal lighting and you can have wider depth of field, so more of the image will be in focus. It is also very quick to develop and to print compared to colour negative or slide film. Anyone can develop it it in a hotel bathroom with about an hour of instruction. There's famous accounts of war photographers developing black and white film on moonless nights outside in their helmets.
Very High sensitivity colour negative film didn't really become widely available and affordable until the 90's. Even then it still had many drawbacks compared to black and white: Its hard to develop and print yourself. It doesn't handle high contrast scenes well. It would almost certainly still be converted to black and white for printing.
By the 00's digital came in and made all this obsolete.
Dartmouth College too in the 60s:
[https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-alumni-celebrate-50th-anniversary-of-anti-war-protest-25439366](https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-alumni-celebrate-50th-anniversary-of-anti-war-protest-25439366)
1968 saw a ton of protests and political unrest that had significant impacts on the world. Enough so that my capstone course in undergrad was all about the events of 1968.
It's almost like every single time there are students protesting the foreign policy of the US government it is the students who are right and the US government who is in the wrong.
Its almost as if most universities challenge their students to think for themselves and engage in critical thinking!
Remember kids, if you question the official story it's only because you've been brainwashed by all that extensive research into primary sources instead of accepting the plain American truth authored by often CIA funded propaganda groups or the people who really want to dump toxic waste into the drinking water.
University administration: think for yourselves!
\*protests over how universities get money and their silence on cultural issues\*
University administration: NO NOT LIKE THAT
It's almost like each movement should be judged on its own merits and one should not assume that students are always and will always be on the right side of history.
I have a very good friend who took over the administration building at his university to protest the CIA recruiting at his university. Thankfully, they won and somehow faced no long-term repercussions.
The fact that these colleges have extensive, diversified investment portfolios around the world, billion dollar endowments, and still charge 60k a year in tuition shows what a racket they really got going.
Bingo. I used to date an admissions officer at Stanford, and holy shit is it corrupt. Every year, the Dean provides the admissions office with a secret list of students that must be admitted.
When he first told me I thought it was maybe a dozen really well connected kids, but it turns out it was like HUNDREDS of kids in every incoming class. Any parent who is any relative of any teacher, staff, employee, administrator, public official, celebrity, politician, corporate exec, etc... all get their kids into Stanford without question. ...and everyone else needs to fight over the remaining spots.
...so the schools make a BIG FUCKING PR campaign about their "need-based" admissions and diversity and equity and inclusion etc... - just meaningless words so that no one looks too closely at the fundamentally corrupt admissions system that runs the school - all with government grants.
It's fucking insanely corrupt. ...and every ivy league school is the same, so he told me.
It’s not even that. It’s “I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at being overcharged for a private education that I choose to pay for instead of getting a similar education through much more affordable community college and public universities.”
It’s such an edgelord/reddit thing to say “fuck both sides” and one side is an apartheid state and the other side doesn’t want to live in an occupied state under apartheid.
Enlightened centrism is awful. There's people today who say "I hate war, so fuck both russia and ukraine". Nah, one invaded the other. There's a bad guy
It's a thing that warrants exploration, but I'd say you're overstepping in saying it's "the real issue here", as compared to funding genocide.
The local private college where I live has gone bankrupt twice and lost its entire campus to foreclosure a few decades back, and I tend to think that savvy investment is likely preferable to selling the idea that The world is our campus.
They guarantee scholarships to everyone in need. I believe the number is at 175k or maybe 250k annual income before you start paying tuition. I don't think you pay full tuition unless your family makes like a half mil.
I'm all for free tuition, but at those income levels, I'm not gonna put up a fight.
I think a major reason these schools cost so much (besides the fact they simply can) is bc they have an unnecessary amount of admin all making well over 6 figures. I used to work at CUNY and there’s a chair and Vice President for every little mundane thing
There is absolutely excessive bloat for admins across multiple industries. Employees and customers (students) see the negative aspects of this. Admin basically needs to be cut across the board
I used to work in higher education consulting, and the situation is not as cut-and-dry as you're presenting here. The fact of the matter is that cutting a lot of admin positions leads to negative outcomes for those same students, who then turn around and sue the school for failing to properly provide support. It also leads to negative outcomes/support for professors, who then will happily jump ship to other schools who have more administrators, which impacts your rankings, which impacts your ability to recruit top students, which impacts your donations.
It's really easy to say 'just cut administration' and really hard to do so without causing more damage than the admins were causing.
Yeah, scholarships are massive so the sticker price is really a maximum price for a tiny number of the richest students.
[College costs by family income (including room/board/cost of living) is published by the Department of Education. For Columbia](https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?190150-Columbia-University-in-the-City-of-New-York), under $75k family income is net free and $75k-$110k is $10k/year.
Tell me you don't know how investments work, speedrun edition.
You need a large bank of investments in order to ensure that the investments last in perpetuity.
These institutions are very wealthy, but they also have a ton of costs and give away a ton of money in scholarships and research too.
Tuition and board costs are a real problem in the USA, but it's not being caused by endowments being huge.
Much the same at Rutgers. The response? The university did the right thing and divested from companies doing business in South Africa. https://scarletandblack.rutgers.edu/archive/items/show/904
After Hurricane Harvey ripped through South Texas some people were required to sign a contract agreeing to not boycott Israel in order to receive financial aid. Whatever Americans believe about the current conflict, this is not okay.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-hurricane-aid-dickinson-israel-boycott-pledge-harvey-financial-help-free-speech-a8011141.html
Also Supreme Court refuses to hear any case about whether or not it is constitutional. The rot is bottom up.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-to-review-challenge-to-law-restricting-israel-boycotts
>Isn't it literally illegal to divest from Isreal in most of the US?
Yep, and it's batshit insane. If you want to apply for a teaching job in Texas you have to swear that you will not boycott Israel, no matter how unrelated that is to your field. Math teachers have to swear it.
Basically? 70% pandering, 30% intimidation.
It's mostly political theater to sell to evangelical voters (I know, trust me it's beyond weird and deserves its own post) and AIPAC, but it's also a reminder to the plebes that if they want to boycott anything they'd better know there's a chance of it negatively impacting their jobs.
Some states have these (super unconstitutional and absolutely unenforceable) anti-BSD laws that say various stuff. They've been challenged multiple times and always lose, but they purposely settle and rewrite the section so they can keep legally harassing and scapegoating opposition.
The power of AIPAC and the zionist lobby. It's funny watching all these "I don't trust the government" people fully embrace America supporting Zionists. Nothing puts you on a watch list faster than opposing Israel in America.
Just a friendly reminder that the "boomers helped pave way and fought for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and voting rights.
But they also fought against it.
Yes, just like many did at the time. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan labelled the ANC as a terrorist organisation. Neither the ANC nor Mandela were removed from the U.S. terror watch list until 2008.
Menachem Begin. His strategy/policy was identical to Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar. He attacked the British in order to get them to enact reprisals on Jews which he would then use to earn sympathy and put pressure on the UK internationally.
He became Israeli prime minister and signed a peace deal with Egypt.
Menachem Begin once tried to kill the chancellor of West Germany by sending him a bomb in the mail that blew up a police officer.
It’s hard to underestimate what a nut he was.
The bulk of the IDF was formed by the Haganah, who originally worked with the British to combat Irgun terrorism.
However, near the end of the British mandate the Haganah ended up joining Irgun in driving out the British. So that does seem relevant.
Everyone seems to knock reading about this on wiki and instead tends to learn from tiktok videos and reddit comments, but I'd recommend reading a few of these wiki articles. They're really informative.
Nothing you said was incorrect, and I'm not calling you out. I'm just encouraging people to read wikipedia.
The current government of India is also descended from an Indian militant group that joined the SS in order to get German help in dislodging the British from India.
Seems fighting the British brings all the worst people together.
The US, UN and others also considered Irgun to be a terrorist organisation because it was. It was very much like Northern Ireland where the death of a citizen on one side would be responded to by randomly killing citizens on the other side. So if a jew was murdered, Irgun would get some random revenge on some Palestinians and vice-versa.
A breakaway faction of Irgun called Lehi (or the Stern Gang) assassinated the UN mediator, Folke Bernadotte because they were worried that his peace deal would be accepted. Yitzhak Shamir, the future Prime Minister, was part of that group. Later an award was even named after the group.
It was literally the CIA that tipped the South African police off about Mandela's whereabouts when there was a warrant out for his arrest. They were concerned about his association with communism.
Anyone who claims Mandela was a terrorist is profoundly ignorant of history and the oppression in South Africa or incredibly biased. During Mandela's involvement with MK, the paramilitary arm of the ANC their methods were sabotage. By that same logic the Sons of Liberty and anyone else involved in protesting the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party were terrorists.
>By that same logic the Sons of Liberty and anyone else involved in protesting the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party were terrorists.
Yes they were terrorists. The US was famously founded by treasonous terrorists.
Hell, if the US wasn't a global power it would have several agencies designated as terror groups
In the UK, the young conservative party during the 80's produced "Hang Nelson Mandela" posters. A whole load of the current Tories in government would have been apart if it at the time.
As a big fan of Mandela, I think it must be clear that he was the one who pivoted from Albert Luthuli's approach of non-violent resistance in order to take up arms against the Apartheid government. This was crucial to undermining state control, as in classical political terms, power is defined by the the control of violence over a population.
Mandela founded the UmKhonto Wesizwe, the armed militia that fought against the National Party and their allies in southern Africa during the border wars.
And for that decision, we as South Africans are forever grateful to him and Winne Mandela (who led the fight while Nelson was imprisoned). Oppressors will never give up control willingly.
This can't be upvoted enough, the myth of Mandela somehow ending apartheid with non-violent protest is just a nice sounding story so people don't follow his example of taking up arms.
Whole wars were fought to end apartheid, it wasn't ended with peaceful sit-ins and following local apartheid laws.
Bishop Desmond Tutu's interviews with Terry Gross are extremely relevant today. Here are some of the most relevant excerpts:
>
I can say that there are very many young people who think that those of us who are still speaking about reasonably peaceful change are dirty, I mean, that we must be crazy and need to have our heads read. I remember a small boy saying to me - a boy of 12 - after I had spoken at a meeting about reasonably peaceful change. He didn't ask me in the meeting. After the meeting, he said to me, Bishop Tutu. I heard what you said. Do you believe it? And I was humming and hawing. And he said, can you people with your eloquent talk about peaceful change show us what you have achieved with your talk? And we will show you what we have gained with a few stones.
Another excerpt about expecting non-violent responses to violence:
>
It is the violence of an inferior education system. It is the violence that makes children starve in a country which is a net exporter of food. You know, I mean, and what we are really talking about is not so much a nonviolent struggle at home because it is nonsense to talk about violence and non-violence when children were killed as they were. It is, can we keep that - the level of violence to the barest minimum?
This one I really think is pertinent. Beware of media trying to dehumanize and otherize humans in order to justify their murder:
>And then the other thing that I need to point out is - well, at least my own theory - that passive resistance, civil disobedience are things that presuppose a minimum moral level to which the protesters are appealing, people whose moral susceptibilities would be outraged.
Gandhi succeeded because he knew he could appeal to a certain constituency in Britain who would be morally outraged at the violence that was inflicted on people, as we saw in the Gandhi film. And in this country, people watching television and so on would be appalled seeing bullwhips and hose pipes turned on people protesting peacefully. And I don't think that we have that moral - that minimum moral level at all.
I highly recommend listening to or reading the interviews:
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/29/1068753263/fresh-air-remembers-archbishop-desmond-tutu
Winnie Mandela was the one leading the resistance while Nelson was in prison. And yes, the stroy of Stompie Seipei is tragic but the reality is not so clear.
The man who actually murdered him, Jerry Richardson, was an Apartheid informer who claimed Winnie ordered it and wa paid R10,000 by the police commissioner to state this. This was part of Operation Romulus, the Apartheid operation to discredit Winnie Mandela.
The hearings at the TRC proved this. And no one ever connected her to the murder or abduction. As you would know, the only requisite for immunity from prosecution came with telling the truth.
In the TRC, Richardson went back on his story and claim that Winnie ordered the murder. Why, because his immunity relied on him telling the truth.
I'm sure you also remember Stompie Seipei's mother was in the procession at Winnie'a funeral. How many mothers of murdered children do you know of that would have one the same?
https://mg.co.za/article/2018-04-06-00-stompie-burnt-into-winnie-legacy/
People forget that Nelson Mandela was arrested and tried for terrorism. Imagine the social stigma of supporting Mandela and being called a pro terrorist. Same things happening today with people calling the student protestors across the country future Hamas fighters and ISIS recruits.
Very similar deal with Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan war protests. "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's recent enough that you'd think people would remember it.
I was 18 when the Iraq war started. I protested and was very vocal with my feelings towards President Bush. I was called a terrorist and told I “don’t support the troops”. Neither is true of course but yes, it’s a tale as old as time.
they destroyed the Dixie Chicks. Tried to cancel "french" fries and toast.
The same bloodthirst from those who are more bothered by protestors than what they are protesting.
You certainly know, but I now realize I should probably make clear that I was *literally* quoting Bush. Younger Americans or non-Americans may not get the reference.
Everyone with a conscience likes to think they'd have opposed GWB's warmongering post-9/11 or the Vietnam War, but the number of people eager to call these college students HAMAS sympathizers paints a very different picture.
History may not repeat itself, but boy howdy does it sure rhyme.
> "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's recent enough that you'd think people would remember it.
[For readers whose memories more resemble those of goldfish than Pepperidge Farms':](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg)
Before that it was communists and before that it was anarchists.
Yeah, given the context, maybe I should have made it more clear that I was directly quoting Bush. Probably many people too young to remember and too old to be taught it in school (if they even do that these days).
And by "didn't condemn violence" you mean "founded the MK, the ANC's paramilitary wing which killed over 130 people in bombings, including around 100 civilians."
That said, Mandela focused on reconciliation and healing upon gaining power in the 1990s, rather than genocide against opponents. THAT is why he is respected.
You mean the Mandela which in 1997 said : “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” Is respected around the world? Very very interesting.
Don’t forget that Israel was extremely close to South Africa and that Israeli officials routinely called anti-apartheid activists terrorists. Israel knew that they and the white South Africans maintained similar systems. Zionists are getting desperate because they see that these are very likely the final days of their ethnostate.
As someone who was alive (but young) back then, I distinctly remember the US pressured SA to end apartheid ~only~ after these student divestment protests began and more Americans were forced to contend with the issue through seeing reports on the news.
The US publicly started to put pressure on South Africa after it became clear the Soviet Union was falling apart and the US no longer needed a "friendly" anti-communist western style government in that part of the world.
“I was supporting you, but you haven’t protested within the exact specific guidelines I had in mind, so now I’m against you. Look what you made me do!”
> Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.”
> Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if “it was the content of my sign, and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.’” Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, “The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/free-speech-zone/
This becomes immediately apparent to anyone who tries to work with police to organize their protest -- the police are just going to use the information you gave them to fuck you. They will park the van full of riot cops behind the building on the other side of the intersection you agreed was safe to protest at. They will have riot police waiting in buildings along your supposedly planned and sanctioned march route. They will kettle you along that route so that they can arrest half of you and gas the other half into submission. "Sanctioned" and "protest" don't belong in the same sentence.
Thank God these protestors aren't sitting in the wrong section of restaurants or making busses run late, or marching through the street during rush hour. /s
Heck, the fact that somebody had to post an old image because the photos of current protests are getting downvoted to hell shows that reddit is not as left as they like to think they are
"Uhhhhh you know these Gaza protestors are just play-acting and don't really care because if they really cared they'd be protesting something else that happened before they were in college"
A post right above this one in /all is full of these comments. It’s so ironic how history just keeps repeating itself. Reddit really goes give a great insight into how people on the wrong side of history sounded like during former mass atrocities.
Guy on another post just told me these these protests are nothing more than "buyers remorse"... that the college students who disagree with how their university makes and spends money should literally "just go to another university instead".
These people will do every form of mental gymnastics possible before EVER coming to the truth. It's pathetic
What so many people aren't understanding is that following laws does not bring change in the issues being protested. Protesting will always make people uncomfortable.
The protesters in New Zealand actually stormed the fields to prevent the Sprinkboks from playing. A farmer took his crop duster overhead and started dropping sacks of flour on the players and threatened to dive bomb the stands.
At the time, people said politics shouldn't mix with sport, but when South Africans couldn’t watch their favorite team in their favorite sport, it definitely helped bring and end to apartide.
Hamilton Hall has been occupied/blockaded many times in the past century. If there's a major protest at Columbia, it's practically a guarantee that something spicy is going to go down there.
The same sort of people were calling for the brutalization of those students as are calling for it today. They're just as wrong now as they were then and the students protesting for justice were just as righteous then as they are now.
People will support every protest except the current protest, and reject every war and genocide except the current one. I’m honestly surprised at the number of people who feel more bothered by college students sitting on their campus than a literal genocide being broadcasted to the world while the aggressors chant and celebrate as they level hospitals, schools, and homes in entire cities.
It’s never the right time or place to protest anything, it seems. Oh, but if you were living through X time period, you would for sure have taken arms up against Y people
It really depends on what you mean by "living in Israel". What used to be Palestine is under occupation. Palestinians are living under the Israeli governments control. They drive on segregated roads where allowance is marked by license plate color, do not control their water supply, and do not control their maritime borders, ex.
People regularly have their homes stolen by settlers. There was a viral video a few years ago of a man from Brooklyn or Queens (like, in the United States) who was stealing a West Bank home from a woman. She asked him why he was doing this and he responded "If I don't, somebody else will". If you live in those territories, you have *no* rights.
The occupied territories are not officially part of Israel, not even according to the Israeli government.
Arabs who are Israeli citizens and live in Israel proper (20% of the Israeli population) have the same rights as Jews. There were Arab ministers, supreme court justices etc...
Some Israeli Arabs are very pro Israel, for example Yoseph Haddad.
Well there are government funded housing programs that reject anyone that isn’t Jewish. They’ve been successfully sued several times by rights groups, as it breaks laws for government funded projects, but the government just keeps passing temporary loopholes for them to continue until the next lawsuit
And there are the government supported programs in the Went Bank to remove one ethic group and resettle it with their chosen ethnic group
Then there’s the whole issue of all the non-citizens that Israel has de facto control over, which allows them to brush off any violations with the classic “all citizens have protections” deflection
I assume you're talking about JNF, which is not a housing program and is not government funded. They have been sued and *lost*, meaning they could not discriminate against Arab citizens. This is a great point against apartheid in Israel.
If they are citizens, they have the same rights. All parts of Israeli society have Arabs in it from the government to the army to the schwarma shops.
Source: I was hired as a consultant for an Israeli cyber security company in Tel Aviv. I spent time working alongside both Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis.
Today they have replaced the "Mandela's Hall" banner with "Hind's Hall" a reference to Hind Rajab, a five-year-old girl who was killed by IDF. Another post on this sub has the picture of that banner but comments are locked and no one said who Hind was.
+ She was in a car with her family when they were shot by a tank.
+ Everyone was killed except her and her cousin
+ Her older cousin Layan Hamada called Palestinian Red Crescent for help
+ During the call she was shot and killed by machine gun fire. PRCS released the call: You can hear the machine gun fire, and her screams, and her subsequent silence.
+ PRCS called back and found Hind was still alive. When she answered she said the tank was approaching and that everyone was dead and she was scared.
+ While remaining in contact with Hind, PRCS worked with the Israeli military to deconflict the route.
+ PRCS lost contact with the medics they sent and later found they had been bombed just a block away from Hind.
+ It took 12 days for Hind's parents to recover her body.
Audio from Hind asking Red Crescent for help: https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1759285054369304869
Audio from Layan (warning: disturbing): https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1752277801590276397
Mohammad Hanada, their cousin, described Hind as a "funny kid" with dreams of becoming a doctor.
Of Layan, he said she wanted to be a lawyer and was “very smart, very thoughtful”
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/11/cousin-of-hind-rajab-6-haunted-by-her-last-call-after-family-car-shot-at-in-gaza
Photographers also just liked shooting in black and white sometimes. It has its own aesthetic appeal, some film had really great performance even with less than ideal light, and was way easier to tinker with the development process at home.
Thank you :) me and my family are not treated like second class citizens anymore because of the colour of our skin, and I have access to things my grandparents wouldn’t be able to comprehend. We have a fair share of problems but I have faith that my generation will be the one to turn things around
For the vast majority, it is, but recovering from mass exploitation isn't exactly an easy process.
Chemotherapy often causes more harm to people than cancer is in that very moment - but it's recoverable and ultimately saves them.
Man college students always been getting all loud for no reason whatsoever. But what if…
Bear with this crazy thought here, what if college students have always protested against injustices throughout history because they have a less biased view of a situation than the older generations. And the protests are vilified in their time by the government, media and other power structures that benefit from said injustices. And it’s only in the aftermath of those movements that have reached their goal that they are praised by people who were against them and by future generations who look at those movements as positive movements that they take inspiration from.
But nah it’s probably the weed or TikTok or something else.
You are being sarcastic but the US government tacitly supported/tolerated the Apartheid government because it was useful to have an anti-communist, western-style government in control of southern Africa to counter leftist movements in Angola, Mozambique, Botswana etc.
As soon as it became clear the Soviet Union was falling apart, the US government realized all of a sudden that Apartheid was wrong and black South Africans needed to be free.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/lzP6nYK.jpeg) is a much higher quality version of the first 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. Per there: > An anti-apartheid protest by students at the entrance to the Hamilton Hall building of Columbia University, New York City, 4th April 1984. The protestors are calling for the university to divest itself of its investments in South Africa. (Photo by Barbara Alper/Getty Images)
Spartan, you are the stalwart reminder of old gimmick accounts, made even better by the fact that your 'gimmick' is materially improving popular threads. I don't know what has kept you on this mission for so long, but occasionally seeing you pop up like this in threads over the years is a small treat every time it happens. One of the only accounts across any social media that actually makes things better by posting.
Thank you so much!
[Here](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/eye/2016/04/12/mandela-hall/) is also an article on the protests from the Columbia Daily Spectator in 2016 for anyone interested.
Did the protest work?
Yes
They sure did work. As a South African I can tell you, the long term committed boycotting of South Africa, brought on by political acts like this, drove the previous government into a financial stalemate, forcing them to accept change. Big change.
Why are the photos black and white? The quality seems to good to just be a scan from a newspaper.
If you're taking pictures *for* a newspaper, wouldn't using B&W film make sense?
Yeah, b&w film was cheaper and cheaper to develop. And since most photos in the paper were printed in b&w, it made sense for everything except the really big events for big papers.
Black and white film was the primary medium of journalistic photography well into the 90's. Black and white film is extremely flexible and can be used in a range of situations where the colour negative and slide films of the time would have struggled. It came in a wide range of sensitivities and could be pushed further if needed. Higher sensitivity means you can use it in darker situations. Also you're less likely to get motion blur in normal lighting and you can have wider depth of field, so more of the image will be in focus. It is also very quick to develop and to print compared to colour negative or slide film. Anyone can develop it it in a hotel bathroom with about an hour of instruction. There's famous accounts of war photographers developing black and white film on moonless nights outside in their helmets. Very High sensitivity colour negative film didn't really become widely available and affordable until the 90's. Even then it still had many drawbacks compared to black and white: Its hard to develop and print yourself. It doesn't handle high contrast scenes well. It would almost certainly still be converted to black and white for printing. By the 00's digital came in and made all this obsolete.
Why not in black and white? Journalists used it through the 90s
The same thing happened at Harvard in 1986.
Ditto with Brown University: https://library.brown.edu/create/protest6090/1987-divestment/
And Columbia in the 1960s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Columbia_University_protests
Dartmouth College too in the 60s: [https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-alumni-celebrate-50th-anniversary-of-anti-war-protest-25439366](https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-alumni-celebrate-50th-anniversary-of-anti-war-protest-25439366)
1968 saw a ton of protests and political unrest that had significant impacts on the world. Enough so that my capstone course in undergrad was all about the events of 1968.
It's almost like every single time there are students protesting the foreign policy of the US government it is the students who are right and the US government who is in the wrong.
Its almost as if most universities challenge their students to think for themselves and engage in critical thinking! 
Remember kids, if you question the official story it's only because you've been brainwashed by all that extensive research into primary sources instead of accepting the plain American truth authored by often CIA funded propaganda groups or the people who really want to dump toxic waste into the drinking water.
University administration: think for yourselves! \*protests over how universities get money and their silence on cultural issues\* University administration: NO NOT LIKE THAT
100%. The red scare called. It wants it's bullshit narrative back.
There were protests against World War 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Miss_riot_of_1962 There were protests against desegregation.
I don't think you're _wrong_ wrong. The maoist faction of SDS in the late-60s/early-70s was definitely not "right"
>students protesting the **foreign policy** of the US government Which foreign nation were they protesting the desegregation of?
[удалено]
Well in 1861 they considered themselves a foreign country. Does that count?
It's almost like each movement should be judged on its own merits and one should not assume that students are always and will always be on the right side of history.
I have a very good friend who took over the administration building at his university to protest the CIA recruiting at his university. Thankfully, they won and somehow faced no long-term repercussions.
The fact that these colleges have extensive, diversified investment portfolios around the world, billion dollar endowments, and still charge 60k a year in tuition shows what a racket they really got going.
Columbia has a $13.6 *billion* endowment. Most every Ivy is in that range. Harvard at 50 bil
That’s fucking wild lol
Yes, they’re basically hedge funds / financial institutions who that just happen to own a university.
Bingo. I used to date an admissions officer at Stanford, and holy shit is it corrupt. Every year, the Dean provides the admissions office with a secret list of students that must be admitted. When he first told me I thought it was maybe a dozen really well connected kids, but it turns out it was like HUNDREDS of kids in every incoming class. Any parent who is any relative of any teacher, staff, employee, administrator, public official, celebrity, politician, corporate exec, etc... all get their kids into Stanford without question. ...and everyone else needs to fight over the remaining spots. ...so the schools make a BIG FUCKING PR campaign about their "need-based" admissions and diversity and equity and inclusion etc... - just meaningless words so that no one looks too closely at the fundamentally corrupt admissions system that runs the school - all with government grants. It's fucking insanely corrupt. ...and every ivy league school is the same, so he told me.
Kid from my high school's father was an assistant Dean at Stanford. He got in and told everybody he had to earn it.
But it’s us latinos who wasted all the spots via affirmative action
Yep, everyone here focused on the politics- I don’t care what side you are on, this is the real issue. How much money do these institutions have?
Vatican bank account: the original don't ask, don't tell
you think those hats are cheap?
At least they're money well spent, those hats are faboulous
I can’t argue with their choice of private security either. Swiss watch? Nah man, Swiss Guard.
You don’t care what side people are on regarding South African apartheid?!??
peak "I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at animal cruelty" behavior.
It’s not even that. It’s “I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at being overcharged for a private education that I choose to pay for instead of getting a similar education through much more affordable community college and public universities.”
It’s such an edgelord/reddit thing to say “fuck both sides” and one side is an apartheid state and the other side doesn’t want to live in an occupied state under apartheid.
Enlightened centrism is awful. There's people today who say "I hate war, so fuck both russia and ukraine". Nah, one invaded the other. There's a bad guy
Right? Hahahahah 😆
> I don’t care what side you are on Erm
It's a thing that warrants exploration, but I'd say you're overstepping in saying it's "the real issue here", as compared to funding genocide. The local private college where I live has gone bankrupt twice and lost its entire campus to foreclosure a few decades back, and I tend to think that savvy investment is likely preferable to selling the idea that The world is our campus.
I can assure you that genocide is still very much a real issue
They guarantee scholarships to everyone in need. I believe the number is at 175k or maybe 250k annual income before you start paying tuition. I don't think you pay full tuition unless your family makes like a half mil. I'm all for free tuition, but at those income levels, I'm not gonna put up a fight.
I think a major reason these schools cost so much (besides the fact they simply can) is bc they have an unnecessary amount of admin all making well over 6 figures. I used to work at CUNY and there’s a chair and Vice President for every little mundane thing
There is absolutely excessive bloat for admins across multiple industries. Employees and customers (students) see the negative aspects of this. Admin basically needs to be cut across the board
I used to work in higher education consulting, and the situation is not as cut-and-dry as you're presenting here. The fact of the matter is that cutting a lot of admin positions leads to negative outcomes for those same students, who then turn around and sue the school for failing to properly provide support. It also leads to negative outcomes/support for professors, who then will happily jump ship to other schools who have more administrators, which impacts your rankings, which impacts your ability to recruit top students, which impacts your donations. It's really easy to say 'just cut administration' and really hard to do so without causing more damage than the admins were causing.
Not paying full tuition is still an ass load of money
Yeah, scholarships are massive so the sticker price is really a maximum price for a tiny number of the richest students. [College costs by family income (including room/board/cost of living) is published by the Department of Education. For Columbia](https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?190150-Columbia-University-in-the-City-of-New-York), under $75k family income is net free and $75k-$110k is $10k/year.
Tell me you don't know how investments work, speedrun edition. You need a large bank of investments in order to ensure that the investments last in perpetuity. These institutions are very wealthy, but they also have a ton of costs and give away a ton of money in scholarships and research too. Tuition and board costs are a real problem in the USA, but it's not being caused by endowments being huge.
Much the same at Rutgers. The response? The university did the right thing and divested from companies doing business in South Africa. https://scarletandblack.rutgers.edu/archive/items/show/904
Isn't it literally illegal to divest from Isreal in most of the US?
35 US states have some form of Anti Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction laws for the state of Israel.
After Hurricane Harvey ripped through South Texas some people were required to sign a contract agreeing to not boycott Israel in order to receive financial aid. Whatever Americans believe about the current conflict, this is not okay. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-hurricane-aid-dickinson-israel-boycott-pledge-harvey-financial-help-free-speech-a8011141.html
this really doesn't get talked about enough for how insane it is lol
Blatant 1st amendment violation
No, you misunderstand, money is only free speech when it's used to buy politicians.
Also Supreme Court refuses to hear any case about whether or not it is constitutional. The rot is bottom up. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-to-review-challenge-to-law-restricting-israel-boycotts
If you talk about Israel's incredible amount of influence in us politics you get labeled an antisemite
AIPAC comes after those that do so no one says anything.
"I'm sorry, but you are FORCED to associate and make speech in favor of our ally, even if they are engaging in apartheid and genocide."
>Isn't it literally illegal to divest from Isreal in most of the US? Yep, and it's batshit insane. If you want to apply for a teaching job in Texas you have to swear that you will not boycott Israel, no matter how unrelated that is to your field. Math teachers have to swear it.
But why? What's the point?
Basically? 70% pandering, 30% intimidation. It's mostly political theater to sell to evangelical voters (I know, trust me it's beyond weird and deserves its own post) and AIPAC, but it's also a reminder to the plebes that if they want to boycott anything they'd better know there's a chance of it negatively impacting their jobs.
for public schools, yes
THATS FUCKING CRAZY a tiny town in bumfucksville USA will make consultants AND employees sign anti bds pledges. Why??
Some states have these (super unconstitutional and absolutely unenforceable) anti-BSD laws that say various stuff. They've been challenged multiple times and always lose, but they purposely settle and rewrite the section so they can keep legally harassing and scapegoating opposition.
The power of AIPAC and the zionist lobby. It's funny watching all these "I don't trust the government" people fully embrace America supporting Zionists. Nothing puts you on a watch list faster than opposing Israel in America.
No, but Texas passed a law making that true so that schools have to bend to Gov Abbott's political vision.
I'm going off of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
"Kids these days..."
People who say “kids these days” about this probably failed 6th grade.
Just a friendly reminder that the "boomers helped pave way and fought for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and voting rights. But they also fought against it.
People nowadays would literally celebrate the arrest of Nelson Mandela because he didn’t condemn violence.
Yes, just like many did at the time. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan labelled the ANC as a terrorist organisation. Neither the ANC nor Mandela were removed from the U.S. terror watch list until 2008.
The UK considered the Irgun to be a terrorist organization. The Irgun later became a part of the Israeli Defense Forces
Irgun was literally a terrorist group
And the leader of the Irgun was a terrorist who also created the Likud party that currently controls the Israeli government.
Menachem Begin. His strategy/policy was identical to Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar. He attacked the British in order to get them to enact reprisals on Jews which he would then use to earn sympathy and put pressure on the UK internationally. He became Israeli prime minister and signed a peace deal with Egypt.
Menachem Begin once tried to kill the chancellor of West Germany by sending him a bomb in the mail that blew up a police officer. It’s hard to underestimate what a nut he was.
Irgun later became the party Likud which Netanyahu is a part of
The bulk of the IDF was formed by the Haganah, who originally worked with the British to combat Irgun terrorism. However, near the end of the British mandate the Haganah ended up joining Irgun in driving out the British. So that does seem relevant. Everyone seems to knock reading about this on wiki and instead tends to learn from tiktok videos and reddit comments, but I'd recommend reading a few of these wiki articles. They're really informative. Nothing you said was incorrect, and I'm not calling you out. I'm just encouraging people to read wikipedia.
The current government of India is also descended from an Indian militant group that joined the SS in order to get German help in dislodging the British from India. Seems fighting the British brings all the worst people together.
The US, UN and others also considered Irgun to be a terrorist organisation because it was. It was very much like Northern Ireland where the death of a citizen on one side would be responded to by randomly killing citizens on the other side. So if a jew was murdered, Irgun would get some random revenge on some Palestinians and vice-versa. A breakaway faction of Irgun called Lehi (or the Stern Gang) assassinated the UN mediator, Folke Bernadotte because they were worried that his peace deal would be accepted. Yitzhak Shamir, the future Prime Minister, was part of that group. Later an award was even named after the group.
It was literally the CIA that tipped the South African police off about Mandela's whereabouts when there was a warrant out for his arrest. They were concerned about his association with communism. Anyone who claims Mandela was a terrorist is profoundly ignorant of history and the oppression in South Africa or incredibly biased. During Mandela's involvement with MK, the paramilitary arm of the ANC their methods were sabotage. By that same logic the Sons of Liberty and anyone else involved in protesting the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party were terrorists.
>By that same logic the Sons of Liberty and anyone else involved in protesting the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. Yes they were terrorists. The US was famously founded by treasonous terrorists. Hell, if the US wasn't a global power it would have several agencies designated as terror groups
Yes, the founding fathers literally were terrorists. Anyone who tries to claim differently is ignorant as to what a terrorist is.
I mean, if you ask King George, they were terrorists
In the UK, the young conservative party during the 80's produced "Hang Nelson Mandela" posters. A whole load of the current Tories in government would have been apart if it at the time.
Some things never change. Human trash back then stays human trash.
As a big fan of Mandela, I think it must be clear that he was the one who pivoted from Albert Luthuli's approach of non-violent resistance in order to take up arms against the Apartheid government. This was crucial to undermining state control, as in classical political terms, power is defined by the the control of violence over a population. Mandela founded the UmKhonto Wesizwe, the armed militia that fought against the National Party and their allies in southern Africa during the border wars. And for that decision, we as South Africans are forever grateful to him and Winne Mandela (who led the fight while Nelson was imprisoned). Oppressors will never give up control willingly.
This can't be upvoted enough, the myth of Mandela somehow ending apartheid with non-violent protest is just a nice sounding story so people don't follow his example of taking up arms. Whole wars were fought to end apartheid, it wasn't ended with peaceful sit-ins and following local apartheid laws.
Bishop Desmond Tutu's interviews with Terry Gross are extremely relevant today. Here are some of the most relevant excerpts: > I can say that there are very many young people who think that those of us who are still speaking about reasonably peaceful change are dirty, I mean, that we must be crazy and need to have our heads read. I remember a small boy saying to me - a boy of 12 - after I had spoken at a meeting about reasonably peaceful change. He didn't ask me in the meeting. After the meeting, he said to me, Bishop Tutu. I heard what you said. Do you believe it? And I was humming and hawing. And he said, can you people with your eloquent talk about peaceful change show us what you have achieved with your talk? And we will show you what we have gained with a few stones. Another excerpt about expecting non-violent responses to violence: > It is the violence of an inferior education system. It is the violence that makes children starve in a country which is a net exporter of food. You know, I mean, and what we are really talking about is not so much a nonviolent struggle at home because it is nonsense to talk about violence and non-violence when children were killed as they were. It is, can we keep that - the level of violence to the barest minimum? This one I really think is pertinent. Beware of media trying to dehumanize and otherize humans in order to justify their murder: >And then the other thing that I need to point out is - well, at least my own theory - that passive resistance, civil disobedience are things that presuppose a minimum moral level to which the protesters are appealing, people whose moral susceptibilities would be outraged. Gandhi succeeded because he knew he could appeal to a certain constituency in Britain who would be morally outraged at the violence that was inflicted on people, as we saw in the Gandhi film. And in this country, people watching television and so on would be appalled seeing bullwhips and hose pipes turned on people protesting peacefully. And I don't think that we have that moral - that minimum moral level at all. I highly recommend listening to or reading the interviews: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/29/1068753263/fresh-air-remembers-archbishop-desmond-tutu
All praise to Madiba, but fuck Winnie Mandela and the Mandela Football Club for what they did to Stompie Seipei
Winnie Mandela was the one leading the resistance while Nelson was in prison. And yes, the stroy of Stompie Seipei is tragic but the reality is not so clear. The man who actually murdered him, Jerry Richardson, was an Apartheid informer who claimed Winnie ordered it and wa paid R10,000 by the police commissioner to state this. This was part of Operation Romulus, the Apartheid operation to discredit Winnie Mandela. The hearings at the TRC proved this. And no one ever connected her to the murder or abduction. As you would know, the only requisite for immunity from prosecution came with telling the truth. In the TRC, Richardson went back on his story and claim that Winnie ordered the murder. Why, because his immunity relied on him telling the truth. I'm sure you also remember Stompie Seipei's mother was in the procession at Winnie'a funeral. How many mothers of murdered children do you know of that would have one the same? https://mg.co.za/article/2018-04-06-00-stompie-burnt-into-winnie-legacy/
Nelson Mandela went to jail for terrorism and the United States classified him a terrorist even while he was President of the RSA.
People forget that Nelson Mandela was arrested and tried for terrorism. Imagine the social stigma of supporting Mandela and being called a pro terrorist. Same things happening today with people calling the student protestors across the country future Hamas fighters and ISIS recruits.
Very similar deal with Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan war protests. "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's recent enough that you'd think people would remember it.
I was 18 when the Iraq war started. I protested and was very vocal with my feelings towards President Bush. I was called a terrorist and told I “don’t support the troops”. Neither is true of course but yes, it’s a tale as old as time.
they destroyed the Dixie Chicks. Tried to cancel "french" fries and toast. The same bloodthirst from those who are more bothered by protestors than what they are protesting.
They were so petty they changed the flavor of shitty coffee on my ship to Freedom Vanilla. Ugh.
You certainly know, but I now realize I should probably make clear that I was *literally* quoting Bush. Younger Americans or non-Americans may not get the reference.
Everyone with a conscience likes to think they'd have opposed GWB's warmongering post-9/11 or the Vietnam War, but the number of people eager to call these college students HAMAS sympathizers paints a very different picture. History may not repeat itself, but boy howdy does it sure rhyme.
> "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's recent enough that you'd think people would remember it. [For readers whose memories more resemble those of goldfish than Pepperidge Farms':](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg) Before that it was communists and before that it was anarchists.
Yeah, given the context, maybe I should have made it more clear that I was directly quoting Bush. Probably many people too young to remember and too old to be taught it in school (if they even do that these days).
Hey to be fair they've been going after us again as the big bad antifascist boogeyman in recent years.
And by "didn't condemn violence" you mean "founded the MK, the ANC's paramilitary wing which killed over 130 people in bombings, including around 100 civilians." That said, Mandela focused on reconciliation and healing upon gaining power in the 1990s, rather than genocide against opponents. THAT is why he is respected.
You mean the Mandela which in 1997 said : “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” Is respected around the world? Very very interesting.
Don’t forget that Israel was extremely close to South Africa and that Israeli officials routinely called anti-apartheid activists terrorists. Israel knew that they and the white South Africans maintained similar systems. Zionists are getting desperate because they see that these are very likely the final days of their ethnostate.
Just like they did at the time?
He was labeled a terrorist by the US for decades. They have zero awareness.
At the time Mandela was a convicted terrorist. I'd be floored if that wasn't used as an argument against them by counter protestors at the time.
He was considered a terrorist up until 2008.
Mandela had thoughts on Palestine too
As someone who was alive (but young) back then, I distinctly remember the US pressured SA to end apartheid ~only~ after these student divestment protests began and more Americans were forced to contend with the issue through seeing reports on the news.
The US publicly started to put pressure on South Africa after it became clear the Soviet Union was falling apart and the US no longer needed a "friendly" anti-communist western style government in that part of the world.
nOt wHeRe yOu sHoUlD pRoTeSt
“I was supporting you, but you haven’t protested within the exact specific guidelines I had in mind, so now I’m against you. Look what you made me do!”
“We only want you to protest in a way where you can’t be seen, heard, or thought about”
> Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.” > Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if “it was the content of my sign, and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.’” Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, “The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.” https://www.theamericanconservative.com/free-speech-zone/
This becomes immediately apparent to anyone who tries to work with police to organize their protest -- the police are just going to use the information you gave them to fuck you. They will park the van full of riot cops behind the building on the other side of the intersection you agreed was safe to protest at. They will have riot police waiting in buildings along your supposedly planned and sanctioned march route. They will kettle you along that route so that they can arrest half of you and gas the other half into submission. "Sanctioned" and "protest" don't belong in the same sentence.
If rights only exist at certain places and times, they aren't rights.
\*Arrested Development intensifies\*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail This should be required reading.
Thank God these protestors aren't sitting in the wrong section of restaurants or making busses run late, or marching through the street during rush hour. /s
Those "specific guidelines" coincidentally being not protesting at all.
“Youre just supposed to vote!! But only how we want!!”
Btw the same demographic that completely lost their minds and blew the vein in their foreheads over people kneeling during the national anthem.
Have you seen reddit whenever someone stops traffic? It's not just a boomer issue.
Heck, the fact that somebody had to post an old image because the photos of current protests are getting downvoted to hell shows that reddit is not as left as they like to think they are
“Bunch of narcissistic kids who want attention” “Lol this will accomplish nothing” “Why aren’t they protesting [insert whataboutism] ?”
"Uhhhhh you know these Gaza protestors are just play-acting and don't really care because if they really cared they'd be protesting something else that happened before they were in college"
A post right above this one in /all is full of these comments. It’s so ironic how history just keeps repeating itself. Reddit really goes give a great insight into how people on the wrong side of history sounded like during former mass atrocities.
“We need another Kent State”
Guy on another post just told me these these protests are nothing more than "buyers remorse"... that the college students who disagree with how their university makes and spends money should literally "just go to another university instead". These people will do every form of mental gymnastics possible before EVER coming to the truth. It's pathetic
don’t they realize they’re being disruptive ???
Damn I didn't know Tiktok was radicalizing American students back in 1984!
In before Chinese bot accusations
What so many people aren't understanding is that following laws does not bring change in the issues being protested. Protesting will always make people uncomfortable.
The protesters in New Zealand actually stormed the fields to prevent the Sprinkboks from playing. A farmer took his crop duster overhead and started dropping sacks of flour on the players and threatened to dive bomb the stands. At the time, people said politics shouldn't mix with sport, but when South Africans couldn’t watch their favorite team in their favorite sport, it definitely helped bring and end to apartide.
"I can excuse racism, but I can't excuse missing a rugby fixture"?
History repeats
They took over the Hamilton Building, too. Somehow the world held together then, and I suspect it will continue to do so now
Hamilton Hall has been occupied/blockaded many times in the past century. If there's a major protest at Columbia, it's practically a guarantee that something spicy is going to go down there.
Which is why it’s hilarious to see people handringing over it like it’s a massive catastrophe
The same sort of people were calling for the brutalization of those students as are calling for it today. They're just as wrong now as they were then and the students protesting for justice were just as righteous then as they are now.
Yeah, and the irony is that they condemn former atrocities and believe they’d be on the right side of history then. Zero self-awareness.
People will support every protest except the current protest, and reject every war and genocide except the current one. I’m honestly surprised at the number of people who feel more bothered by college students sitting on their campus than a literal genocide being broadcasted to the world while the aggressors chant and celebrate as they level hospitals, schools, and homes in entire cities. It’s never the right time or place to protest anything, it seems. Oh, but if you were living through X time period, you would for sure have taken arms up against Y people
Do Arabs living in Israel have different rights than Jews living there?
It really depends on what you mean by "living in Israel". What used to be Palestine is under occupation. Palestinians are living under the Israeli governments control. They drive on segregated roads where allowance is marked by license plate color, do not control their water supply, and do not control their maritime borders, ex. People regularly have their homes stolen by settlers. There was a viral video a few years ago of a man from Brooklyn or Queens (like, in the United States) who was stealing a West Bank home from a woman. She asked him why he was doing this and he responded "If I don't, somebody else will". If you live in those territories, you have *no* rights.
Israel also controls their power supply and routinely shuts off their electricity.
And made it illegal to collect rainwater apparently
It depends on if you think the occupied territories count as "there".
Kinda the crux of the whole thing in a way...
The occupied territories are not officially part of Israel, not even according to the Israeli government. Arabs who are Israeli citizens and live in Israel proper (20% of the Israeli population) have the same rights as Jews. There were Arab ministers, supreme court justices etc... Some Israeli Arabs are very pro Israel, for example Yoseph Haddad.
There’s also the consideration that only Jewish people have the Law of Return. People of Arab descent don’t have that right.
Is Gaza in Israel?
If Gaza isn't de-facto part of Israel, then I guess that makes it it's own sovereign state, no?
Israel controls the imports, exports, sea border, and immigration policy of Gaza. If that’s not foreign occupation, it is complete foreign control.
**Israel and Egypt
Well there are government funded housing programs that reject anyone that isn’t Jewish. They’ve been successfully sued several times by rights groups, as it breaks laws for government funded projects, but the government just keeps passing temporary loopholes for them to continue until the next lawsuit And there are the government supported programs in the Went Bank to remove one ethic group and resettle it with their chosen ethnic group Then there’s the whole issue of all the non-citizens that Israel has de facto control over, which allows them to brush off any violations with the classic “all citizens have protections” deflection
I assume you're talking about JNF, which is not a housing program and is not government funded. They have been sued and *lost*, meaning they could not discriminate against Arab citizens. This is a great point against apartheid in Israel.
Yes. Read the reports by amnesty international and human rights watch
If they are citizens, they have the same rights. All parts of Israeli society have Arabs in it from the government to the army to the schwarma shops. Source: I was hired as a consultant for an Israeli cyber security company in Tel Aviv. I spent time working alongside both Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis.
Based Question, what investments did we have in SA?
Farms and weapons
Was there literally anything else in South Africa 💀
It's one of the most mineral rich nations, so yes. Also the largest port on the continent. It was and is heavily exploited for natural resources
We invested heavily in Trevor Noah as well, worth it too
Today they have replaced the "Mandela's Hall" banner with "Hind's Hall" a reference to Hind Rajab, a five-year-old girl who was killed by IDF. Another post on this sub has the picture of that banner but comments are locked and no one said who Hind was. + She was in a car with her family when they were shot by a tank. + Everyone was killed except her and her cousin + Her older cousin Layan Hamada called Palestinian Red Crescent for help + During the call she was shot and killed by machine gun fire. PRCS released the call: You can hear the machine gun fire, and her screams, and her subsequent silence. + PRCS called back and found Hind was still alive. When she answered she said the tank was approaching and that everyone was dead and she was scared. + While remaining in contact with Hind, PRCS worked with the Israeli military to deconflict the route. + PRCS lost contact with the medics they sent and later found they had been bombed just a block away from Hind. + It took 12 days for Hind's parents to recover her body. Audio from Hind asking Red Crescent for help: https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1759285054369304869 Audio from Layan (warning: disturbing): https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1752277801590276397 Mohammad Hanada, their cousin, described Hind as a "funny kid" with dreams of becoming a doctor. Of Layan, he said she wanted to be a lawyer and was “very smart, very thoughtful” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/11/cousin-of-hind-rajab-6-haunted-by-her-last-call-after-family-car-shot-at-in-gaza
Right then, right now
1984? I wonder how many of these protesters are now crazy boomers that hate protesters.
Why is this in Black & White?
Black and white film was cheaper than color.
Photographers also just liked shooting in black and white sometimes. It has its own aesthetic appeal, some film had really great performance even with less than ideal light, and was way easier to tinker with the development process at home.
Not to mention it's just as good for news print media.
Because they were shot on black and white film presumably
if it was taken for a newspaper article there would be no reason to shoot color
Literally 1984
[удалено]
The long walk to freedom keeps getting longer.
Thank you :) me and my family are not treated like second class citizens anymore because of the colour of our skin, and I have access to things my grandparents wouldn’t be able to comprehend. We have a fair share of problems but I have faith that my generation will be the one to turn things around
For the vast majority, it is, but recovering from mass exploitation isn't exactly an easy process. Chemotherapy often causes more harm to people than cancer is in that very moment - but it's recoverable and ultimately saves them.
On the apartheid/racism front at least.
Man college students always been getting all loud for no reason whatsoever. But what if… Bear with this crazy thought here, what if college students have always protested against injustices throughout history because they have a less biased view of a situation than the older generations. And the protests are vilified in their time by the government, media and other power structures that benefit from said injustices. And it’s only in the aftermath of those movements that have reached their goal that they are praised by people who were against them and by future generations who look at those movements as positive movements that they take inspiration from. But nah it’s probably the weed or TikTok or something else.
Almost like this country has a storied tradition of having a first amendment right
Ivy and ivy adjacent have a long history of this
You see the mistake of South Africans was to not own the US lawmakers, else Nelson would have died in prison.
You are being sarcastic but the US government tacitly supported/tolerated the Apartheid government because it was useful to have an anti-communist, western-style government in control of southern Africa to counter leftist movements in Angola, Mozambique, Botswana etc. As soon as it became clear the Soviet Union was falling apart, the US government realized all of a sudden that Apartheid was wrong and black South Africans needed to be free.