How The Term Apartied Was Specifically Racialized Against White Societies

Executive Summary

  • The term apartied is explained as only a separation performed by whites in South Africa.
  • Apartied is common throughout the world and practiced outside of South Africa.


The term apartied is usually explained as being system separation by whites against blacks. The problem is that this does not explain the apartied that is found worldwide where non-whites use this same system.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and other related articles at any time, visit this link.

The Official Definition of Apartied

What follows are several common definitions.

Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. ”separateness”, lit. “aparthood”) was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s.[note 1] Apartheid was characterized by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap (boss-hood or boss-ship), which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation’s minority white population.[4] According to this system of social stratification, white citizens had the highest status, followed by Indians and Coloureds, then black Africans.[4] The economic legacy and social effects of apartheid continue to the present day.[5][6][7] – Wikipedia

Therefore, the definition is clear that apartied is associated with South Africa. It is whites creating a separation from blacks based upon the principle that they are superior to blacks.

It is logical to assume that if cases of apartied can be found either in history or in the present day or apartied that are not related to South Africa, then this definition is problematic. This would be the same problem in describing slavery that only encompassed the Atlantic Slave Trade, where the slaves were black, and the slaveholders were white. This would lead to a concept or mental framework, which we have today, where slavery is not considered slavery unless it fits into this construct, as I cover in the article Is It Slavery if the Slave Owner is Not White? The present-day result of this framework is that slavery outside of white countries is barely seen, and the emphasis on reducing it becomes excessively dissipated.

Example #1: Apartied in By Jews of Palestinians in Israel

Interesting, it is easy to find cases of apartied carried out even in the present day in non-white countries. A case is found directly below the search results for apartied. However, it is called apartied in Isreal.

Israel and the apartheid analogy is a criticism of the Israeli government charging that Israel has practiced apartheid against Palestinians, primarily in its occupation of the West Bank; the term apartheid in this context may refer to the crime of apartheid in international law, or it may refer to an analogy in comparison with apartheid in South Africa.[1] Some commentators extend the term to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their status as second-class citizens.[8] Proponents of the analogy claim several core elements of what they call “a system of control” in the occupied Palestinian territories meet the definition of apartheid in international law or are similar to what prevailed under the South African apartheid regime. These features regard such things as the ID system, the pattern of Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian inhabitants, Israeli military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, the use of Palestinians for cheaper labour, the Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights (e.g. “Enclave law”), and disparities of access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli settlers. It is argued that, like South Africa, Israel may be classified as a settler colonial society,[9] in violation of international law. – Wikipedia

The restricted areas for Palestinians would be called Bantustans in South Africa. This video does an excellent job explaining all of the steps that Israel has used to both steal land and create apartied. 

Israel states that Human Rights Watch that called them out for running an apartied system is anti-Israel. Observe that this video was produced by Al Jazeera, which is Muslim. However, Human Rights Watch is not. I find Human Rights Watch to provide exceptional reporting. Israel is widespread to claim anyone who does not support whatever they do as being antisemitic and anti-Israel. 

According to Human Watch Abuse, Israel meets the definition of apartied, which is found in the following quotation.

The Apartheid Convention defines the crime against humanity of apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The Rome Statute of the ICC adopts a similar definition: “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The Rome Statute does not further define what constitutes an “institutionalized regime.” – HRW

This video from Human Rights Watch makes a case for apartied. This is one of the only sources that I found that explained that apartied is not simply a term that applies to South Africa but is a universal term that describes a pattern of treatment and laws. 

An establishment US outlet would not produce this type of segment because of the strong Jewish influence over US media.

It is pronounced that Jews practice apartied against the Palestinians by simply observing conditions in Israel. However, notice that while it is accepted without debate in South Africa, it is a matter of “debate” when instituted by non-whites. This is explored in the following quotation.

The analogy has been debated by some scholars and lawyers,[11] United Nations investigators,[12] the African National Congress (ANC),[13] human rights groups[14][15] and by several Israeli former politicians.[16] Israel, its supporters, and some scholars reject the comparison.[17][18] Critics of the analogy argue that the comparison is factually and morally inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel itself. – Wikipedia

Palestinians are treated very similarly to how blacks were in South Africa, and Israel has very similar restrictions on movements, which was the Bantustan system of South Africa. It is difficult to see how the comparison is factually or morally inaccurate, and it is also difficult to see how this delegitimizes Israel. These are attempts by critics to smear those that are opposed to the apartied. The primary difference between apartied as practiced by South African and apartied as practiced by  Israel is that Israel is not a white country. And this apartied is not new. South Africa observed this themselves while calling out Israel for voting that South Africa was practicing apartied while itself practicing apartied as is found in the following quotation.

In 1961, the South African prime minister and architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, “Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude … they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” – Wikipedia

However, one argument used by Jews is that they can’t be considered to have instituted an apartied state, as they are a democracy, as is expressed in the following quotation.

Heribert Adam of Simon Fraser University and Kogila Moodley of the University of British Columbia, in their 2005 book-length study Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians, wrote that controversy over use of the term arises because Israel as a state is unique in the region. He writes that Israel is perceived as a Western democracy and is thus likely to be judged by the standards of such a state. – Wikipedia

Isreal does not allow voting rights for Palestinians, and one in four Palestinians can vote. So how is Israel a democracy?

Another argument used by Jews against this is that the Jews “feel like” they have the right to create this separation, which is expressed in the following quotation.

Israel also claims to be a home for the worldwide Jewish diaspora.[42] Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a “subjective sense of moral validity” that the ruling white South Africans never had.[43] They also suggested that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as settler societies leave unanswered the question of “when and how settlers become indigenous”, as well as failing to take into account that Israeli’s Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home.[44] Adam and Moodley stress, “because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously.”[45] – Wikipedia

Whites predated most of the blacks in South Africa. This is because the indigenous people (the three tribes of the San) of what is now South Africa called the were very small in number, roughly a few hundred thousand when the Dutch arrived. The vast majority of blacks in South Africa today either immigrated from other African countries or descendants such immigrants. The Dutch arrived in the southern cape of South Africa in 1652. Israel was created in 1947, but the origin of Jews in the modern era in the territory that is now Israel only goes back to the post-WW2 era, as the following quote explains.

Illegal migration (Aliyah Bet) became the main form of Jewish entry into Palestine. Across Europe Bricha (“flight”), an organization of former partisans and ghetto fighters, smuggled Holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe to Mediterranean ports, where small boats tried to breach the British blockade of Palestine. Meanwhile, Jews from Arab countries began moving into Palestine overland. Despite British efforts to curb immigration, during the 14 years of the Aliyah Bet, over 110,000 Jews entered Palestine. By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population. – Wikipedia

This means that unless one wants to go back thousands of years, The claims of the Dutch go back around 300 years longer than the Jews in Isreal. This is topic of South African history is explained in more detail in the article The Fake Storyline Around White Theft of South African Land.

Therefore, the white South Africans have a far better claim to living in South Africa than the Jews living in Israel today. The primary support for Jews living in Israel is from a religious document.

Furthermore, the idea that Jews, who have no legitimate claims to the land that is now Israel, “feel they are moving home” is not a claim that would be supported under comparative examples. For example, I am 1/2 German, and I could not claim German property and set up an apartied system against modern-day Germans because I felt like I was “returning home.” My “feelings” on the matter are irrelevant to my legal claim.

Example #2: Apartied by Muslims

Both slavery and apartied of slaves or semi-slaves are common in Muslim countries. The following videos illustrate very clearly the setup of the apartied system by these Muslim countries.

Visiting workers in Muslim countries are not only treated under apartied conditions but must endure horrible living conditions. 

Jobs taken by foreign workers living until Muslim apartied are often called “hell jobs.” 

Temporary workers have their passports taken, and they are both restricted from leaving so they can be exploited, and their movements are controlled within the country. This exceeds apartied in South Africa, as under South African apartied, blacks were not restricted from leaving the country. 

Example #3: Apartied by Black Americans of Africans in Liberia

Blacks in the US and many other places were very intent on ending apartied in South Africa and considered it an affront. However, blacks’ unknown is that when black Americans relocated to and created Liberia, they immediately set up an apartied system that separated black Americans or Americo Liberians from the indigenous Africans in Liberia.

For this, it is necessary to provide a brief background on Liberia.

The Origins of Liberia

Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States. – Wikipedia

IN 1821, a ship arrived at a place near where my hotel now stood (Monrovia lies on the Atlantic, on a peninsula), bringing an agent of the American Colonisation Society, Robert Stockton. Stockton, holding a pistol to the head of the local tribal chief, King Peter, forced him to sell – for six muskets and one trunk of beads – the land upon which the US organisation planned to settle freed slaves (mainly from the cotton plantations of Virginia, Georgia, Maryland). Stockton’s organisation was of a liberal and charitable character. Its activists believed that the best reparation for the injuries of slavery would be the return of former slaves to the land of their ancestors – to Africa. – The Guardian

Comparing Liberia Versus South Africa

There was enormous outrage at South Africa for having the apartheid system. However, Liberians created an apartheid system to separate black Americans from Africans long before South Africa adopted this system, which predated the apartied of South Africa.

As early as the middle of the 19th century, long before apartheid was instituted in southern Africa by the Afrikaners, it had been invented and made fresh by the rulers of Liberia – descendants of black slaves. – The Guardian

Furthermore, the black Americans in Liberians illustrated their enormous hypocrisy but instituting a segregationist system against Liberians, which they said was immoral for the whites in the US to set up against them. This is explained in the following quotation.

Reflecting the system of segregation in the United States, the Americo-Liberians created a cultural and racial caste system, with themselves at the top and indigenous Liberians at the bottom. They believed in a form of “racial equality,” which meant that all residents of Liberia had the potential to become “civilized” through western-style education and conversion to Christianity. – Wikipedia

How American Liberians Desired to Restrict the Movement of Indigenous Africans

During World War II, thousands of indigenous Liberians migrated from the nation’s rural interior to the coastal regions in search of jobs. The Liberian Government had long opposed this kind of migration, but was no longer able to restrain it. – Wikipedia

This shows that the American Liberians did not want the Africans moving close to them. When whites do this to blacks, this is referred to as racism. However, when blacks do it to blacks, it is not called anything. And more than that, it is barely discussed.

Example #4: Religious Apartied in Iran

Iran is a Shiite nation and famously detests Sunnis. Iran has a long cold war with Saudi Arabia which they fight through countries like Yemen. And Iran has Sunnis in its country, which it aggressively mistreats and marginalizes. This is explained in the following quotation.

Iran’s Sunnis, the largest religious minority and numbering many millions, live mostly in the country’s periphery and overwhelmingly belong to ethnic minorities: Kurds in the west, Turkmens in the northeast, Baluchis in the southeast, Arabs on the shores of the Persian Gulf. For this reason, resentment against discrimination among Sunnis becomes easily couched in terms of ethnic nationalism. – MEI

This is who Christians are treated.

The situation for Christians of any denomination in Iran is “very dramatic,” according to Markus Rode from Open Doors. In particular, individuals who have converted from Islam to Christianity are subjected to “extreme persecution.”

Many have been imprisoned, tortured, or threatened with death. Armenian and Chaldean churches are allowed to hold services, as long as they are not conducted in Persian, and they are observed by the police. Distributing Christian literature in Farsi is strictly forbidden, in order to prevent evangelization.

Muslims who choose to become Christians are threatened with prison sentences and even death. Many Iranians believe that Muslims remain Muslims even after converting and that Muslims are not permitted to enter a Christian house of worship.

“Iran is a totalitarian state, a surveillance state, and a police state that tries to protect the population from anything outside of the Shiite or Islamic culture,” according to, the website of the Catholic Church in Germany. – DW

What is noteworthy is that while Muslims demand tolerance and “respect” for Islam when they immigrate to Christian nations, Muslim governments do not (by in large) extend tolerance to other religions.


The definition of apartied as something only found in white countries or something associated with South Africa is inaccurate. Apartied is found globally and is found to this day. Three examples were provided in this article of apartied conditions, but only one has been called apartied (Israel), which no one has pressured Israel to cease. This is because when apartied is instituted by a non-white society, it is called “apartied-like” and debated, but it is not called apartied. It took over 55 years of Israel engaging in apartied before finally being called out for it. This shows clearly that there is one standard for white societies and another standard for non-white societies. While Muslims often receive sympathy because of Islamophobia, Muslim countries support both slavery and apartied and are again not called out.

While there was enormous international pressure to end apartied in South Africa, there were many instances of apartied ongoing at the time. That continues to this day, that has not received much of — to any focus of the global country to end. This again brings up the topic of, is apartied still apartied of the institutes of apartied are not white? It appears that whites cannot separate themselves from other races without being shamed for engaging in apartied. However, non-whites can engage in apartied and come up with ridiculous excuses as to why their apartied is not apartied, and there will be no to minimal pressure brought to bear on them.

Our Golden Pinocchio

Those who define apartied as only applying to South Africa and white countries while ignoring apartied found in many non-white countries receive our Golden Pinocchio Award.