One of the ways that Apartheid was ended in South Africa was through awareness and resulting boycotts

[redqueen]

Last edited Mon Dec 11, 2023, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm wondering if any state passed aws banning the boycotting of South Africa back then. Anyone know? Haven't found any references to it so I'm starting to think this tactic wasn't used back then.

Edit - this map shows the states which have passed these laws.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Ask AI, and search a NYT database

Nothing beats good query skills. Sometimes one has to tweak the verbage a bit, and learn to use operatives like and, or, both....

[malaise]

2. Down Memory Lane - the US deemed the ANC a terrorist organization

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Cheney-and-Apartheid-2711031.php

But Cheney's opposition to the August 1986 resolution -- along with 177 of his colleagues -- was quite consistent with U.S. policy toward South Africa. Mandela's organization, the African National Congress, was still classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and the United States was pursuing the Reagan administration's policy of "constructive engagement" with the white minority government.
The United States only had its first official contact with the ANC in July 1986, when the U.S. ambassador met with three ANC officials in Lusaka. Cheney, as a loyal Reaganite, was only following the line articulated by his leader. Just weeks before the Lusaka meeting, in a widely publicized speech, Reagan denounced the ANC for using "terrorist tactics" to promote its "goal of creating a Communist state" and declared that Pretoria, as a result, need not negotiate with it.

———

[redqueen]

10. "We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians"

Two months later, Congress, against all expectations, approved legislation authored by Rep. Ron Dellums imposing economic sanctions against South Africa. Dellums had introduced the same legislation for 15 successive years, and had been rebuffed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Smh

[malaise]

13. The more things change...

the more they remain the same

[malaise]

14. Ron Dellums was a great Democrat

https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/honorable-ronald-dellums

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/obituaries/ron-dellums-forceful-liberal-in-congress-for-27-years-dies-at-82.html

[PufPuf23]

21. Ron Dellums had huge impact on my thoughts as a young Democrat. nt

[malaise]

23. Wish all young Dems knew about him

[malaise]

15. More

After a 14-year campaign against apartheid in South Africa, he wrote the 1986 legislation that mandated trade embargoes and divestment by American companies and citizens of holdings in South Africa. President Ronald Reagan’s veto was overridden by Congress, a 20th-century first in foreign policy. The sanctions were lifted in 1991, when South Africa repealed its apartheid laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/obituaries/ron-dellums-forceful-liberal-in-congress-for-27-years-dies-at-82.html

——-
Who is today’s Ron Dellums?

[redqueen]

17. Who indeed nt

[Lonestarblue]

3. I don't recall any state passing laws against boycotting South Africa, as Republican states have for Israel boycotts.

Both academic efforts and economic sanctions against South Africa finally had results. Reagan vetoed the economic sanctions passed by Congress, but they overrode his veto, something that would never happen with a Republican president today because Republicans no longer practice responsible governance. The UK also imposed sanctions over Thatcher’s objections. Both leaders were just fine with a white supremacist government in SA.

I think the boycott against Israel was ineffective because it never moved past some academic campaigns i to economic or trade sanctions, partly because every government of Israel was quick to claim any boycott or criticism of government actions were antisemitic and attacks on the Jewish religion. To my mind, criticism of government actions has nothing to do with religion. I fail to see the difference between government economic sanctions on South Africa to free black citizens from oppressive laws and denial of rights and Israel’s oppressive laws and denial of rights for Palestinians. Black people fought for their rights in South Africa, but Palestinians are just expected to calmly accept the theft of their lands and the denial of basic human rights. There is no difference, yet governments do nothing to stop Israel’s predations against Palestinians.

[CincyDem]

9. Interesting read...6 years old and focused on accepting international funding and coordination for domestic protests.

The bill reference by the article is not criminalizing protests. It was introduced in 2017 at the height of the BDS moment and targeted funding and coordination for BDS protests. Says nothing about protests, per se…only funding. It died in committee.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/text

So no…democrats are not trying to criminalize protest.

BTW…welcome to DU.

[redqueen]

11. Seems to be more than just republican states

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:States_Anti_BDS_laws.png

[former9thward]

24. As the map in the OP shows, 37 states have passed the laws.

Plenty of blue states including CA, NY and IL.

[GreenWave]

4. Knowledge: the scourge of conservative thought.

[malaise]

5. The first countries to announce boycottsagainst apartheid in South Africa

were India and Jamaica.
In 1959 Jamaica, a self-governing British colony, became the first country after India to declare a boycott. In November 1959 the Boycott Movement set up an international working group to 'make all possible contact with other countries who trade with South Africa'.

https://www.aamarchives.org/history/boycott-movement.html#:~:text=A%20WORLDWIDE%20MOVEMENT&text=In%201959%20Jamaica%2C%20a%20self,who%20trade%20with%20South%20Africa%27.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States

[Basic LA]

6. What happened to the BDS movement?

Never hear about the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement against Israeli apartheid anymore.
In the 80's, 27% of people in the UK boycotted (couldn't find US figure) South African products to fight apartheid there. It must've had some result. Plus the boycotts were a poke in the eye to the Reagan/Thatcher welfare-cutting austerity administrations, who supported apartheid & called Mandela a communist.

[malaise]

8. The sports and cultural boycotts were also very effective n/t

[redqueen]

12. I saw a report that said they were gaining in popularity and effectiveness

hence the laws banning the boycotts.

[LeftInTX]

16. It's very difficult to boycott Israel. Our relationship with Israel is much stronger than with South Africa.

Reagan supported Thatcher, so he was opposed to the boycotts, but it wasn't the same as Israel.

We don't have many white South Africans living in the US. And if we did, at the time, they don't see South Africa, the way Jews see Israel. White South Africans did not experience a holocaust. South Africa was a true imperial colony, not a refuge for persecuted Europeans.

The US has the second largest Jewish population in the world. (I believe it had the largest in the world until fairly recently)

That said, we supply too many arms to Israel.
We also did this to the Shah of Iran and it backfired.

[redqueen]

18. If it's difficult why did so many states pass laws against it?

This seems like a dangerous precedent to me.

[Sympthsical]

19. When California boycotted various states, people cheered

Not much talk of dangerous precedent then.

What's changed, what's changed, what's changed . . .

These things are always so mysterious.

[redqueen]

20. Really?

Unless California passed a law making it illegal to boycott other states, your analogy does not make any sense.

[Sympthsical]

22. The law doesn't make it illegal to boycott

It controls who the state does and does not do business with.

Just like the boycotts the state initiated in other places. They didn't want state money funding places and organizations where they didn't agree with their politics.

And, as I said, no "The precedent!" warnings then. Nothing but ticker tape for being a leader on the issues.

I don't like this shit, for the record. Across the board, because government starts putting speech conditions on contracts, which is something I don't feel states should be doing. It's the selectivity of the "Oh noes!" that I'm objecting to. Or maybe not objecting so much. Maybe I'm just noting which cause/people are forever seemingly the subject of this unique selectivity of concern.

Much like the "First Amendment!" people who have suddenly discovered it after it was stowed away in a drawer for the last decade or so. Oh gee, found it now, have they?

What changed, what changed, what changed . . .

[redqueen]

26. You're wrong.

As I do not enjoy your attitude, I'll let you figure it out on your own. If you care to do so.

[Sympthsical]

27. You made an obvious unfactual claim

Boycotts aren't illegal. Can you please cite the law where a boycott is illegal?

You can't, because it doesn't exist. It's a state policy about who they do business with. Which, again, I object to on principle.

And as far as attitude, I'm not the one running around suddenly finding all these special exceptions and newly-discovered principles the second Jews are involved.

I leave that transparent behavior to others. I'm good with my attitude.

[redqueen]

28. Semantics. That's what you resort to.

I also disagree with all of these - the ones from California too if they're written this way, which apparently they are - I don't know because I didn't read about them.

I hope your uncharitable assumptions about people serve you well somehow.

[Sympthsical]

29. We choose what buckets we pick up

I'm just over here commenting on the selection of the liquids.

[redqueen]

30. Are you comparing a ban preventing vendors / subcontractors from participating in a boycott not related to your state

To a boycott on spending state funds on travel to certain states?

If not which ban are you talking about?

[LeftInTX]

31. That's because those interstate boycotts quickly fizzle and are mostly for show.

Usually a few conventions get cancelled and that's the end of it.

[LeftInTX]

25. It's more difficult because of anti-BDS laws

A musician I know had to sign an anti-BDS statement when they played for a local festival. (Contract with local municipality)

Also locals to went city council asking city to boycott, but city had to shut them down due state law. Now they harass the mayor, who happens to be Jewish.