Apartheid Internationalism: Canadian Activism in Defence of White Rule in Southern Africa, 1965–94
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1965 to 1994, some Canadians participated in transnational activism aimed at supporting or excusing white minority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia. Their ideas, arguments, and interconnections contributed to “apartheid internationalism,” a form of internationalism without central organization yet forged through a common cause and specific (and sometimes covert) political networks. The Canadian fraction of the movement was internally diversified and decentralized. Yet this article shows that ties among activists were considerable. Whether taking pro-apartheid or “anti-anti-apartheid” positions, participants expressed variants of white supremacism, contextualizing and qualifying their views on racial superiority within adjacent right-wing political projects. Not entirely unlike studies of anti-apartheid activism, the examination of the defenders of apartheid demonstrates the importance of race in Canadian international history. It also shows how a range of people beyond politicians and diplomats engaged with transnational issues. Most strikingly, the analysis reveals that liberal internationalism or internationalisms associated with the political left were not the only responses to a decolonizing world. Some Canadians with conservative and authoritarian perspectives refused to accept a decline of white power or found new ways to present their support for white minority governments in southern Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".