Public Videos
Videos: 1 - 6 of 16
Why Apartheid?
How dare he try to justify Apartheid – a crime against humanity! Justification is one thing; providing information that may help to bring about insight, is something else. What could motivate a group of people to deny the majority of the people in the country democratic rights, and try to cling on to political power in the face of overwhelming opposition? This video examines some of the motivations behind the policy of Apartheid. The early years of Apartheid should be seen against a background of a “First world zeitgeist” (a remnant from the colonial age) of superiority over the indigenous peoples of the third world – an idea that was losing favour rapidly in the western world throughout the 20th century, and also in SA by the 1970’s. This was manifested in “petty Apartheid”, or “early Apartheid” up to the late 1970’s when, along with changing times internationally, these petty apartheid discriminatory laws were being repealed one after the other. The second layer of background arises from a history of British repression, which only increased unity among Afrikaners, fuelling a determination to achieve freedom and independence. This contributed to their reluctance to part with these, once finally attained. Power sharing with the vastly superior numbers of black Africans in the same geographical area seemed to mean certain loss of their freedom. This gave rise to the homeland system and separate development. The rapid growth of the black population meant that separate development was inevitably unequal. The following factors also played an important role: 1) A history of Afrikaner struggle against an imperial superpower that caused the death of 26, 000 women and children, wiping out almost half their child population. After the Anglo-Boer War, the British continued a policy of repression of Afrikaans language and culture. 2) This led to the rise of a strong national pride amongst Afrikaners, with aspirations of freedom and independence. 3) The Cold War and increasing Soviet influence in Sub-Saharan Africa, with strong communist tendencies displayed by black political movements (ANC-SACP-COSATU Alliance) and 4) the disappointing and alarming track record of other African countries under black majority rule, as the “wind of change” swept across Africa, provided further impetus for Afrikaners to resist democracy in SA. Over three centuries the Afrikaner had become as much part of Africa as any black African tribe. Links with Europe were tenuous, the Afrikaner was totally committed to South Africa, and had no other country in the world they could call home. Under the circumstances described above, how could they be expected not to do everything in their power to preserve their heritage, and try to secure a future for their children? However, changes in the world and the rapidly growing urban black population (matched by their political aspirations) were overtaking them. How could it be expected of them to just suddenly hand over all power to the black people? They saw themselves as waging a legitimate war of self-preservation in a hostile continent, under threat of declining prosperity as seen in the rest of Africa on the one hand, and communist rule on the other. How could power sharing be a realistic option when a simple democracy meant merely counting the numbers: 35 million vs. 3.5 million? Apartheid laws were being repealed one after the other since the late 1970’s, but the black activist movements were not interested in these reforms, and would not be satisfied until all power resided in their hands.
Runtime: 9m:59s
How dare he try to justify Apartheid – a crime against humanity! Justification is one thing; providing information that may help to bring about insight, is something else. What could motivate a group of people to deny the majority of the people in the country democratic rights, and try to cling on to political power in the face of overwhelming opposition? This video examines some of the motivations behind the policy of Apartheid. The early years of Apartheid should be seen against a background of a “First world zeitgeist” (a remnant from the colonial age) of superiority over the indigenous peoples of the third world – an idea that was losing favour rapidly in the western world throughout the 20th century, and also in SA by the 1970’s. This was manifested in “petty Apartheid”, or “early Apartheid” up to the late 1970’s when, along with changing times internationally, these petty apartheid discriminatory laws were being repealed one after the other. The second layer of background arises from a history of British repression, which only increased unity among Afrikaners, fuelling a determination to achieve freedom and independence. This contributed to their reluctance to part with these, once finally attained. Power sharing with the vastly superior numbers of black Africans in the same geographical area seemed to mean certain loss of their freedom. This gave rise to the homeland system and separate development. The rapid growth of the black population meant that separate development was inevitably unequal. The following factors also played an important role: 1) A history of Afrikaner struggle against an imperial superpower that caused the death of 26, 000 women and children, wiping out almost half their child population. After the Anglo-Boer War, the British continued a policy of repression of Afrikaans language and culture. 2) This led to the rise of a strong national pride amongst Afrikaners, with aspirations of freedom and independence. 3) The Cold War and increasing Soviet influence in Sub-Saharan Africa, with strong communist tendencies displayed by black political movements (ANC-SACP-COSATU Alliance) and 4) the disappointing and alarming track record of other African countries under black majority rule, as the “wind of change” swept across Africa, provided further impetus for Afrikaners to resist democracy in SA. Over three centuries the Afrikaner had become as much part of Africa as any black African tribe. Links with Europe were tenuous, the Afrikaner was totally committed to South Africa, and had no other country in the world they could call home. Under the circumstances described above, how could they be expected not to do everything in their power to preserve their heritage, and try to secure a future for their children? However, changes in the world and the rapidly growing urban black population (matched by their political aspirations) were overtaking them. How could it be expected of them to just suddenly hand over all power to the black people? They saw themselves as waging a legitimate war of self-preservation in a hostile continent, under threat of declining prosperity as seen in the rest of Africa on the one hand, and communist rule on the other. How could power sharing be a realistic option when a simple democracy meant merely counting the numbers: 35 million vs. 3.5 million? Apartheid laws were being repealed one after the other since the late 1970’s, but the black activist movements were not interested in these reforms, and would not be satisfied until all power resided in their hands.
Runtime: 9m:59s
A Muslim Britain
I was walking around London, when I noticed that it should be plain for anyone to see that Muslim children outnumber British children as claimed in this video.
Runtime: 7m:16s
I was walking around London, when I noticed that it should be plain for anyone to see that Muslim children outnumber British children as claimed in this video.
Runtime: 7m:16s
Anglo-Boer War Song
The popular and politically controversial song by South African singer Bok van Blerk. This song has been banned by South African government.
Runtime: 5m:7s
The popular and politically controversial song by South African singer Bok van Blerk. This song has been banned by South African government.
Runtime: 5m:7s
Story behind De la Rey song
As the British tried to do a hundred years ago, the black majority government is now trying to suppress the Afrikaner nation 's culture - and in fact all traces of their history. Public funding is being withdrawn from Afrikaner monuments, even though Afrikaners contribute more than their share to tax income. Millions are being spent on changing the names of towns, streets etc. while little is done to maintain infrastructure. The new generation of Afrikaners had nothing to do with Apartheid, yet they are faced with a bleak future, suffering under racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action. Although this excludes them from jobs and promotion beyond a certain level, it also stimulates entrepreneurship and innovative thinking. The Afrikaner nation will rise again to take its place in the country their forefathers helped to build and develop. This song has helped the Afrikaners to regain some of their pride in their history and culture, and this shows that their identity is stronger than many people thought. When people hear the term "Apartheid" they usually see it as a synonym for racial discrimination. Decades of one-sided reporting has obscured the positive aspects of an idea that originated from the wish to ensure a fair share of the country for all its people, in a way that would prevent domination of one group over the other. In retrospect it is easy to criticize and see where things went wrong. Unfortunately, following the assassination of Verwoerd, there was a lack of clear vision and leadership, resulting in so-called "petty Apartheid" , causing unfair treatment of many black people. However, rather than racial hatred, the motivation was born from fear of total loss of political power - the consequences of which were well known through countless examples from decolonised Africa. On balance, European settlers and their descendants probably did more good than bad in Africa. Improved infrastructure and medical care contributed to the massive increase in the black population of South Africa over the last 100 years. (3.5 million in 1900, 35 million 90 years later.)
Runtime: 10m:30s
As the British tried to do a hundred years ago, the black majority government is now trying to suppress the Afrikaner nation 's culture - and in fact all traces of their history. Public funding is being withdrawn from Afrikaner monuments, even though Afrikaners contribute more than their share to tax income. Millions are being spent on changing the names of towns, streets etc. while little is done to maintain infrastructure. The new generation of Afrikaners had nothing to do with Apartheid, yet they are faced with a bleak future, suffering under racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action. Although this excludes them from jobs and promotion beyond a certain level, it also stimulates entrepreneurship and innovative thinking. The Afrikaner nation will rise again to take its place in the country their forefathers helped to build and develop. This song has helped the Afrikaners to regain some of their pride in their history and culture, and this shows that their identity is stronger than many people thought. When people hear the term "Apartheid" they usually see it as a synonym for racial discrimination. Decades of one-sided reporting has obscured the positive aspects of an idea that originated from the wish to ensure a fair share of the country for all its people, in a way that would prevent domination of one group over the other. In retrospect it is easy to criticize and see where things went wrong. Unfortunately, following the assassination of Verwoerd, there was a lack of clear vision and leadership, resulting in so-called "petty Apartheid" , causing unfair treatment of many black people. However, rather than racial hatred, the motivation was born from fear of total loss of political power - the consequences of which were well known through countless examples from decolonised Africa. On balance, European settlers and their descendants probably did more good than bad in Africa. Improved infrastructure and medical care contributed to the massive increase in the black population of South Africa over the last 100 years. (3.5 million in 1900, 35 million 90 years later.)
Runtime: 10m:30s
Protect our Farmers
Farm murders 100 years ago and today. Farmers feed the nation. Protect them. Some people may be shocked by the picture at the beginning of the video, because they may have been unaware that farm murders also happened during and after the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa. Others may find it funny, because it is hard to believe, and usually “the white man” is portrayed as the great oppressor, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately it is true. As elsewhere, in South Africa the pioneer farmers, or “Boers”, and their families have always been vulnerable to farm attacks. Some of these were carried out by roaming bands, others orchestrated by tribal leaders. Is it not ironic that today, as after the Anglo-Boer War, there is a government in power that stands unsympathetic towards the white farmers, and once again farm murders are on the increase. The ANC government has disbanded the Commando system which has been providing protection to farmers, and they have done nothing to try and reduce farm attacks. Farmers feed the nation. Have we not learnt our lesson by looking at what happened in Zimbabwe when large stretches of productive farm land were allowed to go to waste, following a reign of terror that drove farmers away? Due to lack of foresight the ANC and their supporters do not realize that their policies (unsympathetic towards farmers, inefficient measures against AIDS, runaway affirmative action etc. ) would ultimately lead to starvation, disease and the death of millions. For the context of this picture, see the video “Why Apartheid?” Stories about farm murders in South Africa today have been told before – there are many vids to be found. Search for “farm murders” or “plaasmoorde”. Thank you to Danie Niehaus for his excellent CD, “Fynskrif”.
Runtime: 1m:59s
Farm murders 100 years ago and today. Farmers feed the nation. Protect them. Some people may be shocked by the picture at the beginning of the video, because they may have been unaware that farm murders also happened during and after the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa. Others may find it funny, because it is hard to believe, and usually “the white man” is portrayed as the great oppressor, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately it is true. As elsewhere, in South Africa the pioneer farmers, or “Boers”, and their families have always been vulnerable to farm attacks. Some of these were carried out by roaming bands, others orchestrated by tribal leaders. Is it not ironic that today, as after the Anglo-Boer War, there is a government in power that stands unsympathetic towards the white farmers, and once again farm murders are on the increase. The ANC government has disbanded the Commando system which has been providing protection to farmers, and they have done nothing to try and reduce farm attacks. Farmers feed the nation. Have we not learnt our lesson by looking at what happened in Zimbabwe when large stretches of productive farm land were allowed to go to waste, following a reign of terror that drove farmers away? Due to lack of foresight the ANC and their supporters do not realize that their policies (unsympathetic towards farmers, inefficient measures against AIDS, runaway affirmative action etc. ) would ultimately lead to starvation, disease and the death of millions. For the context of this picture, see the video “Why Apartheid?” Stories about farm murders in South Africa today have been told before – there are many vids to be found. Search for “farm murders” or “plaasmoorde”. Thank you to Danie Niehaus for his excellent CD, “Fynskrif”.
Runtime: 1m:59s
Apartheid: the other side of the story
Over decades, selective reporting by the liberal western media has created a distorted picture of what really happened in South Africa during Apartheid. Under white rule South Africa developed into the undisputed economic leader of Africa, with by far the most advanced infrastructure on the continent./nNow South Africa is following the same pattern seen throughout sub-saharan Africa. The European expansion and settlement of Africa over the last 300 years always takes the blame. Blacks were enjoying a pastoral existence, resources sufficient to support a stable population through subsistent farming – no need to plan for winter, and with a vast, sparsely populated continent there was very little competition from other tribes. They did not have many belongings, no money, and in terms of Western standards, lived in poverty. Population growth was kept in check by high infant and maternal mortality rates, natural disease, droughts and occasional tribal conflicts. The Europeans brought modern technology: the wheel, improved healthcare, highly efficient food production, and modern weapons. This resulted in a population explosion for a people not used to such efficiency. In South Africa, the black population grew from 3.5 million in 1900 (official British census) to 10 million in the 1950’s and 35 million in the 1990’s – totally unprecedented in Africa. Overpopulation leads to limited resources, which leads to famine and conflict. With access to modern weapons, these conflicts in Africa became extremely bloody. The black people looked at the whites, and saw they enjoyed greater wealth than themselves. This created envy, and the facts that whites had smaller families, used their resources more efficiently, and considered education of their children a high priority, simply did not register with them. No, they wanted the same, and they wanted to take it, rather than gradually building up and developing their own civilization to the same standards over time. /nNow, the African stage is set. Chase the white farmers off their farms, kill them, drive them away – and they take their technology with them. Food production and infrastructure collapse, and resources start to ebb away. Add to that the African mentality to venerate their leaders, not to question them, and Zimbabwe is the result. All these things were foreseen by the only indigenous white nation of Africa, the Boer, or Afrikaner. That is why they wished to retain political control of the country they love and regarded as their homeland. They way they tried to achieve this with the policy of Apartheid, was flawed and could never be implemented successfully. Providing homelands for black people which they could develop at their own pace, and where they had full political rights, was a pipedream. The whites’ dependence upon black labour on the one hand, and the inability of the black leaders of their homelands to utilize resources efficiently on the other hand, made the dream of separate development and a “little Europe” of African homelands inside South Africa, an unattainable dream. Another European invention, Democracy, came along as a convenient tool for those ambitious black leaders who understood that they could use their numerical supremacy to take power away from the whites, who had thus far provided the direction to build South Africa into a regional superpower. This is against the spirit of Democracy, which is really only fair, and works best in a country with a largely monocultural society. During the 1980's the white government abolished one apartheid law after the other. However, black activists knew that a simple democracy would give them power on a spoon. They were not interested in Apartheid reforms, and saw this as a sign of weakness on the part of the white government. The result was an escalation of black on black violence, as black political groups were jostling for the power that loomed on the horizon. Security forces intervened, trying to restore order and protect lives and property. These clashes with police and soldiers were broadcast to the world, and portrayed as violent suppression of black people, who were seen as fighting for freedom from oppression.
Runtime: 9m:56s
Over decades, selective reporting by the liberal western media has created a distorted picture of what really happened in South Africa during Apartheid. Under white rule South Africa developed into the undisputed economic leader of Africa, with by far the most advanced infrastructure on the continent./nNow South Africa is following the same pattern seen throughout sub-saharan Africa. The European expansion and settlement of Africa over the last 300 years always takes the blame. Blacks were enjoying a pastoral existence, resources sufficient to support a stable population through subsistent farming – no need to plan for winter, and with a vast, sparsely populated continent there was very little competition from other tribes. They did not have many belongings, no money, and in terms of Western standards, lived in poverty. Population growth was kept in check by high infant and maternal mortality rates, natural disease, droughts and occasional tribal conflicts. The Europeans brought modern technology: the wheel, improved healthcare, highly efficient food production, and modern weapons. This resulted in a population explosion for a people not used to such efficiency. In South Africa, the black population grew from 3.5 million in 1900 (official British census) to 10 million in the 1950’s and 35 million in the 1990’s – totally unprecedented in Africa. Overpopulation leads to limited resources, which leads to famine and conflict. With access to modern weapons, these conflicts in Africa became extremely bloody. The black people looked at the whites, and saw they enjoyed greater wealth than themselves. This created envy, and the facts that whites had smaller families, used their resources more efficiently, and considered education of their children a high priority, simply did not register with them. No, they wanted the same, and they wanted to take it, rather than gradually building up and developing their own civilization to the same standards over time. /nNow, the African stage is set. Chase the white farmers off their farms, kill them, drive them away – and they take their technology with them. Food production and infrastructure collapse, and resources start to ebb away. Add to that the African mentality to venerate their leaders, not to question them, and Zimbabwe is the result. All these things were foreseen by the only indigenous white nation of Africa, the Boer, or Afrikaner. That is why they wished to retain political control of the country they love and regarded as their homeland. They way they tried to achieve this with the policy of Apartheid, was flawed and could never be implemented successfully. Providing homelands for black people which they could develop at their own pace, and where they had full political rights, was a pipedream. The whites’ dependence upon black labour on the one hand, and the inability of the black leaders of their homelands to utilize resources efficiently on the other hand, made the dream of separate development and a “little Europe” of African homelands inside South Africa, an unattainable dream. Another European invention, Democracy, came along as a convenient tool for those ambitious black leaders who understood that they could use their numerical supremacy to take power away from the whites, who had thus far provided the direction to build South Africa into a regional superpower. This is against the spirit of Democracy, which is really only fair, and works best in a country with a largely monocultural society. During the 1980's the white government abolished one apartheid law after the other. However, black activists knew that a simple democracy would give them power on a spoon. They were not interested in Apartheid reforms, and saw this as a sign of weakness on the part of the white government. The result was an escalation of black on black violence, as black political groups were jostling for the power that loomed on the horizon. Security forces intervened, trying to restore order and protect lives and property. These clashes with police and soldiers were broadcast to the world, and portrayed as violent suppression of black people, who were seen as fighting for freedom from oppression.
Runtime: 9m:56s
Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. - NMA TV - All rights reserved.