Apartheid Misconceptions
added by HansieSlim
Recently Viewed
Apartheid Misconceptions
Video Information
(16) | 
(0) | 
(9) Added: 03-02-2009
Runtime: 2m 27s
Views: 543
Comments: 0 Current Rating:
(1 Votes)
Runtime: 2m 27s
Views: 543
Comments: 0 Current Rating:
(1 Votes)
Description
It is a half-truth to say that black South Africans were “shunted” into 13% of the country, while the whites retained 87%. The geography of SA is such that about 70% of that 87% consists of sparsely populated, arid semi-desert (the Karoo and Kalahari.) The so-called homelands that were provided for black South Africans, were in some of the most fertile regions of the country. Billions of the tax money contributed mainly by white South Africans, were pumped into these homelands, allowing their governments to spend it as they saw fit. A large proportion of black people were content to live in their homelands, because these were the historical heartlands of their nations. Two of the independent homelands, Ciskei and Boputatswana, resisted reintegration into SA, and the use of force was required to accomplish this. When figures are quoted to show that much more was spent on the education of white children compared with black children, people forget that the black governments of the homelands determined how much money was spent on education of their own people. I’m not trying to justify the many atrocities committed in the name of “Apartheid”, nor am I attempting to propagate a return to forced racial segregation. I believe that no person should consider himself superior to others. Every human life is precious, and I’m opposed to those who have no respect for life. One-sided reporting has created a distorted picture. This video provides positive facts about the Apartheid-era that have not been publicised as widely as the bad things associated with Apartheid - hopefully helping to restore a more balanced picture. Why is it that when the mighty British Empire provided geographical and social autonomy to the Sotho’s in Lesotho, and the Swazi’s in Swaziland, this was acceptable, but when the insignificant but tenacious little Boer nation hoped to secure their autonomy, and the long term survival of their children in Africa, by doing something similar, the idea is rejected by the world? Similarly, in Israel the creation of and independent and free Palestinian state is called “road map to peace” but in South Africa it is called “a crime against humanity”?
It is a half-truth to say that black South Africans were “shunted” into 13% of the country, while the whites retained 87%. The geography of SA is such that about 70% of that 87% consists of sparsely populated, arid semi-desert (the Karoo and Kalahari.) The so-called homelands that were provided for black South Africans, were in some of the most fertile regions of the country. Billions of the tax money contributed mainly by white South Africans, were pumped into these homelands, allowing their governments to spend it as they saw fit. A large proportion of black people were content to live in their homelands, because these were the historical heartlands of their nations. Two of the independent homelands, Ciskei and Boputatswana, resisted reintegration into SA, and the use of force was required to accomplish this. When figures are quoted to show that much more was spent on the education of white children compared with black children, people forget that the black governments of the homelands determined how much money was spent on education of their own people. I’m not trying to justify the many atrocities committed in the name of “Apartheid”, nor am I attempting to propagate a return to forced racial segregation. I believe that no person should consider himself superior to others. Every human life is precious, and I’m opposed to those who have no respect for life. One-sided reporting has created a distorted picture. This video provides positive facts about the Apartheid-era that have not been publicised as widely as the bad things associated with Apartheid - hopefully helping to restore a more balanced picture. Why is it that when the mighty British Empire provided geographical and social autonomy to the Sotho’s in Lesotho, and the Swazi’s in Swaziland, this was acceptable, but when the insignificant but tenacious little Boer nation hoped to secure their autonomy, and the long term survival of their children in Africa, by doing something similar, the idea is rejected by the world? Similarly, in Israel the creation of and independent and free Palestinian state is called “road map to peace” but in South Africa it is called “a crime against humanity”?
Copyright (c) 2006-2010 Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. - NMA TV - All rights reserved.
Login to comment this video