r/Documentaries • u/[deleted] • Mar 17 '18

South Africa - A Reversed Apartheid? (2018) - A documentary shining light on the white boer minority's current situation living in SA. Crowdfunded and made by a swedish political science major from the The Swedish Defence University.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDU0xIILKA
3.0k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18 edited Mar 19 '18

Why does this get associated with the far-right?

1.7k

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

It's dishonest. It's the equivalent of me going into the Appalachian region of America and portraying them as being representative of the state of all white people in America and that they are all oppressed because Obama is the president and because America has affirmative action. It's just as dishonest as using a photo of dog attack victims and claiming they were victims of farm attacks.

The people behind the documentary are known neo Nazis and white supremacists who are part of the global white supremacist movement. They currently have a campaign going on targeting South Africa.

The people featured in the documentary are also known white supremacists and white separatists who choose to live separate) from other South Africans. Volksteun is a Front National project. They weren't forced to live the way they do and their ideology is still the same as what they had during Apartheid. There' a long list of far right white separatist and neo Nazi groups in South Africa that have been active since Apartheid: AWB, Front National, Die Suidlanders, Boere Beskermings Forum, Geloftevolk Republikeine, die Verkenners etc.

It's not an honest portrayal of either poverty in the white community or of poverty in South African in general.

In South Africa today uneducated whites still earn more than university educated blacks.

At top management level, 68.5% of positions are occupied by white South Africans which is more than six times their economically active population

Most whites in SA still earn 6 times more than blacks

Whites have the lowest unemployment of all racial groups, lower than most European countries.

White South African murders rate is at the European average and whites are 8.9 times less likely to be murdered than black people.

In 2016, 71 people were murdered on farms. This includes all people, irrespective of race, whether they owned the farms, were employed on the farms, or just passing through. It also includes smallholdings, which are mostly inhabited by black people and far more numerous than the large farms owned by white South Africans. 810,000 people in South Africa work on farms. Note that the vast majority of these people are black. That's a murder rate of 9.1 per 100,000. This is more than 3 times lower than the general murder rate of 34.4 per 100,000 - and we're not even talking about white farmers, we're talking about every single person who was killed on a farm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41807642

Dan Kriek, the president of Agri SA, the country's largest and most influential agricultural organisation, has debunked Afriforum's whitewashed statistics.

Crime doesn't recognise colour. For example, in the Free State we have had 58 farm attacks this year with four murders: two black and two white. We need to be honest about (crime) statistics and not only use it when it suits us.

The fake "white genocide" narrative relies on statistics from Afriforum that originate with the Transvaal Agricultural Union who don't split victims by race, yet right-wing news outlets take them and say that they were all white.

Just a few days ago a black-owned farm was attcked and burned down but the internet was abuzz with white genocide claims relating to it.

Farm murders of all races have been declining for the last 20 years and are half what they were 20 years ago.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

182

u/Comnena Mar 18 '18

Thank you for bringing the receipts. A Reverse Apartheid?? Really??? What bullshit. Apartheid was a full integrated, state-sanctioned, legal system specifically designed to discriminate against and denigrate the original occupiers of the land on which white people arrived. This is not a reverse apartheid.

36

u/ilikepies9001 Mar 18 '18

"original" occupiers? Learn your sa history mate.

61

u/Comnena Mar 18 '18

If you know something the anthropological community doesn't about how various indigenous African societies have not in fact lived in the South Africa region for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans then I don't know why you're announcing it here on Reddit, you should be preparing your paper for academic journals quick smart!

Or, if what you are implying is that the Boer and British colonisation of South Africa is exempt from the moral issues associated with colonialism because the people who lived in the South African geographical region at various points throughout history have changed due to internal migrations and power struggles, and therefore the migration of European settlers is in some way equivalent to these internal social changes and the people who lived their prior have no claim to their land or an expectation of being treated as anything other than one more set of interlopers able to be forced out by the next bunch of people who come along, then I think we both know that is not true.

6

u/Th3cz Mar 18 '18

It seems like you are not aware of the fact that the blacks living in and running SA today isn't the original people of those lands. Learn some history mate. The blacks there today came from tribes from the north in the 1600s at the same time as the Boer came and looked to settle unoccupied lands which they did from the south. Then they met each other at a river

63

u/MyFavouriteAxe Mar 18 '18

The blacks there today came from tribes from the north in the 1600s at the same time as the Boer came and looked to settle unoccupied lands which

Complete rubbish, Bantu tribes have been in South Africa for almost 2000 years. In reality, when the first Europeans arrived in the Cape, the region to which we now refer as South Africa was a patch work of different ethnicities: Bantu groups were dominant in the Limpopo and KZN areas, whilst Khoisan were dominant in the Cape. In between these two areas, lines were more blurred, and the genetics less distinct.

The most genetically undiluted Khoisan were effectively wiped out by the European settlers via conflict and dispossession of their lands, and (something which is so often overlooked) disease - something like 90% wiped out by smallpox [See this for more detail].

What followed was 200 years of East/Northward expansion, and conflict with the indiginous Bantu speaking peoples who predominated outside the Cape. Tribes who had already been in that region for centuries.

Only a small part of South Africa was ever 'unoccupied', and that was for a brief time and mainly because Dutch settlers had wiped out the locals (albeit with disease doing the heavy lifting).

31

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

I don't think Boers went to SA 25,000 years ago.

-11

u/Th3cz Mar 18 '18

Neither did the blacks that rule the country now

Also i said 1600s, do you have an issue reading what i say?

32

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

You're the one parroting colonial propaganda in an attempt to claim that "the blacks" don't belong in SA.

-9

u/Th3cz Mar 18 '18

You are not listening. There was a multitude of different tribes all over Africa when we came. Down in SA there were Bushmen and Hottentots, neither of which is there anymore. The Blacks inhabiting SA today came from other regions of Africa and settled it from the north in the 1600s, this is not colonial propaganda, this is known facts, ask a historian even a liberal one. The census here is that the claim that the current blacks living in SA has been there for thousands of years and that the Boer stole their land is bullshit. You are just spouting nonsense and ignoring whats infront of you, get a grip.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

The Boers stole the land from the people that already lived there. Stop trying to obfuscate the point, you brain dead incel.

1

u/Th3cz Mar 18 '18

But the people already living there isn't there anymore to claim it back. It's being claimed by blacks from other tribes that didnt own it from the start. Besides most of the areas Boers settled were completely uninhabited. Get your facts straight

7

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

Like I said, colonial propaganda.

1

u/Th3cz Mar 18 '18

Wow no wonder people are getting tired of this bullshit. You and your likes never fail to go into full denial. Is being wrong this painful for you? Because sooner or later people wont let you get away with your lies.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

Hey, if you want to first claim that the Boers took land from other African tribes that took it from the natives, then claim that they only took land that was unoccupied, that's your problem. "Me and my likes" will stick to facts and history, thanks very much.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18 edited Mar 18 '18

Hey mate what if I told you that different peoples can be the same skin color and conquests and colonialism can happen within the same continent? As another example the (Germanic) Anglos are not the original occupants of the country that now bears their name; the (Celtic) Britons were there before - and guess what, both those peoples are white.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '18

Sp original just means whenever they got there.