Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Apartheid was wild

SizweLo's profile picture

SizweLo

119,800 subscribers

295,024 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Yorum

Sizwe SikaMusi profil fotoğrafı
Sizwe SikaMusi3 yıl önce

Link to full video

Chairman profil fotoğrafı
Chairman3 yıl önce

This is very sad! I don't know how did black people get over such brutality and decided to "live in harmony" with whites... 💔

S. Maliwa profil fotoğrafı
S. Maliwa3 yıl önce

I like how he refers to ghettos as concentration camps, which they still are 👌

Bubbles The DJ profil fotoğrafı
Bubbles The DJ3 yıl önce

Recently found my first passport. We’ve really come so far😆

Voice of Reason profil fotoğrafı
Voice of Reason3 yıl önce

When we tell them about the remnants of apartheid they say, "It's been over 20 years since democracy stop blaming Apartheid, get over it "! They don't understand the magnitude of the damage that apartheid causes on black people. This thing damaged the minds of unborn children.

Coolest Guy profil fotoğrafı
Coolest Guy3 yıl önce

And nothing has changed Since ANC were handed the baton to continue with the oppression of their fellow black people

MO profil fotoğrafı
MO3 yıl önce

Yet some domkop somewhere from Soweto with a big beard and ailing eyes as he blinks every 2sc is telling us apartheid was better, all because his a failed advocate

Zeran profil fotoğrafı
Zeran3 yıl önce

And helen zille a beneficiary of such cruelty tells us apartheid was better 🤦🏾‍♂️

Manciza🇿🇦 profil fotoğrafı
Manciza🇿🇦3 yıl önce

Nothing has changed..

Straight profil fotoğrafı
Straight3 yıl önce

Election time around the corner - let’s bring out apartheid videos 🤣🤣🤣. One thing people time it right.

Benzer Videolar

“The Apartheid government was racist, but it was not as corrupt as the ANC government”
1:28

“The Apartheid government was racist, but it was not as corrupt as the ANC government”

Sizwe SikaMusi

11,338 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Yuli Novak says she was not aware that she was born in an Apartheid state in Israel, until she met Afrikaners in South Africa. She says they told her that during the 70s and the 80s, when Apartheid was at its peak, they were sure they were the only democracy in Africa.
2:02

Yuli Novak says she was not aware that she was born in an Apartheid state in Israel, until she met Afrikaners in South Africa. She says they told her that during the 70s and the 80s, when Apartheid was at its peak, they were sure they were the only democracy in Africa.

SizweLo

53,894 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

This man says he forgave White people for Apartheid because they didn’t do anything to him personally. Because, apparently, Apartheid was about him personally🙄 Then he says he’s giving colonisers a free pass because Africans committed even worse atrocities with...Mfecane/Difaqane, of all things🫩 The government needs to implement strict licencing rules for recording equipment.
2:10

This man says he forgave White people for Apartheid because they didn’t do anything to him personally. Because, apparently, Apartheid was about him personally🙄 Then he says he’s giving colonisers a free pass because Africans committed even worse atrocities with...Mfecane/Difaqane, of all things🫩 The government needs to implement strict licencing rules for recording equipment.

Sizwe SikaMusi

43,929 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

In 1979, the South African Apartheid government restricted filling station hours by closing on weekends, imposing strict speed limits of 80 km/h on highways, and capping fuel purchases. This was a response to the Iranian Revolution, which stopped 90% of South Africa’s oil imports. The shock exposed how South Africa, despite its vast mineral wealth, lacked the one resource industrial economies depended on most: oil. With Iran cutting off supplies after the Revolutionary government took over, South Africa was left scrambling for alternatives, unable for months to secure a replacement supplier. The Apartheid beneficiaries who were “not into politics”, pretending Apartheid did not exist, suddenly found out that politics was into them, as a society built on abundance and mobility was suddenly forced into rationing, and conservation.
0:56

In 1979, the South African Apartheid government restricted filling station hours by closing on weekends, imposing strict speed limits of 80 km/h on highways, and capping fuel purchases. This was a response to the Iranian Revolution, which stopped 90% of South Africa’s oil imports. The shock exposed how South Africa, despite its vast mineral wealth, lacked the one resource industrial economies depended on most: oil. With Iran cutting off supplies after the Revolutionary government took over, South Africa was left scrambling for alternatives, unable for months to secure a replacement supplier. The Apartheid beneficiaries who were “not into politics”, pretending Apartheid did not exist, suddenly found out that politics was into them, as a society built on abundance and mobility was suddenly forced into rationing, and conservation.

SizweLo

44,425 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Andrew Feinstein explains the differences between South African and Israeli Apartheid systems
3:01

Andrew Feinstein explains the differences between South African and Israeli Apartheid systems

Sizwe SikaMusi

10,475 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

White South Africans want Apartheid back. According to this White South African woman
0:45

White South Africans want Apartheid back. According to this White South African woman

Sizwe SikaMusi

60,428 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

There are allegations that Apartheid South Africa actually gave its nuclear weapons to Israel.
1:16

There are allegations that Apartheid South Africa actually gave its nuclear weapons to Israel.

SizweLo

23,694 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

1985, the residents of Mlungisi township in Queenstown (Komani) launched a consumer boycott against White-owned businesses to protest Apartheid policies.
2:49

1985, the residents of Mlungisi township in Queenstown (Komani) launched a consumer boycott against White-owned businesses to protest Apartheid policies.

SizweLo

116,458 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

The more you listen to Chris Hani, the more you realise that both the Apartheid regime AND the ANC had an incentive to kill him
0:23

The more you listen to Chris Hani, the more you realise that both the Apartheid regime AND the ANC had an incentive to kill him

SizweLo

187,339 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Shahid Bolsen: You let your oppressors, your colonisers stay in South Africa after Apartheid. That’s pretty hospitable and welcoming. You have the most obvious demographic who would generally be eligible for banishment, and they’re still there.
2:27

Shahid Bolsen: You let your oppressors, your colonisers stay in South Africa after Apartheid. That’s pretty hospitable and welcoming. You have the most obvious demographic who would generally be eligible for banishment, and they’re still there.

Sizwe SikaMusi

30,207 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

“At least there was service delivery in Apartheid.” Apartheid Health Services.
2:19

“At least there was service delivery in Apartheid.” Apartheid Health Services.

Bianca van Wyk

378,205 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

In 1977, Johannesburg was just Britain in Africa, with Sunday lunches, manicured lawns, charity drives, elite English institutions like Roedean School for girls and King Edward VII School for boys. Of course, this entire ecosystem of suburban peace was entirely sustained by the Black labour force of Soweto and Alexandra, which had just experienced the world’s most brutal wave of State repression since the start of Apartheid. While White residents held charity drives for distressed dogs, South African police officially admitted to killing 229 Black people in the townships, though United Nations estimates placed the true toll at over 1000 dead...
2:54

In 1977, Johannesburg was just Britain in Africa, with Sunday lunches, manicured lawns, charity drives, elite English institutions like Roedean School for girls and King Edward VII School for boys. Of course, this entire ecosystem of suburban peace was entirely sustained by the Black labour force of Soweto and Alexandra, which had just experienced the world’s most brutal wave of State repression since the start of Apartheid. While White residents held charity drives for distressed dogs, South African police officially admitted to killing 229 Black people in the townships, though United Nations estimates placed the true toll at over 1000 dead...

Sizwe SikaMusi

138,180 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Dr Roy Casagandra explains the link between WWII & Apartheid: 1. South Africa had a sizable White population that the British could use in war 2. SA replaced the White people who went to war with Black labour 3. They used Coloureds & Indians to control the Black population
4:06

Dr Roy Casagandra explains the link between WWII & Apartheid: 1. South Africa had a sizable White population that the British could use in war 2. SA replaced the White people who went to war with Black labour 3. They used Coloureds & Indians to control the Black population

Sizwe SikaMusi

47,510 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🇿🇦 The truth Apartheid was better
10:08

🇿🇦 The truth Apartheid was better

I ❤️ Cape Town ~ I Stand with Russia🇷🇺 MAGA

14,786 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I recently came across this clip of Bantu Holomisa saying that, despite the Apartheid regime being “cruel politically”, “but at least” he credits it “for having provided jobs”, “for making sure there was discipline in schools” and building “quality” four-room houses. Needless to say, Holomisa is recycling Apartheid propaganda. First, what “jobs” is he talking about when the regime passed laws that reserved all skilled and supervisory positions for White workers while restricting Black Africans to manual labour, where natives earned up to 11 times less, and still paid taxes that White people had never even heard of? Holomisa himself was a “General” in the Bantustans, which housed 52% of the population on just 13% of the least productive land, with unemployment often running at up to 80%. The Bantustans were created as rural, ethnically defined “homelands” with minimal industrial infrastructure and few formal employment opportunities. They relied heavily on subsistence agriculture, remittances from migrant labour, and low-paid local jobs. Job creation efforts were so minimal that by 1974, only about 13 000 workers (out of millions of residents) were employed in homeland industries, most in low-wage roles. For those who may not be aware, Bantustans were created by selecting areas that White farmers and mining companies had previously declared poor and unproductive. So, by describing this system as “job provision”, Holomisa is confusing exploitation with opportunity. On education. For 30 years before Apartheid, Africans were already paying an “Education Tax” that did not apply to White people. Yet, by 1976, the regime spent 15 times more on education for each White child than for each Black child. Then Holomisa says during Apartheid, “teachers were teaching”. How, when only 2.3% of Black teachers had a university degree, while 82% had no matric? Who were the teachers teaching when Black children would only attend school for a few years, often just 2 years? What good was the “teaching” when Black children were taught in their 2nd (or 3rd) language, which meant they were much more likely to fail, and it was not uncommon for a pupil to repeat a grade several times? When Holomisa praises Apartheid-era four-room houses, he is referring to the NE 51/6 matchbox house, structures built with asbestos cement roofing, unlined walls, no internal doors, no ceilings, and no insulation. The “quality” of the matchbox house, was never about human dignity. The primary concern was labour efficiency and social control. The “four rooms”, typically two bedrooms, a kitchen, and a living area, were unlined, with no internal doors and toxic asbestos roofing. The design assumed the inhabitants were merely units of labour. The lack of ceilings or proper insulation meant these houses were freezing in winter and boiling in summer. In the eyes of a frustrated citizen, a 1950s matchbox house that is still standing looks like “quality”. However, this aesthetic comparison ignores the political soul of the matchbox house as a brick-and-cement manifestation of the belief that Black people were “temporary visitors” in their own country. Yes, many of these houses are still standing. But durability is not the same as quality. The real danger of Holomisa’s claim is that in a country desperate for functional governance, a crumbling 1950s structure can look like “order.” But aesthetic comparison without political memory is a form of historical vandalism and moral amnesia.
1:23

I recently came across this clip of Bantu Holomisa saying that, despite the Apartheid regime being “cruel politically”, “but at least” he credits it “for having provided jobs”, “for making sure there was discipline in schools” and building “quality” four-room houses. Needless to say, Holomisa is recycling Apartheid propaganda. First, what “jobs” is he talking about when the regime passed laws that reserved all skilled and supervisory positions for White workers while restricting Black Africans to manual labour, where natives earned up to 11 times less, and still paid taxes that White people had never even heard of? Holomisa himself was a “General” in the Bantustans, which housed 52% of the population on just 13% of the least productive land, with unemployment often running at up to 80%. The Bantustans were created as rural, ethnically defined “homelands” with minimal industrial infrastructure and few formal employment opportunities. They relied heavily on subsistence agriculture, remittances from migrant labour, and low-paid local jobs. Job creation efforts were so minimal that by 1974, only about 13 000 workers (out of millions of residents) were employed in homeland industries, most in low-wage roles. For those who may not be aware, Bantustans were created by selecting areas that White farmers and mining companies had previously declared poor and unproductive. So, by describing this system as “job provision”, Holomisa is confusing exploitation with opportunity. On education. For 30 years before Apartheid, Africans were already paying an “Education Tax” that did not apply to White people. Yet, by 1976, the regime spent 15 times more on education for each White child than for each Black child. Then Holomisa says during Apartheid, “teachers were teaching”. How, when only 2.3% of Black teachers had a university degree, while 82% had no matric? Who were the teachers teaching when Black children would only attend school for a few years, often just 2 years? What good was the “teaching” when Black children were taught in their 2nd (or 3rd) language, which meant they were much more likely to fail, and it was not uncommon for a pupil to repeat a grade several times? When Holomisa praises Apartheid-era four-room houses, he is referring to the NE 51/6 matchbox house, structures built with asbestos cement roofing, unlined walls, no internal doors, no ceilings, and no insulation. The “quality” of the matchbox house, was never about human dignity. The primary concern was labour efficiency and social control. The “four rooms”, typically two bedrooms, a kitchen, and a living area, were unlined, with no internal doors and toxic asbestos roofing. The design assumed the inhabitants were merely units of labour. The lack of ceilings or proper insulation meant these houses were freezing in winter and boiling in summer. In the eyes of a frustrated citizen, a 1950s matchbox house that is still standing looks like “quality”. However, this aesthetic comparison ignores the political soul of the matchbox house as a brick-and-cement manifestation of the belief that Black people were “temporary visitors” in their own country. Yes, many of these houses are still standing. But durability is not the same as quality. The real danger of Holomisa’s claim is that in a country desperate for functional governance, a crumbling 1950s structure can look like “order.” But aesthetic comparison without political memory is a form of historical vandalism and moral amnesia.

Sizwe SikaMusi

22,126 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Radio 702 man: What do you think of Cyril? Adv Muzi Sikhakhane: I view each of the post-Apartheid presidents through political systems and compromises they represented. Mandela was used as a buffer between downtrodden people and the system, driven by an obsession with sainthood rather than pushing for radical structural change. Thabo Mbeki is a modern leader who accomplished some great things, but was overly aligned with “Western modernity”. Jacob Zuma was another “missed opportunity.” He needs to do introspection regarding his presidency and the self-serving agendas around him. Cyril Ramaphosa represents compromise and selling out, even if unconscious, symbolising how money and political manoeuvring are used to stay at the top. Cyril embodies long-standing flaws within the ANC, namely, a moderate compromise that neglects the daily reality of the country’s most vulnerable people.
2:45

Radio 702 man: What do you think of Cyril? Adv Muzi Sikhakhane: I view each of the post-Apartheid presidents through political systems and compromises they represented. Mandela was used as a buffer between downtrodden people and the system, driven by an obsession with sainthood rather than pushing for radical structural change. Thabo Mbeki is a modern leader who accomplished some great things, but was overly aligned with “Western modernity”. Jacob Zuma was another “missed opportunity.” He needs to do introspection regarding his presidency and the self-serving agendas around him. Cyril Ramaphosa represents compromise and selling out, even if unconscious, symbolising how money and political manoeuvring are used to stay at the top. Cyril embodies long-standing flaws within the ANC, namely, a moderate compromise that neglects the daily reality of the country’s most vulnerable people.

SizweLo

209,463 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

South Africans Deceived Again By Massive Disinformation Campaign No, apartheid was not constitutional. The constitution was invented to stop apartheid from happening ever again
2:57

South Africans Deceived Again By Massive Disinformation Campaign No, apartheid was not constitutional. The constitution was invented to stop apartheid from happening ever again

Dan Corder 📺

188,856 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

Was the Apartheid Government a GOOD Government???
2:07

Was the Apartheid Government a GOOD Government???

Penuel The Black Pen

22,670 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Oliver Tambo: “Just about anything is welcome as an alternative to the Apartheid system”. This is what happens when a liberation movement defines its primary victory negatively. In this case, as the removal of a regime rather than the affirmation of a specific economic system. By declaring that “just about anything is welcome”, Tambo was speaking from the urgency of the time, but that signalled to White capital and the National Party that the ANC’s political flexibility was nearly infinite. The then-President of the ANC had announced that his liberation movement was open to anything. Tambo’s logic that defeat of the enemy was the sole immediate objective meant that concrete economic strategy was relegated to an afterthought. And because the ANC was hyper-focused on ending racial oppression at any cost, the Apartheid regime and White capital ensured that the cost went as high as possible. To capitalise on this weakness, the White minority gave the ANC political authority, and in return they gained property rights protection, central bank independence, the Bill of Rights, Constitutional supremacy, the maintenance of the old macro-economic system and the ability to externalise capital. Because the ANC had deferred the development of a concrete economic policy, when it inherited the state in 1994, it didn’t have a solid economic model that could withstand international market pressure and IMF/World Bank influence. The rest is history. This “anything but this” logic didn’t stay confined to the ANC’s leadership, though. Three decades later, it has become the default mindset of the voters themselves, in the form of negative voting. The 2024 general election outcome, which forced the creation of the Government of National Unity, is a classic example of this mentality. Sections of the public, fed up with the ANC, were desperate to “vote it out” and constantly encouraged other voters to “vote for anyone but the ANC”, instead of voting *for* something specific. So, just like the ANC in the ’80s and ’90s, 2024 was dictated by what South Africans were desperate to destroy rather than what they were organised to build. Until this changes, the outcome will continuously default to more compromise and more stagnation.
0:43

Oliver Tambo: “Just about anything is welcome as an alternative to the Apartheid system”. This is what happens when a liberation movement defines its primary victory negatively. In this case, as the removal of a regime rather than the affirmation of a specific economic system. By declaring that “just about anything is welcome”, Tambo was speaking from the urgency of the time, but that signalled to White capital and the National Party that the ANC’s political flexibility was nearly infinite. The then-President of the ANC had announced that his liberation movement was open to anything. Tambo’s logic that defeat of the enemy was the sole immediate objective meant that concrete economic strategy was relegated to an afterthought. And because the ANC was hyper-focused on ending racial oppression at any cost, the Apartheid regime and White capital ensured that the cost went as high as possible. To capitalise on this weakness, the White minority gave the ANC political authority, and in return they gained property rights protection, central bank independence, the Bill of Rights, Constitutional supremacy, the maintenance of the old macro-economic system and the ability to externalise capital. Because the ANC had deferred the development of a concrete economic policy, when it inherited the state in 1994, it didn’t have a solid economic model that could withstand international market pressure and IMF/World Bank influence. The rest is history. This “anything but this” logic didn’t stay confined to the ANC’s leadership, though. Three decades later, it has become the default mindset of the voters themselves, in the form of negative voting. The 2024 general election outcome, which forced the creation of the Government of National Unity, is a classic example of this mentality. Sections of the public, fed up with the ANC, were desperate to “vote it out” and constantly encouraged other voters to “vote for anyone but the ANC”, instead of voting *for* something specific. So, just like the ANC in the ’80s and ’90s, 2024 was dictated by what South Africans were desperate to destroy rather than what they were organised to build. Until this changes, the outcome will continuously default to more compromise and more stagnation.

Sizwe SikaMusi

10,748 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Can someone tell me it was after Apartheid!!!
1:42

Can someone tell me it was after Apartheid!!!

Fighter Rakgadi 🚜

424,323 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce