Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗠𝗨𝗚𝗔𝗕𝗘 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗣 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗙𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗜𝗗? For many years, South Africans have quoted Mugabe’s speech—where he said he would assist South Africa diplomatically and not militarily—to justify the perception that Zimbabwe did not help South Africa in its fight for independence. But this ignores key facts. Mugabe...

matinyarare's profile picture

Rutendo Matinyarare

73,688 subscribers

10,781 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

On 28 February 1981, just 10 months after Zimbabwe’s independence, President Mugabe DELIVERED a speech directed at the Apartheid Regime in South Africa led by Botha… South Africa was armed to the teeth, & newly independent Zimbabwe depended heavily on SA for imports & exports… But Mugabe didn’t mince his words.
2:46

On 28 February 1981, just 10 months after Zimbabwe’s independence, President Mugabe DELIVERED a speech directed at the Apartheid Regime in South Africa led by Botha… South Africa was armed to the teeth, & newly independent Zimbabwe depended heavily on SA for imports & exports… But Mugabe didn’t mince his words.

𝑲𝒖𝒅𝒛𝒂𝒊 𝑴𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒊

54,750 views • 7 months ago

A foreign national is crying out against the South African government, saying he has been living in South Africa for 24 years and has 3 children, yet the Department of Home Affairs still refuses to give him a South African ID book 📕 He says if he was in countries like the UK, he would have received an ID within 4 years. He also claims that their countries supported South Africa during apartheid by sending soldiers to help fight the apartheid government, therefore chasing them away now is not right.
2:04

A foreign national is crying out against the South African government, saying he has been living in South Africa for 24 years and has 3 children, yet the Department of Home Affairs still refuses to give him a South African ID book 📕 He says if he was in countries like the UK, he would have received an ID within 4 years. He also claims that their countries supported South Africa during apartheid by sending soldiers to help fight the apartheid government, therefore chasing them away now is not right.

Inqubeko Media

103,712 views • 2 months ago

ZANUPF has done many terrible things, but it is important to acknowledge that there are certain good things it did too. One of them was allowing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) to operate from Zimbabwe, pass through Zimbabwe, and even use the Zimbabwe National Army to move its weapons from Zambia to South Africa. I know you are basing your statement on a short video clip which occasionally circulates online, showing Robert Mugabe being interviewed by British television. In that interview, he was asked if he would allow South Africans to fight militarily from Zimbabwe, and he replied that South Africans would fight militarily in South Africa not Zimbabwe. Anyone with a bit of common sense would understand that Mugabe could never have gone on British television and publicly said that Zimbabwe was helping South Africans militarily to fight apartheid from Zimbabwean soil. It is like expecting O. R. Tambo to go on British or American television and expose the tactics used to fight the apartheid regime. That would not have been a smart thing to do. It simply requires a bit of emotional intelligence to understand that when watching that video clip. If you are not aware of the history, read about the number of bombings that took place in Zimbabwe — bombings carried out by the apartheid South African regime in retaliation for Zimbabwe’s support of the liberation struggle in South Africa. Even your own former president Thabo Mbeki spoke about how Zimbabwe helped South Africa militarily during that period. That said, this is not an excuse to justify illegal immigration simply because Zimbabwe helped South Africa during the struggle. Zimbabwe did the right thing at the time. I am one of those who have consistently said that I am opposed to illegal immigration because it is a crime. However, that does not give anyone the right to insult or abuse Africans particularly Zimbabweans who are living legally in South Africa and have committed no crime. There are South Africans living in Zimbabwe too. One of the biggest mining companies in Zimbabwe, Zimplats, is South African-owned through Impala Platinum Holdings Limited. The bulk of Impala Platinum Holdings Limited’s earnings and revenue come from Zimbabwe not South Africa. Those are the taxes that pay grants to South Africans, it takes a bit of reading to understanding the interconnectedness. It is therefore foolish to say you don’t want Zimbabweans who are living legally in South Africa to do so. It is crazy! There are many other South African companies operating in Zimbabwe, and even your former vice-president, DD, owns a mine in Zvishavane. It is healthy for South Africans to have conversations about issues affecting their country. It is also healthy to discuss illegal immigration — that is part of responsible citizenship. But when you start going after people like Peter Ndoro, who are in South Africa legally, and others who are even naturalised South Africans, it becomes clear that the issue is no longer about immigration. It is about targeting Africans — it is Afrophobia. There are many white Zimbabweans living in South Africa, some legally and some illegally, yet I have never heard anyone mention them. Instead, the focus is always on black Africans who are in South Africa legally and contributing to society. That is not about protecting borders or enforcing immigration laws — that is about self-hate, the internalised racism that drives some Africans to turn on their fellow Africans.
9:56

ZANUPF has done many terrible things, but it is important to acknowledge that there are certain good things it did too. One of them was allowing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) to operate from Zimbabwe, pass through Zimbabwe, and even use the Zimbabwe National Army to move its weapons from Zambia to South Africa. I know you are basing your statement on a short video clip which occasionally circulates online, showing Robert Mugabe being interviewed by British television. In that interview, he was asked if he would allow South Africans to fight militarily from Zimbabwe, and he replied that South Africans would fight militarily in South Africa not Zimbabwe. Anyone with a bit of common sense would understand that Mugabe could never have gone on British television and publicly said that Zimbabwe was helping South Africans militarily to fight apartheid from Zimbabwean soil. It is like expecting O. R. Tambo to go on British or American television and expose the tactics used to fight the apartheid regime. That would not have been a smart thing to do. It simply requires a bit of emotional intelligence to understand that when watching that video clip. If you are not aware of the history, read about the number of bombings that took place in Zimbabwe — bombings carried out by the apartheid South African regime in retaliation for Zimbabwe’s support of the liberation struggle in South Africa. Even your own former president Thabo Mbeki spoke about how Zimbabwe helped South Africa militarily during that period. That said, this is not an excuse to justify illegal immigration simply because Zimbabwe helped South Africa during the struggle. Zimbabwe did the right thing at the time. I am one of those who have consistently said that I am opposed to illegal immigration because it is a crime. However, that does not give anyone the right to insult or abuse Africans particularly Zimbabweans who are living legally in South Africa and have committed no crime. There are South Africans living in Zimbabwe too. One of the biggest mining companies in Zimbabwe, Zimplats, is South African-owned through Impala Platinum Holdings Limited. The bulk of Impala Platinum Holdings Limited’s earnings and revenue come from Zimbabwe not South Africa. Those are the taxes that pay grants to South Africans, it takes a bit of reading to understanding the interconnectedness. It is therefore foolish to say you don’t want Zimbabweans who are living legally in South Africa to do so. It is crazy! There are many other South African companies operating in Zimbabwe, and even your former vice-president, DD, owns a mine in Zvishavane. It is healthy for South Africans to have conversations about issues affecting their country. It is also healthy to discuss illegal immigration — that is part of responsible citizenship. But when you start going after people like Peter Ndoro, who are in South Africa legally, and others who are even naturalised South Africans, it becomes clear that the issue is no longer about immigration. It is about targeting Africans — it is Afrophobia. There are many white Zimbabweans living in South Africa, some legally and some illegally, yet I have never heard anyone mention them. Instead, the focus is always on black Africans who are in South Africa legally and contributing to society. That is not about protecting borders or enforcing immigration laws — that is about self-hate, the internalised racism that drives some Africans to turn on their fellow Africans.

Hopewell Chin’ono

181,643 views • 9 months ago

🇿🇦 SOUTH AFRICA: THE U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM FOR AFRIKANERS IS APARTHEID 2.0 South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola: "For the South African government to assist the U.S. government with this refugee program. it is a preferential treatment of Afrikaners in South Africa to enter the U.S. And with the history of our country, a preferential treatment of a particular privileged group, the Afrikaners, who are not running away from any genocide in this country, is definitely apartheid 2.0." Source: Viory Video
1:25

🇿🇦 SOUTH AFRICA: THE U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM FOR AFRIKANERS IS APARTHEID 2.0 South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola: "For the South African government to assist the U.S. government with this refugee program. it is a preferential treatment of Afrikaners in South Africa to enter the U.S. And with the history of our country, a preferential treatment of a particular privileged group, the Afrikaners, who are not running away from any genocide in this country, is definitely apartheid 2.0." Source: Viory Video

Mario Nawfal

135,181 views • 11 months ago

I just saw that Mr George Galloway quoted my tweet, and it reminds me of when, as a political science undergrad at Nigeria’s premier university, I was researching the brutality of the apartheid regime in South Africa and came across his debate at the Oxford Union for the first time. In the debate, Mr Galloway spoke of a time he joined in the fight against apartheid in South Africa and asserted that he would never debate a supporter of apartheid because it is one of the worst forms of racism and fascism there are. It is a delight to see that he has remained steadfast in speaking out against apartheid, racism, and genocide, and that he has been consistent in upholding democracy, respect for international law, and the sovereignty of nations, especially those vulnerable to the whims of imperial predators. Attached is a video clip of his debate at the Oxford Union. Video credit: Oxford Union George Galloway
6:04

I just saw that Mr George Galloway quoted my tweet, and it reminds me of when, as a political science undergrad at Nigeria’s premier university, I was researching the brutality of the apartheid regime in South Africa and came across his debate at the Oxford Union for the first time. In the debate, Mr Galloway spoke of a time he joined in the fight against apartheid in South Africa and asserted that he would never debate a supporter of apartheid because it is one of the worst forms of racism and fascism there are. It is a delight to see that he has remained steadfast in speaking out against apartheid, racism, and genocide, and that he has been consistent in upholding democracy, respect for international law, and the sovereignty of nations, especially those vulnerable to the whims of imperial predators. Attached is a video clip of his debate at the Oxford Union. Video credit: Oxford Union George Galloway

Ayo-Elesho

139,717 views • 4 months ago

THE U.S. ALWAYS SUPPORTED APARTHEID US support for apartheid and settler-colonialism in South Africa goes as far back as its ‘constructive engagement’ policy that aimed to break South Africa's international isolation and use the apartheid regime as a proxy against socialist independence movements in Africa. Plus, African Stream’s Wambura Mwai (@wamburabrenda on IG) tells us that US corporations invested in upholding the apartheid regime with as much as $14.6 billion by the early 1980s, despite international boycotts, according to the US Out of Southern Africa Network. The US strategy bolstered the apartheid regime’s ability to suppress domestic and regional liberation movements. US President Donald Trump's support for white landowners in South Africa continues this longstanding US legacy of backing apartheid-era policies. Let us know in the comments what you think about this phenomenon.
3:12

THE U.S. ALWAYS SUPPORTED APARTHEID US support for apartheid and settler-colonialism in South Africa goes as far back as its ‘constructive engagement’ policy that aimed to break South Africa's international isolation and use the apartheid regime as a proxy against socialist independence movements in Africa. Plus, African Stream’s Wambura Mwai (@wamburabrenda on IG) tells us that US corporations invested in upholding the apartheid regime with as much as $14.6 billion by the early 1980s, despite international boycotts, according to the US Out of Southern Africa Network. The US strategy bolstered the apartheid regime’s ability to suppress domestic and regional liberation movements. US President Donald Trump's support for white landowners in South Africa continues this longstanding US legacy of backing apartheid-era policies. Let us know in the comments what you think about this phenomenon.

African Stream

22,712 views • 1 year ago

Our ‘international airport’ had an in-depth interview with the British media in 1985. It was at the height of the apartheid state brutality and repression. He led a massive international campaign for comprehensive sanctions against the apartheid regime. The year 1985 marked a pivotal escalation in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, characterised by widespread mass protests, labor strikes, and intensified township resistance. By June, the UN Security Council urged member states to impose sanctions against the apartheid regime, precipitating a deepening political crisis. In response, PW Botha proclaimed a state of emergency to avert systemic collapse. The European Community and Commonwealth nations duly responded with economic sanctions. Until this moment, the US had extended unconditional political and economic backing to apartheid South Africa. It was only in 1986 under international pressure that the US imposed stricter economic measures against the apartheid regime. Winnie Mandela had been banished to Brandfort in the Free State. She defied the banning order and returned to Soweto to spearhead grassroots resistance against the regime. From 1985 onward, apartheid began to unravel. The state despite its attempts repression, it increasingly could not sustain its legitimacy and political stability. The real turning point came when FW de Klerk replaced PW Botha in 1989 and moved to open negotiations. In 1990, the ANC and other liberation organisations were unbanned, and Mandela was released from prison. Subsequent negotiations culminated in a transitional settlement wherein the enfeebled apartheid criminals ceded political power to the ANC while retaining de facto dominance over the economy. This negotiated criminal structure still persists today. Economic power remains concentrated among historical beneficiaries of the apartheid regime. Our economic liberation was sold at the negotiations table. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela did say that she felt betrayed. Chris Hani too opposed the negotiations and was murdered.
23:48

Our ‘international airport’ had an in-depth interview with the British media in 1985. It was at the height of the apartheid state brutality and repression. He led a massive international campaign for comprehensive sanctions against the apartheid regime. The year 1985 marked a pivotal escalation in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, characterised by widespread mass protests, labor strikes, and intensified township resistance. By June, the UN Security Council urged member states to impose sanctions against the apartheid regime, precipitating a deepening political crisis. In response, PW Botha proclaimed a state of emergency to avert systemic collapse. The European Community and Commonwealth nations duly responded with economic sanctions. Until this moment, the US had extended unconditional political and economic backing to apartheid South Africa. It was only in 1986 under international pressure that the US imposed stricter economic measures against the apartheid regime. Winnie Mandela had been banished to Brandfort in the Free State. She defied the banning order and returned to Soweto to spearhead grassroots resistance against the regime. From 1985 onward, apartheid began to unravel. The state despite its attempts repression, it increasingly could not sustain its legitimacy and political stability. The real turning point came when FW de Klerk replaced PW Botha in 1989 and moved to open negotiations. In 1990, the ANC and other liberation organisations were unbanned, and Mandela was released from prison. Subsequent negotiations culminated in a transitional settlement wherein the enfeebled apartheid criminals ceded political power to the ANC while retaining de facto dominance over the economy. This negotiated criminal structure still persists today. Economic power remains concentrated among historical beneficiaries of the apartheid regime. Our economic liberation was sold at the negotiations table. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela did say that she felt betrayed. Chris Hani too opposed the negotiations and was murdered.

Sentletse 🇿🇦🇷🇺🇵🇸🇱🇧

39,424 views • 3 months ago

WATCH] On behalf of the African National Congress, I want to state that we a country of over 60 million. There are many people who come to our country and many come to our country to contribute to the wealth of our country and its progress. Many contribute positively in our country. There are people in our country who have taken it upon themselves to do things which the vast majority do not condone and this must not paint South Africans as xenophobic. Indeed we do have a challenge of illegal immigration in South Africa and it’s not a problem unique to South Africa. There are many country’s affected by this. South Africa is a signatory of the Geneva Convention and we must deal with this challenge within the perimeters of the law. We can’t deal with it with hatred. That is why government has adopted a program of action to deal with this particular challenge which the President has made a public announcement. We have called for law enforcement and calmness and follow the government’s Action Plan on dealing with illegal immigration. We have made it very clear as the ANC, we cannot and should not be associated with anything that amounts to hate crimes. In this particular instance the majority of South Africans are people of Ubuntu and humanity. Because we too would not be free without the solidarity and assistance of country’s such as Mozambique in the fight against apartheid. Many people sacrificed such as Samora Machel the President of Mozambique and many combatants died here fighting against apartheid. #ANCinMozambique #ANCatWORK
6:27

WATCH] On behalf of the African National Congress, I want to state that we a country of over 60 million. There are many people who come to our country and many come to our country to contribute to the wealth of our country and its progress. Many contribute positively in our country. There are people in our country who have taken it upon themselves to do things which the vast majority do not condone and this must not paint South Africans as xenophobic. Indeed we do have a challenge of illegal immigration in South Africa and it’s not a problem unique to South Africa. There are many country’s affected by this. South Africa is a signatory of the Geneva Convention and we must deal with this challenge within the perimeters of the law. We can’t deal with it with hatred. That is why government has adopted a program of action to deal with this particular challenge which the President has made a public announcement. We have called for law enforcement and calmness and follow the government’s Action Plan on dealing with illegal immigration. We have made it very clear as the ANC, we cannot and should not be associated with anything that amounts to hate crimes. In this particular instance the majority of South Africans are people of Ubuntu and humanity. Because we too would not be free without the solidarity and assistance of country’s such as Mozambique in the fight against apartheid. Many people sacrificed such as Samora Machel the President of Mozambique and many combatants died here fighting against apartheid. #ANCinMozambique #ANCatWORK

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

185,601 views • 1 month ago

Mbeki has recounted how Nigeria, in 1990, persuaded Mugabe to postpone Zimbabwe’s land reform programme in support of South Africa’s transition from apartheid. Mbeki explained that Nigeria feared that an abrupt Zimbabwean land reform would spook apartheid criminals, and undermine the fragile negotiations between the regime and the ANC. Zimbabwe duly delayed its reforms, allowing South Africa’s talks to proceed uninterrupted. Yet the ANC chose to betray the liberation struggle by failing to demand immediate land redistribution as a core element of the negotiated political settlement. Zimbabwe later pursued fast-track expropriations from 2000 onward, while South Africa clung to the “willing buyer, willing seller” model despite its evident failure in Zimbabwe. Decades later, we still lack meaningful land restitution. We are led by fools.
2:11

Mbeki has recounted how Nigeria, in 1990, persuaded Mugabe to postpone Zimbabwe’s land reform programme in support of South Africa’s transition from apartheid. Mbeki explained that Nigeria feared that an abrupt Zimbabwean land reform would spook apartheid criminals, and undermine the fragile negotiations between the regime and the ANC. Zimbabwe duly delayed its reforms, allowing South Africa’s talks to proceed uninterrupted. Yet the ANC chose to betray the liberation struggle by failing to demand immediate land redistribution as a core element of the negotiated political settlement. Zimbabwe later pursued fast-track expropriations from 2000 onward, while South Africa clung to the “willing buyer, willing seller” model despite its evident failure in Zimbabwe. Decades later, we still lack meaningful land restitution. We are led by fools.

Sentletse 🇿🇦🇷🇺🇵🇸🇱🇧

214,518 views • 3 months ago

During the apartheid era (1948–1994), the United States government maintained a complex and often contradictory relationship with the South African regime. Initially, U.S. foreign policy prioritized Cold War strategy over human rights, viewing apartheid South Africa as a reliable anti-communist ally in Africa. From the Truman to the Reagan administrations, American leaders emphasized "constructive engagement," favoring quiet diplomacy over economic sanctions. This approach allowed major U.S. corporations to continue operating in South Africa, providing vital economic support to the apartheid state. Despite growing domestic and international pressure, the U.S. resisted stringent sanctions until the 1980s. Grassroots movements, student activism, and congressional lobbying eventually led to the passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which was signed into law despite President Ronald Reagan's veto. This legislation marked a significant shift in U.S. policy and imposed sweeping economic sanctions on South Africa, including bans on new investment and imports of certain goods. While the U.S. government had long avoided direct confrontation with the apartheid regime, the 1986 sanctions played a pivotal role in isolating it economically and politically. The international community increasingly condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity, and the U.S. ultimately aligned itself with this global consensus. The pressure contributed to the dismantling of apartheid and the peaceful transition to democracy in 1994.
2:10

During the apartheid era (1948–1994), the United States government maintained a complex and often contradictory relationship with the South African regime. Initially, U.S. foreign policy prioritized Cold War strategy over human rights, viewing apartheid South Africa as a reliable anti-communist ally in Africa. From the Truman to the Reagan administrations, American leaders emphasized "constructive engagement," favoring quiet diplomacy over economic sanctions. This approach allowed major U.S. corporations to continue operating in South Africa, providing vital economic support to the apartheid state. Despite growing domestic and international pressure, the U.S. resisted stringent sanctions until the 1980s. Grassroots movements, student activism, and congressional lobbying eventually led to the passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which was signed into law despite President Ronald Reagan's veto. This legislation marked a significant shift in U.S. policy and imposed sweeping economic sanctions on South Africa, including bans on new investment and imports of certain goods. While the U.S. government had long avoided direct confrontation with the apartheid regime, the 1986 sanctions played a pivotal role in isolating it economically and politically. The international community increasingly condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity, and the U.S. ultimately aligned itself with this global consensus. The pressure contributed to the dismantling of apartheid and the peaceful transition to democracy in 1994.

LambChip

27,504 views • 3 months ago

𝗭𝗜𝗠𝗕𝗔𝗕𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗛𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦, 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦. Zimbabwe lost men and women in two wars that lasted from 1981 to 1992 to liberate South Africa. We spent over US$13 billion or US$1 million a day fight war for South Africa. We didn’t just host them, we sacrificed, defend and died for them. South Africans must be grateful because this is not the end of wars in Africa. They will need us again. #ZimbabweLiberatedSouthAfrica
8:06

𝗭𝗜𝗠𝗕𝗔𝗕𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗛𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦, 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦. Zimbabwe lost men and women in two wars that lasted from 1981 to 1992 to liberate South Africa. We spent over US$13 billion or US$1 million a day fight war for South Africa. We didn’t just host them, we sacrificed, defend and died for them. South Africans must be grateful because this is not the end of wars in Africa. They will need us again. #ZimbabweLiberatedSouthAfrica

Rutendo Matinyarare

92,793 views • 1 year ago

Wow, the president of Dudula is as daft as a brick. I cannot imagine that someone who wants to be a politician, enter politics, and lead people in South Africa does not know what the Frontline States means or what they stood for. This is exactly why I always encourage young people to read — and to read widely, with depth — not just to chant empty slogans rooted in ignorance. For those who did not know, the Frontline States were a coalition of southern African countries that supported the liberation movements fighting against colonialism and apartheid in the region. They were a precursor to what later became SADC, and their solidarity played a crucial role in the liberation of countries such as Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and South Africa itself. The Frontline States were Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and later Zimbabwe. These nations formed a regional alliance during the 1970s and 1980s to coordinate political, diplomatic, and military support for liberation movements fighting colonial and apartheid regimes in southern Africa.
1:06

Wow, the president of Dudula is as daft as a brick. I cannot imagine that someone who wants to be a politician, enter politics, and lead people in South Africa does not know what the Frontline States means or what they stood for. This is exactly why I always encourage young people to read — and to read widely, with depth — not just to chant empty slogans rooted in ignorance. For those who did not know, the Frontline States were a coalition of southern African countries that supported the liberation movements fighting against colonialism and apartheid in the region. They were a precursor to what later became SADC, and their solidarity played a crucial role in the liberation of countries such as Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and South Africa itself. The Frontline States were Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and later Zimbabwe. These nations formed a regional alliance during the 1970s and 1980s to coordinate political, diplomatic, and military support for liberation movements fighting colonial and apartheid regimes in southern Africa.

Hopewell Chin’ono

321,214 views • 9 months ago

Mahatma Gandhi was an anti-Black racist, who advocated a three-tiered apartheid in South Africa. While living in South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of indolence and nakedness. He routinely expressed "disdain for Africans," and he also campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans. One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for whites and blacks at the Durban post office. Gandhi obiected that Indians were "classed with the natives of South Africa," who he called the kaffirs, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians. In a petition letter in 1895, Gandhi also expressed concern that a lower legal standing for Indians would result in degenerating "so much so that from their civilised habits, they would be degraded to the habits of the aboriginal Natives, and a generation hence, between the progeny of the Indians and the Natives, there will be very little difference in habits, and customs and thought."
2:20

Mahatma Gandhi was an anti-Black racist, who advocated a three-tiered apartheid in South Africa. While living in South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of indolence and nakedness. He routinely expressed "disdain for Africans," and he also campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans. One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for whites and blacks at the Durban post office. Gandhi obiected that Indians were "classed with the natives of South Africa," who he called the kaffirs, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians. In a petition letter in 1895, Gandhi also expressed concern that a lower legal standing for Indians would result in degenerating "so much so that from their civilised habits, they would be degraded to the habits of the aboriginal Natives, and a generation hence, between the progeny of the Indians and the Natives, there will be very little difference in habits, and customs and thought."

AFRICAN & BLACK HISTORY

42,570 views • 2 months ago

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.

Sizwe SikaMusi

44,372 views • 4 months ago

Nelson Mandela On Why He Supported Gaddafi And Castro In 1948, a right-wing party rose to power in South Africa, led by the country’s white minority. What followed was a decades-long period of systemic violence against South Africa's black majority. This period, known as apartheid, ended in 1994 with the victory of the revolutionary African National Congress (ANC) party, and the election of its 27-years imprisoned activist Nelson Mandela (1918 - 2013) as South Africa’s first freely-elected president. During the decades of struggle, the ANC had sought help from the international community. The “free” nations of the West would not help. The United States and Britain would not help. Only “undemocratic” nations like Libya, Cuba and Palestine answered the call, providing military, medical and financial assistance to the anti-apartheid forces. In this interview with PBS News in the year of his release from prison, Nelson Mandela defends his support of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the face of allegations of “human rights abuses” leveled against the governments of both leaders by the West - the same West which for so long had so little to say about the very real human rights abuses perpetrated by the apartheid government, and which actively supported apartheid.
1:53

Nelson Mandela On Why He Supported Gaddafi And Castro In 1948, a right-wing party rose to power in South Africa, led by the country’s white minority. What followed was a decades-long period of systemic violence against South Africa's black majority. This period, known as apartheid, ended in 1994 with the victory of the revolutionary African National Congress (ANC) party, and the election of its 27-years imprisoned activist Nelson Mandela (1918 - 2013) as South Africa’s first freely-elected president. During the decades of struggle, the ANC had sought help from the international community. The “free” nations of the West would not help. The United States and Britain would not help. Only “undemocratic” nations like Libya, Cuba and Palestine answered the call, providing military, medical and financial assistance to the anti-apartheid forces. In this interview with PBS News in the year of his release from prison, Nelson Mandela defends his support of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the face of allegations of “human rights abuses” leveled against the governments of both leaders by the West - the same West which for so long had so little to say about the very real human rights abuses perpetrated by the apartheid government, and which actively supported apartheid.

The Spearhead

11,164 views • 8 months ago

🎯M23 will be taught in South African military schools! Why? It was the first time since World War II that South African troops were captured by enemy forces. It was also the first time they were captured by a non-state armed group. South Africa has been in the DRC longer than the US was in Afghanistan. This expert notes that the South African government may have concluded there was nothing more it could do in the DRC, especially after the January 2025 rout. That is true. Sadly, while South Africans are reflecting on the condition of their army, which is a legitimate concern, they have refused to reflect on the purpose of their mission in the DRC. Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki would never have backed a regime bent on exterminating part of its population. They would never have supported a government that recruits the FDLR, a group formed by the remnants of genocidal forces. Never. The same is true for Nyerere. There was a time when South Africa (and Tanzania) offered the world a moral compass. That South Africa no longer exists. It has been replaced by corrupt, populist politicians who have forgotten their own liberation struggle and chosen instead to embrace an apartheid-like, genocidal regime in Kinshasa. I am talking to you too Julius Sello Malema ! The moral decay came first. The military defeat merely followed. As South Africa reflects, it should reflect on that too. Cc: Sugira Mireille🇨🇩 African Albert Rudatsimburwa 🇷🇼 Michaela Agasaro
1:47

🎯M23 will be taught in South African military schools! Why? It was the first time since World War II that South African troops were captured by enemy forces. It was also the first time they were captured by a non-state armed group. South Africa has been in the DRC longer than the US was in Afghanistan. This expert notes that the South African government may have concluded there was nothing more it could do in the DRC, especially after the January 2025 rout. That is true. Sadly, while South Africans are reflecting on the condition of their army, which is a legitimate concern, they have refused to reflect on the purpose of their mission in the DRC. Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki would never have backed a regime bent on exterminating part of its population. They would never have supported a government that recruits the FDLR, a group formed by the remnants of genocidal forces. Never. The same is true for Nyerere. There was a time when South Africa (and Tanzania) offered the world a moral compass. That South Africa no longer exists. It has been replaced by corrupt, populist politicians who have forgotten their own liberation struggle and chosen instead to embrace an apartheid-like, genocidal regime in Kinshasa. I am talking to you too Julius Sello Malema ! The moral decay came first. The military defeat merely followed. As South Africa reflects, it should reflect on that too. Cc: Sugira Mireille🇨🇩 African Albert Rudatsimburwa 🇷🇼 Michaela Agasaro

Isabelle Karake

38,644 views • 6 months ago

As South Africa’s ruling party the ANC insults Zimbabwe’s legitimate opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa as a Western puppet and celebrates the rigging of elections in Zimbabwe, something that has created illegal immigration in South Africa, these Zimbabweans are voting with their feet crossing into South Africa without passports. The shameless behaviour of the ANC in Zimbabwe is already sending more Zimbabweans into South Africa where they will use hospitals and schools creating social tension with local communities. The ANC endorses all this mayhem through its support for rigged elections in Zimbabwe. Its Secretary General ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula is now literally a ZANUPF commissar on social media. He doesn’t care because his family won’t use public hospitals in South Africa, his family won’t be jobless like ordinary South Africans! The ANC supports the drivers of illegal immigration in South Africa!
2:02

As South Africa’s ruling party the ANC insults Zimbabwe’s legitimate opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa as a Western puppet and celebrates the rigging of elections in Zimbabwe, something that has created illegal immigration in South Africa, these Zimbabweans are voting with their feet crossing into South Africa without passports. The shameless behaviour of the ANC in Zimbabwe is already sending more Zimbabweans into South Africa where they will use hospitals and schools creating social tension with local communities. The ANC endorses all this mayhem through its support for rigged elections in Zimbabwe. Its Secretary General ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula is now literally a ZANUPF commissar on social media. He doesn’t care because his family won’t use public hospitals in South Africa, his family won’t be jobless like ordinary South Africans! The ANC supports the drivers of illegal immigration in South Africa!

Hopewell Chin’ono

154,152 views • 2 years ago

ORANIA: THE WHITES-ONLY TOWN IN SOUTH AFRICA In 2024, South Africans were among the more than 3-billion people who went to the polls in more than 60 countries in national elections. For South Africa, the elections had historical significance - they came at a time when the country was marking three decades since the end of apartheid. When apartheid ended in 1994, many Black South Africans had high expectations about what the future held for them after centuries of social and economic exclusion. Decades later, the African National Congress (ANC), which has governed the country since 1994, is facing accusations of not doing enough to dismantle apartheid-era socio-economic structures and injustices. Nothing exemplifies this better than the existence of Orania, a Whites-only town in the country's Northern Cape province. The town has been a source of tension since its establishment in the early '90s during the last days of apartheid. The town's founders and residents claim its purpose is to preserve the culture and identity of the Afrikaner people, White South Africans of mostly Dutch, French and German descent. However, many people think the town and its policy of not allowing non-White residents is nothing but a racist endeavour to maintain some vestiges of the apartheid system. The town's residents insist that its existence is protected by Article 235 of the South African constitution, which guarantees self-determination. However, many have argued that the cited part of the constitution does not, in fact, permit people of a particular religious or cultural group to live in a secluded place away from other South Africans. In 2000, the Northern Cape High Court adjourned 'sine die' (without a further hearing date) after Orania's proponents challenged attempts by the government to incorporate the town into the nearby municipal authority. African Stream was shown around Orania by some of the locals, who shared their opinions about their community with us. We'd love to hear yours as well in the replies.
16:37

ORANIA: THE WHITES-ONLY TOWN IN SOUTH AFRICA In 2024, South Africans were among the more than 3-billion people who went to the polls in more than 60 countries in national elections. For South Africa, the elections had historical significance - they came at a time when the country was marking three decades since the end of apartheid. When apartheid ended in 1994, many Black South Africans had high expectations about what the future held for them after centuries of social and economic exclusion. Decades later, the African National Congress (ANC), which has governed the country since 1994, is facing accusations of not doing enough to dismantle apartheid-era socio-economic structures and injustices. Nothing exemplifies this better than the existence of Orania, a Whites-only town in the country's Northern Cape province. The town has been a source of tension since its establishment in the early '90s during the last days of apartheid. The town's founders and residents claim its purpose is to preserve the culture and identity of the Afrikaner people, White South Africans of mostly Dutch, French and German descent. However, many people think the town and its policy of not allowing non-White residents is nothing but a racist endeavour to maintain some vestiges of the apartheid system. The town's residents insist that its existence is protected by Article 235 of the South African constitution, which guarantees self-determination. However, many have argued that the cited part of the constitution does not, in fact, permit people of a particular religious or cultural group to live in a secluded place away from other South Africans. In 2000, the Northern Cape High Court adjourned 'sine die' (without a further hearing date) after Orania's proponents challenged attempts by the government to incorporate the town into the nearby municipal authority. African Stream was shown around Orania by some of the locals, who shared their opinions about their community with us. We'd love to hear yours as well in the replies.

African Stream

12,019 views • 1 year ago

On this day in 1986, the apartheid regime in South Africa assassinated Samora Machel by tampering with the navigation beacon of his plane, causing it to crash in South Africa. Samora Machel was a real leader, a thinker, and a revolutionary who did not run with the wind. Take a moment to listen to what he is saying in this clip. Politics is about strategy, not wishes. Rest in Peace great leader!
2:06

On this day in 1986, the apartheid regime in South Africa assassinated Samora Machel by tampering with the navigation beacon of his plane, causing it to crash in South Africa. Samora Machel was a real leader, a thinker, and a revolutionary who did not run with the wind. Take a moment to listen to what he is saying in this clip. Politics is about strategy, not wishes. Rest in Peace great leader!

Hopewell Chin’ono

95,137 views • 9 months ago