Charlize Theron reflects on growing up in apartheid South Africa

Dan C

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,690
She adopted two black kids.
Nice status symbol.
At 3 years old the male kid claims it's a girl so Charlize goes along with it.
Hard to imagine how screwed up those kids will be in another ten years or so.
Same with Madonna and her lot.
Prince Harry also adopted one.
 

ArmatageShanks

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
15,917
It is your turn to be oppressed by the previously oppressed. Just stick it out. Your turn to oppress again should come soon. You just need to straaaagel a bit before you gain Street cred to be a SJW oppressor.

Ah I see.

So first oppressions you would like implemented immediately?

Relocation and segregation?
Purging of puplic and private sector employment above minimum wage level?
Implimenter Conscription to protect our borders?
Revocation of legal rights? Then Revocation of basic Human rights unless otherwise stated in the white person pass book?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
17,047
f-ing Laerskool Putfontein ... you might want to reconsider your point


one word: Benoni


Charlize was 10 years old when the pass laws were repealed entirely


Sounds like straw clutching to me.
You are clutching at straws if you choose to infer that her families ability to freely choose where they wanted to live, even though it is by all standards a joke of a place to live, is somehow not more privileged than being forced to live in a township with no electricity and water.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,746
You are clutching at straws if you choose to infer that her families ability to freely choose where they wanted to live, even though it is by all standards a joke of a place to live, is somehow not more privileged than being forced to live in a township with no electricity and water.
Nobody was legally forced to live in a township, you might want to brush up on actual apartheid legislation if you wish to credibly criticize rather than just swallow the soundbites the likes of Malema love to throw around.

In fact, nobody was forced to live anywhere at all, the much reviled, yet never quoted, 1913 native lands act controlled where certain races could buy land. It did not expropriate land from any existing owners, it did not force anyone to sell, it did not make even the slightest mention of where one could rent / work / live.

Now the practical effects were quite devastating and completely unfair nonetheless. It would just be a most welcome change if people were to actually talk about the written words of the act and not perpetuate lies.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
17,047
Nobody was legally forced to live in a township, you might want to brush up on actual apartheid legislation if you wish to credibly criticize rather than just swallow the soundbites the likes of Malema love to throw around.

In fact, nobody was forced to live anywhere at all, the much reviled, yet never quoted, 1913 native lands act controlled where certain races could buy land. It did not expropriate land from any existing owners, it did not force anyone to sell, it did not make even the slightest mention of where one could rent / work / live.

Now the practical effects were quite devastating and completely unfair nonetheless. It would just be a most welcome change if people were to actually talk about the written words of the act and not perpetuate lies.

The Group Areas Act of 1950, which was only abolished in 1991 would love to have a discussion with you.

Black people would not have been allowed to live in the Boksburg suburb she lived in.

. An effect of the law was to exclude non-Whites from living in the most developed areas, which were restricted to Whites (e.g., Sea Point, Lansdowne, Cape Town, Claremont, Cape Town). It caused many non-Whites to have to commute large distances from their homes in order to be able to work. The law led to non-Whites being forcibly removed for living in the "wrong" areas. The non-white majority were given much smaller areas (e.g., Tongaat, Grassy Park) to live in than the white minority who owned most of the country.

 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,746
The Group Areas Act of 1950, which was only abolished in 1991 would love to have a discussion with you.

Black people would not have been allowed to live in the Boksburg suburb she lived in.
Excellent, so we're at least getting specific which is more than Charlize did, and at least we're not perpetuating the lies about the native lands act.

Except ...
- Benoni not Boksburg
- Charlize lived on a farm, GAA focused on urban areas
- Benoni had some of the strongest opposition, from all races, to the establishment of group areas. It was ultimately not established until the 1960's and even then Benoni was building housing (not shacks) for black families to live in
Source: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN APARTHEID ON THE EAST RAND, 1948 - 1973: THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL RESISTANCE
 

EADC

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
8,499
Nobody was legally forced to live in a township, you might want to brush up on actual apartheid legislation if you wish to credibly criticize rather than just swallow the soundbites the likes of Malema love to throw around.

In fact, nobody was forced to live anywhere at all, the much reviled, yet never quoted, 1913 native lands act controlled where certain races could buy land. It did not expropriate land from any existing owners, it did not force anyone to sell, it did not make even the slightest mention of where one could rent / work / live.

Now the practical effects were quite devastating and completely unfair nonetheless. It would just be a most welcome change if people were to actually talk about the written words of the act and not perpetuate lies.

Laughs in Sophiatown and district six.
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
26,018
The fact that a number of people on this forum think that the sentiment

"White people had it better under apartheid"

Is worthy of debate, boggles the mind..
Isn't the current discourse that white people still have it better?

Fact is that white people had it better before, during and after apartheid. Even after 25 years of discrimination post apartheid. So you can take apartheid out of the equation. Privilege came from long before apartheid. When one group's development was thousands of years ahead of the other that sense of inadequacy will linger for generations to come.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,354
Excellent, so we're at least getting specific which is more than Charlize did, and at least we're not perpetuating the lies about the native lands act.

Except ...
- Benoni not Boksburg
- Charlize lived on a farm, GAA focused on urban areas
- Benoni had some of the strongest opposition, from all races, to the establishment of group areas. It was ultimately not established until the 1960's and even then Benoni was building housing (not shacks) for black families to live in
Source: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN APARTHEID ON THE EAST RAND, 1948 - 1973: THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL RESISTANCE
As a native to the area. It is rural, plots of about 5 acres each, completely overtaken by Daveyton today and pretty much a crime infested shîthole. It was nicer back in Charlise's day but still plenty of black people who lived and work in the area.

The real privilege was probably that she had the opportunity to travel to the US.
 

Packer

Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
652
Because I assure you, without a doubt, you are not as learned as you may believe.

In all honesty, your ignorance is astounding though not unexpected at all. I'd find it quite funny were it not quite so pathetic.
Neither are you.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
17,047
Excellent, so we're at least getting specific which is more than Charlize did, and at least we're not perpetuating the lies about the native lands act.

Except ...
- Benoni not Boksburg
- Charlize lived on a farm, GAA focused on urban areas
- Benoni had some of the strongest opposition, from all races, to the establishment of group areas. It was ultimately not established until the 1960's and even then Benoni was building housing (not shacks) for black families to live in
Source: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN APARTHEID ON THE EAST RAND, 1948 - 1973: THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL RESISTANCE

Yes and from your source one of the conclusions of its study of the East rand was the following -

This study has stressed the importance o f Daveyton's establishment
because it represented a major success of practiced apartheid. During the first ten
years o f its existence Daveyton was regularly hailed as having solved a serious
squatter problem and for providing housing to thousands of African residents. It
has been demonstrated that this township played a crucial role in stabilising and
controlling Benoni’s restive African population. In the early 1960s this was
augmented by improved job opportunities.

...

This study places the residents of the urban ‘black spots’ of the East Rand
at the centre o f its analysis and narrative. Their struggles, trials and tribulations
and suffering are constantly highlighted. Urban ‘black spots’ were, in the words o f
an informant, ‘homes to strange nation’. The social and political relations between
the various ‘races’ in these locations are subjected to scrutiny. This thesis argued
that they were diverse and ambiguous, and were simultaneously prone to conflict
and harmony.

It is clear though that in the East Rand, during Apartheid, black people were still constrained to specific areas, such as Daveyton and other "Black Spots".

Charlize parent's would not have been constrained to those areas, where they experienced "struggles, trials and tribulations".

I mean really, did you grow up during apartheid? I explicitly remember very well when the GAA was abolished. I explicitly remember the entire town I grew up in was off limits to black people for residence purposes and they were only allowed to stay in the neighbouring township, 15 km away from the centre. I even remember the local Checkers had an entrance for white people and black people had to use a separate entrance along a dodgy side alley.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,354
I even remember the local Checkers had an entrance for white people and black people had to use a separate entrance along a dodgy side alley.
Geez. You need to check your racism.

Why was the side entrance dodgy? Because of the blacks, right?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
17,047
Geez. You need to check your racism.

Why was the side entrance dodgy? Because of the blacks, right?

It was dodgy because it was between two buildings, dark and Checkers dumped loads of rubbish there and it was unserviced by the municipality. That is why Black people were forced to use it.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
23,178
I mean really, did you grow up during apartheid? I explicitly remember very well when the GAA was abolished. I explicitly remember the entire town I grew up in was off limits to black people for residence purposes and they were only allowed to stay in the neighbouring township, 15 km away from the centre. I even remember the local Checkers had an entrance for white people and black people had to use a separate entrance along a dodgy side alley.

Sounds like they were applying their right to freedom of association, that they had no desire to accommodate outsiders..... and that they were probably there before the township was. Ask yourself rather why the township being so far away had no checkers of their own.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
33,354
It was dodgy because it was between two buildings, dark and Checkers dumped loads of rubbish there and it was unserviced by the municipality. That is why Black people were forced to use it.
Yeah, I'm sure it was the checkers that dumbed the rubbish.
 
Top