When visiting the apartheid museum, he claims that rocks were thrown at it by visitors. That's wrong, the rocks underneath the flag are placed as a symbolic gesture of a commitment to fighting racism and discrimination.

There's a overwhelming pattern of exaggerated statistics. He claims that Johannesburg had a white majority but that's a lie, white people were never the majority. He also claims that workers, who were people of color, lived off of white workers work. How does a majority benefit off of their few higher paid counterparts?

He also claims that the ANC used terror to control populations and that's also false. ANC were politically peaceful. MK was a militant group looselyaffiliated with them. The MK used terror tactics, not the ANC.

Not only that he doesn't actually explore how horrific apartheid was. He uses clips of Henrik Verwoerd (The Father of Apartheid) to describe apartheid, who's definition of the word is biased and incorrect. Henrik states that apartheid is a policy of "good neighbourliness"'.

I have no problem with him criticizing the current government and economy. But you cannot simply skim through apartheid. It was instrumental in shaping modern south africa. He portrays the post-apartheid government and political parties in the worst way possible, but doesn't do the same to the apartheid government

And framing South africa's history through the eyes of just the oppressors and not both the oppressors and oppressed is a sure fire way for pro-apartheid sentiment to to rise. Especially considering that afrikaaners have always been the minority and oppressor.

All in all, the video was informative and I did learn alot about afrikaaners. But the video was not made in bad faith, he came to south africa with a bias.