Outrage over FW de Klerk comments

2012-05-11 07:51

Cape Town - Former president FW de Klerk has reportedly sparked controversy over comments made in an interview with CNN, in which he admitted that apartheid was "morally indefensible", but appeared to defend the homeland system.

De Klerk was interviewed by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour while at a recent summit of Nobel Laureates in Chicago. The interview was broadcast on CNN on Thursday night.

In a wide-ranging interview, in which De Klerk also discussed his relationship with former president Nelson Mandela and the current South African government, De Klerk said he had made a "profound apology" about the injustices wrought by apartheid in front of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission and on other occasions.

Nation states

"What I haven’t apologised for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states (essentially creating two separate states, one black and one white).

"But in South Africa it failed,” De Klerk said. “And by the end of the seventies, we had to realise, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed.  And that is when fundamental reform started."

Amanpour asked De Klerk if apartheid failed because it was unworkable or because it was "morally repugnant".

He responded: "There are three reasons it failed. It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves.  It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights."

De Klerk reaffirmed his belief in the validity of the concept of "separate but equal" nation states.

"There is this picture that apartheid was…used to be compared to Nazism. It's wrong, and on that, I don’t apologise for saying that what drove me as a young man, before I decided we need to embrace a new vision, was a quest to bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not - that’s what I believed then - destroyed the justice to which my people were entitled.”

“That’s how I was brought up,” he said. "And it was in an era when also in America and elsewhere, and across the continent of Africa, there was still not this realisation that we are trampling upon the human rights of people.  So I’m a convert.”

Amanpour again asked him if, in retrospect, apartheid was morally repugnant.

"I can only say in a qualified way. Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was - and remains - and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible.

"But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant."

He added: "With the advantage of hindsight, we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all.  And the tipping point in my mind was when I realised… we need to abandon the concept of separateness.  And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”

'No animosity' with Mandela

De Klerk also said he and Mandela were "close friends" and that they call each other on birthdays and there was "no animosity left between us".

The Times reported that De Klerk's comments sparked outrage on social networking sites, especially Twitter.

"This man is insane!!! Now he says blacks weren't disenfranchised -- they voted in the homelands. Is FW De Klerk mad??!!" Eusebius McKaiser ? tweeted.

"I'm convinced that FW de Klerk is close to death, and is trying to preserve his legacy in the conservative Afrikaner community," said Mabine Seabe.

Given Mkhari tweeted: "FW de Klerk remains a bitter apartheid apologists and defender."

And comedian Nik Rabinowitz tweeted: "Watching FW de Klerk making gat of himself on CNN."

- Watch the CNN interview.

  • MSGRule - 2012-05-11 07:59

    Something is up. Is he nominated for a Nobel prize perhaps?

      Fuad - 2012-05-11 08:58

      In 1993

      kobus.hattingh.5 - 2012-05-11 09:11

      Miskien kos die Griekse vroutjie hom baie en soek hy nou weer aandag en n nobelprys wengeldjie LOL. Tyd dat hy nou bietjie stilbly en ophou aandag soek.

      Sindiswa - 2012-05-11 09:31

      and what if he is?

      balan.morgen - 2012-05-11 13:06

      Sganja you are a ncookoonut

  • Felix - 2012-05-11 08:02

    When will mad bob admit he is wrong and step down/hand over? Credit where it is due.

  • Lebogang - 2012-05-11 08:04

    In my opinion de Klerk is a principled man. I might not agree with his ideas, but I have the utmost repect for him.

      carolyn.simshandcock - 2012-05-11 08:09

      I don't think so - he cheated on his wife with a married woman

      Barry - 2012-05-11 08:19

      Exactly! He was the white leader who had the courage to practically put right a wrong. Besides, & consider this carefully, has not the new leadership taken on some of the most reprehensible characteristics of the apartheid era? Our democracy is a teenager still, troublesome & arrogant, self centred & unconcerned about serving the population, BUT it is maturing and the population are starting to actively participate so our wonderful miracle of a democracy can thrive under a government of serving leaders. This country still has great promise if we all just get along & get on with making a better life for all. As a honkey I love the fact my young child is growing up in a different South Africa, colour blind. My varsity Student kid finds a great deal of entitlement & racism, the tide is turning for the good & government needs to be wise with their policies to affirm one race over another before it very soon is reverse apartheid, let's have a racial equality that gives opportunities to those who take them, and position to those who earn it on merit, irrespective of whatever. We owe it to our kids.

      Christopher - 2012-05-11 08:42

      @Carolyn, at least he does not have 50 wives who he is cheating on.

      Hester - 2012-05-11 13:39

      @carolyn. AND ZUMA??? Having 4 wives is not cheating on one another.

  • rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 08:07

    I do not think Mandela sees de Klerk as a "close friend"!!

      Peter - 2012-05-11 08:28

      You know Mandela personally?

      rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 09:00

      It is a published fact that Mandela has more respect for PW than FW - the former having (and sticking to his) principles!! And I am very sorry, in my books "phoning each other on birthdays" does not make you close friends!

      lmadikwe - 2012-05-11 09:10

      Ag please how do you know.

      Marion - 2012-05-11 09:26

      @rinus - please give us the source of this 'published fact' regarding PW and FW.

      rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 09:49

      POM It's an astonishing piece of information. IA Yes. And that's why he has more respect for PW Botha than for FW. For the moment treat this as background but I will get you the long version. From:

      rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 09:49

      Happy now?

      Marion - 2012-05-11 13:12

      @rinus - Thanks for the link. That is definitely a very interesting (and extensive) interview. My understanding of why Ayob said he had more respect for PW is because he apparently stopped a military coup which de Klerk said he couldn't or was unable to interfere with. However, I still feel this is only Ayob's point of view. I would be more convinced if I saw where Madiba said it himself. Cannot recall if anything like that was mentioned in Long Walk to Freedom.

      siyadyosiba - 2012-05-11 13:31

      @Marion, spot on. It could have been mentioned by Madida somewhere.

  • chris.debeer1 - 2012-05-11 08:07

    When you negotiated in 1994, why not negotiate for a Afrikaner homeland separate from the rainbow F-up??? I agree the racist abuse of apartheid was wrong but the principal of self determination as the origin of apartheid was not flawed. You should have done more for Afrikaner self determination instead of selling us in to this zest pool of corruption and abuse of minorities.!! FW you are a failed leader that is the long and the short their off.

      Surfing - 2012-05-11 08:14


      Susan - 2012-05-11 09:05

      raisibel, what he proposes is not that anyboday take "your" land but that an "apartheid-system" homeland be negotiated. It would be very little to ask. Personally, I do not agree; however I cannot understand how you can be offended by the idea?

      Pravda - 2012-05-11 09:12

      @raisibel. no actually not. it would have been a place where your children would have gladly come for a better education. it is strange that in the bad old days we still created millionaires like cyril. i met many black africans prior to 1994 that had wealth and thier kids were in white schools albiet private schools. and when the boer wanted to give you a proper education. albiet in the Africaans lingo, you went and burnt your schools. so now we have morons like Malema running around. was it not Sun Tzu that said learn the ways of your enemy to be better than him. or maybe your compatriots learnt from the Patrice Lumumba university to shoot first and learn nothing. even Castro said that education is freedom.

      Paulus - 2012-05-11 12:02

      That process was pretty much advanced until ET and his rabble stuffed it up by driving through a window in Kempton. All gains and negotiations immediately stopped. This country could have looked a bit different today if it was not for the AWB.

  • Thomas - 2012-05-11 08:08

    Why so much fuss this is mild compared to Malema's comments

      Jacobus - 2012-05-11 08:52

      Because people actually cares about his opinions

  • bernard.swanepoel - 2012-05-11 08:09

    It is a sad day when you HAVE to try and sweet talk a lot of diverse people as an effort to legitimze your own ego. Point is you made a mess of it. If you had any honest guts in you, admit it.

  • Jean - 2012-05-11 08:11

    read the article people, he speaks of in his youth he believed in seperate but equal states and the at the end he realised that we, as a nation should have reformed sooner. He added: "With the advantage of hindsight, we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all. And the tipping point in my mind was when I realised… we need to abandon the concept of separateness. And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”

      Peter - 2012-05-11 11:38

      Thank GOODNESS!! I thought I was the only fool who saw the REAL words spoken in the interview and not the EDITED versions spewed forth by the bloggers on N24!!

  • Hugh - 2012-05-11 08:11

    I have a question for the dim witted that see apartheid as this ogre. Where do you think the ANC got the people with the skills [all be limited] to run South Africa after the fall of the Nats? Could the Homelands have been the saving Grace of this country for the ANC would not have had the manpower to replace the entrenched whites. Those that were trained to run the homelands effectively suppliedd reasonalble qualifiied staff together with some highly experienced thieves. All the ANC did was provide the bosses who have for the most part been spectacular failures.

      koos.vandermerwe.92 - 2012-05-11 09:32

      Skills? Luckily I'm not driving.

      TaniaSandraSteyn - 2012-05-11 09:55

      True that, Xenswim1!

  • Chris - 2012-05-11 08:14

    I'm not a supporter of Apartheid, let me get that out first before I'm called a racist for some contorted reasoning. But Correct me if I'm wrong here, Nelson Mandela didn't escape prison? He didn't walk to freedom by himself? I ask you this one question... But who actually freed Nelson Mandela? De Klerk... Without his ultimate decision we would not know what unity in South Africa would feel like... Nelson Mandela did not bring an end to Apartheid, F W De Klerk did...

      rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 08:23

      Chris, there was a referendum in 1992 that ultimately ended apartheid with a 69% YES result. And believe it or not, it was PW that initially started this process. So no, it was not FW that brought an end to apartheid, it was the majority of the people that could vote!

      Hat3d - 2012-05-11 08:41

      @Chris, you comment can be compared to thanking a man who broke into your house and stole everything for not also killing you... @Rinus, People don't seem to remember the referendum, especially the masses and I blame the lack of education. It is clear that the majority of whites supported the end of apartheid, it's just the ruling party's tactics to make the masses think they still oppressed.

      rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 08:52

      Absolutely agree Hat3d!

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 08:53

      PW Botha offered to free Mandela long before that but on condition that he publicly renounce violence and terrorism. Mandela refused.

      Mlamli - 2012-05-11 08:59

      @Chris: But who actually freed Nelson Mandela? It is not De Klerk nor referendum or PW, it was the power of the poeple that freed Mandela. The pressure was unbearable and De Klerk had to succumb

      Chris - 2012-05-11 12:47

      yes a referendum was induced but the ultimate power fell to FW who could at any time refuse the referendum take place. There is a lot that led to his freedom, but power resided with one party, led by one person, who could have simply waived the referendum as his force was wide and powerful. The underlying theme of my comment was to address this hate for FW, a man who admitted to his wrong doing in a purpose for which his vision was equality and growh. I want you to go do some research on what the matric pass rate was in times of Apartheid amongst the 'black' community. People tend to forget that De Klerk only wanted segregation for genuine purpose. You cannot fault the man in his intention, what ensued was not planned and they eventually brought an end to the onerous laws they enacted. Again, I do not support Apartheid, I do not condone segregation but I think various positive aspects of Apartheid are overlooked. I know there's good reasoning today but when you understand that our education system has deteriorated in whole since Apartheid, you must question what has gone wrong. Why was that system changed? (Not Apartheid but the education system). Many people still argue that Mandela brought an end to Apartheid, and when the basic fundamentals of apartheid are misunderstood, stagnation occurs. Stagnation will never led to a united nation.

  • Dustin - 2012-05-11 08:16

    Do you really think, De Klerk is defending Apartheid and saying Black people's right were not trampled on?? How are any of you listening to the same thing. He says Apartheid is morally wrong, but he believes in separate but equal. He also confirms that the Homelands failed because a small minority i.e. White People wanted to keep too much of the land for themselves. He is not defending Apartheid but is defending the right of people of the same culture, language and ethnic background be free to govern themselves... That is all...

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:02

      The logical conclusion of separate but equal probably could have been done correctly and amicably if the threat of communism was not so in-our-face. Jimmy Carter (The Great Betrayer) made sure that we faced communist invasion alone and unsupported in the early '70s. The correlation between global politics and how the Nats changed is unmistakeable. Unfortunately the vast majority of people here are blind either by choice or by propaganda.

  • fdalana - 2012-05-11 08:17

    Eric Cartman

      Herman - 2012-05-11 08:32

      hahahahahahaha, so bloody true!

  • stefaans.blaauw - 2012-05-11 08:17

    A lesson too late for the learning.

  • nimrod.mzankomo - 2012-05-11 08:18

    F.W did what he did then not bcoz he wanted 2 do so but bcoz he was under pressure,So he will always justify apartheit bcoz he believed in dat sysytem period.

      Gina - 2012-05-11 08:43

      Please don't write in sms shorthand, I don't understand your message..

      jomardl - 2012-05-11 10:21

      BS, white SAcans voted YES for change in a national referendum.

      Buzz - 2012-05-11 14:01

      Once a Nimrod, always a Nimrod...

  • Pieter - 2012-05-11 08:20

    Nation States were formed throughout hundreds of years in the East and in Europe (also elsewhere for that matter) through natural and social processes (including war). Trying to create Nation States by means of appartheid was like injecting "anti-freeze" into your veins to become more resilient against the winter.

  • Sango - 2012-05-11 08:20

    he needs to be prayed for.

      Peter - 2012-05-11 08:35

      Why? He helped bring about democracy and reuniting south africans as one nation

      Sango - 2012-05-11 08:54

      peter did i offend anyone, i didn't know prayer was a bad thing. Maybe i was suppose to say we need to curse him.

      Peter - 2012-05-11 09:06

      @Sango - I dont know if you offended anyone, i wasnt offended i was born in 89 i know nothing about apartheid but what i've learnt up until matric in history lessons. But i can tell when someone is being critical, he has apologized, i think you are the only person offended other wise you wouldnt make a comment that is blatantly meant to be taken as a negative reflection on his character, you obviously see him as the devil/Evil man, what he did was in the past its time you build a bridge and get over it. Hes been apologizing for the last 18 years, its time you move on, build a bridge and get over it, thats what im saying

  • Sonja - 2012-05-11 08:23

    Brilliant and great man. ViVa De Klerk.

  • colin.dovey - 2012-05-11 08:25

    On the face of it, there appear to be THREE perspectives: 1. "HOMELANDS" as advocated by De Klerk = WRONG, as it is discriminatory 2. NO Policy - practised by the ANC regime = WRONG, as it has led to people leaving the rural areas, with NO training, and going to urban areas, thus resulting in slums, crime and widespread unemployment. 3. What is the right way to do this? My view is that EXCELLENCE in TRAINING should be de-centralised throughout our country, with NODES of excellence in the N.Cape, N.West, Limpopo, E.Cape etc., where SPECIALISED VOCATIONAL training is provided, in plumbing, Electrical, Farming, Mechanical etc. Tribal traditions could be ENCOURAGED, as this could attract tourists, and then training can be offered as waiters, Chefs, Admin staff, linguists....the opportunities for JOBS then escalates...but at the moment is is CHAOTIC, and NOBODY is given the direction or leadership we ALL so desperately need!

      TaniaSandraSteyn - 2012-05-11 10:01

      Brilliant Xavier. We should be proud of our diversity and our individual cultures and identity. That is what makes us uniquely South African.

  • sello.molekwa.1 - 2012-05-11 08:26

    I don't even understand what this article is trying to say.

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:25

      To me, it is trying (in vain, it seems) to get people to see the difference between the idea of separate but equal development and what apartheid was forced to become under the threat of communism. De Klerk regrets the injustices of apartheid, but still considers the original idea to have some merit. I tend to agree with him from a cultural integrity perspective as I believe cultural longevity depends on three things: land, language, and liberty. Mess with any of these either by forced integration (socialism, communism, etc) or by oppression (despotism, kleptocracy, etc) and all one can expect is a slow death of that which would give us a sense of belonging.

      Odicito - 2012-05-11 12:40

      Stevie0064, good points. I wonder though, do you think that idea would work? How many white people(at the time) would have agreed to give up their land (which remember was more than 85% of the total land) in exchange for a much much smaller place? This is considering that the idea was based on equality, so I assume land would then need to be divided accordingly by the percentage of people? These are curious questios, and please dont read more than what the question is. Thanks

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 13:23

      @Odicito I believe it would have worked but only around the time of the world wars. As FW pointed out, two of the reasons he thinks the idea of apartheid failed was because the whites already claimed too much land and that white capital and black labour were already irrevocably intertwined. To separate the two would mean reinventing two entirely separate economies from scratch; a colossal task in anyone's book. Of course, the threat of communism then threw all of this out the window and forced the Nats into their all-too-infamous hard line stance. These days people worship too many ill-defined words like "unity" and "integration" and then wonder where their cultural pride went. Probably only a few realise too late that a delinquent youth is a symptom of this over-emphasis of collective consensus. Sure, it's great for democratic politicking, but it comes at the cost of all of our cultural identities.

  • gerry.pelser - 2012-05-11 08:28

    When the whiteys accuse you of selling them up the river, and the blacks accuse you of being racist - you've done something right! I personally do not see what the big deal is - de Klerk only wanted what everyone in the world wants - the right to self-determination. This was not feasible, so we went for the new SA. He wanted to end apartheid, but unlike most of us, he had more than one vision of how it could be done. (Most of us had only one vision it could be done, and that was to eradicate the other completely!) Apartheid was “repugnant”, he acknowledged that. What he did not acknowledge was that maybe having two separate self-determining states is not repugnant! Two nation-states is not at all “morally repugnant”, its what a lot of the world’s best thinkers are suggesting for the Israel/Palestine debacle. However, in SA it was unworkable, and bang, here we are. This is why this man is a genius with a Nobel prize, and we are the idiots commenting on news 24 unable to see the woods for the trees. We complain. We criticise. He changed an entire nation – for the better!

  • bernard.ingram - 2012-05-11 08:28

    What a bunch of rubbish the reporters are twisting it into! All over the world it is like that. A country belong to the majority of the nationals living in it and in a sense that is apartheid from your neighbouring countries. Italians living in Italy, Mozambicans living in Mozambique, Mexicans living in Mexico, Australians living in Australia, Vietnamese living in Vietnam - all of that is apartheid! The whites sought their own country, but they wanted too much land (like FW said). The concept of keeping people with the same culture and heritage together is not alien to humans all over the world and not something to apologize for.

      Lanfear - 2012-05-11 09:44

      I would think a country belongs to ALL the nationals living in it.

      bernard.ingram - 2012-05-11 10:44

      True Lanfear, but the majority rules you know? These days there seems to be a believe that minorities don't belong (e.g. Muslim people in Europe).

  • Grant - 2012-05-11 08:32

    Can someone please tell me why a nation-state bound on the principles of unity of ethnicity, language and culture is a bad thing? I am not an apartheid apologist whatsoever. It was wrong simply because it disenfranchised an entire people based on their skin colour. However, people call the Afrikaners crazy nut-cases because they desire their own homeland. Why is that such a bad thing? Won't that solve a lot of the racial tension within this land?

      Lanfear - 2012-05-11 09:43

      No it won't solve anything. And where exactly will this "homeland" be?

      Odicito - 2012-05-11 12:46

      If you actually go the the ACTUAL bottom of it - which is: will be people be willing to GIVE up land to go to this promised Afrikaner land? Do you understand the REAL implications here, or are you just saying this as a romantic idea of an Afrikaans homeland? My bet is that when it comes to DOING it, many Afrikaans people will NOT support this idea. Whats your take?

  • Brett - 2012-05-11 08:32

    Please gives us whites a nation state.

      Templar - 2012-05-11 08:47

      Republic of the Western Cape?

      Forest Gump - 2012-05-11 09:22

      I would be against something like this happening it would be flippen sad . But if enough whites voted that this is what they want and it was workable then id give it to them

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:28

      @Templar Republic of the Cape i.e. the original borders of the Cape Colony.

      Marion - 2012-05-11 09:38

      Speak for yourself Brett Troll.

      Christopher - 2012-05-11 11:10

      @Ndu this is not your house either. First come first serve. I was here first. You can buy it from me if the price is right i might sell it...any offers?

  • muriel.proudfoot - 2012-05-11 08:32

    Again, News 24 can’t help themselves but to publish articles to feud the black vs white struggle to get a response. SHAME ON YOU NEWS 24 – publish articles with REAL news. I follow news feeds from other publicist as well, and none of them ever publish these type of articles that news 24 seem to thrive on!!!

      Mlamli - 2012-05-11 09:17

      Let news24 do their work which is to publish articles irrespective of you liking their articles or not.

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:29

      Would you "resolve" this conflict by pretending it doesn't exist?

      Mlamli - 2012-05-11 09:37

      Conflick!! what conflick?

  • Nadine - 2012-05-11 08:34

    Nothing that FW said is untrue- He is merely giving his perspective on the state of affairs back in the dark days of apartheid. He was one of few men that admitted that Apartheid didnt work , that it infringed on Human rights and he did what he needed to bring about much needed reform. FW is a good man . I dont know what the fuss is about. Look passed your hate and become learned before you jump about like a headless chicken with insensitive comments.

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:32

      Hate is the sweetest fuel for propaganda. Asking people to look past it is like asking them to think for themselves.

  • Danny Mothobi - 2012-05-11 08:34

    Damn..... Slow learner....

  • NickvanderLeek - 2012-05-11 08:37

    funny, I see what he is trying to say, but seems like most of everyone else has gone to Racism Defcon 1 as usual. As long as SA's see everything judgementally, as black and white, I am right, you are wrong, they haven't advanced a single step.

  • rinus.groeneveld.7 - 2012-05-11 08:40

    You cannot give FW the credit - he merely followed through on a process that PW started. And 69% YES vote (more than 1.9 million whites) in 1992 ended apartheid, not him!

  • Carry - 2012-05-11 08:40


  • martin.obrien1 - 2012-05-11 08:41

    I don't see the big deal in what he said and it's open for debate. I think we all should count ourselves lucky that change came as peacefully as it did. What would have happened if there was civil war? I think we just need to make the best of what we have now... Yes,we have problems with crime and corruption and poor services delivery, but we don't have much racism anymore, except for dumb models shooting their mouths off. We live in a nice country and most of us seem to get along, we what don't need is more extremists!

  • Cornelius - 2012-05-11 08:41

    The biggest scandal was to give the man Nobel prize to equate him to Madiba. You can tame a lion but it will always remain carnivorous.

  • Phumi - 2012-05-11 08:45

    At least we know where De Klerk stand politically and he is serving the narrow interests of the Afrikanerdom! But what about our wishy washy leaders who are failing to implement congress resolutions?

      Sganja - 2012-05-11 09:05

      De klerk is suffering from thinking disorder.

      stevie0064 - 2012-05-11 09:40

      @Sganaj Says he with a communist dictator for a profile pic...

      Christopher - 2012-05-11 11:44 least he thinks!

  • Johan - 2012-05-11 08:46

    Flat Wheel - too late to have second thoughts about what you did

  • Craig - 2012-05-11 08:48

    Flat Wheel de KLerk ..........

  • lskosana3 - 2012-05-11 08:49

    So now when they saw their 'separateness' policy was being met with a lot of resistance from blacks they thought they had the superior right to beat them black and blue, torture them and shoot them with rifles, including small children...I'll never get over the horror, the raw brutality, the barbarism of that system. And why doesn't he also explain away how blacks were given inferior education?

      Rochelle - 2012-05-11 10:56

      now other people think they now have the superior right to now hit our children black and blue ,rape our kids and us,hi jack us kill us with sheer barbarism and raw brutality. i now live this unending horror so what is so bloody wonderful about this new SA.

  • darryl.maze1 - 2012-05-11 08:51

    I'm so tired Of this Apartheid this and Apartheid that. Yes it was wrong and many bad thing were done. America did far worse things to the black ppl and the American Native Indians and so did the Australians to the black ppl there. Even britain was worse. But just because we gave it a name we were the scape goat for the rest of the world. When is America, Britain and Australia gonna apologise??????? Only now the Australians have recognised the abborigonees as the true native ppl of Aus. I dont see any of them being remoursful for what they did. It's time to show the world we are a rainbow nation and work together for a better future and stop falling back on the past. If we keep looking at the past we are never gonna get anywhere.

      Mlamli - 2012-05-11 09:30

      The reason why in SA we will always say apartheid this and apartheid that is because if you look at those blacks who were oppressed in US, UK or Australia you will find a big difference compared to those that were oppressed here in Mzantsi in terms of living conditions. Just now we are going to Olympics just look at the Olympic team of US for example. In those countries after oppression there was a lot that was done to empower those that were prev. disadvantaged but in SA black people are stil marginalised. Any attempt by gov to look at total empowerment is always opposed and taken to court. That is why we will always look back and blame apartheid

      Marion - 2012-05-11 09:51

      @darryl - I recall that a few years back the Australian government did apologise to the Aborigines for the way in which they were mistreated as an ethnic group and also the fact that their children were forcibly removed from them.

      TaniaSandraSteyn - 2012-05-11 10:09

      Mlamli, have you been to the US? Have you ever been in a ghetto? Or a trailer park for that matter? A lot of American citizens live in appaling conditions.

      Aggie - 2012-05-11 10:57

      @ Mlamli : And with all the wonderfull total empowerment that is happening in Zimbabwe , for the past 10 or so years now , how many people are going to represent Zimbabwe in the coming Olympic Games ? And what are half of them doing here in South Africa ? Isnt Zim supposed to be the land of milk-and-honey and opportunity and all those wonderfull things now ?

  • esilinda - 2012-05-11 08:52

    white south africans will remain like that,im not even suprised that he said that.

      Peter - 2012-05-11 09:00

      and black south africans will remain like you, see what i did there i GENERALIZED, stop being a racist fool

  • wsomo - 2012-05-11 09:04

    Disgusted @De Klerk's comments on CNN. I agree he must be mad because nothing is named after him.

  • Jacobus - 2012-05-11 09:07

    What is the problem with his state of mind? Should the whites have shot the black people like the americans did to the native americans and killed most of them? No they tried to create 2 seperate and equal states! These states would have be apart from each other the same as Canada is seperate from USA... The plan didn't work off course and as he said the whites should have realised this earlier, but that is the problem with hindsight it comes to late. The blacks (as were their right) fought for their freedom and they whites seeking to protect themselves fought back... This fight delayed the process even further. People do not want to be reason or share their country with terrorist (as Mandela himself admits he was). Thats wat makes South Africa great! instead of killing each other we reached a compromise and are trying to work and live together.

  • Diana - 2012-05-11 09:08

    Pity i've missed the interview because of the cricket:) Otherwise why so a lot of stink and flame around him? Mr. De Klerk is retired and not at power for how many years and he has a right to speak his visions doesnt matter if someone likes it or not. Question is about the ones who are at power NOW and doing even more damage to their country than any apartheid.

  • Frans - 2012-05-11 09:08

    Come on give de Klerk his due. He did the right thing at the time. Our new government messed things up.

  • Cpo - 2012-05-11 09:09

    @carolyn.simshandcock,but really now,do you have the facts of De Clerk cheating??

  • lmadikwe - 2012-05-11 09:09

    when you observe both apartheid and BEE, those in the receiving don't find anything wrong.

      lerato.kay.3 - 2012-05-11 09:26

      So DA is continuing the apartheid legacy since they subscribe to BEE?

  • Lordwick - 2012-05-11 09:10

    "It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves". But even upto date the land is not equally shared and tha's why Malema is hated so much on tis website because the majority is the same people mentioned by FW De klerk.Come on news24,give me thumbs down and report my comment so that it gets deleted!!!!

      Marion - 2012-05-11 09:59

      @Lordwick - The ANC is the main stumbling block in the sharing of land. They could buy up land left, right and centre if they really wanted to because there are always farms on the market. Also, Afriforum says that many farmers have yet to be paid for the farms that the government 'bought' from them. If that is true, then that in itself would make farmers reluctant to sell to the government. Malema is not hated because he wants land for the people. He is hated because he wants to take land from farmers without compensation.

  • Marion - 2012-05-11 09:12

    More important than the fact that he believes that "...the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant." is the fact that he was the one who released Nelson Mandela, something that die Groot Krokodil could have done many years earlier. Whilst Botha was instrumental in dismantling some aspects of Apartheid, he missed the opportunity to free Mandela when he made his 'Rubicon speech'. de Klerk's actions, after he became President, speak louder than his words now. It took him about five months after he was elected State President to unban the ANC. Give the man a break! We have enough very real s**t to deal with in South Africa than to worry about one little statement that he made about something that he ensured became non-existent.

      balan.morgen - 2012-05-11 13:29

      @Lerato, please get yourself a pair of magnifying glasses so you'll get a clear vision.

  • Harry - 2012-05-11 09:14

    I saw the interview, if one take the whole interview and not a single subject or topic it is clear that De Klerk worked on creating a democratic SA after he converted. I'm not going into a "he said this, he said that", I strongly suggest watching the whole interview and then comment. Some commentators make the same mistake as people quoting a phrase out the bible and build their arguments and believe on that verse only. South Africans are/should be more intelligent than that?

      lerato.kay.3 - 2012-05-11 09:17

      I respect Winnie Madikizela for saying \People have glorified De Klerk as if he gave us freedom out of the goodness of his heart. The truth is that he had no choice...\

      Marion - 2012-05-11 10:16

      @lerato - the truth is there were many choices that could have been made. He made the right choice. Many decades ago I had great sympathy, and perhaps a modicum of respect, for Winnie but she single-handedly got me to join the anti-Winnie brigade.

  • Zakhil - 2012-05-11 09:16

    If one compare this article with the timeslive article, it doesn't look like its written about the same event. News24 blows this totally out of proportion, again showing the devastating effect the media can have. Not only did some reporters show personal intent in writing about this, but the "majority" obviously didn't read it before commenting. Its not surprising though when observing the grammar and spelling by those commenting. De Klerk didn't once mention Apartheid in a positive sense, nor did he justify anything that happened 'so long ago'. What he did say isn't something that should be taken from him or any reporter, its all there to be researched, and once researched one will find that its the truth. Obviously all governments have secrets, but the comments made by de Klerk is no secret and definitely not worth all this "outrage".

  • Hudayfah - 2012-05-11 09:17

    Uhm . . .whats the big fuss all about? Didn't the man say it was wrong and apologised? Where can i report news 24? They are a sight promoting hatred and ill feeling against eachother. They want to take us back to the past. They always seem to make things worse than it are.

  • Ndamulelo Masakona - 2012-05-11 09:18

    He should be dispossessed of the Nobel peace prize...

      Christopher - 2012-05-11 11:45

      Why do you want one, are you going to steal it?

  • banzim1 - 2012-05-11 09:22

    they should have his Nobel prize revoked! How can he attend laureate after those comments, to think he shares this with great people in the likes of Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu!TAKE IT BACK I SAY!