![](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/Hidden-Figures-300x300.jpg\")
Apartheid refers to a system of segregation and discrimination in South Africa. \u201cIn 1948, on the coming of apartheid, South Africa was already a comprehensively racialized, segregated state.\u201d[1]<\/a> Every system in every country, has had its share of segregation and some still have discrimination, although we try to deny its existence. In Africa, it was a segregation of public facilities, social events, housing and employment opportunities. \u201cThe core of apartheid was the attempt to thwart, neutralise or abort the African urbanization that \u2013 from the segregationists\u2019 point of view \u2013 had begun to assume such alarming proportions.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\nLast weekend, my wife had us watch Hidden Figures <\/em>for our family movie night. The movie is based on a true story of three African-American women: Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson. The film depicts segregated facilities at NASA but highlights the biographies of three women who were instrumental in John Glenn\u2019s orbit of the earth in 1962. NASA had to make an inclusive transition from their segregation to accomplish their desire to become innovative.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Welsh chose to divide the apartheid into three phases to help readers understand the transitional period over a 46-year period (NP rule from 1948-1994):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n David Brokensha provided 5 simple questions in his review of Welsh\u2019s book, which he believes are topics of controversy regarding the fall of apartheid.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The answer to these questions provides a balanced perspective on the transition from a segregated behavior to democracy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Welsh tells us that South Africa is better than it was before under apartheid, which is an indication that democracy has and still is surviving (Welsh, 578). The author provides a great analysis of apartheid in South Africa to show how a complex shift and change in politics evolved in a negotiated transition (one that had a painful process). Overall, this was a great read in preparation for a trip to Cape Town later this year.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Welsh, The Rise and Fall of Apartheid,<\/em> 47<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid.,<\/em> 57<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid.,<\/em> 47<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid.,<\/em> 56<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/1989-first-march-2.jpg\")
South Africa in the same sense had to make its transition from racial segregation to an inclusive democracy, although the white minority fought against it (vii). \u201cThe segregation of the pre-1948 era served the interests of major sectors of white society, especially agriculture, mining and labour, in an ad hoc, even pragmatic or instrumental, way in comparison with what was to come.\u201d[3]<\/a> According to Walsh, the key component for the successful transition was leadership because Mandela and De Klerk were responsible for leading and managing any potential unruly support. Before diving a little further in the review of David Welsh\u2019s The Rise and Fall of Apartheid<\/em>, let\u2019s walk memory (history) lane. Governor van Riebeeck ordered the building of a fence between blacks and whites in Cape Town in 1659 so Africans never had the opportunity to buy land (limited amount) until the Natives Land Act of 1913. However, when the National Party (NP) was voted into power in 1948, they institutionalized racial segregation openly and legally. At the time of the vote in 1948, the majority of the Afrikaners were white, which meant they also had preferences in jobs. \u201cOne of the apartheid\u2019s chief aims was the elimination of competition between black and white, invariably to the benefit of whites.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
Controversy and Fall of Apartheid<\/u><\/strong><\/h3>\n
![](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/images-1.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n\n