We had a discussion the other day about this, and my sense is that we don't agree.
That is okay.
The toxic debates about Apartheid, how people were oppressed, and how some people "haven't apologised" have become nauseating and unnecessarily divisive. They spark needless conflict that has made it difficult for us to even bridge the trust gap that still exists in this country.
The posting could be innocent (if I'm being kind), but its impact is what ultimately concerns me the most. Bombarding people with history from a specific angle further raises the already high temperature of politics and leads to the toxic debates.
The name calling, the scapegoating, the collective demonisation, the comments about how these people are "evil and unrepentant". It's all draining and distracting.
What remains unclear to me is how this concern is being linked with discomfort or some agenda to obscure history. But as I said, we can agree to disagree.
Front page of Black Administration Act No 38 of 1927. This Act declared that the Governor-General was the Supreme Chief of all natives. In providing for the control of all Black people, it established a separate and inferior system of justice for Black South Africans. So-called Native Law was interpreted by white Native Commissioners in a way that formalised patriarchy and subjected Black women to the control of their fathers and husbands. Women were barred from inheriting estates regardless of their marital relationship or familial ties to the deceased. Instead, the nearest living male relative inherited all the relevant property. Furthermore, Black women were now regarded as minors, irrespective of their age or marital status. As a result, Black women had no legal parental rights concerning their children.