|Sandra Laing - Picture sourced from: www.littlewhitelies.co.uk|
Not many people are familiar with the story about Sandra Laing, but a new movie released in South Africa on 22 January 2010, promises to entertain and refresh the minds of 1000’s of South Africans.
In brief, the movie SKIN is based on the ‘true’ story of a coloured child called, Sandra Laing, who was born in the 1950s to white parents. At the age of ten, Sandra is rejected by her white society. The film follows Sandra’s thirty-year journey from rejection to acceptance, betrayal to reconciliation, as she struggles to define her place in a changing world - and triumphs against all odds.
The movie highlights the worldview’s irrationality of racism. Although the heart wrenching identity-crisis is portrayed in good taste and with sympathy, the powerful emotions involved in this movie play cunningly on the audience’s feelings, and acts as a stark warning that South Africans and the so-called ‘civilized’ world must never allow that cruel, heartless, racist system called “Apartheid” to raise its draconian head ever again, and neither should anyone dare speak good of it either!
This article will attempt to reveal some untruths depicted in views-and-reviews of the Sandra Laing story, as well as draw attention to certain esoteric aspects of the movie.
The first thing I noticed in the various reviews and comments concerning this film, is that in the opening paragraph Sandra Laing is usually depicted as a BLACK woman born to WHITE AFRIKANER parents in South Africa during the APARTHEID era. Many remarks also mention that her parents were unaware of their BLACK ANCESTRY.
Although I realize that these delicate untruths were probably made in ignorance, it can have serious implications.
FIRSTLY, Sandra was not Black, she was born a “Coloured”. There’s a big difference between the two. SECONDLY, her parents were not Afrikaners in the true sense of the word. Laing is not even an Afrikaans surname. It is a Scottish surname of Anglo-Saxon origin. Sannie Laing, her mother, was an Afrikaner, but her father was not! The fact that he spoke Afrikaans does not make him an Afrikaner either!
The issue concerning the Black Ancestry of the Laing couple is shrouded in falsehood.
DNA tests did not exist back in the 1960’s. Sandra’s father underwent a blood typing test (the only thing available in the 1960s), and blood typing tests prove next to nothing! Using the ABO and Rh blood systems for determination of paternity is not conclusive and absolute, it is only predictive at best. The limitations of the ABO system are clear: There are only four different blood types under this system, and two of these (A and O) are carried by a huge majority of the population. This clearly means that in many cases, even if the blood type of the father matches correctly, it does not provide any kind of proof that he is the father. Source: www.paternityangel.com
Today no one would ever consider blood typing as reliable evidence for paternity. Source: Wikipedia
I am thus astounded to see that so many online publishers blatantly state without confirming the true facts that, “DNA tests proved that Abraham Laing (the white father) was the biological father of Sandra Laing.”
Without the validity of scientific DNA tests, one will never know if Abraham Laing was Sandra’s true biological father, or not. With the full knowledge that paternity was not scientifically and conclusively established, the bright sparks on this planet decided to draw their own conclusions and labelled the Sandra Laing case, “A text book case of genetic throwback”.
They repeated this unsubstantiated lie so often that eventually the Sandra Laing case was universally considered as one of the most striking examples of recessive alleles finally having recombined after several generations, and once again forming an individual reflective of racial mixing which occurred several generations previously. I did not make this up, I promise --- I found it here.
All things considered, there remains two other logical possibilities regarding the paternity issue in this case, and these are:
Firstly, the ‘unlikely’ possibility that the ‘conservative’ Sannie Laing had willing sex with a Blackman, and ---- secondly, the probable likelihood that she was RAPED by a Blackman. I’ll leave the reader to ponder how the second (most likely) possibility changes the whole Sandra Laing scenario completely. Who is really to blame for the heart wrenching identity-crisis that Sandra went through? Bear this in mind while watching the movie!
The esoteric aspects of the movie:
There is no doubt in my mind that this movie (like many other entertaining tear-jerkers) has an underlying malicious purpose. The producer Anthony Fabian struggled for some time to market this movie in South Africa, but then suddenly our national TV, newspapers, and magazines, started an intensive and costly marketing campaign. This tells me that our Marxist government has an important message for the citizens of South Africa, ---- and the message is twofold:
1.... To remind South Africans and the so-called ‘civilized’ world that we can never ever go back to that cruel, heartless, racist system called “Apartheid”. --- No, we should rather plod on blindly, and mix with whom we please. We must tolerate the violent and senseless shedding of blood. We must tolerate the illegal drugs that are killing our kids. We must accept the fact that killing 900,000 babies (Since 01 Feb 1997) by legalized abortion, is a ‘normal’ practice in our ‘civilized’ society. We must accept that unemployment, poverty, starvation, and government incompetence to deal with these issues, will remain with us until Jesus comes! We MUST move forward and never back, ‘cause if we look back long enough we may just wake up and realize that we’re moving in the wrong direction!
2.... To ridicule the Afrikaner Christian Heritage.
The Film and Media Industries have already done an excellent job to accomplish this in numerous films, documentaries, and articles. The ultimate message that satan and his cronies are hammering into our heads, is that the Whiteman (and by implication the bearers of the Christian Cross) are in fact the scum of this earth. The message thus promotes hatred, more racial conflict, and also murder. The supreme goal is to further satan’s cause by abolishing God and His people from the system. (Take note: I deliberately avoid spelling the name satan with a capital “S”)
In Sandra Laing’s case a documentary was filmed in the 1970s. Before that time there were numerous newspaper and magazine articles about this incident. In 2004 Judith Stone’s book, When She Was White, made its appearance. Now there’s a forcefully promoted block-buster movie showing on our big screens, and we’re already in the year 2010! How many more times are we going to be reminded about the idiocy of the Whiteman’s past?
A final word before readers think I've gone nuts!
I wholeheartedly agree that it would be madness to go back to the political policies of the 1960’s. It would not only put us back 50-odd years, but it will also cause certain members of the UN synagogue to experience mild heart attacks, while they decide how many troops should be deployed in the country.
All jokes aside…
We tend to forget that back in the 1960s the mentality of the old Afrikaner fogies, who we’re trying hard to play God, also progressed over the years. So much so, that by the 1980s petty apartheid was abandoned completely, and about 50 percent of South Africa’s arable land was reserved for the separate development of the country’s various and diverse cultural groups. Isn’t it strange that it was in the year 1980 that international opinion turned decisively against the Apartheid Regime? Source: Wikipedia --- Makes you think, doesn’t it?
|Amazon.com | Kalahari.com|