I'd just like to make the point that Raj Doctor of Amsterdam's comment above is more than a little misleading, as well as giving a rather simplified version of the long and complex history of what became the Republic of South Africa.
He refers to 'the ruling British', a group apparently wholly responsible for the racism and violence which have beset the country. South Africa achieved sovereignty in 1934, and became a republic in 1961. The government of the country was dominated until 1994 by the Afrikaner community (a majority amongst white South Africans) who, as most people would presumably know, were certainly not of 'British' origin. One might expect someone from the Netherlands to know that they are comprised chiefly of Dutch settlers...
Britain may be the former colonial power in SA, but was not the initiator of the post-war apartheid policy, still less the force which actually brought it about. Britain gave up its African colonies in the 1960s, so has not "ruled" anywhere on the continent in a direct sense since then, and has not ruled SA since considerably earlier than that. The particular nature of the problems which South Africa has faced are based primarily on the relatively significant size of its white population and their attendant rule (dominated as it has been by Afrikaners) not on 'British rule'.
I enjoyed the film, by the way. A thoughtful and satisfying treatment of the subject on the whole, I thought.
