|WikiProject South Africa||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
District Six, Cape Town
I hope someone who knows the facts, etc, better than I will edit the article to draw attention to the fact that although the bulldozers made the land AVAILABLE for re-development, that re-development, largely, did not occur.
It seems too much to hope, but the idealist in me gives some credit to the claim I heard that at least part of the reason is that no one who would have been allowed to live there wanted to take advantage of what the government had done. At least the possibility should be mentioned in the article?
Another minor tidy which may be necessary: Besides the church(es?)... there were, around 2002, a few other buildings there, I think. Police houses, I think. Left from before the bulldozers, I think.
Thank you, Wikipedia authors!
- Hey Tom, you know, you are also allowed to make edits to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a project with the policy than any person in the world may edit it. Just thought I'd inform you in case you did not know. PS: When commenting in discussion pages, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add the fact that District Six became a notorius slum before the forced removals occured. In fact, my father recollects that during a visit by the Royal Navy during WWII, the sailors (many seeking brothels and cheap liquor) were strongly advised to stay clear of the area because it was "very dangerous". This detail is therefore relevant when it comes to discussion about motivation for the removals. Obviously economic and social factors, including apartheid, played a part in the formation of the problem. Cape Town is a city of great natural beauty, so one can understand that having a great slum in full view of any and all visitors to the city bowl was always going to be difficult to deal with and should not be overlooked when apportioning blame for what occured.
Dawn Treader126.96.36.199 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with you, you need to provide sources for your information. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 19:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is rather POV, and emotive. There is no doubt District Six was a slum. The only question was whether it could have been cleared up rather than demolished. The history of such places suggests that clearance was the only option. The designation as a whites only area is largely irrelevant, as no one moved there. Does any one know why there was little redevelopment?JohnC (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The District Six slum seems to evoke a very rosy memory for some people. We must guard against political bias. Already some contibutors see fit to just change whole swathes of text to agree with their own political views and then label it as 'Minor Edit'. Of course, no references are used to support the changes. Yet when I refer to Table Mountain as "beautiful", I get a removal and a note saying 'Provide a reference to say so'. Let's be fair for once. Can someone please provide a nice full-frontal picture of the slum on the beautiful mountainside so we can all see just how rosy it was? Let's not hide it away now ... 188.8.131.52 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC) DawnTreader
- I added an openstreetmap URL, which you can match up with this picture of the map in the museum. The castle is an easy reference on both maps. This is another good map. Wizzy…☎ 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No. The alleged connection with that film is, in my view, spurious. There are many other "Districts" in South Africa. Neill Blomkamp is probably too young to have even been aware of Cape Town's District Six. It is unlikely that he was thinking of it when he named his film.JohnC (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- So in your opinion a SF film largely about racial segregation and forced relocation, titled "District-something" and set in South Africa, has no connection to District Six, and that it's "unlikely" the director was thinking of it? Ok... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like he didn't see the movie, as it's about the forced location of a racially separated group in SA like the person above pointed out... but at the same time is it really necessary to call it an alternate reality? Isn't that a given for science fiction in general?Lime in the Coconut 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)