Now, 10 years later, South Africans can rightfully boast of hosting one of the most successful World Cup celebrations in recent memory, as Spain took the prize as soccer's best national team.

The best thing about the plaudits coming South Africa's way is that they aren't the result of a paternalistic pat-on-the-back from richer nations around the world; this was not a case of South Africa passing a test against lowered expectations.

Using any other recent World Cup competition as a measuring stick, by all accounts, this World Cup production shined.

And it wasn't easy.

Even when South Africa won the bid to host the games, the international sporting world was wary. Some of the problems included:

And if frightened foreigners did stay away from the World Cup in droves, local people didn't have the means to purchase the pricey tickets to the event, meaning embarrassing television shots of half-empty stadiums broadcast around the world.

But none of the above happened.

In actuality, the only discordant notes at the games came from complaints about the din created by the plastic vuvuzelas blown by fans, but by the end of the World Cup, their sounds had melted into the background, adding to the rich tapestry that was the 2010 World Cup.

As South Africa takes its final games for a job well done, the success should leave officials with a troubling question or two:

If the nation that shook of the bonds of a white racist apartheid government just 16 years ago can throw such a successful party for the world, why can't it provide streets that are safe and better wages for average working people on a daily basis?

Or does it takes the watchful eyes of the international community to force South Africa to achieve all it can be?