site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2932 thread views

Transnational Thursday for May 22, 2025

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there an ongoing genocide against white South Africans? Reuters says there isn't.

Among the claims contradicted by the evidence:

(1) There is a genocide of white farmers in South Africa.

Supporters of the theory point to murders of white farmers in remote rural parts of the country as proof of a politically orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing, rather than ordinary violent crime.

They accuse the Black-majority led government of being complicit in the farm murders, either by encouraging them or at least turning a blind eye. The government strongly denies this.

South Africa has one of the world's highest murder rates, with an average of 72 a day, in a country of 60 million people. Most victims are Black.

The high court in Western Cape province ruled that claims of white genocide were "clearly imagined and not real" in a case earlier this year, forbidding a donation to a white supremacist group on those grounds.

(2) The government is expropriating land from white farmers without compensation, including through violent land seizures, in order to distribute it to Black South Africans.

The government has a policy of attempting to redress inequalities in land ownership that are a legacy of apartheid and colonialism. But no land has been expropriated, and the government has instead tried to encourage white farmers to sell their land willingly.

(3) The "Kill the Boer (farmer)" song sung by some Black South Africans is an explicit call to murder Afrikaners, the ethnic group of European descent who make up the majority of whites and who own most of the farmland.

Three South African courts have ruled against attempts to have it designated as hate speech, on the basis that it is a historical liberation chant, not a literal incitement to violence.

In a statement following the meeting between Trump and Ramaphosa, the EFF said it was "a song that expresses the desire to destroy the system of white minority control over the resources of South Africa" and that it is "a part of African Heritage".

(4) Trump played a video clip that showed a long line of white crosses on the side of a highway, which Trump said were "burial sites" for white farmers.

The video was made in September 2020 during a protest against farm murders after two people were killed on their farm a week earlier. The crosses did not mark actual graves. An organizer told South Africa's public broadcaster, SABC, at the time that the wooden crosses represented farmers who had been killed over the years.

(5) The opening scene of the White House video shows Malema in South Africa's parliament announcing: "People are going to occupy land. We require no permission from ... the president." It also shows another clip of him pledging to expropriate land.

Some land has been illegally occupied over the years, mostly by millions of desperate squatters with nowhere else to go, although some land seizures are politically motivated. The land is usually unused and there is no evidence the EFF orchestrated any land invasions.

A check of Trump's false claims about white genocide in South Africa

I really hate this. There was a time when even if they absolutely loathed the president, journalists would at least put a fig leaf of journalism over their hit pieces. Now this is journalism.

(1) There is a genocide of white farmers in South Africa.

Supporters of the theory point to murders of white farmers in remote rural parts of the country as proof of a politically orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing, rather than ordinary violent crime.

Yeah, okay, it probably doesn't meet the legally accepted definition of "genocide" (a particularness which doesn't seem to apply to Gaza).

The high court in Western Cape province ruled that claims of white genocide were "clearly imagined and not real" in a case earlier this year, forbidding a donation to a white supremacist group on those grounds.

Most of this article is "This isn't happening because the South African government accused of doing it says it isn't happening."

The government has a policy of attempting to redress inequalities in land ownership that are a legacy of apartheid and colonialism. But no land has been expropriated, and the government has instead tried to encourage white farmers to sell their land willingly.

Again, it's probably true that the government has not formally "expropriated" any land. Again, it's easy to point at what's happening in the West Bank - what the government is doing as a matter of official government policy and what's happening in an informal, extra-legal way is certainly examined in a much less sympathetic light.

Three South African courts have ruled against attempts to have it designated as hate speech, on the basis that it is a historical liberation chant, not a literal incitement to violence.

How many of these journalists believe in "microaggressions" and "words are violence"?

In a statement following the meeting between Trump and Ramaphosa, the EFF said it was "a song that expresses the desire to destroy the system of white minority control over the resources of South Africa" and that it is "a part of African Heritage".

Yes, I am sure those people chanting "Kill the Boer" were actually thinking "Destroy the system of white minority control over the resources of South Africa."

The video was made in September 2020 during a protest against farm murders after two people were killed on their farm a week earlier. The crosses did not mark actual graves. An organizer told South Africa's public broadcaster, SABC, at the time that the wooden crosses represented farmers who had been killed over the years.

Once again, his enemies take him literally but not seriously. Whether or not Trump actually believed those were literally burial sites, that wasn't the point of the crosses. They don't even try to debunk the fact that all these farmers have been killed, just say it's a lie because that's not where they were actually buried, so Trump is wrong.

Some land has been illegally occupied over the years, mostly by millions of desperate squatters with nowhere else to go, although some land seizures are politically motivated.

So, it's happening, but it's not politically motivated, except when it sometimes is.

The land is usually unused and there is no evidence the EFF orchestrated any land invasions.

"Usually." And they can't even say with a straight face that the EFF isn't behind it, just "no evidence they orchestrated any land invasions" - there's some weaseling in every word there.

So, the calls to murder are not literal, because no murders are happening. I mean, murders are definitely happening, but not all at once, just over the years. And it's a local tradition so nothing to be done about it. In general, murdering people there is very common, so murdering white people is nothing to worry about, and people who want to leave the place where murdering is very common have no legit reason to do so. Also, nobody is trying to take their property. I mean, millions of people try to take their property, but they are poor, so that's fine, and has nothing to do with politics, they just want to take their property. And it's not expropriation without payment, because even though their property got taken from them, and they received no payment, the government "tried to encourage" them to sell, so it doesn't count. And since the government did not explicitly command the takings by official decree, they have no responsibility for it, even though multiple members of the government promised to do exactly what happened. Ah yes, and also government made a thorough investigation and declared itself innocent of all charges, which makes the case settled completely.

One needs long, thorough years of brainwashing to be able to believe shit like this. Fortunately, this is exactly what we as the taxpayers are paying the US education system to do.

‘White south Africans shouldn’t be granted refugee status’ is an argument that took a significant blow when the South African government published a statement saying that they were attempting to escape justice by fleeing. What the South African government itself says about its treatment of whites is, well, suspect in that light.

But Trump also clearly cares about this for some reason.

I hadn't seen this, so I wanted to read the statement. I found an ANC statement (not technically the government, I suppose) on reddit. I couldn't find it on the terribly-organized ANC website, but I could confirm its legitimacy by finding a copy on a regional ANC Twitter account.

And wow, it's even worse than you said:

Let it be categorically stated: there are no Afrikaner refugees in South Africa. No section of our society is hounded, persecuted or subject to ethnic victimisation. These claims are a fabrication and a cowardly political construct designed to delegitimise our democracy and insult the sacrifices made by generations who fought for freedom. ...

What the instigators of this falsehood seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege.

The misuse of refugee protections to shield right-wing, anti-transformation elements is a violation of the spirit and letter of international law. ...

I am particularly struck by the phrase "impunity from transformation."

/images/17479765952500768.webp

"Genocide" has basically become a vibes-based term over the past few years, so questions involving the word have become increasingly meaningless.

What seems beyond question is that white South Africans are facing extensive race-based persecution.

No more than there is a genocide going on against minorities in Muslim nations. There is strong pressure for displacement. But, I won't call it genocide. We need to reserve that word for the real deal. Can't be diluting definitions for war crimes. (Might be a lost cause)

America has low standards for granting refuge. Indian Sikhs have a 50%+ refugee approval rate despite facing no violence since 1990 and being quite rich by Indian standards. Hell, I'd argue Indian Sikhs are treated a lot better than Hindus in India. (legally and otherwise). White people have a reason to feel unsafe in South Africa. They should leave. They should likely receive refuge by the current standards for refugees in the US.

Three South African courts have ruled against attempts to have it designated as hate speech, on the basis that it is a historical liberation chant, not a literal incitement to violence.

Who cares what a South African court thinks? They haven't been covering themselves in excellence in upholding a stable, successful society. The murder rate there is comparable to the death rate in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

It's also somewhat hard to accept rhetorically, given how 'It's OK to be white' produced such a big storm.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats