Afrikaner farmers reject Trump's Claim of White Genocide in So Africa

There are a lot of problems in South Africa and they aren't going to magically improve any time soon.

While Apartheid was evil and morally wrong - the white ruling class had no problem for a long time getting foreign investment.

Generations of black SA's were poorly educated and anyone that showed leadership potential was punished or discouraged.

Eventually the US people led boycott was effective, and a lot of private investment dried up because of association with Apartheid.

When the black majority took over - the wealthy whites in SA got out, and took their resources an connections with them.

The Farmers and landowners that were white - they stayed because of their land.

There was and is a lot of animosity towards the white landowners - and whites in general in South Africa. There is also a lot of racism on both sides. I have said before, anyone that is white and not a landholder - and sticks around is crazy.

I don't think that there is an actual genocide - but as the economy in South Africa is poor, and there are tribal disputes over power - I can see where someone white could feel persecuted. I don't even have an issue with the USA granting asylum to them. I do have an issue removing productive immigrants that have not been violent - it is stupid and short sighted, and bigoted.

 

It's SA not Zimbabwe or Uganda. They can sell their land and emigrate with millions or tens of millions cash in hand. Funnily enough,the SA immigrants I've met are either white or "colored" and from affluent families or black and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

 

The problem for the PC crowd is the whites fluorished everywhere due to capability. When you demonize and remove the class that gets things done at a high level of competency , and ignore meritocracy altogether, you get a Zimbabwe like situation where they have to beg the whites to come back.

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe is asking back the white farmers he chased away

The country that was once dubbed “the breadbasket of the region” has suffered an estimated $12 billion in lost agriculture production since the land occupations took place and has had to rely on donor handouts and food imports from neighboring countries. At least 1.8 million tonnes of the staple grain, maize, is required annually to feed the nation.


There's definitely an alienation and systematic oppression of whites in South Africa that is to the detriment of the countries well being. Whites were a massive net positive to happen to Africa. if only African leaders didn't sell their own slaves to be deported they would not have to endure their own racist past, but to punish the working class white who stayed and built up their economies as well as provide treatment for AIDS and the millions of diseases they have is suicidal.

 

You might need to do some research and rethink your hypothesis.

 

They don’t all want to sell their land- and not all white South Africans own land.

 

"Research"?

 

Yes, the flourishing economies of, checks notes, Moldova, Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, and Cyprus certainly display the superiority of the white race.

 

"Ain't gonna play Sun City"

In 1985, Steven Van Zandt, along with Arthur Baker, Hart Perry, and Danny Schechter, formed Artists United Against Apartheid and Van Zandt would write “Sun City,” an anthemic Rock/Hip Hop/R&B song protesting the Apartheid system symbolized by the South African resort, Sun City. Over 50 artists including Gil Scott-Heron, Ringo Starr, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Grandmaster Melle Mel, George Clinton, Run DMC, Jimmy Cliff, Ruben Blades, Pat Benatar, Herbie Hancock, Lou Reed, Joey Ramone, Peter Gabriel, Bob Geldof, Clarence Clemons, David Ruffin, Eddie Kendricks, Darlene Love, Bobby Womack, Afrika Bambaataa, Kurtis Blow, The Fat Boys, Jackson Browne, Peter Wolf, Bonnie Raitt, Hall & Oates, Big Youth, Michael Monroe, Stiv Bators, Peter Garrett, Ron Carter, Ray Barretto, Nona Hendryx, and Miles Davis, performed on the track which spawned a conscious raising album of the same name. As one of the first collaborations among major recording stars to support a political, rather than a social cause, it is considered by most political experts to be one of the the fatal blows to Apartheid, leading to Nelson Mandela being freed only a few years later.



Hadn't thought of this song in forever, not sure why it popped into my brain just now.

 

It's just the opposite. Legacy media has some problems, but it has huge advantages over the youtube and twitter influencer driven way people are increasingly get their news now.

1. Journalism has a well established code of ethics in which aspiring journalists are inculcated. There are not (yet) clearly defined rules of ethical behavior for influencers.

2. Journalists are paid a salary, so they don't have a direct financial interest in making a story go viral. They certainly don't join the industry to get rich because it has a reputation for not being very financially rewarding. News organizations are more interested in circulation, but they get paid on a subscription model, not a per-eyeball model. Influencers get paid for eyeballs, so they're highly motivated to drive views to each post. And, many of them are in it to become rich.

3. The best legacy news organizations see their chief asset to be their credibility. They maintain credibility with a serious framework for their journalists to write in a fact-based manner, without biased language, to check their facts and confirm their quotes, and the like. Because they care about their brands, they'll engage with the reading public about their content and will publish retractions when proven wrong. Influencers also care about their brands, but their primary asset is not credibility, it's engagement. Their reach doesn't suffer when they're proven wrong so long as they were somehow compelling.

4. Real journalists will use social media platforms now. And it's not impossible to do journalism in social media even though not everything about the news in social media really qualifies as journalism. And journalists may well source primary material from social media -- footage from Gaza, for example, or tweets from Trump. But, I'd liken that primary material to the wholesale level of news, whereas journalism produces retail level news. They can source from social media, but then they fact check it, contextualize it, interview people about it, and so on to make it ready for public consumption. If you take your news from this wholesale level without the journalist applying the rigors of his trade, you're liable to get misinformation.

Looking forward to the retort, hoping for at least 3 bullets of counter-argument.

 

There really is not much "Legacy Media"
What many are calling Legacy Media . . . .is really the NEW COKE of Legacy Media

Rocket River

 

This is you projecting your insecurity. When it comes to the specific case of Africa, with it's wide ranging set of maladies and problems that had nothing to do with whites, whites have been a massive net positive but there is a resentment due to the differences in ability that just "education" can't account for.

There's a reason professional victims always move to the whitest neighborhoods when they make money, regardless of the country they live in.

 

What an absurdly naive, delusional spin on what we've seen time and time again the past 10 years. Journalists routinely subvert the code of ethics to push an agenda that makes them feel like God. They know more than "stupid working class people", which is a mantra of the democrats. The narrative is more important than truth - we see this with their approach to black violence, Hunter biden labtop, etc.

Activists masquerading as journalists know that objectively critiquing issues won't get them the views. They want the views to maintain advertiser dominance they've had for decades that is waning. They are increasingly forced to look at themselves as brands - look at Steven a Smith screaming and yelling constantly. So race baiting gets views -- being objectively honest does not. There was never any apology for the Jussie Smollet outcry, but they jumped on the story like a pack of wolves when the story first came out. Who needs to verify facts when you can get views? Cover up and ignore the story when its black on black or a non white perpetrator, highlight and exagerrate when it's white. Not rocket science, but a formula that gets their advertisers $$$.


The best legacy news organizations based on what? If it's ratings and popularity, it would be FOX news which is relatively new. CNN, MSNBC are constantly changing their programming and hosts due to low ratings. They shapeshift with the times and whatever the masses want - they don't really stand for anything.

 

I was hoping for Crixus but ok. I guess I'd point out that the elements of legacy media you criticize are the influencers (what we used to call pundits) found on those platforms, not the journalists. Legacy media deserves some blame for blurring the lines between news and opinion, especially on TV news. I'll admit I was thinking more about print and radio, my preferred vehicles.

There is still the issue of editorial choices over what stories to cover that you point out. I'll concede that, though it's not like social media does a better job on what to cover. The best solution there is to get your news from diverse sources. Just not ones that aren't journalistically accountable.

 

Tell me you don't still get The Chronicle. I thought my 88 year old father was the last Mohican

 

This is funny.

There is no larger "professional victim" than the man occupying the Whitehouse.