Trump is getting railed for mentioning white farmers in SA

[TheGreatA]

Media whatboutisms have nothing to do with this. It’s wrong and it should be called out as such, his choice of causes raises eyebrows however. I am not saying he is racist because of this but of course this plays to his brand of identity politics which is why he is speaking for a few hundred white farmers on a continent filled much worse examples of oppression. Let’s not be naive here.

That's your opinion on it, and you're entitled to it.

But it could just as well be a case of Trump watching TV and randomly hearing about a case of a white farmer getting assaulted in South Africa. It could be a number of things.

What I'm saying is that the media should be more responsible than running with a narrative of Trump trying to seize popularity from white supremacists by running with a "white genocide" narrative. Of course, that story is what their audience wants to hear, because it's just the most "politically correct" thing to think about, in this case, but there's no evidence that it's the true story behind all of this.

 

[lifelessheap]

Let me return that question to you with a question, rather than open myself up for the nitpicking that is going to follow?

On a global scale, do you think that South Africa and the white farmers is one of the larger human rights issues taking place right now? How about just in Africa? If the answer to both is "yes" then we'll have a discussion.

Mike Brown's justified shooting received 1,000,000,000X more coverage than what is happening to the white farmers in SA. Can't people point our our MSM's bullshit?

 

[luckyshot]

Whites shouldn't have taken over South Africa and apratheided it. That was a wrong thing to do.

Blacks in SA shouldn't kill whites. That is also a wrong thing to do.

Should the SA government redistribute land? Probably not because it won't end well, but let's remember that this was stolen land in the first place.

I love all the armchair Nelson Mandelas in this thread. It's easy to be forgiving when you are not the one whose people have gotten fucked over.

Trump bringing up SA... meh, ok. And? What am I really supposed to do with this information coming from this man?

 

[Lord_Impaler]

You're right, but to many throw stones at others when their own people or country did or does the same.

Those people are the biggest hypocrites.

What sinless blood line do you hail from?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Obviously, South Africa and its happenings, are more relevant to the West, than say, what goes down in Kongo or Uganda. Just like what goes down in China or Japan, is more relevant to us than what goes down in Laos or Myanmar.

But Myanmar did get a lot of attention when the human rights violations there escalated. Its not necessarily front page news anymore but it has entered the public consciousness for the human rights atrocities going on over there. And that's because of the scale of it which from what I've read dwarfs what is unfortunately happening to the white farmers in SA.

Mike Brown's justified shooting received 1,000,000,000X more coverage than what is happening to the white farmers in SA. Can't people point our our MSM's bullshit?

Mike Brown was an American who was shot in America so to a certain extent that's only natural. Mollie Tibbetts murder is also getting more attention than SA farmers for a similar reason except its being exploited by the other side instead.

 

[AlexDB9]

I read that attacks on white famers in SA are the lowest in twenty years..

Common sense tells me that when you attack a minority for 20 years there comes a time when there aren’t that many to attack anymore.....”lowest in twenty years”

 

[lifelessheap]

Whites shouldn't have taken over South Africa and apratheided it. That was a wrong thing to do.

Blacks in SA shouldn't kill whites. That is also a wrong thing to do.

Should the SA government redistribute land? Probably not because it won't end well, but let's remember that this was stolen land in the first place.

I love all the armchair Nelson Mandelas in this thread. It's easy to be forgiving when you are the one whose people have gotten fucked over.

Trump bringing up SA... meh, ok. And? What am I really supposed to do with this information coming from this man?

Who did they 'steal' the land from? There was nothing there. They did not displace any people. It was just barren land that nobody knew what do with.

So they shouldn't have created a great society on unused land?

Would it have been okay if Egyptians settled and built a society on that unused land? Or what if people from Jamaica sailed there and built a society on the unused land? Would that have been okay? Or is it only not okay if white people built country on unused shitty land?

 

[b-hop]

Mike Brown's justified shooting received 1,000,000,000X more coverage than what is happening to the white farmers in SA. Can't people point our our MSM's bullshit?

"But the media is not anti-white." - libtards.

 

[TheGreatA]

Whites shouldn't have taken over South Africa and apratheided it. That was a wrong thing to do.

Blacks in SA shouldn't kill whites. That is also a wrong thing to do.

Should the SA government redistribute land? Probably not because it won't end well, but let's remember that this was stolen land in the first place.

I love all the armchair Nelson Mandelas in this thread. It's easy to be forgiving when you are not the one whose people have gotten fucked over.

Trump bringing up SA... meh, ok. And? What am I really supposed to do with this information coming from this man?

It is stolen land on part of the blacks in government, as well.

Indigenous people make up less than 1% of South Africa's population. The "fucked-up" apartheid regime became the destination for many African immigrants, from other regions of the country (considering that it offered the only humane living conditions within those circumstances). The Boers of Africa, who immigrated there over 400 years ago, have resided in those lands far longer than most of the black Africans that currently populate the area.

If we start pissing contests over whose land it originally was, whose continent it originally was, then the Americans ought to start first.

 

[Seaside]

To the left, addressing White's being displaced, beaten, raped, murdered and chased from their homes is considered racist and a symptom of White Supremacy.

The same lame fucks ripping out their hair over this I can guaranfuckintee had no problem with Obama's (or Eric "my people, hate crime laws weren't meant to protect Whites" Holder, etc) nonchalant attitude towards whites, while invariably showing concern over his own people, i.e, the beer summit, Trayvon being his son, sending emissary's to Mike Browns funeral, etc.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/obama-sent-three-representatives-michael-brown-fun/



Spare us the bullshit.

Obama was garbage. Hope he lives long enough to see his worst nightmares come true.

 

[Striderxdj]

It's been amazing to me to see the U.S. Mainstream Media not cover this event. I have seen it on Fox News, but when I go to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CBS, etc... they have no coverage. It's not happening in the Leftist "reality".

"I've not seen it on mainstream news."
"Fox news covered it"

I'd like to know how Fox news can be the largest and most watched news source, and somehow, NOT mainstream. This narrative is just laughable and calling the other major news networks liberal/left is an absolute joke. All of TV media groups are simply pro corporatist/establishment, MSNBC is Establishment left, CNN is center/slight lean either way depending on which partyis in power, but Fox political commentators are, without question, the most biased and hypocritical far right idealogues. Shep Smith is the only exception, and the only talent on fox news with a shred of credibility and respect. Point in fact, he is probably the only mainstream newscaster on any network I actually watch, as he deals strictly in facts regardless of which side is involved.

Anti trump coverage rarely comes from an actual left/progressive view, it is always focusing on safe topics like Russian interference or his next idiotic blunder, rarely on actual policies.

Outlets like CNN creates false equality in their coverage of topics for of fear being labeled liberal/left/fake, which would happen regardless if they did this or not. Worst of all, allowing talking heads to throw out debunked bullshit against actual verifiable and established facts gives them undeserved credibility, and creates a case of "one side says this, the other says this, *shrug* both are equally valid points".

Reporting on the facts doesnt bring ratings. Creating controversy, and divisive arguments between two teams does.

 

[Gandhi]

That's your opinion on it, and you're entitled to it.

But it could just as well be a case of Trump watching TV and randomly hearing about a case of a white farmer getting assaulted in South Africa. It could be a number of things.

What I'm saying is that the media should be more responsible than running with a narrative of Trump trying to seize popularity from white supremacists by running with a "white genocide" narrative. Of course, that story is what their audience wants to hear, because it's just the most "politically correct" thing to think about, in this case, but there's no evidence that it's the true story behind all of this.

Meh, the media's reaction is 100% entirely predictable if not overlyt hyperbolic.

1 bomb run attack in Syria, which had pretty good propaganda cred (Russia / Obama) withstanding, he has no track record of budding into HR rights issues of other countries, never mind Africa. His base will love this and his opponents will have the predicted fit.

This statement is already found much support among those that think apartheid should have remained in place. Maybe Trump should start being the responsible one and start thinking through how his words will unite or divide people, I mean he is only the president.....

 

[nixkid]

Very true, and perhaps it would be more precise for me to say that much of Trump's rhetoric is directed along lines of colour. Whether it's shithole countries, where he wants to build a wall, how he wants to direct blame at Charlottesville, his relationship with Russia, or talking about global human rights issues, his rhetoric either by design or by chance generally concerned with what happens to white populations.

Now we have an incident where hundreds of people are dying each year. Not thousands, but hundreds. I, personally, applaud him for paying attention to this. On the other hand, I raise my eyebrow when a few hundred white people have him paying special, public attention, when he seems quite indifferent to far lager non-white populations in great distress in many parts of the world which he doesn't seem to concern himself with overly much. That eyebrow is raised because he already has what seemed a skewed rhetorical tone that emphasizes a bias.

To be clear, I think that Trump isn't the racist so many make him out to be. Also to be clear, I think he may be more of a racist than his dyed in the wool supporters make him out to be. It would be nice to hear him approach more issues with the attitude of "There is blame on both sides of the issue" and proceed from that point, rather than only trotting it out where it seems pretty one sided.

Its not even hundreds. Its dozens. There were 47 white farmers killed last year and that number is actually trending downward (its at 20 year low). And none of those killing were carried out or sanctioned by the government. Thats called crime and we're talking about a country with A LOT of crime.

South Africa has the highest wealth inequality in the world. In any society, there comes a breaking point where people who are trapped in abject poverty will have had enough and will turn to violence. It just happens that in South Africa, the wealth is largely distributed along racial lines. These sort of things are because of a failure of the post-Apartheid government to come up with a decent plan for addressing the wealth distribution problem that was caused by Apartheid and I think a lot of that failure has to do with trying to appease the West (trying not to appear to be heading down the road of communism with some big wealth redistribution program which is the only thing that can address the problem in the short term).

 

[Gandhi]

I am a little slow today.
are you implying that the South African government is taking land from people that are non-whites?

LOL No just that tribes are fucking each other all over the continent.

 

[TheGreatA]

But Myanmar did get a lot of attention when the human rights violations there escalated. Its not necessarily front page news anymore but it has entered the public consciousness for the human rights atrocities going on over there. And that's because of the scale of it which from what I've read dwarfs what is unfortunately happening to the white farmers in SA.

It got some attention aaaaaand...

It amounted to absolutely nothing. And we're talking about a massacre of people.

Like it or not, South Africa is more important to the West than many of its neighbouring countries. Whether it's because white people live there, or because it has become a symbol for Africa due to apartheid, Nelson Mandela, and such things, that's another debate for another day. But the fact is that it is. You couldn't live in the 80's without having an opinion on South Africa, one way or the other.

If people talked about places like Equatorial Guinea all the time, their minds would blow up. We are talking about places that have Western standards of GDP, which can't even offer proper water or education to half their population, where all of the wealth is safely deposited into the hands of 0,01% of the population.

Maybe that's not a conversation that anybody's even comfortable with starting.

 

[luckyshot]

Who did they 'steal' the land from? There was nothing there. They did not displace any people. It was just barren land that nobody knew what do with.

So they shouldn't have created a great society on unused land?

Would it have been okay if Egyptians settled and built a society on that unused land? Or what if people from Jamaica sailed there and built a society on the unused land? Would that have been okay? Or is it only not okay if white people built country on unused shitty land?

A viewpoint this cartoonish doesn't really justify a response, but if you google South Africa frontier wars...

 

[Not A Theist]

Mike Brown's justified shooting received 1,000,000,000X more coverage than what is happening to the white farmers in SA. Can't people point our our MSM's bullshit?

Agreed. Mike Brown was an ill chosen hill to die on, so to speak, for where to draw the big racial line. The media has a clear bias, at large, I'll agree to - but I don't see that as an argument to exonerate Trump's rhetorical tone having a bias? Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is the kind of thing I'm pointing at in this case, just with Trump rather than the media. Let's take school shooters and the media to illustrate. Emma Gonzales and that Hogg fellow were lionized by the media, given a massive platform from which to spread their anti-gun message. The fellow who went through the shooting who was pro-gun though? He got, what, one interview? But if you say "The media has an anti-gun agenda" you'll have someone dredge up that interview and say "See? They present both sides. Stop with the alt-right conspiracies!" - but that's really not true. It's an easy and disingenuous case to cover up bias which you approve of, and just continue on as if an uneven field is perfectly level.

Though I don't much care for the guy's puritanical religious views and constant droning on about how small he thinks the government should be, this Ben Shapiro video captures an instance of what I'm talking about:



Does CNN present Palestine/Israel in a balanced manner? Heck no. When accused of it? "But we mention the bad things Palestine does too!..." It's an obfuscation of one sided coverage rather than owning up to a pro-Palestinian general presentation.

I take Trump in a similar way and that his rhetorical tone is skewed a bit like CNN's with Israel/Palestine and gun control. To be clear I don't actually know that Trump is a racist. Frankly, I see a fair bit of evidence to the contrary so I'm not willing to make that claim. The thing is, Trump's rhetoric is a bit like that media's focus - generally askew in one direction. If you point that out, you'll see what has happened to me in this thread - "But he did these three things, so obviously his rhetoric, at large, hasn't been hugely skewed in a particular direction!!!!" Much like the media on the gun issue, offering an interview or two on one side of the issue then giving massive coverage the other way. Trump's rhetoric is clearly one sided along lines of colour. Is this really in dispute?

 

[Islam Imamate]

It got some attention aaaaaand...

It amounted to absolutely nothing. And we're talking about a massacre of people.

Like it or not, South Africa is more important to the West than many of its neighbouring countries. Whether it's because white people live there, or because it has become a symbol for Africa due to apartheid, Nelson Mandela, and such things, that's another debate for another day. But the fact is that it is. You couldn't live in the 80's without having an opinion on South Africa, one way or the other.

If people talked about places like Equatorial Guinea all the time, their minds would blow up. We are talking about places that have Western standards of GDP, which can't even offer proper water or education to half their population.

Maybe that's not a conversation that anybody's even comfortable with starting.

Sure the talk on Myanmar amounted to nothing but I bet so will the talk around SA. It really does just seem like Trump winking and nodding to the white victimhood folks among his base which is why he's getting criticized for it. To be fair I do see your point but putting these comments in the context of Trumps political career so far I honestly do see what the critics are getting at.

 

[Gandhi]

Because what is happening is happening because of western intervention. The only reason I think its fucked up is because we made this situation by forcing the white south Africans to bare their throats, so now that the black south Africans are preparing to tare it out is partially on us.

So we should have supported a white race dictatorship? SA is a tragedy but the status quo was not going to remain, if it means SA has to learn the hard way (like Zimbabwe appears to have finally figured out) I don’t see that there was another way.

 

[cincymma79]

Yes he did those things. Outside of the little caricature at the end of your post, was there a point you were getting at?

Is there a country trump can say anything about hat isn’t racist?