Trump is getting railed for mentioning white farmers in SA

[Islam Imamate]

Then again that's the same "wider context" as what Fox News was able to create around Obama. When the media continues to heavy-handedly push the narrative that Trump is constantly "dog-whistling" to white supremacists, the people will inevitably start looking for such signals in places where they might not even exist.

Sure but I'm not denying that context existed for Obama because to a certain extent I think it did. In terms of hard policy Obama didn't really do much for the black community specifically but it did seem to me he was aware of his status as a cultural icon within that community and it came through in some of the things he said like about how Mike Brown could've been his son or the infamous comments he made at the police funeral.

What I see here could easily be the result of Trump watching Fox News, and getting mad about some piece on South Africa that Tucker Carlson put out, and thus tweeting his immediate feelings towards it. Not a result of coldly calculated pandering to the KKK and Nazi types.

I suppose this is what it's going to be for as long as Trump remains in America's leadership.

Trump is not merely a passive viewer of FOX, in large part he actually sets the agenda of that network through direct(conversations with Hannity) and indirect(commanding their support for merely being a GOP POTUS) means. They're going to run stories they know play well with his base or spin national ones for the same effect and from that Trump knows which stories to play up to rally his base(white SA farmers, victims of illegal aliens) and how he should approach unavoidable ones("both sides" when it relates to Charlottesville) in ways that don't spurn them.

In this case he's going to know that mentioning South Africa and focusing on the race angle in a way that emphasizes white victimhood is red meat for parts of his base.

 

[TheGreatA]

Sure but I'm not denying that context existed for Obama because to a certain extent I think it did. In terms of hard policy Obama didn't really do much for the black community specifically but it did seem to me he was aware of his status as a cultural icon within that community and it came through in some of the things he said like about how Mike Brown could've been his son or the infamous comments he made at the police funeral.

Trump is not merely a passive viewer of FOX, in large part he actually sets the agenda of that network through direct(conversations with Hannity) and indirect(commanding their support for merely being a GOP POTUS) means. They're going to run stories they know play well with his base or spin national ones for the same effect and from that Trump knows which stories to play up to rally his base(white SA farmers, victims of illegal aliens) and how he should approach unavoidable ones("both sides" when it relates to Charlottesville) in ways that don't spurn them.

In this case he's going to know that mentioning South Africa and focusing on the race angle in a way that emphasizes white victimhood is red meat for parts of his base.

I don't think Trump is really doing all that much for America's "white community" either, atleast not the white community that he's supposedly targeting. The high suicide rates, opioid addictions decreasing life expectancy, etc. still persist, and I don't see Trump doing much about it.

The agenda of FOX in my opinion has persisted even prior to Trump becoming a politician, and may in fact have been carved out as a response to Obama, to seize "anti-Obama" market demographics, if for no other reason than financial gain. So Trump could be every bit as much a creation of FOX as FOX could be a creation of his. And all of it could simply be a creation of America's wonky two-party political system, that has extended to a two-party media, and a polarized world-view for its citizens.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

but some of that land was taken during apartheid, many blacks and people of colour were displaced so they could increase their share of the land. So surely at least some of that land should be given back now?

Also lets not pretend the farmers are innocent victims..... they are pretty fucked up people themselves

You're right. that's why I'm conflicted on it.

But I wonder..do they only take the land where people were removed or any land owned by whites. Not all of it was stolen of gained through apartheid.

If someone stole my grandparents land there's a good chance I'm going to want to steal it back. I get it.

 

[Gandhi]

Few hundred? You are terrible at counting

Yeah I, like several others have already done in thread, am referring to the mass killings of white farmers trump was speaking to, not the entire white population of SA (ie the mythical 400 that is likely under 75).

 

[MayhemMonkey]

You're right. that's why I'm conflicted on it.

But I wonder..do they only take the land where people were removed or any land owned by whites. Not all of it was stolen of gained through apartheid.

If someone stole my grandparents land there's a good chance I'm going to want to steal it back. I get it.

thats my main issue, its that the Boers cant accept equal rights..... they think they still deserve special treatment and consider equality as them being oppressed.(not saying that some of them arent actually being oppressed either.)

Most universities in SA still teach in Afrikaans, which is the white minorties mother tongue. They still own all the land they did from apartheid also. This is white privileage times a thousand. Now we are supposed to consider them as worthy of refuge when they probably bring most of the trouble on themselves.

Any killing or terrorising is obviously fucked btw and I just want to clarify that I condemn all of it.

 

[Gandhi]

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.

Of course @TheGreatA has good points on SA, but to expect anything but the reaction Trump would get to HIS comments is crazy, and that includes both sides of the “identity aisle”. The dogwhistler in chief knows how he won the nomination with his base.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I honestly don't take that first sentence in good faith given the tone of this thread - even if you mean it well, someone else won't. I'm going to avoid risking providing fuel for a host of potential "gotcha" moments from others because "Oh, but those are terrorists, that's not the government, that's different!" which becomes an issue of point scoring rather than genuine discussion. I think it's a fairly safe assertion to say that there are a number of human rights issues going on in the world right now that Trump doesn't seem to care about in the slightest - which for him, means they don't make his twitter feed. This does not mean that it is incumbent for the president to comment on every human right's violation around the world - but it is eyebrow raising that Trump makes a bit deal out of this one.

Your second point is the interesting one. First off, South Africa has a highly racial history and that will lead to certain values being present in the populace that we may not share. That is a country's, and a culture's, right. Secondly, expropriation of land is something that happens around in developed world, even, in any number of circumstances. It has happened to my family, in my lifetime for reasons we absolutely did not agree with. Yet, it happened. The state that we relied upon to enforce our right to owning the property took some away for a power line and paid us $1 for it. What I took from this is that we can't rely on a Hobbesian Leviathan to enforce our right to property but never expect it to utilize its power to pursue an end beyond our personal interests - that of the state, or that of justice.

In the case of South Africa... Well, I foresee disastrous, Zimbabwe like results following from the actions the government is taken. That said, there is a ring of a certain kind of justice to it. If the end result is to right the wrongs of apartheid, the cost be damned, well... We'll see how it goes.

Good read.

I hear ya. I know you're just giving an example and not saying it is exactly the same.
To me the difference in the example with your family and what happens to a lot of people (every time you want to build a new highway) is that it wasn't based on your skin color ...
It was just based on where you happened to live. white black green purple red. Would not have mattered.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't think Trump is really doing all that much for America's "white community" either, atleast not the white community that he's supposedly targeting. The high suicide rates, opioid addictions decreasing life expectancy, etc. still persist, and I don't see Trump doing much about it.

Sure but I didn't say otherwise, just pointing out that many of his comments(like the ones about white SA farmers) when taken together and put in a wider context suggest a wink and a nod to white victimhood politics.

The agenda of FOX in my opinion has persisted even prior to Trump becoming a politician, and may in fact have been carved out as a response to Obama, to seize "anti-Obama" market demographics, if for no other reason than financial gain. So Trump could be every bit as much a creation of FOX as FOX could be a creation of his. And all of it could simply be a creation of America's wonky two-party political system, that has extended to a two-party media, and a polarized world-view for its citizens.

No doubt the influence between Trump and FOX is a two way street. They helped set the mood against Obama(though Trump did as well by starting the birtherism stuff) and then when the 2016 election came around Trump masterfully played the media to his advantage with FOX at the fore of that. That's why they are so chummy, Trump no doubt knows that FOX is one of his pillars of support given its ratings which disproportionately skew towards his voters.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Of course @TheGreatA has good points on SA, but to expect anything but the reaction Trump would get to HIS comments is crazy, and that includes both sides of the “identity aisle”. The dogwhistler in chief knows how he won the nomination with his base.

I will say that while I do agree that his comments on South Africa fit into a pattern of winking and nodding at white victimhood politics I don't think its necessarily helpful to focus so much on everything he says. It turns coverage of Trump into white noise since each week its something new to cry about and as a result substantive discussion of his policy ends up flying under the radar.

 

[Not A Theist]

Good read.

I hear ya. I know you're just giving an example and not saying it is exactly the same.
To me the difference in the example with your family and what happens to a lot of people (every time you want to build a new highway) is that it wasn't based on your skin color ...
It was just based on where you happened to live. white black green purple red. Would not have mattered.

South Africa is tricky in this regard, I'll admit. But, let's think about it in terms of voter suppression in the South in the U.S.... There was a thread here the other day about closing polling stations in largely black communities and how it was an attempt to "erase the black vote." The reason given for the closings was that the polling stations didn't conform to certain disability standards and, because of budget shortfalls, they were closing some. Now, on the one hand, one side is saying "They're erasing the black vote by targeting polling stations in black neighborhoods!" and on the other hand, the other side is saying "The polling stations which are being closed are being closed for non-racially oriented reasons - that they're all in black neighborhoods is coincidence, not racist design." I don't know what's true in this case - but I know either reasoning could actually be the case. Not every case where certain races suffer more is motivated by racism.

To bring this to the SA case, well... White people own most of the land. A lot of that land is owned by white people as a result of clearly unjust, racist Apartheid policies. Justice could be seen as getting that land back to the native people to some extent. If policies designed with that justice in mind disproportionately target white people, that's not necessarily a sign of racism against white people. The big problem that I think people on my side of this need to own up to is that it could be, and this whole benevolent redistribution of land could well be a just instance of expropriation, but it could stand up to some scrutiny as to how it goes down. Tyranny of the majority is a very real thing, and mob justice is a veritable pop-culture phenomenon these days.

 

[Gandhi]

I will say that while I do agree that his comments on South Africa fit into a pattern of winking and nodding at white victimhood politics I don't think its necessarily helpful to focus so much on everything he says. It turns coverage of Trump into white noise since each week its something new to cry about and as a result substantive discussion of his policy ends up flying under the radar.

Yeah it’s not helpful, and to be frank it maybe one of the unintended cosequences that actually helps trump (outrages so often they become meaningless).

 

[TheGreatA]

South Africa is tricky in this regard, I'll admit. But, let's think about it in terms of voter suppression in the South in the U.S.... There was a thread here the other day about closing polling stations in largely black communities and how it was an attempt to "erase the black vote." The reason given for the closings was that the polling stations didn't conform to certain disability standards and, because of budget shortfalls, they were closing some. Now, on the one hand, one side is saying "They're erasing the black vote by targeting polling stations in black neighborhoods!" and on the other hand, the other side is saying "The polling stations which are being closed are being closed for non-racially oriented reasons - that they're all in black neighborhoods is coincidence, not racist design." I don't know what's true in this case - but I know either reasoning could actually be the case. Not every case where certain races suffer more is motivated by racism.

To bring this to the SA case, well... White people own most of the land. A lot of that land is owned by white people as a result of clearly unjust, racist Apartheid policies. Justice could be seen as getting that land back to the native people to some extent. If policies designed with that justice in mind disproportionately target white people, that's not necessarily a sign of racism against white people. The big problem that I think people on my side of this need to own up to is that it could be, and this whole benevolent redistribution of land could well be a just instance of expropriation, but it could stand up to some scrutiny as to how it goes down. Tyranny of the majority is a very real thing, and mob justice is a veritable pop-culture phenomenon these days.

One of the reasons for discomfort regarding this issue, is that the people involved with rallying fervor for these "seizures of land", have made some pretty chilling statements in regards to their plans for the "white population".

The current president of the country once said this:

"In his brutal honesty, Ramaphosa told me of the ANC's 25-year strategy to deal with the whites: it would be like boiling a frog alive, which is done by raising the temperature very slowly. Being cold-blooded, the frog does not notice the slow temperature increase, but if the temperature is raised suddenly, the frog will jump out of the water. He meant that the black majority would pass laws transferring wealth, land, and economic power from white to black slowly and incrementally, until the whites lost all they had gained in South Africa, but without taking too much from them at any given time to cause them to rebel or fight."

And the "far-left" are even more open about their plans for "whites":



https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1966767/malema-says-he-is-maybe-behind-farm-murders/

The problem here is that despite the white part of South Africa's population growing poorer, there doesn't seem to be any sign that this wealth is being currently re-distributed into the hands of the black population. So this is just a shitty government making excuses for its shitty economic policies. They're losing money faster than they can distribute it.

I would estimate that it would be far better if the country allowed its "whites" to own what they did, and to enforce them to pay their taxes, which are then properly distributed to education, creating jobs, building infrastructure.

 

[Fedorable]

I think it's a bit disingenuous presenting him "getting railed for mentioning" it as if it were happening in a vacuum. A large part of the criticism I see getting leveled at Trump is based on a perceived hypocrisy, not on his concern for what's going on in SA. Simply put, if you have a guy who seems to take a "that's their problem" attitude towards much of the world, and campaigned on an "America takes less action around the world" platform, suddenly become interested when the people who are under attack are white? It looks a little fishy. I'm not judging whether these complaints are fair - I think we should be happy about anyone paying any attention to injustice around the world - but it does look fishy coming from a guy who seems somewhat nonchalant in many cases when the persecuted people aren't white.

Simply put, Trump caring about persecuted people in SA? Great. Perhaps it would seem a bit more even handed if it happened more often with people who had a different skin tone.

What are you referring to? The treatment of women in the middle east?

 

[Staph infection]

One of the reasons for discomfort regarding this issue, is that the people involved with rallying fervor for these "seizures of land", have made some pretty chilling statements in regards to their plans for the "white population".

The current president of the country once said this:

"In his brutal honesty, Ramaphosa told me of the ANC's 25-year strategy to deal with the whites: it would be like boiling a frog alive, which is done by raising the temperature very slowly. Being cold-blooded, the frog does not notice the slow temperature increase, but if the temperature is raised suddenly, the frog will jump out of the water. He meant that the black majority would pass laws transferring wealth, land, and economic power from white to black slowly and incrementally, until the whites lost all they had gained in South Africa, but without taking too much from them at any given time to cause them to rebel or fight."

And the "far-left" are even more open about their plans for "whites":



https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1966767/malema-says-he-is-maybe-behind-farm-murders/

The problem here is that despite the white part of South Africa's population growing poorer, there doesn't seem to be any sign that this wealth is being currently re-distributed into the hands of the black population. So this is just a shitty government making excuses for its shitty economic policies. They're losing money faster than they can distribute it.

I would estimate that it would be far better if the country allowed its "whites" to own what they did, and to enforce them to pay their taxes, which are then properly distributed to education, creating jobs, building infrastructure.

SerpentZA has some great videos on how a lot of whites are treated in SA. He has family members assaulted, raped, and kidnapped. I think he says he was held up a few times. He has videos of himself armed while living in SA.

 

[TheGreatA]

SerpentZA has some great videos on how a lot of whites are treated in SA. He has family members assaulted, raped, and kidnapped. I think he says he was held up a few times. He has videos of himself armed while living in SA.

The fact that people, even of average income, have to live behind walls, and hire private security to keep themselves protected, speaks quite a lot about the current reality of living in South Africa.

 

[b-hop]

The fact that people, even of average income, have to live behind walls, and hire private security to keep themselves protected, speaks quite a lot about the current reality of living in South Africa.

People are actually being killed, and robbed from their lands because they are a different race.

But there is no such thing as anti-whitei nstitutional racism, its just a Supremacist Trump conspiracy in order to make South Africans look bad.

 

[cincymma79]

is there any white supremacists that Trump doesnt stick up for?

Only for the last twenty years or so. I mean there’s video of him denouncing David duke for one all the way back to the 90s on YouTube. It’s been posted here before. You’re taking out of your ass

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Only for the last twenty years or so. I mean there’s video of him denouncing David duke for one all the way back to the 90s on YouTube. It’s been posted here before. You’re taking out of your ass

oooh one person.... what a fucking hero.

 

[Leagon]

Only for the last twenty years or so. I mean there’s video of him denouncing David duke for one all the way back to the 90s on YouTube. It’s been posted here before. You’re taking out of your ass

I don't think Donald Trump is racist either, but it seems pretty obvious that he has been using race as a political tool since he started running for office, no? Do you agree that part of his political strategy is to stoke up feelings of victimhood in white people? From talking his MAGA campaign slogan to talking about the opiod epidemic to arguing in favor of coal mining jobs to saying "both sides" are good people during Charlottesville while balling black athletes SOBs to highlighting this racialized incident in SA. Does this all seem incidental to you? Does it not seem like a deliberate campaign to make white people feel like they are being attacked from many angles?

 

[Culombo]

to make white people aware they are being attacked from many angles?

fixed for ya