• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump race baiting when talks about White farmers in South Africa?

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,568
Reaction score
8,485
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I know nothing about this issue except what I just Googled. But I found a lot of charts that suggests there is no recent surge in farmer deaths

farmsa-Cropped.png


What I've learned is that 87% of land is owned by Whites who make up 8% of the population. And as you can imagine, that land was taken "claimed" by force during South Africa's past and racist laws prevented Blacks from owning land under apartheid.



It seems like a very complicated issue. If racist policies created an imbalance, what should be done after the racist policies are changed? How do you rebalance? Should you rebalance?

I have no opinion about this because I'm not South African and I can't possibly understand the issues.

Anyway, it seems to me that Trump thinks this is another winning issue for him. Why does he care about White farmers in South Africa? The nubmers are really small compared to real genocides that are going on today.

5 genocides that are still going on today

I've never heard him tweet about the Rohingya in Myanmar. It seems like he picked the White South African issue because it's very popular with White supremacist groups and other Whites trapped in a reverse racism victimization complex.

I try avoiding calling people racist but what Trump is doing is clearly race baiting.
 
I think he's just regurgitating what he's getting from his info sources. It doesn't have a thing to do with whether Trump is himself a racist or not - he's never been one to care. It makes his lemming base happy, so this stuff tells you more about them than it does about Trump. Same goes for the "dead white girl" of the month.

This is what the GOP is now running on so far as I can tell.
 
The answer is obvious. For Trump it is purely about race and spreading hate and fear towards blacks among his base. This is one of the many reasons he's wildly popular with Republicans.

Out of morbid curiosity I took a look at Fox News' website today and clicked on the "US" section. Naturally, not one article about the president's legal troubles, but instead, of the 10 articles that were listed on the front page, literally half of the articles had mug shots of black people who had committed some crime. This is the agenda of the right. Over emphasize every crime committed by blacks while underreporting crimes committed by whites. If you read Fox News every day it would be very hard not to be terrified of having your entire family raped and murdered by some bloodthirsty negro. They spread hate and fear as a method of control and in this they've found the perfect leader in Trump.
 
I know nothing about this issue except what I just Googled. But I found a lot of charts that suggests there is no recent surge in farmer deaths

farmsa-Cropped.png


What I've learned is that 87% of land is owned by Whites who make up 8% of the population. And as you can imagine, that land was taken "claimed" by force during South Africa's past and racist laws prevented Blacks from owning land under apartheid.



It seems like a very complicated issue. If racist policies created an imbalance, what should be done after the racist policies are changed? How do you rebalance? Should you rebalance?

I have no opinion about this because I'm not South African and I can't possibly understand the issues.

Anyway, it seems to me that Trump thinks this is another winning issue for him. Why does he care about White farmers in South Africa? The nubmers are really small compared to real genocides that are going on today.

5 genocides that are still going on today

I've never heard him tweet about the Rohingya in Myanmar. It seems like he picked the White South African issue because it's very popular with White supremacist groups and other Whites trapped in a reverse racism victimization complex.

I try avoiding calling people racist but what Trump is doing is clearly race baiting.


No he isn't.

That is a very very huge issue in South Africa right now.
The fact is they want to take away the farming land and give it to others.

However what they want to avoid is the huge mistake they made in zimbabwe and all the people left.
and the people that got the land didn't farm it or know how to farm it.

Zimbabwe's exiled farmers urged to return home as agricultural industry struggles - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

South Africa could face food shortage if white farmers migrate to Australia, Federal MP Andrew Broad warns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It is a very very complicated issue.
 
I know nothing about this issue except what I just Googled. But I found a lot of charts that suggests there is no recent surge in farmer deaths

farmsa-Cropped.png


What I've learned is that 87% of land is owned by Whites who make up 8% of the population. And as you can imagine, that land was taken "claimed" by force during South Africa's past and racist laws prevented Blacks from owning land under apartheid.



It seems like a very complicated issue. If racist policies created an imbalance, what should be done after the racist policies are changed? How do you rebalance? Should you rebalance?

I have no opinion about this because I'm not South African and I can't possibly understand the issues.

Anyway, it seems to me that Trump thinks this is another winning issue for him. Why does he care about White farmers in South Africa? The nubmers are really small compared to real genocides that are going on today.

5 genocides that are still going on today

I've never heard him tweet about the Rohingya in Myanmar. It seems like he picked the White South African issue because it's very popular with White supremacist groups and other Whites trapped in a reverse racism victimization complex.

I try avoiding calling people racist but what Trump is doing is clearly race baiting.


He picked it because he saw a report about it on Fox. He literally knows nothing about it or really cares to find out.
 
but instead, of the 10 articles that were listed on the front page, literally half of the articles had mug shots of black people who had committed some crime.

This is why I don't buy the New York Post. They've done that for years.

Crime rates in NYC are extremely low. I feel safe in the subway at 3am. But if a newspaper cherrypicks awful crimes by Blacks and plasters it on the front page, it creates a distorted perception. 99.9% of a population can be law-abiding but you can make the public fear them by the stories you focus on.
 
Simple answer, yes. Trump is race baiting. He doesn't know a damned thing about South Africa and certainly doesn't give a damn. But the debate over a constitutional amendment to expropriate, without compensation, large tracts of farmland in RSA is the current cause célèbre among the "white genocide" crowd in the U.S. and Europe. They're even attempting to sell a narrative that white farmers are being slaughtered en masse, though farm killings are literally at their lowest point in the post-apartheid era.

It's for his dumbass base. That's it. Nothings going to come of it. We don't even have an Ambassador on station in Pretoria (since December 2016). More Trump misdirection/misinformation at a time when he's in the weeds. The guy's practically a goddamned Soviet premier.
 
Last edited:
It is a very very complicated issue.

That's it. It is a very complicated issue. Why are we getting involved?

Imagine the majority in America were Native Americans and Whites were the minoritry. Now imagine that 87% of the land was owned by 8% of the people who were almost all White.

If you were Native American, how would you feel about that? The racism may have ended but the injustices that were created continue on forever.

Even I agree that it's an injustice, why does Trump choose this injustice to focus on and not the Rohingya? You do admit that there are real genocides going on, right? What happened to America first?
 
That's it. It is a very complicated issue. Why are we getting involved?

Imagine the majority in America were Native Americans and Whites were the minoritry. Now imagine that 87% of the land was owned by 8% of the people who were almost all White.

If you were Native American, how would you feel about that? The racism may have ended but the injustices that were created continue on forever.

Even I agree that it's an injustice, why does Trump choose this injustice to focus on and not the Rohingya? You do admit that there are real genocides going on, right? What happened to America first?

To add the land that would be owned by whites, would have been stolen from the native americans first before the white farmers got to own the farms
 
I’m not sure there is that much thought involved. Something showed up on FOX NEWS, in short order, Trump is tweeting. Not like he can’t call Gina Haspell and find out what the **** is going on...........
 

Statistics from the SA Police Service:lamo The SA government and police service is not competent enough to keep proper statistics, try harder.

What I've learned is that 87% of land is owned by Whites who make up 8% of the population. And as you can imagine, that land was taken "claimed" by force during South Africa's past and racist laws prevented Blacks from owning land under apartheid.

Well if it wasn't for the whites that settled in South Africa there would be no farms, government or functioning civilization. I agree apartheid was wrong but this is not the proper way to go about the situation.

I have no opinion about this because I'm not South African and I can't possibly understand the issues.

:lamo too cute.


Here is the response to presidents Trumps tweet from EFF leader Julius Malema.


Malema understands the Boers won't just give up their farm land, civil war might break out. If that happens this could be Rwanda³ and no one will sit back and let that happen.
 
The answer is obvious. For Trump it is purely about race and spreading hate and fear towards blacks among his base. This is one of the many reasons he's wildly popular with Republicans.

Out of morbid curiosity I took a look at Fox News' website today and clicked on the "US" section. Naturally, not one article about the president's legal troubles, but instead, of the 10 articles that were listed on the front page, literally half of the articles had mug shots of black people who had committed some crime. This is the agenda of the right. Over emphasize every crime committed by blacks while underreporting crimes committed by whites. If you read Fox News every day it would be very hard not to be terrified of having your entire family raped and murdered by some bloodthirsty negro. They spread hate and fear as a method of control and in this they've found the perfect leader in Trump.

No thats a disgusting, ignorant smear and only serves to demonstrate that the one race baiting is you.
 
Well if it wasn't for the whites that settled in South Africa there would be no farms, government or functioning civilization. I agree apartheid was wrong but this is not the proper way to go about the situation.

I hear this nonsense a lot. Don't you think if the Europeans had traded honestly and freely using the free market with African countries that those countries would have developed much faster?

What makes you claim that there would be no civilization when civilization began in Africa? In the west, people are taught the civilization begins in Greece but Greece got its civilization from Egypt. Egypt and not Greece is the beginning of Western civilization.

I agree that Julius Malema is a moron and dangerous. He reminds me of Trump.
 
No thats a disgusting, ignorant smear and only serves to demonstrate that the one race baiting is you.

Then why did Trump choose this issue and not the real genocide of Rohingya in Myanmar?
 
That's it. It is a very complicated issue. Why are we getting involved?

Imagine the majority in America were Native Americans and Whites were the minoritry. Now imagine that 87% of the land was owned by 8% of the people who were almost all White.

If you were Native American, how would you feel about that? The racism may have ended but the injustices that were created continue on forever.

Even I agree that it's an injustice, why does Trump choose this injustice to focus on and not the Rohingya? You do admit that there are real genocides going on, right? What happened to America first?

Umm that is exactly what happened.
We pretty much ran the indians off their lands.

Why shouldn't he mentions it?
please stop the partisan BS if you can.

Plenty of other presidents in the past have overlooked the violence going on in africa.
for specific issues going on elsewhere.

geez
way to ignore the articles though.
 
Umm that is exactly what happened.
We pretty much ran the indians off their lands.

Why shouldn't he mentions it?
please stop the partisan BS if you can.

Plenty of other presidents in the past have overlooked the violence going on in africa.
for specific issues going on elsewhere.

geez
way to ignore the articles though.

I asked you, why he chose South Africa and not the real genocide of the Rohingya?
 
What makes you claim that there would be no civilization when civilization began in Africa? In the west, people are taught the civilization begins in Greece but Greece got its civilization from Egypt. Egypt and not Greece is the beginning of Western civilization.

Egypt may be in Africa but Africans are not Egyptians. You don't seem to know anything about Sub Saharan Africa or it's inhabitants. The average IQ is in the 60's and it was full of waring tribes the would constantly genocide each other. If it wasn't for whites there would be nothing unless a North African country took over the Sub Saharan region.
 
There are two separate issues here, attacks and farm seizures. I'm going to stick to the seizures.

First, I doubt any dispossessed farmer was involved with the colonial era. Second, do you suppose all those farms were being tilled before the colonialists arrived? And finally, following the Russian Revolution, this was the action of Lenin - that didn't work out very well, did it?
 
There are two separate issues here, attacks and farm seizures. I'm going to stick to the seizures.

First, I doubt any dispossessed farmer was involved with the colonial era. Second, do you suppose all those farms were being tilled before the colonialists arrived? And finally, following the Russian Revolution, this was the action of Lenin - that didn't work out very well, did it?

I have no opinion about the farm seizures but even if a farmer wasn't involved in the colonial era he may have inherited land from the colonial era.

The “land question,” as Ramaphosa put it, goes back more than a century. Colonists in 1913 approved a law that restricted the African population to slightly more than 10 percent of South Africa’s land, while the white minority was entitled to the rest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-south-african-farms/?utm_term=.34bb7b5f3108

I personally think the government should slowly buy back the land. But again, I don't know enough about the situation. Are you deeply involved in South African politics? Why do you feel so sure of your understanding of the issues in South Africa?
 
Do you always have to defend Trump? :doh

I am not defending anyone :doh
you should read the articles i posted and understand what is being discussed for a change.

I was talking about the situation in south africa. it is a very complicated one.
 
Egypt may be in Africa but Africans are not Egyptians. You don't seem to know anything about Sub Saharan Africa or it's inhabitants. The average IQ is in the 60's and it was full of waring tribes the would constantly genocide each other. If it wasn't for whites there would be nothing unless a North African country took over the Sub Saharan region.

Egypt is in Africa but Egyptianns aren't Africans? That seems like an arbitrary designation created by Europeans. Egypt is in northern Africa.

We're all Africans who spread across the earth. These IQ differences are more about literacy and nutrition than anything.

IQ variations across time, race, and nationality: an artifact of differences in literacy skills.

This pattern of findings supports the hypothesis that both secular and racial differences in intelligence test scores have an environmental explanation: secular and racial differences in IQ are an artifact of variation in literacy skills. These findings suggest that racial IQ distributions will converge if opportunities are equalized for different population groups to achieve the same high level of literacy skills.

One reason that Jewish populations have the highest IQ's is because they have such high literacy rates given that the Bible is an essential part of their culture.

Genetically, there isn't much variation in human beings. We're all a bunch of people who came out of Africa and populated the earth. We look differently because we adapted to different climates. Most of the real progress in human civilization happened rather recently in human history. Two thousand years is only a small slice of human history. No major genetic changes happened in that time.
 
Back
Top Bottom