this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
519 points (98.3% liked)

World News

44931 readers
4919 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa rejected claims by Trump and Elon Musk that whites face persecution or genocide in South Africa, calling it a "completely false narrative."

Musk reignited the controversy by citing a rally where a far-left party chanted “Kill the Boer,” which courts previously ruled as protected speech.

Trump issued an executive order cutting US funding to South Africa and offering Afrikaners refugee status.

Ramaphosa noted that violent crime affects all races equally and condemned misinformation surrounding white farmers' safety.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Lets say you live in a white neighbourhood in south africa. You are upper class. Your parents, and you as a child benefitted from a system which extracted the labour of black people and let the white upper class take the profits. Your parents were part of this system. Extracting black labour on the farmlands they owned.

There is a counterpart to you. Poor black people in your generation who grew up poor because their parents labour had its rewards extracted and given to parents like yours.

It does make sense in a system like that that some land previously owned by the white labour extractors should be redistributed to those whose poverty is a direct consequence of their parents oppression. This is broadly a correction of structural inequalities.

So perhaps your parents farmlands would have bits of them redistributed. I think that’s fair. (Perhaps they are technically your farmlands now that your parents have died, I still think that’s fair part of them get redistributed).

What doesn’t make sense is punishing poor white individuals for the way upper class whites oppressed non-whites.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

that some land previously owned by the white labour extractors should be redistributed to those whose poverty is a direct consequence of their parents oppression.

Is that really going to fix anything though? As in: It's , while agriculture is still important having a small farm is going to pay worse than being an engineer or something. Land does not have the socio-economic value it once had.

The most important bit, the key fulcrum to work with, I think, is social mobility in education. Make sure that schools are good enough to ensure that kids from poor parents are no less likely to excel than those of parents who have the means (monetary or intellectual) to coach their kids themselves.

They can sell the land and buy education and the means to live while they go through it perhaps?