- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Is There a “White Genocide” in South Africa?
🌊 Is There a “White Genocide” in South Africa?
White South Africans have begun arriving in the US as refugees. Does that make sense?
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
On Tuesday, a flight touched down at Washington Dulles International Airport with refugees from Africa.
Yet they were not from Sudan, Mali, or any other war-torn nation. They were white farmers from South Africa and, according to President Trump, victims of a “genocide.”
It’s become common among parts of the global right to allege a “genocide” in South Africa. According to that narrative, political parties in South Africa are waging a concerted effort to kill the country’s white minority, who make up 7% of the population, and take their land. Once fringe, the belief has worked itself into the mainstream – so much so that President Trump is now crafting American policy around it.
But what’s the truth? That’s the subject of today’s deep-dive.
The end of apartheid in 1994 flipped South Africa’s politics: Before, a white minority governed a black majority; suddenly, it became the opposite.
When apartheid ended, South Africa was two countries in one: “White South Africa” had average incomes on par with Portugal or Greece; “Black South Africa” was comparable to Kenya or Ghana. Whites typically earned roughly 10 times as much as blacks, who were generally relegated to slums or remote rural areas.
In 1993, 96% of white households had access to electricity versus 36% of black households; 99% had access to piped water versus 42%; and 97% had flush toilets versus 24%. Whites received more than twice as much schooling and had an 80% lower infant mortality rate. Whites, 7% of the population, owned roughly 75% of the land. The black unemployment rate was around eight times that for whites.
The situation – combined with anger over apartheid – produced intense racial and economic tensions. When apartheid ended in 1994, some believed South Africa was on the brink of civil war.
The response of Nelson Mandela, the country’s first post-apartheid president, was to seek peace and wealth. His government established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which uncovered apartheid crimes and provided amnesty to most who confessed. His goal was to maintain peace and achieve stability so the country could develop and eliminate poverty. He also knew that whites dominated capital, banking, skilled labor, and corporate leadership and that any aggressive wealth redistribution could have triggered a human exodus or collapse in investment that would cripple the nation’s fragile economy.
On paper, the solution worked: South Africa’s economic growth accelerated, tourism surged, and investment returned.
Yet inequality and racial tensions remained. Soon, Mandela’s approach was abandoned.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
Thank you for reading. We had received a number of requests to write this story, so we hope you learned something from it. Curious to hear your thoughts on this situation: Should the US be taking in the farmers or not? South African readers: What do you think? Let us know by replying to this email.
And in case you missed them, here are our past five stories:
Lots of replies to yesterday’s story on Trump’s Middle East pivot. We’ve featured a selection below.
Robert wrote:
Can't believe Roco News would make a stupid statement like this. "Democracy Dies in Riydadh"
Funny how you see the future and firmly know what will happen...Another bull shit strory with no backing ..
Goodbye I don't need another MSNBC/ CNN telling me how bad things are going ro be when it's only a conservative president. Funny, I think Joe Biden tried his best to kill Democracy and Roco was silent on all fronts...
Robert (different from the first Robert) wrote:
After spending time in Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh, Dammam, and some smaller, traditional towns, I found that the culture is not at all equipped to maintain a stable democracy as we know it.
It's not possible to separate church and state in a country where your religion will always be the center of every citizen's life. The King's role is not only to oversee the government and military, but also to enforce Islamic law (Shari'ah). This enforcement cannot simply be voted on by the majority.
In my opinion, the only way to implement democracy in Saudi Arabia would be to increase the % of elected seats in the municipal councils (currently 2/3rds), and add a % of municipal-appointed seats in the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura).
Democracies in Islamic countries implode time and time again; the only stable governments are the ones with one leader, given a divine responsibility to govern his people fairly. Walking around in Saudi Arabia, I knew I was safe and that anyone who harmed me would answer to an effective legal system. If you remove the King, I am certain the country would plummet into chaos.
Nolan wrote:
Not sure how giving up on something that has gone so terribly wrong could be bad. All the neocons are the only ones complaining. That should say something. The USA going into the Middle East to spread "democracy" has made the USA less safe by creating the issue it claims to be fixing. USA first got involved by having the CIA train Osama Bin Laden. How did that work out? Every country that the USA has brought "democracy" to/over thrown has gotten worse. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. All USA has done is spread death and destruction.
Change has to come from within or it won't work. USA should but out of other people's business.
Nick wrote about our replies to the prior day’s story, on Trump’s crypto empire:
I found your featured reader responses to "Inside Trump’s Crypto Empire” to be unusually one-sided.
The topic you raised in the article is not about whether Trump’s actions are equivalent to insider trading by members of Congress, or whether Trump is allowed to change his position re Bitcoin, as your readers highlight.
The primary concern here is more fundamental: we are looking at a sitting president who is personally benefitting from a marketplace that he oversees the regulation of, while simultaneously granting political access in exchange for investments. That’s not just bad optics - it’s a textbook violation of the ethical expectations we should have of any head of state.
Framing this as “no worse than Congress” ignores the real difference: Congress has hundreds of members with diffuse and often competing interests. The presidency is a singular position with sweeping regulatory authority. When the president is financially entangled in an industry his administration is actively deregulating, and foreign governments are able to route funds to his or his families benefit, the issue is not hypocrisy, it’s a potential national security threat and a clear breach of the spirit (if not the letter) of the Emoluments Clause.
While it may be true that Congress has a deep corruption problem, that doesn’t justify normalising what amounts to blatant pay-for-access and self-enrichment by the executive. This deserves more than shrugs and “both sides” cynicism. This should not a partisan issue, it’s about standards of integrity.
That’s all. Keep the replies coming, and see you tomorrow.
—Max and Max