Just a moment...
apnews.com

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.

    • thatsnothowyoudoit@lemmy.caEnglish
      242·
      3 days ago

      Hoping this question is in good faith.

      I think that depends on what we mean by “pay.”

      My take:

      If our lives are better/easier/safer/happier than the lives of those who grew out of wrongs committed by those of our own heritage / lineage, then yes, I believe we should endeavour to make their lives better.

      Whether that’s financial reparations, return of property / land, sharing of resources, etc. should be up to communities to work together to decide.

      Put another way, if my good fortune rests on the misfortune of others - even in the past - my personal take is that I am compelled to help where I can.

      Sometimes that’s a simple as voting for the thing that benefits me less than others or me not at all because it aids those who need it most.

      So yeah, we should “pay” but “pay” can mean so many things.

      That’s just me.

        • 4am@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          3 days ago

          Agreed, redistribution is only part of the solution. Those people need training and education as well.

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      10·
      3 days ago

      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.eeEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        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 <currentyear>, 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.