logo
Why ‘Kill the Boer' still echoes: It's not hate, it's hunger for justice

Why ‘Kill the Boer' still echoes: It's not hate, it's hunger for justice

Al Jazeera04-06-2025
On May 25, Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of South Africa's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), closed his campaign rally at the Mminara Sports Ground in Kwakwatsi, Free State, as he often does: by singing his favourite anti-apartheid struggle anthem, 'Dubul' ibhunu'. Sung in Xhosa, the song translates to 'Kill the Boer' or 'Kill the farmer' and has long sparked controversy in South Africa and abroad. In recent weeks, the controversy has flared up once again.
Just four days earlier, on May 21, during a tense meeting at the White House with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, United States President Donald Trump played a video of Malema and his supporters chanting the song. He claimed it was proof of a 'white genocide' in South Africa and demanded Ramaphosa explain 'that man's' conduct.
Yet Malema has been singing this song publicly since 2010. There is no white genocide occurring in South Africa. In fact, in August 2022, the country's Equality Court ruled that the song does not constitute hate speech. By performing it again in Kwakwatsi, Malema was clearly seizing an opportunity to capitalise on Trump's misleading allegations and the global media attention they brought.
The disproportionate attention granted to Malema by Trump and his ally Elon Musk obscures a deeper, more urgent reality: millions of Black South Africans, like many across the continent, are crying out for meaningful socioeconomic change and long-overdue justice for the enduring legacies of colonialism and apartheid.
They are calling for a modern revolution.
Nothing illustrates this more than the EFF's platform. Its policies centre on economic transformation, including land expropriation without compensation and the nationalisation of mines. The party embraces Black nationalism and pan-Africanism, supports Russia in its standoff with NATO, and positions itself in opposition to perceived Western dominance.
While the EFF's agenda is bold and Afrocentric, it is hardly new. Decades before the EFF's founding on July 26, 2013, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), a radical anti-apartheid movement, championed many of the same ideals.
Founded on April 6, 1959, by a group that split from the African National Congress (ANC), the PAC was led by Robert Sobukwe, an intellectual, pan-Africanist, and activist. At the party's launch, Sobukwe famously said, 'The Africanists take the view that there is only one race to which we all belong, and that is the human race.'
The PAC advocated for the return of land to Indigenous Africans, asserting that it had been unjustly seized by white settlers. This view – that land dispossession lies at the heart of South Africa's historical injustice – has only recently begun to be addressed by the ANC through the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, signed into law by Ramaphosa on February 23.
South African history is rich with visions for African renewal. Sobukwe's philosophy laid the groundwork for what is often mischaracterised today as 'radical economic transformation'. Steve Biko's Black Consciousness Movement in the 1970s instilled pride and self-determination. In the late 1990s, President Thabo Mbeki championed the African Renaissance – a cultural, scientific, and economic revival aimed at decolonising African minds and institutions.
Malema is not a theoretical pioneer, but he is a potent political vessel for the ideas long espoused by Sobukwe, Biko, and Mbeki.
Much like elsewhere on the continent, South Africans are revisiting the question of land. It signals a broader resurgence of postcolonial ideology.
In 1969, Muammar Gaddafi provided a powerful example. He nationalised Libya's Western-owned oil companies to uplift the impoverished. Over a decade, Gaddafi provided free education, healthcare, and subsidised housing, giving Libyans Africa's highest per capita income.
In 2000, Zimbabwe launched its land reform programme to reclaim land taken during colonial rule. In more recent examples, Burkina Faso nationalised the Boungou and Wahgnion gold mines in August 2024 and plans to take over more. Mali reclaimed the Yatela mine in October. In December 2024, Niger seized control of the Somair uranium mine, previously run by French nuclear giant Orano.
Across Western and Southern Africa, it is clear: the legacy of colonialism still demands redress. South Africa remains the world's most unequal country. Its Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, consistently ranks among the highest. Decades after apartheid's fall, systemic racial inequality persists, sustained by disparities in education, employment, and economic access.
Trump's astonishing decision on February 7 to sanction South Africa – partly over the Expropriation Act – reveals the West's historical amnesia and indifference. Many Black South Africans are desperate to move beyond the past, but are continually thwarted by a refusal to correct entrenched inequality.
Ironically, Trump's intervention may serve to galvanise African governments. His public posturing may appeal to his domestic base, but his tone-deafness will only deepen anti-US sentiment among South Africans.
Anti-Western feeling is already rising across the continent, fuelled by historical grievances, neocolonial policies, and the emergence of new global powers like Russia and China. This disillusionment is visible in the rejection of Western-backed institutions and a growing appetite for alternative partnerships.
Instead of attempting to shame Ramaphosa on the world stage, Trump would do better to support equitable and lawful reforms. Obsessing over Malema is futile – he is merely the voice of a generation grappling with economic pain and historical betrayal.
'Dubul' ibhunu' resonates among parts of South Africa's Black population not because they are bloodthirsty, but because the promises of liberation remain unfulfilled.
Trump would do well to understand this: the revolution in Africa is not over.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New York appeals court tosses $515m civil fraud penalty against Trump
New York appeals court tosses $515m civil fraud penalty against Trump

Al Jazeera

time3 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

New York appeals court tosses $515m civil fraud penalty against Trump

An appeals court in New York has thrown out a civil fraud penalty that would have cost United States President Donald Trump and his business associates nearly half a billion dollars, calling the fine 'excessive'. On Thursday, a five-judge panel in New York's Appellate Division rendered its decision after weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months. In its ruling, the panel cited the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from levying unduly harsh penalties on its citizens. The case stems from a civil suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who argued that Trump had inflated his financial records in order to secure advantages with insurance companies, banks and other financial institutions. In February 2024, a lower court had ordered Trump to pay $355m in penalties, an amount the appeals court called into question. That amount has since grown to about $515m due to accumulating interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' two of the panel's judges, Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton, wrote in one opinion.

Uganda agrees deal with US to take in deported asylum seekers
Uganda agrees deal with US to take in deported asylum seekers

Al Jazeera

time4 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Uganda agrees deal with US to take in deported asylum seekers

Uganda has agreed to take in nationals from third countries who may not get asylum in the United States but do not wish to return to their countries of origin, Kampala's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. The ministry said on Thursday that the agreement is based on the conditions that those seeking asylum do not have criminal records and that they are not unaccompanied minors, adding that details of the deal are still being worked out. US President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, with his administration seeking to increase removals to third countries, including by sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and the southern African kingdom of Eswatini. At roughly 1.7 million, Uganda already hosts the largest refugee population in Africa, according to the United Nations, and is the latest East African country to announce such a deal with Washington, joining Rwanda and South Sudan. 'This is a temporary arrangement with conditions including that individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors will not be accepted,' Vincent Bagiire Waiswa, the ministry's permanent secretary, said in a statement. He also stated Uganda's preference that 'individuals from African countries shall be the ones transferred to Uganda'. 'The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,' he said. It was not clear if the agreement had been signed, but the ministry statement said it had been 'concluded'. The announcement comes a day after a senior Ugandan official denied media reports saying that the country had agreed to take in people deported from the US, saying it lacked the facilities to accommodate them. Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Okello Oryem told the Associated Press news agency that while Uganda has a benevolent refugee policy, there are limits. 'We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?' he asked. He said the government was in discussions about 'visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues, not accepting illegal aliens from the US. That would be unfair to Ugandans'. The UN's refugee agency notes that Uganda has a 'progressive refugee policy, maintaining an open-door approach to asylum'. However, the country also saw a 'significant' increase in arrivals in 2024, it said, primarily as a result of Sudan's civil war, but also unrest in South Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has taken a number of actions aimed at speeding up deportations of undocumented migrants to third countries. In July, the US deported five men with criminal backgrounds to Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. Trump's administration also deported hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, where they were kept in a high-security jail with poor conditions before being returned to Venezuela. Rights experts have warned that the deportations risk breaking international law by sending people to countries where they face the risk of torture, abduction and other abuses.

Tracking US and NATO support for Ukraine: A full breakdown
Tracking US and NATO support for Ukraine: A full breakdown

Al Jazeera

time7 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Tracking US and NATO support for Ukraine: A full breakdown

After a week of high-stakes diplomacy aimed at halting the war in Ukraine, United States President Donald Trump says he is set on arranging a summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Following separate meetings with both leaders, Trump has ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine, but pledged security guarantees to Kyiv and indicated that Washington could provide air support to reinforce a potential deal. Ukraine, in turn, told reporters at the White House it would obtain US-made weapons purchased by Europeans for an estimated $90bn as part of the effort to bolster its defences. Which countries are aiding Ukraine? At least 41 countries have contributed to Ukraine's war efforts monetarily, either through military, humanitarian or financial assistance, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank. Military assistance includes weapons, equipment and financial aid for the Ukrainian military. Humanitarian relief covers medical, food and other items for civilians, while financial assistance comes in the form of grants, loans and guarantees. Most contributions to Ukraine have come from NATO, with 29 of its 32 members providing monetary aid, according to the Kiel Institute. Additionally, 12 non-NATO countries and territories have sent monetary aid to Ukraine. These include Australia, Austria, Cyprus, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, China, Taiwan, and India. The European Union, through the Commission and Council, has also delivered substantial aid to Ukraine. How much aid has Ukraine received so far? So far, Ukraine has received more than 309 billion euros ($360bn) in military, financial, and humanitarian aid, according to the Kiel Institute: Military aid – 149.26 billion euros ($174bn – using today's exchange rate of €1 = $1.17) Financial aid – 139.34 billion euros ($163bn) Humanitarian aid – 21.04 billion euros ($24bn) Who are Ukraine's largest donors? The US has committed the largest amount of aid to Ukraine, providing 114.64 billion euros ($134bn) between January 24, 2022 and June 30, 2025, of which: Military aid – 64.6 billion euros ($75bn) Financial aid – 46.6 billion euros ($54bn) Humanitarian aid – 3.4 billion euros ($4bn) The EU (Commission and Council) is the second biggest donor at 63.19 billion euros ($74bn), followed by Germany (21.29 billion euros or $25bn), the UK (18.6 billion euros or $21bn) and Japan (13.57 billion euros or $15bn). How much aid has been pledged v allocated? According to the Kiel Institute, European countries have collectively allocated 167.4 billion euros ($195bn) to the war in Ukraine, more than the 114.6 billion euros ($134bn) allocated by the US. Allocated aid refers to funds or resources that have actually been set aside, delivered, or officially committed for use by Ukraine. It is different from pledged aid, which is money or equipment promised by a country but not yet delivered or officially set aside. In total, Europe as a whole has committed 257.4 billion euros ($300bn) and the US 119 billion euros ($139bn). US aid to Ukraine plummets under Trump Days before Trump took office, the Biden administration gave one final injection of military support to Ukraine with a weapons package of $500m on January 9. Following the start of the Trump administration's second term in office, aid to Ukraine has plummeted, with Washington suspending all support, including weapons, in March after a tense meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House. Trump made claims that the US has given Ukraine more than $300bn in wartime aid. That number has been contested by Ukraine and its supporters, despite the US being the single largest donor country. What weapons has Ukraine received? Ukraine has received various weapons systems from its allies, including armoured vehicles, artillery, aircraft, air defence systems, drones, missiles, and a wide range of support equipment. According to the Kiel Institute, Poland has supplied its neighbour with the largest number of tanks, totaling 354, while the US leads in providing infantry fighting vehicles (305), howitzers (201), air defence systems (18), and HIMARS rocket launchers (41). The HIMARS, capable of striking targets just a few metres (feet) wide from nearly 80km (50 miles) away, gave Ukraine a vital long-range precision strike capability that slowed Russian advances early in the war. NATO defence spending In a news briefing, the White House said the US could help coordinate a security guarantee for Ukraine. However, Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has ruled out the deployment of troops from NATO countries to help secure a peace deal. In June, NATO leaders signed a deal to increase defence spending, which is to be achieved over the next 10 years, and is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 5 percent. Currently, 23 of the 32 member countries have met this target, with the alliance as a whole spending 2.61 percent of its combined GDP on defence last year. NATO countries bordering Russia, such as Estonia and Lithuania, have significantly increased their defence spending – from less than 1 percent of their GDP just 10 years ago.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store