Latest news with #Dubul'Ibhunu
Miami Herald
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Trump Highlights South Africa's ‘Kill The Boer' Chant: What To Know
In a tense White House meeting with South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa, President Donald Trump showed footage of two South African politicians chanting "kill the boer, the farmer." The chant is a legacy of the struggle against white majority apartheid rule, and Trump asked president Ramaphosa why they had not been arrested. Ramaphosa met with Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday, amid high tensions between the two countries, namely over America's classification of Afrikaans farmers as victims of a "white genocide" and "refugees." When the pair got to this topic, Trump paused the meeting to play a video that alleged "white genocide." The four-minute clip featured a series of snippets of Jacob Zuma, the head of uMkhonto weSizwe (once the fighting wing of the African National Congress), and Julius Malema, the head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), chanting "kill the boer, the farmer" and talking about land expropriation—an issue that has plagued South African politics since the end of apartheid just 31 years ago. Ramaphosa responded, saying that the speeches by the growing opposition party leaders shown in the video were "not government policy," adding: "Our government policy was completely against what he (Malema) was saying." "They are a small minority party," Ramaphosa added, before attributing the killing of white farmers to "criminality in our country." South Africa's Minister of Agriculture John Henry Steenhuisen also responded, saying: "We have a real safety problem in South Africa. I don't think anyone wants to candy-coat that." He later added: "The two individuals that are in that video that you've seen are both leaders of opposition minority parties in South Africa uMkhonto weSizwe under Mr. Zuma and the Economic Freedom Fighters under Mr. Malema." "Now the reason that my party the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has been an opposition party for over 30 years, chose to join hands with Mr. Ramaphosa's party was precisely to keep those people out of power." When a member of the American press asked Ramaphosa if he denounces the language used in the video, he answered: "Oh yes, we've always done so … we are completely opposed to that." Trump then interjected with the question: "But why won't you arrest that man?" South Africa's courts have been grappling with this question for more than two decades—here is everything you need to know about it. The phrase originated from an anti-apartheid isiXhosa protest chant— "Dubul' Ibhunu," which translates directly as "kill the boer." It was chanted in protest against white minority rule, which enforced segregation and denied South Africans of color basic political rights, freedom of movement, access to quality education, health care and land It was widely sung throughout the 1980s and 1990s, during the peak of the anti-apartheid struggle. Malema started singing the song again in 2010, when he was the head of the ANC's Youth League, according to South African outlet the Daily Maverick. In response, the Afrikaans civil rights group AfriForum took Malema and the ANC to court which was the start of a long-standing legal battle about the chant that was ruled on by the Supreme Court on March 27 this year. Although the South African Supreme Court ruled on this case just a few weeks ago, issuing a final refusal of leave to appeal, the crux of the case was decided in 2022, when the Equality Court of South Africa ruled that the chant does not constitute hate speech. Malema argued that the chant was not literal, rather that it was "directed at the system of oppression." As an example of this, he told how, "when Black police drove into the Black townships with police vans, they used to run and say there comes the 'Boers' even when there were no white people in the vans," Judge Edwin Molahlehi summarized in his judgment. Malema "testified that he understood (the chant) to be referring to farmers who represent the face of land dispossession." Malema "also accepted that the chant was intended to agitate and mobilize the youth to be interested in the struggle for economic freedom," Molahlehi wrote. Meanwhile, Afriforum argued that the chant is "sung in a climate or environment where farmers are frequently tortured, and murdered and thus that is good reason to believe that the words chanted by Mr. Malema and EFF call on people to kill farmers and amounts to the promotion of hatred on the grounds of race and ethnicity and constitutes incitement to harm." While Molahlehi found that the chant "may well be found to be offensive and undermining of the political establishment," he ruled that Afriforum could not "show that the lyrics in the songs could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite to harm and propagate hatred." The decision has not quelled the controversy around the chant, with the DA, South Africa's long-standing official opposition party, saying in a statement earlier this year that it has "no place in our society, regardless of any legal ruling on its constitutionality." "This type of divisive language is not just damaging on a local level, it has international repercussions as well," the party said. "South Africa's reputation on the global stage is at risk when such hatred is openly condoned, making our country more vulnerable to external scrutiny." "We cannot afford to further polarize our society or undermine the international standing we've fought so hard to build," it added. Newsweek has contacted Ramaphosa's spokesperson, via email, for comment. Related Articles Trump Administration to Tackle Billions in Medicare OverpaymentsKremlin Reacts to Report Trump Told Allies Putin Is 'Winning'Trump's Approval Rating Soars Among HispanicsVideo of Theo Von Saying US Complicit in Genocide Viewed 18m Times 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Daily Maverick
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Ambush or relationship reset? Daily Maverick writers assess Ramaphosa's meeting with Trump
Did SA's President walk into an obvious ambush, or was it a step towards resetting SA's relationship with the US? Six Daily Maverick staffers give their take on Cyril Ramaphosa's meeting with Donald Trump in the White House on Wednesday. 'An ambush' — Rebecca Davis, senior journalist He didn't get Zelenskyed. He didn't get Zelenskyed. He didn't get Zelenskyed. That's what we have to hang on to: President Cyril Ramaphosa did not get personally insulted by the world's most horrible duo of playground bullies, US Vice-President JD Vance and President Donald Trump, in the full glare of the international media — as happened to their wildly undeserving victim, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, in February. But what happened in the Oval Office on Wednesday was, nonetheless, an ambush. That's the term currently dominating US media headlines about the encounter. It was impossible not to feel for Ramaphosa, who had been bombarded with messaging before the trip that he should under no circumstances lose his cool, rise to the bait, or in any way antagonise the world's most powerful man. So he didn't. Some will call that a victory in itself, and yet who among us did not also secretly yearn to see Ramaphosa fight back a little more? 'The meeting should never have happened' — Ferial Haffajee, associate editor It started well — Team SA with a tactical delegation of well-regarded political, sports and business leaders. A clever touch saw golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, who have teed off with Trump, putt for their country. Things started genially enough. Then, Trump dimmed the Oval Office lights and played a mini-documentary crudely splicing EFF leader Julius Malema's rendition of his favourite song (Dubul' Ibhunu) and AfriForum's white-cross farm protests to 'prove' his theory of a genocide. The New York Times called it an 'astonishing ambush'; I call it a shit show. Such blatant lies by one of the world's most powerful men, which we were powerless to effectively rebut. Ramaphosa maintained his calm as he responded with occasional spice. SA may yet grab victory from the jaws of defeat: the US is hungry for critical minerals and we have healthy reserves. Trump did not say he would not come to the G20. His officials are taking part in all the meetings. But if an attack was anticipated and in the face of obvious calumny, should the meeting have happened or should we have waited for various multilateral processes under way to play out and avoid the public humiliation? 'We got off lightly' — Anso Thom, deputy editor I am an eternal and impatient optimist, but I had very low expectations of the meeting. I thought Trump would have thrown a much bigger, Trump-sized ambush at us. It felt a bit tired, nothing new to show and images and narratives that have all been seen before. He played to his domestic base, he was always going to. I thought Trump's response to the question about the International Court of Justice was tame. Other than handing over tabloid media printouts, Vance had no role. The golfers were there to open a door, open Trump's mind and keep things fairly civil. I think we got off lightly; we didn't get a hole-in-one, but we got a birdie. US-SA relations are in a better place than a few weeks ago, but time will tell. We are dealing with a reality TV star after all. ' Golfing cameos and quiet appeasement' — Angela Daniels, Nelson Mandela Bay bureau editor When Ramaphosa met Trump, many — well, maybe just those of us who like to see the best in everyone — hoped for a serious discussion on diplomacy, trade and shared challenges. But no, the meeting quickly spiralled into madness. Trump launched into a series of wild claims about South Africa, backed by a cherry-picked video. Meanwhile, standing awkwardly by were golf legends Ernie Els and Retief Goosen — talented sportsmen, sure, but what the hell do they have to do with international relations? Watching Ramaphosa's polite but visibly uncomfortable smile as Trump flicked through crime scene photos was painful. This was a moment to push back hard. To speak for the country. To correct the record. Instead, we got golfing cameos and quiet appeasement. What was that, President Ramaphosa? Didn't you see the ambush coming? 'It's about race' — Stephen Grootes, associate editor Never in the history of reported meetings between heads of state has one ambushed another with videos and recordings. It may have happened at the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but not in a one-on-one meeting, and never with heads of state. And Trump would never do it to a Chinese leader. Or even the leader of Qatar (which is giving him a jet). This reveals his agenda: it is about race, and thus about South Africa. Ramaphosa went in with several priorities, but the most important was to avoid a shouting match. He achieved that. And he scored some points of his own. We should not forget that this is about a much bigger audience than people in the US or South Africa. The rest of the world saw it, and saw it for what it was. To them, Ramaphosa might well have looked like the adult in the room. As he so often does. 'Possible step towards rapprochement' — J Brooks Spector, associate editor Things first seemed heading towards the style of Trump's meetings with Canada's Mark Carney and Britain's Keir Starmer rather than the Zelensky mugging. Initially there was sufficient joviality that it seemed just possible this meeting would stay on a relatively adult tenor. But the moment Trump was given his lead, goaded by sharp press questions about such things as the $400-million gift airplane from Qatar, he took off the gloves and showed a video purportedly about the genocide of white farmers in South Africa. The meeting only partially returned to civility by passionate observations from delegation member and billionaire Johann Rupert speaking about efforts to build a more inclusive society, rebutting a video that included Malema's incendiary words. It is just possible, by the time the messaging after the meeting comes from the two sides, some movement towards rapprochement will be visible. There are positive outcomes. Ramaphosa said the luncheon and subsequent discussions focused on real issues like trade and investment and not that nonsense about white farmer genocide. If further meetings move those chess pieces forward, the trip may have been worthwhile despite the charade with the video and the associated vitriol from Trump. Maybe. DM
eNCA
29-04-2025
- Politics
- eNCA
'Time to sing a new song, not kill the boer'
JOHANNESBURG - South Africa recently celebrated Freedom Day. Three decades into democracy, and some people argue there are things we should leave in the past as a nation. One of these things is the song Dubul' Ibhunu - Kill the Boer, they say. Pastor Bert Pretorius from the South African Community of Faith-Based Fraternals and Federations says while it may not be illegal to sing this song, doing so harms the nation. He says such liberation-era songs perpetuate division and hostility in a society where the nation is striving for unity "It is time to move on. While these songs hold a historical significance, their relevance diminishes in the context of a democratic South Africa," he says.
