The unfortunate reality for millions of South Africans is that what an individual says and the response he or she will receive from the media, public, and government will almost entirely depend on the individual’s race. Given the nation’s history of human rights violations and racial supremacy, one can understand why. However, my contention is that this results in South Africans not being treated equally in a post-Apartheid democratic South Africa, despite this being enshrined and upheld in the constitution. Importantly, when I attach the designation ‘anti-‘ to a specific race group (i.e. “anti-white,” “anti-black” etc.) I use it to represent any rhetoric that treats the specific race in a racist way, views the group as inferior, unfairly holds it to a different standard, and/or makes threats to the group.
Thus the anti-white narrative is most clearly observed in acts of racism in which two individuals, a non-white and a white, can commit the same racist crime (say hate speech or crimen injuria) and they will not be treated equally. Non-white South Africans appear to have far more freedom and room to states ideas and rhetoric which is anti-white. Unfortunately, in many cases, they will receive little public criticism or backlash for these statements. The examples are numerous, but I will include just a few for our purposes here. For example, consider the recent controversy surrounding Penny Sparrow, an estate agent. Sparrow, a white woman, on social media compared black beachgoers to monkeys for littering on the beach. Understandably, the backlash to her post was expansive and she was fined R150 000 by the Equality Court after a number of court appearances. In response to Sparrow’s remark Velaphi Khumalo, a government employee for the ruling party clearly convinced of the evilness of white people en masse, called for the genocide of the white minority. Khumalo urged blacks to do to white people what Hitler did to the Jews.
To their credit, the ANC, the nation’s ruling party, distanced itself from Khumalo and took action against him. Thankfully, white South Africans are able take solace in the fact that the country’s dominant political power doesn’t support the systematic slaughter of the white minority. However, white South Africans can too feel grieved that the ANC’s disciplinary action was little more than a slap on the wrist resulting in a brief suspension of Khumalo only to reemploy him on a final warning. Thankfully, the South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) is pursuing legal action against Khumalo, but the omission of a much needed outcry from the public (especially black people), media, and government proves to be a source of great pain and frustration for many white South Africans.
However, in civil society a punishment should meet the crime. So, should Sparrow be held accountable for her statements? Definitely. Should Khumalo? Absolutely. But should a racist remark/comparison, as offensive and condemnable as it is, against one group of people be considered more severe to incitement of genocide? I would argue not. In fact, any government employee who has advocated and articulated his or her aspirations for the systematic killing of any minority group should receive a harsh punishment to meet the seriousness of the crime, including never being able to work in a government position again (at the least). My strong belief is that if Khumalo were a white individual who posted the exact same statement on social media he would have received an incredibly harsh penalty and almost certainly lost his job. And with the likes of anti-white political groups such as the EFF and BLF scouring the landscape for white racists that would be the least of his concern.
But is Khumalo merely an isolated example? Are we unfairly picking on him? Certainly not.
EFF leader Julius Malema, ceaselessly making headlines across the nation, during one of his rallies stated that his party “are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now,” which clearly suggests white genocide is not far from the table of EFF tactics and strategy, so to speak.
This is of further concern given that Malema fired a live assault rifle into the sky at a more recent EFF event. Again, to the great frustration of the white minority, the ruling party failed to condemn Malema’s statement under the guise that he “was addressing his own party supporters.” However, I strongly believe that had it been a white individual in any political party whatsoever stating such a thing the ANC would not fail to condemn it, and might even further invoke or call for legal action. Why are white South Africans not protected similarly? Where is the justice?
Malema is not on his own, however. Despite taking his Facebook post down, EFF leader Mampuru Mampuru posted that “We need to unite as black People, there are less than 5 million whites in South Africa vs 45 million of us. We can kill all this white within two weeks. We have the army and the police.”
In 2016 a UCT student, Slovo Magida, wore a shirt which read “KILL ALL WHITES.” To their credit, the university reported it to the police and HRC, however, no legal action has been taken against Magida. Had it been a white individual who had worn a shirt reading “KILL All BLACKS” he would be in court and possibly face severe legal repercussions. Where is the justice?
Arguably the most militantly anti-white hate group in South Africa is the BLF, the Black First Land First. Their anti-white rhetoric is that all land, including houses, farms, and properties, owned by white South Africans is owned illegally and must be returned to landless black South Africans. The underlying premise here is that all white South Africans are “settlers” who came and stole the land centuries ago. But be the land question as it may, significant members of the BLF have too aspired to kill the white minority. Lindsay Maasdorp, the party’s spokesperson, stated on social media in 2016 that “I have aspirations to kill white people, and this must be achieved!” Andile Mngxitama, the leader and founder of the BLF, stated that he had “just met this white chap who says he understands and respects what BLF stands for. he basically would do the same if he was black. he wished BLF luck, and on my part; if i met him ‘one of one’ on that day of great reconning my machete wont hesitate.” These may be the views of two very evil individuals but what truly is concerning is that both, despite these clear statements, are yet still active in the BLF and intend to run for the next elections!
It is incredible to think that in a democratic South Africa a certain segment of the population is threatened with mass killing and, in many cases, these threats are just swept under the carpet by many within the media and the government. Unfortunately, if the roles are reversed, and if it is a white individual in question the legal and public backlash is significant. I strongly believe, however, that racism is racism irrespective of the race of the individual culprit. I believe racists should be treated equally, which they are most certainly are not in South Africa. White Identity opposes this narrative, as should all South Africans, of all races.
I further believe that this statements, however despicable they might be, are linked to the hurt and pain that still exists in the consciousness and the experiences of millions of non-white South Africans because of our nation’s sore history. This pain cannot be ignored and avenues for expressing it need to be made available. Much healing still needs to take place. White Identity support these efforts.
If you support us in our efforts, please share this article and hit like on our new Facebook page.