Dispelling the myth of a “white Genocide” in South Africa.

Over the past few years, organizations like AfriForum, Solidarity, and other Afrikaner institutions have been alleging that South Africa is witnessing a “white genocide.” These allegations have been reiterated so frequently that they contributed to the Trump Administration’s decision to impose high tariffs on South African goods. In a recent episode of this unfolding narrative, 49 Afrikaners, healthy and able, chose to leave South Africa voluntarily in response to an invitation to claim refuge in the United States, a country which, during this Trump era, had been deporting refugees back to regions where they were said to have been politically or economically persecuted.

This sequence of events inevitably raises the provocative question: Is there truly a “white genocide” taking place in South Africa or it is just a myth?

Defining genocide- from dictionary to international law

At its most basic level, the dictionary definition of “genocide” refers to the crime of deliberately and systematically destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. For example, respected sources such as the Cambridge and Merriam–Webster dictionaries define genocide as involving the intentional killing or infliction of conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group. This everyday understanding forms the baseline from which legal systems have sought to pinpoint the crime with greater precision.

Legally, the definition of genocide is set forth in the Rome Statute (Article 6) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Under this instrument, genocide is defined as acts committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Such acts include killing members of the group, inflicting serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately imposing conditions of life calculated to bring
about physical destruction, measures intended to prevent births; and forcibly transferring children from one group to another. This precise formulation recognizes genocide as an act with distinct legal thresholds, aimed not at sporadic violence but at systematic, ideologically driven extermination efforts.

Historical events like the systematic atrocities in Bosnia (particularly the Srebrenica massacre), the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and other brutal campaigns in former Yugoslavia set clear precedents that fulfill these legal criteria. In Bosnia, for example, the deliberate massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims was later recognized as an act of genocide by international tribunals; similarly, the near extermination of the Tutsi in Rwanda was characterized by widespread, premeditated ethnic cleansing. These examples are emblematic cases where a calculated plan was employed with genocidal intent. By contrast, when we assess the situation in South Africa, it becomes essential to ask: Do the facts meet this stringent legal definition?

Disentangling genocide from general crime.

South Africa is a nation with a deeply troubled history of racial and socio‑economic inequality, yet it currently faces an extraordinarily high level of crime, murder rates that affect all segments of society. Current statistics indicate that the murder/homicide rate in South Africa has hovered around 36–42 murders per 100,000 population in recent years. These numbers, while horrifying in their own right, are not evidence of a genocidal campaign against any specific community; rather, they reflect a widespread crisis of violent crime that cuts across racial and socio‑economic lines.

An important point is that the narrative of “white genocide” is often propagated by those who selectively cite isolated incidents while ignoring the broader context. For instance, data show that while white farmers have been the subject of intense media coverage, violent crime in South Africa affects everyone. In urban areas and rural regions alike, the majority of victims are black South Africans, who endure the brunt of interpersonal and gang-related violence. The murder statistics underscore that crime is a national epidemic not selectively tailored against one group. Criminal acts perpetrated within rural settings involve dynamics that stem from issues such as poverty, historical inequities, and social breakdown rather than state-sponsored or ideologically driven extermination.

Broader context of farm violence.

Within the broader context of crime on farms, it is crucial to note that violence is not unidirectional. Although much of the sensational narrative tends to portray farm attacks solely as a form of racial persecution against white landowners, there are documented cases where white farmers themselves are the perpetrators of heinous crimes against black individuals.

In a case that shocked the nation in 2024, a white farm owner in the Limpopo province and his accomplices are accused of killing two black women. The victims, identified as Maria Makgatho and Lucia Ndlovu, were allegedly shot while collecting food near the farm. Their decomposing bodies were later discovered in a pigsty, with reports indicating that they had been fed to pigs in an attempt to dispose of evidence. This calculated and grotesque act of violence is clearly not an example of the systematic extermination of a protected group, but rather an instance of brutal criminal conduct that blurs any simplistic racial victim/perpetrator narrative.

Further, there have been separate reports of farm attacks where individual white offenders, driven by personal animosities and entrenched social prejudices, have targeted black farm workers and vice versa. These cases, though isolated, further illustrate that violent crime in South Africa is complex and multifaceted. The motives behind these heinous crimes are typically linked to personal gain or localized
grievances not to a state-supported effort aimed at racial extermination.

The above reveals that violence on South African farms is not a monolithic racial issue. Rather, the crimes committed by white individuals against black victims are part and parcel of a broader law-and-order challenge. They reflect criminal opportunism and deep-seated socio-economic tensions, not a systematic and state- directed genocide of white farmers.

The decisive legal and political contrast: genocide vs. high crime.

Given the historical, legal, and statistical parameters described above, it is clear that the situation in South Africa cannot be accurately characterized as genocide. Genocide, by definition and under international law, requires a demonstrable intent to eradicate a specifically identified group. The brutal mass killings in Bosnia and Rwanda, for example, were orchestrated with the express intent to exterminate entire populations. In South Africa, however, crime no matter how severe and tragic results from a combination of factors ranging from socio-economic inequality and legacy of apartheid to organizational breakdown in policing and governance. The intent to destroy a protected group, a necessary ingredient for genocide, is absent in
this context.

The misapplication of the term “genocide” to describe the state of affairs in South Africa is not only legally inaccurate but also politically manipulative. By selectively focusing on isolated and sensational cases often propagated by fringe groups the dominant narrative distracts from the real and systemic problems that all South Africans face. It becomes a tool in political discourse designed to evoke an emotional response, distract from genuine policy failures, and selectively apply international legal terminology for domestic and international propaganda purposes. This narrative of white genocide is particularly misleading because it overlooks the harsh reality that the vast majority of violent crime victims in South Africa are black citizens, who suffer from far greater levels of state neglect and poverty.

The US embassy, contradictory refugee policies, and the specter of modern white supremacy.

While South Africa grapples with endemic violent crime and the socio-economic consequences of historical injustices, another disturbing dynamic has emerged from abroad. Over recent months, the US government under the auspices of political figures such as President Donald Trump and his circle of advisors has promulgated policies that selectively extend refugee status to certain white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, on the unfounded claim that they are persecuted in their country. This policy stands in stark contrast to the treatment meted out to genuine refugees from African and Latin American countries who face dire persecution and life-threatening violence.

The US embassy in South Africa has, to a disconcerting extent, failed to clarify the nuances of this policy. Lacking a clear and principled explanation, it has become an echo chamber for political opportunism. Rather than taking a stance rooted in objective legal and humanitarian principles, the embassy’s lack of transparent communication has fueled a narrative that white South Africans are uniquely oppressed an assertion that is categorically refuted by both criminal statistics and the legal definitions of persecution and genocide.

This contradictory policy reveals an alarming double standard. On the one hand, the US government has obstructed the resettlement of refugees from historically marginalized and war-torn regions of Africa and Latin America. On the other, it appears to be extending a privileged form of “refugee” status, one that is granted not on the basis of documented persecution but rather on the basis of racial identity to white Afrikaners. Such actions reflect a deeply ingrained white supremacist mindset – a belief system that places undue emphasis on white victimhood and ignores the lived realities of the vast majority of citizens who suffer from systemic neglect. This double standard is eerily reminiscent of Nazi-era ideologies, wherein racial purity and preferential treatment were codified into state policy. The very fact that such a policy
exists in the contemporary world is a stark reminder that vestiges of extremist thought persist, contaminating even the most democratic institutions.

White supremacy and its contemporary manifestations.

White supremacy is the ideology that asserts the inherent superiority and dominance of white people over those of other races. Historically, it has been used to justify colonization, apartheid, and even genocide. Today, white supremacist thought persists not only in openly racist groups but also in state policies and official narratives that selectively privilege certain demographics while systematically
excluding others.

The invitation extended to a select group of white South Africans as “refugees” despite the absence of any credible evidence of persecution can be seen as a manifestation of this ideology. When a government, or its representatives abroad, promulgates policies that align with such an outlook, it perpetuates an unequal and fundamentally reactionary order. This is strikingly evident when one considers that genuine refugees, fleeing actual persecution and violence, continue to be turned away or harshly deported. Such policies speak to an underlying Nazi-like mentality, in which the value and protection accorded to an individual is determined not by universal human rights but by the color of one’s skin.

The US embassy’s failure to articulate a coherent and principled explanation for its government’s contradictory refugee policies only exacerbate these concerns. This inaction does not merely represent a bureaucratic lapse; it serves as a tacit endorsement of a discriminatory framework that privileges old-world notions of racial hierarchy. In effect, the selective extension of asylum is both a symptom and a
reinforcement of a white supremacist worldview that leans on historical grievance and victimhood as a shield against the imperatives of modern, inclusive democracy.

Reclaiming objective reality from Ideologically driven narratives.

In sum, the claim that there is genocide in South Africa fails to withstand rigorous legal and historical scrutiny. The internationally recognized definition of genocide demands clear evidence of an organized, state-sponsored intent to annihilate a particular group, a standard that the tragic yet multifaceted violence in South Africa does not meet. Instead, the nation’s startling murder statistics and the complex
reality of farm attacks illustrates a scenario in which violence is pervasive, indiscriminate, and largely rooted in socioeconomic factors rather than in the politically orchestrated extermination of any group.

Moreover, the application of the genocide label to describe South Africa’s internal strife is a deceptive politicization designed to advance narrow, ideologically driven agendas. By diverting attention from systemic issues that affect all communities, the white genocide narrative misrepresents the true nature of violence in the country. The documented cases such as the infamous Limpopo pigsty murders, along with
other instances of white perpetrators attacking black citizens highlight that the problem is one of general criminality rather than selective racial persecution.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the international response, most notably the US government’s selective refugee policies, has provided an unsettling mirror to domestic politics gone awry. The ambiguous stance of the US embassy in South Africa, which has failed to clarify these policies for a confused public, further underscores the pernicious influence of a white supremacist. When a government extends asylum based on racial privilege while simultaneously rejecting those fleeing genuine persecution, it not only undermines the universal principles of human rights but also reawakens long-forgotten ideologies of racial hierarchy and selective victimhood.

Ultimately, a careful and dispassionate examination of the facts makes it clear: South Africa is not experiencing genocide. Instead, it faces a multifaceted challenge of extreme criminality that transcends racial boundaries—a challenge that demands comprehensive, evidence-based solutions. Political rhetoric should be grounded in careful legal definitions and robust statistical analysis rather than in simplistic narratives of racial victimization. Only then can policymakers hope to address the real issues at hand and build a future that truly reflects the democratic principles of equality and universal human rights.

Further reflections.

In a broader context, it is essential to ask what role international institutions and embassies should play in clarifying policy misinterpretations. When the US embassy or any diplomatic mission falls short in articulating the principles behind controversial policies, it not only sows’ confusion but also encourages opportunistic political rhetoric. Moreover, the selective application of refugee status based on outdated racial notions further marginalizes genuine victims of persecution globally. As discussions about race, sovereignty, and human rights move forward in an increasingly interconnected world, the lessons of history, whether from Bosnia, Rwanda, or South Africa, should guide us away from ideologically driven distortions and toward policies that respect both the letter and spirit of international law.

The pressing need is not to rehash simplistic narratives of white victimhood but rather to confront the structural and systemic challenges that lead to high levels of violence. Addressing issues of economic disparity, institutional inefficiency, and historical mistrust must remain at the forefront of any effort toward national reconciliation and reform. In rejecting the myth of genocide and the politically charged rhetoric that accompanies it, the international community can better focus on concrete solutions that promote justice for all, irrespective of race or origin.

By reclaiming an objective, legally grounded perspective, we begin the arduous but necessary process of overcoming divisive and dangerous ideologies, a process that must prioritize human rights above the corrosive legacy of white supremacy and any reemergence of extremist.

Themba Makamu is a Political Science graduate and an activist who writes in his own personal capacity.