WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an opinion piece published by The Root on May 22, 2025, writer Byron Washington-Douglass dismantled President Trump’s claims of a so-called “white genocide” in South Africa, arguing the allegations are baseless and serve to distract from real global tragedies.
Trump, Washington-Douglass wrote, has repeatedly promoted the fiction that “white farmers are the victims of genocide being carried out by Black South Africans.” The claim, he noted, is unsupported by any credible sources or agencies.
During a May 21 meeting at the White House with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump referenced a video clip of a South African figure demanding land redistribution. “They say there’s a lot of bad things going on in Africa,” Trump said, according to Washington-Douglass. He reportedly referred to the clip as evidence of mass graves for “over a thousand” white South Africans—though the footage in question, Washington-Douglass clarified, was from a funeral for a single white couple.
“None of it was true,” Washington-Douglass wrote, calling the claim “a lie of breathtaking scope.” He argued that Trump’s invocation of white genocide is a calculated effort to play the role of the “aggrieved white man.” Trump and his movement, he wrote, frequently portray themselves as victims—despite their “extraordinary wealth and privilege”—while suggesting that Black people are granted unfair advantages and still complain.
To illustrate the longevity of Trump’s racial worldview, Washington-Douglass cited a 1989 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, in which Trump stated, “A well-educated Black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market.” Washington-Douglass called the statement “lunacy” and argued that Trump’s political appeal rests in a nostalgic, “sepia-shrouded” vision of a past where white men held unchecked power.
Trump’s base, he contended, isn’t repelled by this worldview—they are drawn to it. Washington-Douglass described Trump as a “truly gifted avatar” for this movement, one who “knows how to appeal to his audience by pointing out every instance when a white man was denied his due or made to feel bad for flexing his power.”
He pointed to Trump’s firing of the Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and replacing him with a white man, as well as his “sustained assault” on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Trump also withdrew from reform agreements with police departments in cities such as Louisville and Minneapolis—despite those cities having been at the center of national outrage over police killings of Black individuals.
“No weak-kneed ‘reform’ is needed if a police department routinely abuses the Black people it’s supposed to protect,” Washington-Douglass wrote. “White men can flex; it’s for others to fear.”
Ultimately, Washington-Douglass argued, Trump’s myth of white genocide is a political weapon. “There are horrific scenes of mass violence actually taking place in this world,” he wrote, “but Trump reached for a fictional one—because it fits the story he and many other white men tell themselves.”
By promoting false narratives of victimization, Washington-Douglass concluded, Trump undermines any need for justice-oriented policy. “If the focus is on that fiction,” he wrote, “there would be no need, no justification, for programs and policies that lift up, protect and advance other people.”
It’s not fictional that there are attacks and murders on white farmers and a lot of anti-white sentiment (which is understandable :-| ) in South Africa, nor is it fictional that many white farmers have fled the country in fear for their lives. The word genocide is thrown around a bit too easily these days as a political tool.
This article is bordering on racism, itself.
From article: “No weak-kneed ‘reform’ is needed if a police department routinely abuses the Black people it’s supposed to protect,” Washington-Douglass wrote. “White men can flex; it’s for others to fear.”
A lot of police officers – including some who were recently acquitted of charges against a black person, are black themselves.
Regarding the author: “She is also passionate about literature and writes in her free time, so she hopes to improve her writing skills with The Vanguard.”
Not off to a very good start, unless the purpose is to stoke division and racism. Apparently, the type of person who wants to blame white people for all of the problems in the world. I’ve run into people like this periodically, my entire life (having grown up in a “liberal” city). Ultimately, this type of view results in assaults against white people when they are in a minority situation – solely due to their skin color. (I have first-hand experience regarding that, and have witnessed it as well.) In fact, I’ve witnessed and experienced it when they’re not in the minority, but for some reason don’t respond accordingly. Again, the root of this is the beliefs espoused by authors like this.
I don’t think that’s a very good take Ron
The line you quoted — “White men can flex; it’s for others to fear” — is not an accusation aimed at all white people but a critique of power dynamics and social norms that historically grant certain individuals the benefit of the doubt while others are met with suspicion or violence. These are difficult but important conversations, especially when rooted in lived experience and supported by well-documented disparities.
Your point about the race of some officers is noted. However, systemic issues in policing do not hinge solely on the individual race of officers. Scholars and reform advocates — including Black police officers themselves — have long discussed how institutional culture, training, and legal protections often shape behavior in ways that transcend individual identity.
I just told you of my “lived experience” as a result of “power dynamics”.
Not necessarily from you, but others deny what I’ve experienced and seen because they “choose” not to believe it. They usually also include some comment intended to demean, on top of that. Some even essentially imply that it’s “payback” for something that did not occur to anyone alive, today. Eerily-similar to what a white supremacist might say in regard to some black person who was attacked because of their race.
That same type of “denial” could be the same thing that’s occurring regarding the white farmers in South Africa, but I’ve never looked into it (nor have I heard much about it in the media). Of course, Trump is using this in a political manner.
I also see the same type of “denial” occurring regarding attacks (verbal, and otherwise) against Jewish people these days, but I’m not as familiar with that.
All of this does revert back to “blaming” those who are perceived as being more “privileged” than others based upon skin color. (Another word for that simmering anger is racism.)
Attacks against Asians are usually covered by the media, perhaps because they’re not “white” (and are sometimes included in the “people of color” category – which itself is intended to create separation between “white” people, vs. “everyone else”).
(Left unsaid, of course, is that it’s usually not white people attacking Asians.)
Ron, what you’re describing sounds like discomfort at having one’s worldview challenged—not systemic oppression.
Don’t know how you’re concluding that. If I wasn’t “comfortable” talking about this, I wouldn’t do so.
I am, however, challenging YOUR “worldview” (and those who think like you), since you seem to live in a different world than I do. One in which only “preferred” groups have “lived experiences”.
If you really look into the statistics, it’s not white people who are disproportionately assaulting other people. And you already know that.
Nor are “people of color” a singular group, despite how some seem to prefer to reference “non-white” people that way. Again, that’s a term that appears to have been created to divide “whites” vs. “people of color”.
Truth be told, it’s views like the ones expressed in this article which contributed to the rise of Trump (as well as his increasing popularity among non-white people).
My third comment – not sure it’s limited in this article.
Ron, being willing to talk doesn’t mean you’re not uncomfortable—just that you’re defensive, which is a different kind of discomfort. You are correct that “people of color” are not a monolith, but that’s actually part of the broader point – systemic racism operates in specific ways depending on context—against Black communities, Indigenous communities, Asian Americans, Latino folks, and yes, sometimes Jewish communities too. That nuance matters, but it’s not an excuse to flatten or deflect from real power imbalances.
As for crime statistics—if that’s what you’re referencing—those numbers are often pulled out of context, used to reinforce stereotypes without accounting for poverty, policing practices, or historic disinvestment. The FBI and DOJ themselves caution against misusing raw arrest or conviction data to make claims about race and violence.
Challenging someone’s “worldview” isn’t inherently valuable if that worldview relies on shaky data, dismisses systemic injustice, or derails the conversation with hypotheticals and grievances that don’t reflect structural realities.
You’re free to respond.
DG say: ” . . . and yes, sometimes Jewish communities too”
If that be SOME-times, I’d say we be in those times :-|
David says: “Ron, being willing to talk doesn’t mean you’re not uncomfortable—just that you’re defensive, which is a different kind of discomfort.”
I’m not “uncomfortable” – I’m angry at those who deny lived experiences because they’re not the right skin color. This is nothing new, and it’s encouraging the situation to continue.
This type of thinking is what’s leading to attacks on Jews and Asians these days (probably more so than attacks on “white” people).
David says: “You are correct that “people of color” are not a monolith, . . .”
Then what’s the purpose of that term?
David says: ” . . .but that’s actually part of the broader point – systemic racism operates in specific ways depending on context—against Black communities, Indigenous communities, Asian Americans, Latino folks, and yes, sometimes Jewish communities too. That nuance matters, but it’s not an excuse to flatten or deflect from real power imbalances.”
That’s an example of your blindness regarding the intent of that term – to create division between “whites” vs. “everyone else”.
In case you haven’t noticed, Asians, for example, are increasingly more “powerful” than other groups – including whites. And the reason for that is not due to racism, but their culture.
And are you actually attempting to claim that Jewish people are NOT in a position of power, and are being systematically oppressed by “white” people?
Are you claiming that tribes with casinos (and/or engage in extractive industries on land that they’re “born with” or are subsequently gifted with) are “oppressed”?
David says: “As for crime statistics—if that’s what you’re referencing—those numbers are often pulled out of context, used to reinforce stereotypes without accounting for poverty, policing practices, or historic disinvestment. The FBI and DOJ themselves caution against misusing raw arrest or conviction data to make claims about race and violence.”
“Pulled out of context” – meaning that you know it’s true, but are searching for reasons (justifications) for it. As far as the FBI and DOJ are concerned, they’re presenting statistics and then claiming they shouldn’t be referred to in any kind of manner? Is that right?
David says: “Challenging someone’s “worldview” isn’t inherently valuable if that worldview relies on shaky data, dismisses systemic injustice, or derails the conversation with hypotheticals and grievances that don’t reflect structural realities.”
Again, you just claimed that there’s “systemic injustice” against Asians and Jews (and apparently, tribal members with casinos and/or engage in extractive industries), even though they’re generally quite powerful (“privileged”, if you will).
At what point do groups “graduate” from being oppressed by whites? (I believe Hispanics are also making significant inroads into power and wealth.) The only group that’s not (on average), I understand, are black people.
RO say: “At what point do groups “graduate” from being oppressed by whites?”
When that ‘group’ is ***perceived*** as “successful” and then harassed by (far-far-left progressive) “whites”.
Or should I say, “Whites” ?
Moral of the story . . . don’t succeed :-|