Speak your mind

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s meeting with US President Donald Trump was more than a diplomatic engagement — it was a chance to defend South Africa against the dangerous and unsubstantiated “white genocide” narrative that has been irresponsibly circulated in right-wing circles abroad.

- 

Responses to Ramaphosa gets braaied at the Boerewors Summit, 23 May

Instead of seizing this opportunity to correct the record, Ramaphosa chose a path of silence and appeasement, standing passively as Trump echoed claims that have no basis in fact.

This failure to respond firmly is a betrayal of South Africa's post-apartheid project and a disservice to its citizens. By allowing such distortions to go unchallenged, Ramaphosa undermines the country's dignity and reinforces a narrative that prioritises white victimhood while ignoring the structural inequalities and daily struggles faced by the black majority.

Logic and meaning had no value in that engagement and would simply have inflamed the situation. President Donald Trump wanted to look tough, period, and denying him that may have made South Africans feel better in the moment, but frankly, so what?

The measure of success will be whether we get a trade deal that is good for South Africa. And my personal feeling is that, when measured in that regard, the meeting got us as close as possible.

Oh yes, and Trump looked like a moron (as usual).

Fanie Rajesh Ngabiso

About 74 South Africans emigrate each day, according to the UN. Between 2020 and 2024, about 108,000 South Africans emigrated. Since 1990, the UN has tracked over 710,000 South Africans moving abroad. And we get excited about a few dozen Afrikaner car guards jetting off to the US courtesy of Trump.

Marc Caldwell

I was disturbed by Shaun de Waal’s poor journalism displayed in his article on Helen Zille’s response to the UK Supreme Court judgment on the Equality Act in the 2 May edition of DM168.

The ruling Zille supported states that the terms “women” and “sex” refer to biological women and biological sex, meaning that the legal definition of “women” does not include men who identify as women. The judge was clear that this ruling does not take away the protections or rights of trans people.