Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 August 2025 | Story Dr Nombulelo Shange | Photo Supplied
Dr Nombulelo Shange
Dr Nombulelo Shange is a sociology lecturer at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Dr Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State 


 

The rising xenophobic violence and exclusion towards African nationals from outside of South Africa is increasingly becoming an emotive issue that is impossible to engage and unpack. In the social-media, “Trumpification” age we live in today, truth-telling and evidence are secondary or even completely irrelevant against the loud, “smart-sounding opinions” rooted in lies and misinformation spread online. Some have used statistics to show that foreigners only make up roughly 4% of our population, which is significant, but not enough to account for our rising unemployment and South Africans’ difficulty in accessing social services and goods such as education and healthcare. There are bigger challenges rooted in our incomplete revolution, rooted in coloniality, where resources and land were left at the hands of the white oppressor, in exchange for “peace”. There are bigger challenges rooted in corruption and poor governance. But even with these realities, many bury their heads in the sand and opt to believe the incomplete story that foreigners are our single greatest problem. 

 

Self-inflicted harm 

Many others have turned to history as a reminder of how African countries in different ways, aided our armed struggle and apartheid resistance, warning that we might need the continent soon and we would have alienated all of our neighbours if we continue down this path. Others have turned to politics and economics, which show us the importance of having strong economic ties with neighbouring countries to ensure growth and development. We saw this in part historically with the European Union and we see it today with the rise of Asian markets like China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and others. Some of the pluralistic approaches to the rapid growth of many of these Asian markets is in relaxing borders to enable the flow of people, ideas, technology, money and resources. But South Africans continue to respond by fighting for the isolating barriers put up by colonialism and later apartheid in order to strengthen their cruel inhumane policies and stronghold against black people. 

We often do this to our own detriment as black people and people of colour, structures such as Operation Dudula and March on March, seldom march to white schools in the suburbs to demand that white people prove their citizenship and belonging. They do this in predominantly black or mixed areas, applying a self-imposed apartheid dompas system, that limits our movements. They ignore the fact that many South Africans themselves are undocumented because of a variety of historical and contemporary issues and struggles related to accessing important services like Home Affairs. They base many of their strategies on hateful intangible stereotypes like the belief that foreigners are dark, cannot speak South African languages or pronounce specific words. The ideas around what it means to be South African are usually very linear and often prioritise namely Nguni culture and languages. So, if you are not a light skinned, Zulu/Nguni person, without your ID, you find yourself at risk of being harmed or being denied important services like healthcare in an emergency for example. We are too quick to forget the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic; illness does not care who you are, what race or nationality you are, it spreads and places all of us at risk. Denying foreigners access to healthcare, while many of them live in overcrowded black townships, places black South Africans in harm’s way and can lead to a public health crisis in areas where people were struggling to access healthcare long before the influx of foreigners in the country. 

 

Silence and inaction of our leaders

Noticeable in this whole mess and scary new norm, is the silence and inaction of our leaders. The violent and harmful actions of South Africans can in part be explained by their desperate state stemming from poverty, unemployment, and violent crimes experienced today. The tensions can in part be explained by a lack of adequate awareness of the diverse historical and contemporary importance of the continent and our immediate neighbours for our own growth and development. The overwhelming silence of our leaders is hard to make sense of. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leaders remain some of the few leaders that condemn this violence and call for a united Africa. It is believed this stance even cost EFF supporters in the 2024 elections, but they still continue to hold onto this important ethical stance, while more prominent leaders shy away from the issue. Many of these leaders were themselves either born or raised in exile or started their own families outside of the country and were the direct beneficiaries of the kindness and sacrifice that many African countries showed us during apartheid. In this new climate of having to prove “South Africanness” and therefore belonging gymnastics, many of them would have their belonging questioned. But rather than call out the violence and put protections in place, while creating awareness on diverse complexities that create “South Africanness”, our leaders are silent. And perhaps more startling, is that our government is partly made up of a political party that campaigned on the hate of foreigners. Including political parties like the Patriotic Alliance in governance has helped formalise fringe ideas like the “abahambe” slogan, which was a chant directed at African foreigners, threatening and instructing them to leave. The threats have materialised, and foreigners are having different kinds of violence enacted on them.  

 

Afrophobia protects colonial borders

Many social commentors warned that the xenophobic utterances embedded in slogans such as “abahambe” coming from Patriotic Alliance leader, Minister Gayton McKenzie, are deeply rooted in anti-black hate. The TikTok accounts of creators such as: Nikita Lexi, Tara Roos, Samantha Jansen, Kaapie in Korea, Romantha Botha, and many others, have provided interesting and important context and caution with their historically rooted, evidence-based truth-telling that speaks to a plethora of contemporary South African issues, including race. Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, McKenzie has now recently come under fire for posting old racist and sexist tweets, where the biggest frustration is over his repeated use of the “k-word”. The minister’s actions raise a lot of questions about the intersecting links between Afrophobia, tribalism, hate towards blackness and self-hate as a psychosocial condition plaguing many black people and people of colour, especially in South Africa. What we learn from the minister’s tweets is that Afrophobia is often used to mask racism. It is concerning for a government minister to hold such views, while they are responsible for providing services to the predominately black masses, and artists, in the case of McKenzie. 

What might be perhaps the most damaging and harmful to us as black South Africans, is that our Afrophobia disconnects us to valuable, self-affirming spiritual, social, historical, ecological and economic ties we have with the African continent. We protect the colonial borders that tore our families and cultural groups apart. Our hate is a worship of the colonial shackles that dismembered our ancestors, histories and experiences and that still stifle us today. 

News Archive

UFS academics present papers at major conference
2009-07-23

 
Pictured from the left are: Prof Neethling, Prof Edna van Harte (Dean of the Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University), Dr Thomas Mandrup (from the Royal Danish Defence College and co-organiser of the conference), and Prof Heidi Hudson.
Photo: Supplied


Prof Theo Neethling from the Department of Political Science was recently invited to address a conference on the theoretical basis for states’ use of military instruments of force and scholarly progress in the understanding of armed conflict in Africa held at Stellenbosch University (SU) on 11 and 12 June 2009. This conference, themed Strategic Theory and Contemporary Africa Conflicts, was presented by the Faculty of Military Science of SU in collaboration with the Faculty of Military and Strategic Studies of the Royal Danish Defence College in Copenhagen. The conference was premised on the point that the way in which states choose to become involved in, orchestrate or oppose armed conflicts in terms of peace intervention action, normally originates from theoretical thinking well-grounded in a national strategy. This was the first conference in South Africa that focused on the nature of such a national strategy, but also on how the incidence of recent armed conflicts in Africa could be explained in terms of this theoretical thinking. In view of this Prof Neethling’s paper was titled, “UN peacekeeping operations in Africa: Reflections on developments, trends and the way forward”. His paper focused on recent and current UN peacekeeping operations with special reference to multinational challenges in the African context.


Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Centre for African Studies also attended the conference in Stellenbosch on Strategic Theory and Contemporary Africa Conflicts. In addition she was invited to present a paper at the Peacekeeping Africa 2009 conference held on 24 and 25 June 2009 at Gallagher Estate, Midrand. The event brings together individuals who are experts in defence, peacekeeping, policing, foreign service and other government bodies to share knowledge and to discuss the latest developments. This year’s conference was attended by more than 100 experts from all over Africa, with strong representation from the UN and the International Red Cross. Prof. Hudson’s paper was entitled “Peacebuilding through a gender lens”. Her presentation examined lessons learnt with regard to implementation of a gender perspective in Côte d’Ivoire and Rwanda. These case studies point towards an empirical link between women’s inclusion in peace processes and the quality of peace finally achieved. Prof. Hudson warned that inattention to the differential needs of both women and men during conflict and in the post-conflict reconstruction phase may perpetuate the violence discourses which sustained the conflict in the first place.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept