'I'm half white!': Trevor Noah mocks refugees, 'genocide'

Trevor Noah has made light of claims South Africa is promoting a 'white genocide', resulting in an influx of 'refugees' in the US.
The Soweto-born comedian was speaking in the latest episode of his Spotify What, Now? Podcast. Trevor was joined by longtime pals Anele Mdoda and Sizwe Dhlomo.
During the episode, Trevor Noah and his friends caught up on news about their lives, including Anele's recent engagement, upcoming wedding and the possibility of Sizwe settling down.
The trio played a game called 'If I ruled the world', in which they laughed off each other's make-believe scenarios.
During the game, Trevor was particularly amused at white South Africans who had fled the country to the US under the guise of being 'persecuted'.
Trevor jokingly said: 'South Africans have changed the defination of refugees. Because before this, refugees only went to another country because they had to.'
He continued: 'Normally, refugees have baggage, not luggage. This is very different.'
Trevor Noah also joked about leaving South Africa too.
He told his pals: 'There is a white genocide in this country. I'm half white. I had to choose!'
Trevor Noah splits his time between South Africa and the US, in which he became a naturalisd citizen in 2020.
In 2015, Trevor packed up his life in SA to live in the US, after he was announced as the new host of The Daily Show.
While he calls America 'home', he often returns to SA to spend time with his family and friends.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 .
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Star

14 minutes ago

• The Star

Black Economic Empowerment: Has BEE failed South Africa's poor

Thabo Makwakwa | Published 1 week ago The debate surrounding the effectiveness of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in South Africa has intensified in recent months, with critics pointing to its shortcomings in achieving its core objectives. BEE is a government policy enacted in 2003 to increase economic participation by black South Africans. It seeks to transform the economy by promoting black ownership of companies, increasing black representation in management and boardrooms, and fostering entrepreneurship among historically disadvantaged communities. Although its objectives are widely supported, the policy's success has been scrutinised. In a detailed analysis published in the St Andrews Law Review on May 24, 2023, James Vandrau argued that BEE has failed to reconcile social inequalities in South Africa. He pointed out that resistance from the white business community has hampered the policy's effectiveness. 'This demographic has largely opposed the changes instigated by BEE, leading to a considerable backlash against the program,' Vandrau noted. According to a 2006 survey, approximately one-fifth of South African companies had no plans to implement black empowerment initiatives. The slow pace of progress prompted the Presidential Black Business Working Group to call for more stringent measures, with the ANC acknowledging that more aggressive interventions were necessary to meet BEE targets. This frustration has led many black entrepreneurs to advocate for faster economic de-racialisation. One of the most persistent criticisms of BEE is that it has been undermined by corruption and nepotism. Critics argue that a privileged few have benefited disproportionately at the expense of the wider black community. Gelb & Black (2004) highlighted how unissued equity was transferred from white-owned companies to a select group of 'tenderpreneurs'—black businesspeople often with high political profiles but limited business experience—resulting in a form of enrichment rather than broad-based empowerment. Furthermore, the representation of black individuals in senior management and boardrooms remains disappointingly low. The Black Business Executive Circle report of October 2005 revealed that only five of the top 200 companies on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange (JSE) had black ownership exceeding 51%. Only 32 companies had black ownership above 25%, collectively accounting for less than 2% of the JSE's market capitalisation. In an opinion piece published in The Star three months ago, Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University, acknowledged that BEE was a noble idea but emphasised that corruption has derailed its progress. 'The process should start with politicians who have corrupted the system and then move to businesses that have exploited loopholes to serve self-interests,' Mngomezulu wrote. 'Unless these corrupt practices are addressed, BEE will hinder economic growth and exclude those it was meant to benefit.' Weighing in, Dr. Khwezi Mabasa, a sociology lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an economic policy analyst, emphasised the need for a broader approach. Speaking to IOL, Mabasa highlighted that current legislation and initiatives, such as the broad-based black economic empowerment codes (B-BBEE), must be complemented by efforts outside the stock exchange, including supporting small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurship, and local economic development. 'We need to look beyond listed companies,' Mabasa explained. 'Most businesses are unlisted, and we must focus on fostering local ventures, job skills development, and access to affordable financing for black entrepreneurs. 'Transformation should also prioritise building sustainable local economies, especially in townships, rather than relying solely on high-profile corporate ownership.' Without these reforms, Mabasa argued that South Africa risks perpetuating the inequalities that the BEE was designed to eradicate. [email protected] IOL Politics

IOL News

2 hours ago

• IOL News

The National Dialogue must be revolutionary and people-driven

Protesters take part in the defiance campaign, in June 1952, in Johannesburg, by occupying places for white people. The campaign against the apartheid regime's of racial segregation was launched on 26 June 1952 by the ANC and led to the Congress of the People where the Freedom Charter was adopted on 26 June 1955 in Kliptown. Zamikhaya Maseti The much-talked-about National Dialogue is indeed a national conversation we didn't know we needed until former President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki called for it. President Cyril Ramaphosa must be saluted for heeding that call. This gesture affirms that our leaders still speak and listen to one another. It is a tradition of leadership that the younger generation must urgently emulate: speak truthfully and listen earnestly. Accordingly, President Ramaphosa has announced that the National Dialogue will take place on August 15, 2025, at a venue yet to be disclosed. I will not pretend to be a seasoned logistician, but I would like to propose that Kliptown, Johannesburg, be considered as the location. I make this suggestion because Kliptown was the site where our great-grandparents gathered under difficult, illegal conditions on 25–26 June 1955, to craft a vision for a democratic South Africa. Their gathering produced the Freedom Charter, a document that became a lodestar for the liberation struggle. Today, we face an equally historic task: rebuilding the South Africa that was born of their sacrifices. A nation now fractured and drifting, in desperate need of repair. More significantly, 25–26 June 2025 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Freedom Charter. Holding the Dialogue in Kliptown would root it in the moral soil of people's struggles and remove the sting of elitism that so often surrounds state-led initiatives. It would strip the dialogue of unnecessary extravagance. The original Congress of the People saw delegates arrive by bus, taxi, train some even on horseback. In that spirit, we must question the reportedly proposed R700 million budget for this dialogue. Such an amount is not only absurd; it is morally indefensible. I am relieved that the Presidency has rejected that outrageous and outlandish budget proposal. As South Africans of all colours, classes, and convictions, we must ask the most strategic and politically relevant questions: What should be on the table? That is to say, what must be the agenda, and who defines it? Who should be at the table? Who sits where, and who speaks for whom? Are the working class, the agrarian working class, the landless masses of the people, and the unemployed adequately represented? These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the very heart of the dialogue's legitimacy. We cannot assume that 'broad representation' will occur naturally or that it should be left solely to the Preparatory Committee. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do insist that all South Africans must grapple with these questions. A particularly troubling issue is the class composition of the Eminent Persons appointed to guide the process. By and large, they are drawn from the polished ranks of South Africa's middle class if not the elite. The rural poor and the agrarian working class are conspicuously absent. The assumption that the inclusion of traditional leaders covers their interests is false. Many of these institutions remain untransformed, misogynistic, patriarchal, and disconnected from the democratic impulses of the poor. In short, the selection of Eminent Persons leaves much to be desired. Perhaps their exclusion reflects the disorganisation of rural voices, but that is no excuse. The National Dialogue must reflect the totality of South African life. It is ostensibly aimed at navigating South Africa through deep and interconnected crises: a crisis of governance, a crisis of political legitimacy, social fragmentation, and economic despair. The critical question is whether this initiative is a bold act of national renewal or just another elite performance, obsessed with appearances while the nation quietly disintegrates. For the dialogue to have any integrity, it must begin with representative legitimacy. The poor, the unemployed, farmworkers, shack dwellers, and students still fighting financial exclusion cannot be passive spectators. The tragedy of South African democracy is that the people are so often spoken about, rarely spoken to, and rarely allowed to speak for themselves. Will this Dialogue include the real South Africa, or will it be another exercise in managerialism, dominated by technocrats and polite middle-class professionals? The timing of this dialogue is not neutral. It must be seen in light of the failure of the political class to resolve the legitimacy crisis that followed the 2024 general elections. The resulting Government of National Unity (GNU), a patchwork of ideological contradictions, has failed to inspire public trust. This dialogue, then, risks becoming a substitute theatre, a democratic therapy session designed to manage anxiety rather than resolve it. If so, this is not dialogue it is deflection. We must insist that the dialogue confronts structural questions: economic power, historical redress, and the unresolved land question. These matters cannot be handled delicately or deferred indefinitely. We must also address the scourge of bureaucratic unaccountability. Any serious conversation about building a capable and ethical State must begin with real consequence management for public servants who loot, obstruct, or undermine public trust. This national dialogue must not be pacifying; it must be revolutionary. It must be uncomfortable, radical, and people-driven. It must speak to power, not for it. It must demand a reckoning with the nation's unfinished business. We cannot afford a dialogue that dances around the contradictions of our society. We cannot whisper reform in a house already burning. The President may have opened the floor, but it is up to the people to seize the space not as polite guests but as the rightful architects of South Africa's democratic future. If this Dialogue becomes another elite jamboree, it will bury us deeper in disillusionment. But if it becomes a genuine space for democratic reimagination, a re-founding moment, then perhaps, just perhaps, the Republic may begin to heal. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.

The Star

3 hours ago

• The Star

Floyd Shivambu has brickbats and bouquets thrown at him online

Floyd Shivambu gave the clearest indication yet of his political future at a no-holds-barred press conference yesterday, garnering him both brickbats and bouquets from users on X: @AllNewsNetwork2 He is talking like the president of a country. The guy is an intellectual. #floydshivambu @limphoseeiso_ He's forming a new party while still a member of another party, he's surely learned a lot from Zuma. @mixedracedUncle Floyd Shivambu just called Jacob Zuma a gullible old man, and then said his daughter Duduzile Zuma is on drugs, and mentioned that there are scoundrels in the MK party stealing millions of rands every month. @Tania84928222 When Floyd said South Africa is not divided when it comes to aspirations all South Africans want the same things, that's when I knew this man is sound and sober. We need to fight all the leaders who are trying to divide us while they live lavish lives. We are the power #floydshivambu @fighting4SA A classic example of being educated and stupid at the same time! @FutureBite No man, this guy is a good leader. @Givencape What i learned about #floydshivambu is if you don't stand up for yourself, people will always bully you . He just decided to stand up for himself. @LindoMyeni Floyd Shivambu makes it clear he has no intention of returning to the ANC or the EFF.'The ANC is directionless, doesn't know what it's doing, and is in collaboration with the white system. And the EFF is a cult.' @EversonLuhanga Floyd Shivambu says he's not afraid to speak out against the untouchables – 'those who take drugs, tweet at night and insult us.' This comes after MK Party MP Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla fired insults at him on X. @Zah_KhanyileH HAIBO! Now that Floyd is suddenly giving lessons on bravery and speaking out, why didn't he have the courage to tell @Julius_S_Malema to his face that he was a dictator running a cult when Malema asked him, 'What did I do to you? @neo_manezzy Having an MK membership is like being a full time patient at Weskoppies mos. @TheGreatKhali95 Mampara of the year #floydshivambu DAILY NEWS