Of course dead black farmers in the same country doesn't mean jack all, right? They mean so little you apparently don't seem to believe they even exist. It's only when warlords and terrorists target the country's minority white population that it has some additional significance that makes it deplorable and the motive can only be racism... that's how it works, right? Because otherwise they'd just be exclusively attacking the black majority and you can lump it in with the horror of black on black crime which is somehow intrinsically different from white on white and indicative of the inherent violence of their people?
And if you turn on the news you'll see a whole lot of people all colours of the melanin spectrum killed by drone strikes for nodding to each other in a public street, holding a wedding, being within a block of a suspected arms deal that turned out to be a wedding, looking kind of like a guy in a grainy photo who might be an arms dealer because he nodded to another guy on a street on his way to a wedding, or giving the spy satellite a dirty look. With the general excuse being terrorists might be around there somewhere so shoot first, ask questions later, fuck the whole country because terrorists live there and that means everybody is fair game. And on this side of the ocean some pretty consistent stories where a black person got shot in the back and it was written off very quickly as self defense. To which police respond to any questions of why people should believe that by driving down the street in tanks and stepping up the casual stop, frisk, and beat quota and the numbers of tickets issued for trespassing at your own job in businesses open to the public on your shift. Then pointing to the resulting riots as a justification for the crackdown that sparked it and reframing the entire saga as hatred for police and support for "thugs" shot dead.
But it's only one set of dead bodies that has to have some deeper, sinister implication isn't it? Other circumstances are meaningless or mitigating. None of that can be racist, can it? I mean the first example is just the random collateral damage of war, like say a bunch of farmers who got raided by warlords. And just because the latter is an example of a minority being deliberately targeted and generally treated like they don't matter that doesn't make it, racist right?
But what's really laughable is that you think black people, who invented the very concept of settled civilization in Egypt and who survived for quite some time without the "guidance of their betters" via slavery and colonialism who are still feeling the negative effects of both even today would somehow starve to death if white people up and vanished. Doubly interesting since their experience as slaves largely concerned being forced to work various types of farms and triply so when you also want us to think they basically haven't evolved past being hunter-gatherers but somehow also forgot how to hunt or gather. Unless you want to say their time being "civilized" by the white man is exactly what destroyed their basic ability to survive?