If we refer to farm attacks, how come we do not have "township attacks", "suburb attacks", "village attacks", "city attacks" and so on and so forth?

I will tell you why. Those who dominate the farming industry, white South Africans, are victims of crime happening there. Unlike farmworkers, farm owners happen to have money and valuables that criminals want.

The crime black farmers suffer, for similar reasons, goes unreported. Their experience does not fit a particular narrative. The narrative (of blacks forcing whites off their farms using violent crime) is not "crime on farms" but "farm attacks". This is what we are fed.

It is little wonder that US president Donald Trump feels the itch to shoot his mouth off all the way from the White House about what he conveniently calls "genocide in South Africa". Trump is not capable of working with facts; he thinks through the colour of his skin.

Farms are mostly in the wilderness, with only fencing, livestock, dogs, an occasional full moon and farmworkers to serve as psychological security. If violent crimes happen in places where police stations are close by, then what do we say of farms? Crime will not be stopped by more policing but by a fair social arrangement for economic competition. But I digress.

Are the criminals who target farm dwellers there to steal farms? No. A hijacking is not a "car attack" but theft. A cash-in-transit heist is not a "cash attack" but theft. But farm attacks? No.

Why do we say criminals are attacking farms when they neither attack nor take them? Criminals are attacking those who live on farms, just as they would those who live anywhere else. People of all races live in fear of criminals everywhere. Crime on farms should not be given a special name on account that victims are white.

Fusi Motaung, e-mail