jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (55 posts)

Nelson Mandela is dead

  1. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    RIP.

    A great man.

    1. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      RIP


      Nelson Mandela.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Mandela's attitude of redemption and forgiveness is a lesson many, especially those who nurture resentment and hatred in others, resist. It is fascinating to watch some try to twist his passing to their rhetorical advantage. He was 95, that is a very good run for a man who was imprisoned for so long.

    3. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It just disturbs me how in the 1980s and 1990's conservatives resisted sanctions that were to be placed on South Africa for its apartheid policies. Reagan wanted so called constructive engagement with the regime. Now in current times, conservatives cannot praise the late Mr. Mandela enough. The times they are a changin? Back in the day, they called Mr. Mandela a communist sympathizer, a terrorist etc. Sounds like a lot of the stuff I was hearing about Dr. King during the Civil Rights era, deja vu? Tells me a little about a form of conservative mindset?

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is so encouraging that people are not using the death of Mandela to spew the typical partisan political hatred.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          just catching conservatives in a hypocritical moment, of course you don't have an explanation, you never do.... It is just easier to divert and distract from the question at hand?

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why would any thinking and feeling person seek to engage in hatred and partisan self-righteousness while standing on the corpse of Nelson Mandela

  2. WriteAngled profile image91
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago

    Rest in peace, Madiba.
    AMANDLA AWETHU!

  3. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Eh, it's always a downer to hear that great people like that die, but he didn't make mindless movies about cars, so the general population will care more about that one actor guy than Nelson Mandela.

    I wonder what retief2000 thinks of a guy who opposed both racial segregation and military expansion, utilized liberal economic policies, expanded healthcare, and fought against poverty...

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are those who gladly feast on the body of the dead. I do not wonder what some of them had to say when Ronald Reagan died because I do not care.

  4. HowardBThiname profile image90
    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago

    Mandela started with an honorable premise, but his refusal to renounce violence as a method of societal change clouds his legacy.

    Ghandi he wasn't, but he tried in his own way to bring social justice. South Africa, unfortunately, is a hot bed of extreme violence today. Apartheid was bad but there was very little violence, until the resistance started.

    I'm not sure why people try so hard to overthrow something they feel is oppressive and then allow such violence and torture to go on.

    The media doesn't always tell us the whole truth, especially if they're covering a political movement. But, during the trial, it came out that Mandela allowed the cutting off of noses of blacks that associated with whites. In 1985, Mandela was offered release from prison if only he would renounce violence, but he would not.

    I don't think Mandela deserved the Nobel Peace prize, but then again, neither did Arafat or Obama.

    Today in South Africa, murder, rape and child rape are horrifically high. When talking about Mandela, apartheid and the results, we have to include the condition of South Africa today.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What about if violence is the only solution to a repressed system (confer Israel)?

    2. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If i were Mandela, why would I compromise with a racist regime?  Time and time again, the high road had been attempted with little or no result or change. The situation is the country was deplorable and appeasement of such a Government would amount to cowardice.

  5. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Howard, on release from prison he made a speech in which he said something like "take your guns and knives and pangas and throw them in the sea".

    Meaningful resistance often resorts to violence especially when the oppressors are quick to resort to violence.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      True that, John. I'm just iffy over the "cutting off noses" thing on other blacks and him not renouncing violence in 85. I think that he finally renounced, which would go along with what you quoted, as a stipulation of his release. Was that in 90 or 91? I can't remember that now.

      Then there was Winnie's advocating of "necklacing" another thing I find horrific. But, there was no indication that he was involved in that, and he did divorce her after all.

      It's just too bad he could not have stayed the course like Gandhi did. then, I think he would leave behind a real legacy.

      But, I agree he was a catalyst for change.

      Now, how do we clean up S Africa?

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nelson Mandela refused to renounce violence as long as the South African government refused to renounce state sanctioned violence against black South Africans. In his own words he considered this "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid."  He did not renounce violence "as a stipulation of his release". Mandela was released unconditionally by F.W. De Klerk in 1990. He renounced violence because he believed it was the right thing to do.

        After becoming President of South Africa, he was largely responsible for preventing the majority black population of South Africa from exacting revenge on minority white South Africans for the oppression suffered at the hands of a white minority government. In doing so he prevented what could have been complete blood bath. Instead Mandela ensured his government consisted of a broad coalition of parties and races, including former President De Klerk who was given a place in the new government.

        Not letting his personal experiences and the tragedy of millions of black South Africans (murdered, tortured and refused the right to vote right up until 1991!) derail his quest for a peaceful South Africa, but instead proactively engaging with those who had once been oppressors (even wearing the shirt of the reviled springboks rugby team), he saved many thousands of lives. That is the legacy of Nelson Mandela. That is what South Africa owes Nelson Mandela. That is why he (and De Klerk) won the Nobel peace prize, and that is why he deserved to.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don,

          Could you link me to stats that back up your assertion that, "...the tragedy of millions of black South Africans (murdered, tortured ..."?

          I'm not blaming Mandela for the increase in SA crime and violence, but democracy has not yet afforded that country any peace, has it?

          Yes, he renounced in 90, but he did not in 84. I think we should remember the man for his accomplishments - but I don't think we should canonize him when he advocated violence - terrorist violence.

          Honesty should always take precedence. We need heroes but we need to be able to talk truthfully and honestly about them, don't you think?

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Like the number matters. If it were just one person it would be too many. There was killing and torture of black South Africans because of the color of their skin, tolerated and condoned by the white South African government. No amount of quibbling over the number of victims will diminish the evil of that crime against humanity.

            You may not be "blaming" Mandela for the troubles in SA, but you seem to be suggesting those troubles reflect badly on him, which is frankly an idiotic notion. Do current troubles in American society diminish the achievements of the founding fathers?

            And since when does acknowledging the achievements of someone equate to "canonizing" them? You seem to be the one suggesting he should have been a saint. He was not. He was just a man who, after great provocation and personal suffering, eventually turned away from violence. A man whose conciliatory actions after the transition to majority rule, prevented racial violence erupting into a bloodbath. A man who chose a path of peace in the end. That is what made the most difference to his country (regardless of what has happened since) and that is what he is rightly remembered for.

            I think honesty is important too. Your inaccurate portrayal of Mandela reeks of something other than honesty.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Don, your sentence, "He was just a man who, after great provocation and personal suffering, eventually turned away from violence." is important to repeat.

              Many dictators have turned from violence toward the end of their lives - when they sense their own mortality.

              My original question about showing us where "millions" died under apartheid was to get you to do a little research so you would discover (which you probably did) that more blacks are being killed, tortured, raped, now than were being killed under apartheid. Your entire story is skewed and that usually indicates someone who is a willing bandwagon-rider.

              You claimed my portrayal of Mandela is "inaccurate," but you are wrong. Everything I've said is factual. You say it "reeks of something other than honesty" and again you're wrong. I'm about facts, not fluff, Don.

              You made an incorrect statement about millions being murdered, tortured, and you should own up to that. Then, you accused me of telling falsehoods - when you knew all along you were the one doing that.

              If you want to remember only one portion of Mandela's life - that's up to you. If you want to be educated and realize that he was the co-founder of the MK that planted bombs that killed innocents, your hero might not be as squeaky-clean, but at least you'd be telling the truth.

              Why do you so badly need to make up things and then cast aspirations on those who educate you?

              I have nothing against Mandela, he was a revolutionary that helped get rid of a caste system. But that's it. He wasn't Gandhi. He voted FOR violence before he voted against it. And he plead guilty to over 150 acts of terrorism. He was on the US Terrorist Watch list until 2008.

              But Don, you also said, "A man whose conciliatory actions after the transition to majority rule, prevented racial violence erupting into a bloodbath. A man who chose a path of peace in the end."

              Seriously Don, this can't go unchallenged. You obviously know nothing about the state South Africa is in today. White farmers are being systematically slaughtered and their lands stolen. Babies are being raped along with their sisters and mothers. It is a bloodbath, Don. Do a little research.

              Or - keep marching in lockstep with the myth-makers. You seem to fit in there quite well.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nelson Mandela, the most forgiven terrorist in the history of mankind.

                One mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighter.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well said, Silver.

                2. IslandBites profile image85
                  IslandBitesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  La ignorancia es atrevida.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Those who see only part of the truth are both ignorant and dangerous..

              2. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Many dictators have turned from violence toward the end of their lives - when they sense their own mortality."

                Implying that Mandela is the same as a political dictator is not only factually incorrect, but also a clumsy attempt to paint a dishonest picture.

                "You claimed my portrayal of Mandela is "inaccurate," but you are wrong. Everything I've said is factual. "

                You said Mandela renounced violence as a stipulation for his release from prison (an unsubtle attempt to imply that Mandela changed his tune to save his own skin). Mandela was in fact released unconditionally. Clearly not everything you have said is factual. Again this looks like an attempt to paint a dishonest picture.

                "If you want to be educated and realize that he was the co-founder of the MK that planted bombs that killed innocents".

                The MK sabotaged power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night when civilians were not present. In Mandela's words the reason the MK chose this form of direct action is because: "it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward.". South African police statistics indicate that between 1976 to 1986 130 people died as the result of such action. So either the MK was the worst terrorist faction in the history of the world, or it was never the intent to kill innocents. You'll also notice that during the period of the deaths (for which we only have the South African police statistics to rely on) Mandela was incarcerated. But why did Mandela believe it was right to take up arms at all? Again in his own words:

                "The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom."

                If this makes Mandela a terrorist, then John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are terrorists also.

                "I have nothing against Mandela, he was a revolutionary that helped get rid of a caste system. But that's it. He wasn't Gandhi."

                Was he a revolutionary or a terrorist? Make your mind up. As for Gandhi, point out the comparison I have made between Mandela and Gandhi. There was no such comparison except the one just made by you.

                "And he plead guilty to over 150 acts of terrorism. He was on the US Terrorist Watch list until 2008."

                Is this another one of your "facts". Mandela was never tried for "terrorism" he was tried on charges of sabotage and plotting to overthrow the government. During his trial in 1963 both the United Nations, and the World Peace Council called for his release. Eminent academic institutions like the University of London voted Mandela to its presidency as a sign of solidarity, and held nightly vigils for him in London. Even by many of his contemporaries, he was not deemed a terrorist. 

                As for the "US Terrorist Watch list". You only have to sneeze the wrong way to be put on that list. If that's the best you can manage to indicate that someone is a terrorist, then you are grasping at straws. By that standard many ordinary US citizens are terrorists.

                "White farmers are being systematically slaughtered and their lands stolen"

                Again you repeat this idiotic notion that the state of SA today somehow diminishes from the achievements of Mandela. If that's the case, then by the same reasoning, the current state of American society means the founding fathers were just terrorists who are not worthy to be considered significant figures in history. If you believe that about the founding fathers, fine, your prerogative. At least that would be honest and consistent. But what you have presented here is, in my opinion, a disingenuous, thinly veiled attempt to diminish the achievements of a significant figure in South African history. The reasons for that are best known only to you.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "You said Mandela renounced violence as a stipulation for his release from prison (an unsubtle attempt to imply that Mandela changed his tune to save his own skin). Mandela was in fact released unconditionally. Clearly not everything you have said is factual. Again this looks like an attempt to paint a dishonest picture".

                  I said “I think” and “I don’t remember right now.” If you’re going to quote someone – at least quote them correctly.

                  " The MK sabotaged power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night when civilians were not present."

                  As you went on to say – civilians did, indeed, die. A terrorist is someone whose actions strike terror in others so they will do the will of the terrorist. You’re trying very hard to justify the violence that you originally denied took place.

                  "Was he a revolutionary or a terrorist? Make your mind up. As for Gandhi, point out the comparison I have made between Mandela and Gandhi. There was no such comparison except the one just made by you."

                  He was both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

                  " Eminent academic institutions like the University of London voted Mandela to its presidency as a sign of solidarity, and held nightly vigils for him in London. Even by many of his contemporaries, he was not deemed a terrorist."

                  Which doesn’t negate the acts of terror or the people coerced by those acts.

                  "Again you repeat this idiotic notion that the state of SA today somehow diminishes from the achievements of Mandela."

                  Of course it does. South Africa is a cesspool today as a direct result of their “democracy.”

                  "If that's the case, then by the same reasoning, the current state of American society means the founding fathers were just terrorists who are not worthy to be considered significant figures in history."

                  What a completely moronic statement. The FF’s actions brought peace and prosperity – that was their legacy. If it’s changed today – then there are other catalysts at work. Mandela just died. His legacy, a complete political crisis, rape of babies, ethnic cleansing of white farmers is still occurring.

                  " But what you have presented here is, in my opinion, a disingenuous, thinly veiled attempt to diminish the achievements of a significant figure in South African history. The reasons for that are best known only to you."

                  More casting of aspirations. I’m only interested in the truth that you want to keep sweeping under the rug. The Mandela you’re worshiping is not the Mandela of history. Yes, he effected change. It’s a good think apartheid is over. But, the result of the political upheaval has been disastrous.

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "I said “I think” and “I don’t remember right now.” If you’re going to quote someone – at least quote them correctly."

                    I didn't quote you. I paraphrased you. Do you know the difference? And you remembered wrong. Mandela was released unconditionally. He didn't renounce violence to save his own skin as your comment implied. It's good that you no longer have that misconception, right?

                    "You’re trying very hard to justify the violence that you originally denied took place."

                    Please point out where I denied violence took place, or is this another example of you misremembering things?

                    "He was both. The two are not mutually exclusive."

                    You implied I made a comparison between Gandhi and Mandela. If I did, please quote me. Another case of misremembering?

                    "Which doesn't negate the acts of terror or the people coerced by those acts."

                    It gives some context and some insight into how he was viewed by his contemporaries. The fact that institutions that were part of the English establishment campaigned for his release in the '60s demonstrates that contemporaries outside his immediate supporters did not necessarily consider him a terrorist, despite what you and the "US terrorist watch list" say (as if that's any real indicator of who is a terrorist. Good grief!)

                    "South Africa is a cesspool today as a direct result of their "democracy”"

                    Who are they? South Africans in general? The ANC? The SA government? Who are you referring to?

                    "The FF’s actions brought peace and prosperity – that was their legacy. If it’s changed today – then there are other catalysts at work. Mandela just died. His legacy, a complete political crisis, rape of babies, ethnic cleansing of white farmers is still occurring. "

                    The immediate effect of the founding fathers leadership was an eight year will that resulted in thousands of deaths. By your standard, when they died we should have considered that their legacy. Would that be fair? Or would it be fairer to say their legacy was laying the foundation which enabled the development of a country. A development that was, and continues to be, troubled and difficult.

                    Why apply a different standard to Mandela? The current state of SA is not his legacy. He helped lay a foundation. What develops from that is up to the people of SA, just like it was for the American people. It is unfair, and inaccurate to diminish the achievement of laying that foundation simply because the continued development is troubled and difficult.

                    "More casting of aspirations. I’m only interested in the truth. The Mandela you’re worshiping is not the Mandela of history. Yes, he effected change. It’s a good think apartheid is over. But, the result of the political upheaval has been disastrous."

                    Anyone who quotes the "US Terrorist Watch List" as a source of truth, is clearly not interested in the truth. Regardless, does acknowledging the achievement of the founding fathers constitute "worship"? If so, we have very different notions of worship. If not, then why does acknowledging the achievement of Nelson Mandela constitute worship? Again that's a different standard. The fact that continuing political, social and economic development in SA is difficult is irrelevant to what Mandela achieved. The fact that racial violence exists in SA today does not diminish from his achievement, no matter how much you want that to be so. If anything, it goes to show how much SA needs another leader who is willing to expend his energy in preventing such violence.

                    He was an intelligent man, needed by his country now more than ever. Deserving of his Nobel peace prize, and an inspiration to South Africans. Like it or not, Mandela will be in the history books as a significant figure in world history. Thankfully, no amount of cynicism or double standards will change that. That isn't "worship", just simple acknowledgement of a man who helped right a massive wrong, and enable development. The rest is in the SA people's hands.

  6. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    May he rest in peace.  A great statesman, a great humanitarian, evolved person.  He fought the good fight and brought justice to South Africa. A hero beyond time and space.

  7. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Yes, and what did he bring to his people?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not freedom, you couldn't really call what the people of South Africa are experiencing as freedom could you.
      But he did bring them recognition that they are equal, that they are equal regardless of the colour of their skin.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Is freedom enough? What about the repartition of the wealth or shall it still be concentrated in the white community? Wasn't it part of the deal with the Afrikaners?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There are plenty of wealthy black South Africans, usually in the government. It seems they have replaced one oppressor with another.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image79
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't disagree with you. I just say that he could have done more. Who still possess diamond mines, gold ores... Did the oppressor transfer the people's wealth? Did shanty towns disappear? What is the criminality rate? Were the people's socio-economical needs met under his presidency? Or did it become another highly corrupt African country?

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Isn't it better to be free to choose one's oppressor and free from an oppressor who sees only you skin color.  Aren't all South Africans now, more or less, equal in their opportunity for privation and violence - unlike the days of Apartheid. Aren't all South Africans now free to be oppressed without regard to their skin color?

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                that is conservatives for you, it is acceptable for 10% of the population to prosper as the detriment of the other 90%. Apartheid was never a viable alternative, period, regardless of the outcome.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why would one be proud of being so locked into the voices in one's own head that nothing else can possibly get through.  Why would one still not get the idea that a corpse is a miserable soap box.

                2. 60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps it is time for new glasses, no where in that response is an endorsement of Apartheid - but we see evil where we wish.

            2. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It became another highly corrupt African country.

              Incidentally the wealth in Zimbabwe has and still is being transferred, unfortunately its usually into the bank accounts of Mugabe and his cronies.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Living in constant fear is not freedom.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

          What Mandela actually achieved was to bring publicity world wide to the wrongs of apartheid and he helped change the government from minority rule to majority rule.


          I wonder if the freedom fighter Robert Mugabe will be seen in the same light?

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And what do you think Blacks were living in under apartheid?

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The salient point.

  8. Temizlik Sirketi profile image59
    Temizlik Sirketiposted 3 years ago

    There were few men like him in the time of the world.

 
working