Nelson Mandela is dead
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.
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?
It is so encouraging that people are not using the death of Mandela to spew the typical partisan political hatred.
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?
Why would any thinking and feeling person seek to engage in hatred and partisan self-righteousness while standing on the corpse of Nelson Mandela
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...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.
- HowardBThinameposted 11 years ago
0Mandela 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.What about if violence is the only solution to a repressed system (confer Israel)?
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.
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.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?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.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?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.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.Nelson Mandela, the most forgiven terrorist in the history of mankind.
One mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighter."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."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."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."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. "
This pretty much sums up your entire premise. You're going to dismiss the whole history of the man in order to join in sanctimonious grieving. Yes, Mandela will be remembered, but let's hope that he is remembered truthfully and not through the rose-colored glasses you're wearing.
Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.None of the people we consider great leaders were saints (not even Gandhi). They were all just ordinary human beings. What marks them out from the rest of us is that they rose above their personal faults and weaknesses to achieve significant change. Of course we can acknowledge those faults and weaknesses, but only focusing on that robs us of the inspiration to be gained from their achievements. Becoming the President of a country, and steering it peacefully through the most significant social change in its history is remarkable enough. Doing so in a country where it was illegal for you to use the same toilet as a white person, let alone vote. That's a tremendous achievement. Acknowledging that is not sanctimony. It's giving credit where it's due. The personal shortcomings of the founding fathers, and the immediate violence that resulted from their leadership, should not detract from their achievements, don't you agree? For some reason you do not think the same standard applies to Mandela. Again only you know the reason for that.
"Becoming the President of a country, and steering it peacefully through the most significant social change in its history is remarkable enough."
Except it wasn't peaceful. Violence has been building since before apartheid ended and it's at endemic proportions now. That's what you should be talking about.
"Acknowledging that is not sanctimony. It's giving credit where it's due. The personal shortcomings of the founding fathers, and the immediate violence that resulted from their leadership, should not detract from their achievements, don't you agree? "
Were you to actually "acknowledge" the historic events, I might agree. But that's not exactly what you did - is it?
The irony inherent in your Founding Fathers analogy is that they did not specifically target innocent children. They tried to fight against male British soldiers. In addition, the outcome of the Founding Fathers within a few short years was a more peaceful nation.
Not so in SA where the rape of infants is now an everyday occurrence.
Just as we cannot separate the successes of the US from the Founding Fathers as you point out, neither can we separate modern-day SA from those who ushered in the new govt. there.
I trust historians will be truthful enough to remember that although Mandela is the face of the end of apartheid - his was not a struggle founded in peace and honor - but in terrorism. It's important that our children learn the whole truth. Just as they do about our Founding Fathers.You have a selective view of history. The aftermath of the revolutionary war was less than peaceful. Need I remind you that President Washington personally led federal troops against western farmers to quell dissent after independence? Need I remind you of the atrocities carried out by all sides in the wars with native Americans after independence? You believe such violence does not detract from the achievements of the founding fathers. I agree. We cannot lay every example of violence that accompanied the development of the country at the feet of the founding fathers. That would be ludicrous.
Yet you are suggesting the current violence in SA, including the "rape of babies", can be laid at the feet of Nelson Mandela (are you really trying to associate the raping of babies with Nelson Mandela? Really?) Nelson Mandela is not responsible for everything that is happening in South Africa right now, any more than the founding fathers were responsible for everything that happened in the U.S after the war of independence.
Violence accompanies the birth of nations. The fact there was so little violence in SA after the end of apartheid, compared to what could have been, is a testament to the leadership and character of Mandela. Sir Isaac Newton said "if I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". If another black leader is able to take up the baton of leadership and continue the development of SA, it will only be because Mandela cleared the way for them.
But I'll let the man's words speak for themselves with a comment that seems apt:
"Do not judge me by my successes, judge me by how many times I fell down and got back up again." (Nelson Mandela)HowardBThiname, all I have seen from you is some ramblings about Nelson Mandela being in the Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) (which we know already because it's in virtually every historical record of his life); And a spurious and unsubtle attempt to associate Mandela with the raping of children (?!). To help us not to talk past each other, which we seem to be, I'm resorting to simple, direct questions:
1. Why is Nelson Mandela responsible for violence in South Africa in 2013, even though he was President from 1994 to 1999? By that reasoning (seems to be a 20 year rule) is Bill Clinton responsible for violence in America in 2013? And will George Bush be responsible for violence in America in 2021? Is that how it works?
2. Why is it acceptable to you that the founding fathers took up arms to defend themselves against a violent, tyrannical oppressor, but unacceptable that South Africans took up arms to defend themselves against a violent, tyrannical oppressor?
3. Is acknowledging that the creation of nations is often accompanied by violence, the same as endorsing or condoning violence? Or is it simply making a factual statement?
4. What exactly do you want? To establish that Mandela was not a saint? Show me where anyone suggested he was; That the development of SA has still a long way to go? Again show me where anyone disagrees. For Mandela's name to be struck from the history books? Obviously not going to happen. To note his involvement with the MK? Already noted by several reliable sources. So what exactly are you arguing about?
At the moment your attitude seems to be colored by nothing more than a strong bias against Nelson Mandela, for reasons known only to you. This is especially evident in your obvious dislike of the parallel I've drawn between Mandela and the founding fathers. Hopefully these questions will allow you to offer some new insight into what you are saying, and why you are saying it. At the moment that dislike doesn't seem to be based on any reasonable argument.Thanks for answering the questions you did. Follow ups:
1. What is the "manner" in which apartheid ended that you feel so negatively about?
2. Do you genuinely believe having the right to vote, marry whom you choose, own property, live without being forcibly removed to a "township", represents a "modicum" of freedom?
3. When you say "That's why we not only can, but should, relate today's SA problem with Mandela" who is "we", and why do you think relating problems in SA to Mandela is so important?
4. Were, or are, you in favor of the system of apartheid? (serious question)
5. Does wanting to find out what someone is saying, and why they are saying it, constitute "casting aspersions", or is it an important part of understanding another person's perspective?
Questions you didn't answer:
"2. Why is it acceptable to you that the founding fathers took up arms to defend themselves against a violent, tyrannical oppressor, but unacceptable that South Africans took up arms to defend themselves against a violent, tyrannical oppressor?"
"3. Is acknowledging that the creation of nations is often accompanied by violence, the same as endorsing or condoning violence? Or is it simply making a factual statement?"
The reason I'm asking direct questions is because it seems the easiest way to cut through the noise (so to speak).
You say my view is "selective" Don and yet, I'm not the one trying to sweep one side of Mandela's history under the rug. You are.
Read Mandela's two-volume autobiography. He doesn't hide his terrorist acts. He's quite up-front about them and why he thought they were necessary.
Why be a revisionist historian Don? What do you achieve by doing so?
By saying that "violence accompanies the birth of nations" you are condoning the violence. And this isn't just any violence - it's not violence against the military or political figures. It's violence against innocents.
Thank you for showing us your true colors."
At the moment your attitude seems to be colored by nothing more than a strong bias against Nelson Mandela, for reasons known only to you. This is especially evident in your obvious dislike of the parallel I've drawn between Mandela and the founding fathers. "
It's amusing how you have a need to cast aspersions against those who disagree with you. I don't dislike your parallel of the founding fathers, I just pointed out that it was a weak analogy. I don't have a "strong bias" against Nelson Mandela, honestly, where do you come up with such tripe?
I've pointed out to you that Mandela advocated violence and was, therefore, not a good choice for a Peace Prize. I pointed out to you that the end of apartheid was achieved in such a manner that it made SA a more dangerous place today than it was before.
You've justified not only violence, but torture of such barbaric proportions that it gives us great insight into your personae.
George W Bush might well bear some responsibility for violence today that is occurring in Iraq. Bill clinton might bear a bit of responsibility for ongoing unrest in Kosovo. But nothing they did is causing a turmoil in the US - nor did the founding fathers do anything that is carried into today. Jefferson might have borne slight responsibility for carrying on the slave trade.
But, while I can be unbiased and discuss the positive and negative, here we have Don who is in full revisionist historian mode.
What's the point? Ending apartheid might have earned SA's a modicum of "freedom" but it put their very lives in danger. That's why we not only can, but should, relate today's SA problem with Mandela - if you want to honor him with being the face of the end of apartheid, then he bears some responsibility for the fallout.
The violence IS a result of the lawlessness that started when apartheid fell, Don. Are or are you not trying to honor a person and claim he was responsible for the end of apartheid?
Do you realize that Mugabe also struggled against a white minority rule?No, the violence was a result of apartheid and did not start when apartheid fell. It was long entrenched in the country.
To claim otherwise is to ignore the truth..
1. The continuing –and escalating violence.
2. When that freedom comes with a very real threat of rape, torture or death – yes.
3. Of course it is, because the increased violence is related to the govt. that was form when apartheid ended.
4. Absolutely not.
5. Casting aspersions is when someone posts crap like, At the moment your attitude seems to be colored by nothing more than a strong bias against Nelson Mandela, for reasons known only to you. This is especially evident in your obvious dislike of the parallel I've drawn between Mandela and the founding fathers. "
Or,
” Your inaccurate portrayal of Mandela reeks of something other than honesty.”
It’s that childish kind of crap that undermines honest adult discussions.
2. I don’t. I find it unacceptable to torture and terrorize innocents. What the ANC did was not similar to fighting a war against other militants – it was exactly the same methods used by the KKK in the US to terrorize and intimidate blacks. If you care to read the Geneva Conventions, you will discover why that’s inappropriate.
3. See previous answer.
And here are a few short questions for you, Don.
Now, here are some questions for you.
1) Do you now understand that your statement about “…the tragedy of millions of black South Africans (murdered, tortured and refused the right to vote right up until 1991!” is completely false?
2) Do you feel it is permissible for “freedom fighters” to use extreme violence against non-combatants to terrorize them into doing the will of the freedom fighters?
3) Should we, as historians, gloss over the negative things a person does – if we approve of something else that the person has accomplished? For example, should we refuse to point out that Jefferson owned slaves?
4) Do you still think that actions taken by the MK did not involve loss of life?
5) Can you explain why crime and violence began increasing in SA when apartheid ended?
6) Do you think babies, women and children are acceptable targets of someone trying to overthrow a government? If so, are you opposed to the classification of ‘non combatants’ set forth by the Geneva Conventions?
7) What did you mean by your comment, “Anyone who quotes the "US Terrorist Watch List" as a source of truth, is clearly not interested in the truth.”Still awaiting your replies, Don. Hope all is well with you.
1) It isn't false. The total number of people refused the right to vote alone is millions. Combined with however many were killed or tortured under apartheid and obviously we are talking about millions of people.
2) Do you have evidence to support your allegation that Nelson Mandela was personally and directly involved with violence that specifically targeted civilians?
3) Nope, but should we deny that Jefferson made a significant contribution to the freedom of Americans, just because that freedom wan't realized in his lifetime? If not then why should we do that with Mandela?
4) Please point out where I said that.
5) Where is your data? The murder rate in SA increased over the 40 years before the end of apartheid, not just after it. It then fell from 66.9% (1994 - 1995) to 37.3% (2008 - 2009). And between 2003–2009 crime in general decreased. Also, how likely do you think it is that state sponsored racial violence would appear on official statistics before 1991? I think it extremely unlikely. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that racial violence during apartheid would be under reported.
And here's a question for you: Do you know why there was not a bloodbath when the 8% white population in South Africa lost political power over the 92% non white population, and 50 years of humiliation, violence and racial oppression came to an end?
6) Do you have evidence to support your allegation that Nelson Mandela personally directed violence towards babies, women and children?
7) I meant that you do not have to be a terrorist to be on the list. It is based on the concept that the government has the authority to curtail the lawful movements of law abiding citizens based on what they might do in the future, and that is based on who-knows-what surveillance someone has been subjected to. I don’t think abridging the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, placed on a secret list outside the domain of due process, is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Do you? There has to be a balance between security and freedom. Currently I believe the government is not doing a very good job maintaining that balance.
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.
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.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?
There are plenty of wealthy black South Africans, usually in the government. It seems they have replaced one oppressor with another.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Perhaps it is time for new glasses, no where in that response is an endorsement of Apartheid - but we see evil where we wish.
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.
Living in constant fear is not freedom.
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?And what do you think Blacks were living in under apartheid?
There were few men like him in the time of the world.
Related Discussions
- 6
Why Did They Jail Nelson Mandela And How Long Did He Stay In Prison?
by ngureco 13 years ago
Why Did They Jail Nelson Mandela And How Long Did He Stay In Prison?
- 18
Nelson Mandela in Invictus
by theirishobserver. 14 years ago
For my lastest Hub I have done a review of the movie Invictus which is about Nelson Mandela and the suth African rugby team, what is your view of Mandela......
- 12
If you have one minute to spend with Nelson Mandela,what question would you ask
by Folorunsho Joshua 13 years ago
If you have one minute to spend with Nelson Mandela,what question would you ask him?
- 4
Is Nelson Mandela the nicest person in the world.
by Touring Scotland 13 years ago
Is Nelson Mandela the nicest person in the world.Because its either him or Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
- 6
Quote of the Day - Nelson Mandela
by Kenna McHugh 5 years ago
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living."-- Nelson Mandela
- 316
Can the United States be considered a "terrorist" nation?
by cooldad 9 years ago
I can't help but wonder if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation. With its actions in the past and the present, can the U.S. be considered terrorists?The treatment of Native Americans, slavery, Cambodia bombing, Iraq, Afghanistan are just a few potential examples.What are...