RIP Nelson Mandela

[Batman]

we should immediately release the marine who murdered that taliban fighter.

he murdered him for a good cause

[Halo Stickman]

Terrorism, especially violent terrorism against innocent individuals, is rarely successful in bringing about change; in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is counter productive.

 

“It’s a little-known fact that most terrorist groups fail, and that all of them die. Lest this seem hard to believe, just reflect on the world around you. Israel continues to exist, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, and Kashmir is a part of India. There are no sovereign states in Kurdistan, Palestine, Quebec, Puerto Rica, Chechnya, Corsica, Tamil Eelam, or Basque Country. The Philippines, Algeria, Egypt and Uzbekistan are not Islamic theocracies; nor have Japan, the United States, Europe and Latin America become religious, Marxist, anarchist, or new-age utopias.”

 

– Steven Pinker 2011 The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes

[saintbletch]

So he wasn't all the time then like you made out.

 

Ive asked plenty of questions myself which no one has answered. I've not sneered at their views, called them names and been abusive. Why should I answer questions when no one has answered mine and I've been abused for my opinion.

 

Why did Mandela refuse to renounce violence in 1985 when he was offered this in exchange for release from prison? No one can answer this, the just keep trotting out the racist line, as I see you are again. As I've said, he's a great man and did a lot of good post 1994. But no one seems to want to talk about what happened before then.

 

I agree with your summary Turkish. He was a great man and did a lot of good.

 

As for his past, I'll have a go at rationalising some of it. But be warned that you'll have to confront arguments that contain a lot of grey and that require one to confront one's own preconceptions. And by the way, I think it's your style of debate that puts people off discussing these things with you, rather than their silence suggesting that you're necessarily right.

 

Far be it from me to suggest that you should change your approach, but if you genuinely want to debate something, you perhaps should come to the discussion without such an intransigent position, such an aggressive approach and drop the use of the patronising images?

 

Your call.

 

[video=youtube_share;NKiePbTcAfY]

 

Well on face value this is difficult to reconcile, especially if you bring any sort of preconception to the debate. For example, if you're predisposed to the idea that black people are given unfairly positive handling by the media and your peers, or if you're of the view that positive discrimination toward black people can never be justified - even to overturn centuries of discrimination, then I'd imagine it will be all but impossible to see this in any way other than negative.

 

Personally, having watched the video, I see someone making a PR gaff, but not someone that believes in the words that are being sung.

 

I'm actually not sure that Mandela is singing as you suggest. I'm not being obtuse, I just can't see his lips clearly given the poor quality of the video. Even the narrator of the video avoids suggesting that Mandela sang the words; validly stating, that the "words of the just sung song, just don't tally [with Mandela's conciliatory words in English]".

 

But still we're left with an image of a man sworn to reconciliation in an environment that appears to contradict that.

 

I'm also surprised that the elephant in the room isn't mentioned. You know, the ostensibly "white" man, standing next to Mandela and surrounded by many black people.

 

Well that "elephant" either doesn't know what the words mean, or he is singing a song that has transcended its original meaning to become emblematic of the struggle for equality. I'm guessing that the many black people at the gathering either haven't seen the "white" man. Either that or they seem to also realise that the song isn't to be taken literally. Perhaps it's a song that has historically been sung at these gatherings and it's literal meaning is no longer directly considered?

 

I believe the "white man" is actually a South African Jew called Ronnie Kasrils who describes himself as a "white Jewish boykie from Yeoville". Either way, I'd concede that it's not a clever PR move by Mandela to be seen there with those words being sung around him.

 

Then again I've Googled what the term "Ama bhulu" means.

 

There is some dispute, and I'd encourage you to do your own research, but it appears that it means "lots of Boers". So the song still has a pretty appalling sentiment, and for many, even if you factor in the context of their repression, it's still wrong. But it does put a different spin on the message of killing lots of Boers, and not killing lots of whites. It reduces, whilst not quite eliminating, the racist undertone of the message of the song.

 

I'd acknowledge that I might be looking too deeply into the semantics here, and that the terms "Boers" and "whites" may well be interchangeable in the minds of those singing the song. But it does go some way to explaining how someone who appears to be "white" can stand at ease in what otherwise would surely be a hostile and frightening environment.

 

As for the bombings and "terrorist" activities where allegations range from Mandela being either simply part of the responsible organisation, or that he personally controlled and sanctioned them, then I'd have to say that context is absolutely everything. But whether you decide Mandela comes out positively or not depends on the prejudices we each bring to the analysis of the situation.

 

If he personally sanctioned the death of civilians, then this would be a huge negative factor to record in the con column of his life's ledger. He'd have to have done a great deal of good in the rest of his life to outweigh that. Whether he did either of these things (either the bad or the good), is down to the individual to assess. If however, he sanctioned the acts of violence against the state, but not civilians, then I wouldn't lose too much sleep about that.

 

Regarding the use of the term terrorism to describe what the ANC and MK did, at the time the term terrorism could be used by the white South African Government and her allies because the regime was seen in some way as "legitimate". This meant that the acts of violence and sedition against the state fitted into a definition of terrorism. However, the lens of time and a more developed social understanding has allowed us to see the then white South African government as completely illegitimate. This in turn means that to my mind the actions of the ANC and MK were not those of a terrorist organisation.

 

For me, any action that deliberately kills anyone is reprehensible, but I can also understand the motivation and the situation that might lead someone to feeling helpless enough to resort to acts of armed struggle against the state.

 

The question was asked earlier about Jerry Adams' role in the Northern Ireland peace process. I see his role as being a significant contribution to the "peace" we see today. History will judge him on both sides of his actions, but ultimately his decision to pursue a political solution and to turn away from the armed struggle means that history will see his contribution as net positive. This is very difficult to swallow, and certainly if you have any personal investment in the situation, I can totally understand that people may arrive at a different conclusion.

 

The main difference between Mandela's and Adams' struggle though, as others have suggested, is that Adams always had the option of turning to politics to resolve his problems.

 

By law, the struggle for race equality in Apartheid South Africa had no political outlet. What do you do to right such an egregious wrong when you are completely disenfranchised and have limited access to education and media? Think about it for a moment. What would you do, and how would you justify you action or inaction to your children?

 

If I was in that situation and had the courage, I'm pretty sure I'd resort to any means to change this situation. I'd also recognise that when history looked back at my actions, many would ignorantly ignore historical context and judge my actions in isolation and in the context of the world we live in today.

[saintbletch]

Was Nelson Mandela the God-like saintly figure some now choose to make him out to be? Well I'm pretty sure he would have laughed out loud at any such suggestion. In truth precious few mere mortals ever come even close to that level of perfection. He was just a man afterall ... but it seems to me a pretty exceptional one.

 

How complicit could he possibly have been, from his prison cell most of the time, in ANC terrorist/freedom fighting* (*delete according to your politics) activities during the era of the despicable Apartheid regime? Well the answer to that difficult question doesn't seem entirely clear at this time - sometimes you just have to wait a while for history to judge on that type of matter.

 

What some on here seem unable to grasp is that sometimes circumstances quite beyond the control of any one man force 'good' men into doing 'bad' things in pursuance of a higher goal. For example many terrible things were done in the name of defeating the forces of Fascism during WWII - anyone on here want to claim those manifest war crimes invalidated the moral justice of resisting that wicked philosophy?

 

No, the inherent contradiction implicit in all of this is a (regrettable) aspect of the complexity of life on this very imperfect world of ours. He may not have been another Gandhi, few are, but it seems to me that Nelson Mandela played a significant part in leaving his country a somewhat better place when he died than it was when he was born. A life well spent you might say.

 

Good post.

[shurlock]

He's a great man but....

 

With that obligatory skin-deep disclaimer out of the way.

 

 

 

Mug

Edited 8 December, 2013 by shurlock

[Tokyo-Saint]

Bit harsh on bletch.

[shurlock]

Not aimed at Bletch at all - more a rhetorical or reasoning style that infests threads like these.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by shurlock

[Ohio Saint]

He's a great man but....

 

With that obligatory skin-deep disclaimer out of the way.

 

 

I think that in the present, that disclaimer is fairly important. Although a great man, the hyperbole surrounding any mention of his name is a little out of control at the moment. Great man? Most definitely. The saint-like figure that he is currently being portrayed as? Most definitely not. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what type of man would have emerged had he not been imprisoned. That though is the way of life, and history dictated that it was possibly the circumstances that made a great man rather than the man himself.

 

Either way, I am pleased that it all worked out for the better in the long run. Apartheid was an evil policy.

[Turkish]

Some great posts from Bletch, Ohio and CEC which makes a refreshing change to the fingers in ear, feet stamping and yelling 'he's a racist' from the usual crowd. The predictable reaction that has gone for pretty much the entire rest of the thread because it's been dared to suggest that the saint like imagine, as Ohio puts it very well, isn't quite what the truth and that this sits uncomfortably with some people who sadly resort to insults rather than discussion.

[shurlock]

I think that in the present, that disclaimer is fairly important. Although a great man, the hyperbole surrounding any mention of his name is a little out of control at the moment. Great man? Most definitely. The saint-like figure that he is currently being portrayed as? Most definitely not. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what type of man would have emerged had he not been imprisoned. That though is the way of life, and history dictated that it was possibly the circumstances that made a great man rather than the man himself.

 

Either way, I am pleased that it all worked out for the better in the long run. Apartheid was an evil policy.

 

It cuts both ways.

 

No problem with discussing an individual's legacy which is never clear-cut, the good, the bad and everything in between.

 

Still 'Great but...' posts would appear a lot more sincere if they actually reflected on the former statement -indeed when the very same posts ridicule others who call him an inspiration (after all, he's 'great'), you can't help but be sceptical and think its a bit of necessary and preemptive window-dressing so that they can address what really concerns them.

 

A fuller appreciation of someone's successes would make for a credible appraisal of their failures, the choices, the trade-offs and the constraints under which they acted as the two can never be fully separated and hopefully provide some way to reconcile the them.

 

Alas that part of the ledger is ignored beyond a "he's great or he did alot of good things (what? - I would say that he failed to achieve much once in power)" which is either moronic and cliched or contrived and disingenuous.

 

My optimistic side likes to believe its the former.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by shurlock

[Ohio Saint]

 

Alas that part of the ledger is ignored beyond a "he's great or he did alot of good things (what? - I would say that he failed to achieve much once in power)" which is either blithe and moronic or contrived and disingenuous.

 

I am blithe and moronic or cunning and disingenuous. I can live with that as it comes from a post on the internet, rather than someone I actually know in real life and actually care about. If you met me or knew me personally, there is no way in hell you would make that judgement on me. Such is the way of internet forums. Oh well, even a bleeding heart liberal like me gets it from other liberals I guess.

[shurlock]

I am blithe and moronic or cunning and disingenuous. I can live with that as it comes from a post on the internet, rather than someone I actually know in real life and actually care about. If you met me or knew me personally, there is no way in hell you would make that judgement on me. Such is the way of internet forums. Oh well, even a bleeding heart liberal like me gets it from other liberals I guess.

 

This isn't aimed at you, more a general posting style.

 

As far as I know, you haven't spent time trawling through far right websites to make a point, tempered by a "he's great" that looks either moronic or half-hearted in comparison

[Ohio Saint]

This isn't aimed at you, more a general posting style.

 

As far as I know, you haven't spent time trawling through far right websites to make a point, tempered by a "he's great" that looks either moronic or half-hearted in comparison

 

But when one starts a post late in a thread, is it really necessary to go through the whole process of repeating all the reasons that have been posted before about why a man is great before offering the more tempered opinion? It had already been done a million times over. Yes, he WAS a great man! That had already been established and agreed upon. With that in mind, do we have to repeat all that at the start of every post?

[Verbal]

So he wasn't all the time then like you made out.

 

Ive asked plenty of questions myself which no one has answered. I've not sneered at their views, called them names and been abusive. Why should I answer questions when no one has answered mine and I've been abused for my opinion.

 

Why did Mandela refuse to renounce violence in 1985 when he was offered this in exchange for release from prison? No one can answer this, the just keep trotting out the racist line, as I see you are again. As I've said, he's a great man and did a lot of good post 1994. But no one seems to want to talk about what happened before then.

 

If you're going to continue to avoid answering the question about the non-existent quote from Mandela that he "personally authorised" the Church Street attack or the 1980s bombing campaign in general, then presumably you would wish to withdraw your link to that pro-apartheid site. Perhaps you would also wish to distance yourself from the false claim that Mandela "personally signed off" the attacks by acknowledging that it is a fantasy perpetuated by far-right and racist sources.

 

In fact, if you google the phrase, what comes up is a sorry list of extreme-right and white-power sites, as well as a few football related sites like this one (not surprising, I suppose, given that the far-right have always targeted football sites for recruitment).

 

Beyond this, there is an important distinction to make that I'm unconvinced you are capable of grasping. It is one thing to acknowledge, as any reasonable person would, that greatness is measured on scales that balance moral force or good judgement on the one hand, and mendacity or poor judgement on the other. It is quite another thing to invent the negatives, in order to falsely cast someone in the worst light. Racists, especially the apartheid relics and their apologists here, have constantly sought to pin the "terrorist" label on Mandela - and they've had to resort to outright lies to do it. You happen to find yourself in the sorry position of falling for their crap, hook, line and sinker.

 

On the question you ask, about Mandela's refusal to "renounce violence" if you read Mandela's own account of this in his autobiography, he basically took the stance that he was not in a position to do so, not just because of the asymmetry of violence from the illegal apartheid regime, but also because he saw it as a ploy to discredit him, split the anti-apartheid movement, and prolong violent white rule. He was, essentially, being asked to "renounce violence" while having no power to stop the regime continuing its violent oppression of the opposition - and the prize for this was a promise of personal freedom and political betrayal.

 

He also believed the offer from the regime betrayed political weakness.

 

And on this he was proved right. The regime were able to hold him for only another five years before he emerged, free and unencumbered by sleazy deals with the regime.

 

So yes, any assessment of Mandela must balance the good and the bad - but hysterical pro-apartheid rhetoric, unthinkingly retailed with slack-jawed gullibility, must play no part in that assessment.

[Batman]

I wonder how long he was kept alive for and suffered?

 

He has no doubt been hooked up to machines for a while

[Ludwig]

I wonder how long he was kept alive for and suffered?

 

He has no doubt been hooked up to machines for a while

 

Sometimes, when I read your posts, I'm convinced that you're hooked up to machines.

[Gemmel]

Sometimes, when I read your posts, I'm convinced that you're hooked up to machines.

 

What ....like our manager is hooked up to his translator

[Turkish]

If you're going to continue to avoid answering the question about the non-existent quote from Mandela that he "personally authorised" the Church Street attack or the 1980s bombing campaign in general, then presumably you would wish to withdraw your link to that pro-apartheid site. Perhaps you would also wish to distance yourself from the false claim that Mandela "personally signed off" the attacks by acknowledging that it is a fantasy perpetuated by far-right and racist sources.

 

In fact, if you google the phrase, what comes up is a sorry list of extreme-right and white-power sites, as well as a few football related sites like this one (not surprising, I suppose, given that the far-right have always targeted football sites for recruitment).

 

Beyond this, there is an important distinction to make that I'm unconvinced you are capable of grasping. It is one thing to acknowledge, as any reasonable person would, that greatness is measured on scales that balance moral force or good judgement on the one hand, and mendacity or poor judgement on the other. It is quite another thing to invent the negatives, in order to falsely cast someone in the worst light. Racists, especially the apartheid relics and their apologists here, have constantly sought to pin the "terrorist" label on Mandela - and they've had to resort to outright lies to do it. You happen to find yourself in the sorry position of falling for their crap, hook, line and sinker.

 

On the question you ask, about Mandela's refusal to "renounce violence" if you read Mandela's own account of this in his autobiography, he basically took the stance that he was not in a position to do so, not just because of the asymmetry of violence from the illegal apartheid regime, but also because he saw it as a ploy to discredit him, split the anti-apartheid movement, and prolong violent white rule. He was, essentially, being asked to "renounce violence" while having no power to stop the regime continuing its violent oppression of the opposition - and the prize for this was a promise of personal freedom and political betrayal.

 

He also believed the offer from the regime betrayed political weakness.

 

And on this he was proved right. The regime were able to hold him for only another five years before he emerged, free and unencumbered by sleazy deals with the regime.

 

So yes, any assessment of Mandela must balance the good and the bad - but hysterical pro-apartheid rhetoric, unthinkingly retailed with slack-jawed gullibility, must play no part in that assessment.

 

Ahh of course, an autobiography. We should trust this implicitly because no one has ever written an autobiography and painted themselves in a positive light, justifying things they have done, have they.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Nelson Mandela was a good man of biblical proportions because when released from prison it would have been far easier to have played the warrior leading 'his people' into a victorious and very bloody civil war. Instead, like we should when judging him, he looked forwards not backwards and opted to become the unifying force behind a new South Africa. To achieve a virtual bloodless transfer from black to white rule was extraordinary and something that Mandela can take the lion's share of the credit for.

[Halo Stickman]

Regarding the video in saintbletch’s excellent post, there are times in a politician’s life – indeed, there are times in many people’s lives – when they have to play to the audience, and sometimes they have to say or do things that they don’t really believe in. To my mind at least, Mandela is singing that song with about as much conviction as an England footballer singing the national anthem.

 

I don’t really know enough about Mandela’s history to be able to comment on the degree to which he was or wasn’t responsible for terrorism; however, I would like to say that I believe there is absolutely no justification under any circumstances for the killing or maiming of innocent people in the name of terrorism. Of course, I’m well aware that I’m saying this as a middle-aged white man living in a democratic country in 2013, not as a young disenfranchised black man living under apartheid in the 1960s; but saintbletch has already eloquently made this point, so I’ll move on…

 

What role do I think Mandela played in ending apartheid? Well, first, let’s rewind the history of the ‘civilised’ world back about 500 years to a time when people were broken on the wheel, hung, drawn and quartered, and burnt at the stake for following the wrong monarch or religion; when serfs were yoked to the plough, women were mere chattels of men, and slavery was commonplace.

 

Fast forward to the 1990s, passing lots of cultural milestones on the way: the ending of cruel and barbaric tortures and death penalties, the abolition of serfdom and slavery; the introduction of human and woman’s rights; and the desegregation of different races on all American buses, schools and collages being just a few of them.

 

Let’s call this a ‘civilising’ process; let’s not concern ourselves with the driving forces behind this process, except to appreciate the fact that eventually it cuts through all national boundaries, and no country – at least no country in the ‘civilised’ world – can remain forever isolated from this process.

 

Now, South Africa in the 1990s wanted to be seen – indeed, needed to be seen – as a ‘civilised’ country. How could they be seen as such, whilst keeping an apartheid regime in place? The answer is they couldn’t. Mandela and the South African government knew that the days of apartheid were numbered. Mandela’s release and his subsequent denouncement of violence and advocation of equality for all South Africans simply aided an already inevitable process.

 

How difficult was any of this for Mandela? Well, if nothing else, the mere fact that the man spent 27 years incarcerated, often in solitary confinement, breaking rocks on Robben Island, yet still emerged as a seemingly personable, well-rounded, conciliatory individual must give even his most strident detractors cause for admiration. How does someone survive such a confinement? Does the degree of their guilt or innocence make it easier or more difficult?

 

But, how difficult has it been for the loved ones of the innocent victims of ANC terrorism in the intervening years? Was it made easier for them when the leader of that organisation ended up being lauded as one of the greatest statesmen of all time? Only they can answer that question. But I suspect if someone had told them – back in the 1960s – that that would be the case, it would have felt like scorn being poured onto their misery. I suspect they would have been as astonished as I would have been if someone had told me – back in the 1970s – that Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley would end up sharing a joke together on the same stage.

 

But, perhaps that’s all just part of an inexorable ‘civilising’ process?

[Verbal]

Ahh of course, an autobiography. We should trust this implicitly because no one has ever written an autobiography and painted themselves in a positive light, justifying things they have done, have they.

 

You haven't quite got the hang of human interaction yet. Yes, it's an autobiography, but given the question you ask, an historical actor's own account of his reasoning is a pretty good place to start. Others, including professional historians, will have their views too. And actually on this particular question, there's lots of published and peer-reviewed material out there. It's easy to find.

 

Interesting that you should be instantly sceptical of word from the horse's mouth, and yet so ready to endorse the far-right's "personally signed off" garbage. I wonder why you accord such unquestioning authority to a pro-apartheid source and yet won't even read Long Walk to Freedom?

 

So to repeat for the god-know-how-many times: do you concede the "personally signed off" quote is untrue? Do you concede that far-right, pro-Apartheid websites hardly count as the most authoritative sources of considered views of Mandela's legacy? And do you admit it might be a teensy bit difficult to conduct a bombing campaign from the confines of a high security prison and as the country's most important political prisoner?

[Turkish]

You haven't quite got the hang of human interaction yet. Yes, it's an autobiography, but given the question you ask, an historical actor's own account of his reasoning is a pretty good place to start. Others, including professional historians, will have their views too. And actually on this particular question, there's lots of published and peer-reviewed material out there. It's easy to find.

 

Interesting that you should be instantly sceptical of word from the horse's mouth, and yet so ready to endorse the far-right's "personally signed off" garbage. I wonder why you accord such unquestioning authority to a pro-apartheid source and yet won't even read Long Walk to Freedom?

 

So to repeat for the god-know-how-many times: do you concede the "personally signed off" quote is untrue? Do you concede that far-right, pro-Apartheid websites hardly count as the most authoritative sources of considered views of Mandela's legacy? And do you admit it might be a teensy bit difficult to conduct a bombing campaign from the confines of a high security prison and as the country's most important political prisoner?

 

Lots of assumptions from you as usual, it might have been difficult to conduct a campaign, but certainly not impossible or the first time. In any case I didn't say he did, i merely linked a list of activities that the ANC carried out as acts of terrorism. It's you and your band of "he's a racist" that are the dog with the bone trying your usual tactic of playing the racist card and speak in your usual sneering terms because someones dares to question the activity and actions of someone who isn't white. As i said, in his own autobiography, is he really going to reveal he was behind the bombings, should that have been the case, or should we simply take his word as gospel? Of course Mandela had the opportunity to call off the violence, regardless of if he "personally signed it off" or not, surely he would have known the devastation and division it was causing to the country he purported to love. He chose not too. Odd actions for a peace loving man don't you think?

Edited 9 December, 2013 by Turkish

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10500732/Mandela-Nelson-by-name-defender-of-British-values-by-nature.html

 

He went to prison for 27 years, a sentence which, paradoxically, brought him his eventual triumph. During those long years, not many Britons admired apartheid, but plenty dreaded its sudden overthrow. They feared violence, the collapse of business and communism. The Russians had backed violent post-colonial struggles in neighbouring Angola and Mozambique, and a communist South Africa would have been a huge prize.Into this context came Margaret Thatcher. She shared all these fears. She strongly believed that sanctions would damage all races and help start a conflagration. But she also believed that unless the white government changed, disaster would follow. By establishing a working relationship with it, she sought to aid that change.

After her death, in an otherwise fair-minded assessment, Ed Miliband attacked her for her softness towards apartheid. Others said she had called Mandela a terrorist. Neither is true. From 1984, when she first met Botha, Mrs Thatcher put pressure on him to release Mandela. She wanted an orderly transition to majority rule. She knew that this was impossible without the man who, though not technically the leader of the ANC, was its giant.

In 1985, Mandela was offered his freedom, but on the unacceptable terms that the ANC stayed banned. He refused. Mrs Thatcher kept up the pressure, in public, in private and sometimes in secret. Indeed, the release of Mandela was the strongest and most specific of all her demands. His release, she believed, would allow talks to start, without preconditions.

In 1989, Botha was replaced by F W de Klerk. A year later, he ordered Mandela’s release. Because Mrs Thatcher, almost alone of world leaders, had maintained close contacts with the government, her voice had proved the most persuasive.

Once out of jail, Mandela wanted to meet her. This was against the advice of the ANC, but his view was that she was “a very powerful lady… one I would rather have as an ally than an enemy”. To prepare, he played a game with Robin Renwick, her trusted ambassador in South Africa. Renwick pretended to be her, so they could rehearse the dialogue. “You must stop at once all this nonsense about nationalising the banks and the mines,” he told Mandela, as Thatcher. With a smile, Mandela replied: “But it was your idea.” He was referring to the doctrines that had emerged from the London School of Economics in his youth: once again, he was acknowledging his British influences.

In June 1990, Mandela’s prepared code reached London: “My brother is in England and wants to see his girlfriend tomorrow morning.” When he did see his “girlfriend” the next month, they talked for so long in No 10 that the press outside began to chant “Free Nelson Mandela”.

At a press conference afterwards, he said that their differences were only about methods: “She is an enemy of apartheid.” Later he said, “We have much to thank her for.” For her part, she admired his courtesy and his courage, though not his socialism.

 

 

[Tokyo-Saint]

Turks and Mandela are very different people, from different backgrounds and different generations. Judging one on the achievements of the other would be completely unfair. Turkish has never changed the outlook and perception of a nation but then Nelson has never had to lead a crew at an away game with a particularity nawwwty set of home fans. If Nelson had been to an away game, he would never had said something dumb as “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” There are similarities though, Turks could have easily said “Appearances matter — and remember to smile”. So please don't keep banging on Verbal. One mans freedom fighter, is another mans paper and stationary salesman, it is just down to opportunity and location.

[Jonnyboy]

[hutch]

Turks and Mandela are very different people, from different backgrounds and different generations. Judging one on the achievements of the other would be completely unfair. Turkish has never changed the outlook and perception of a nation but then Nelson has never had to lead a crew at an away game with a particularity nawwwty set of home fans. If Nelson had been to an away game, he would never had said something dumb as “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” There are similarities though, Turks could have easily said “Appearances matter — and remember to smile”. So please don't keep banging on Verbal. One mans freedom fighter, is another mans paper and stationary salesman, it is just down to opportunity and location.

To be fair, Turkish hasn't had 27 years of hard labour in a high security prison an isolated island ...... yet.

 

On another note, a very unusually grey and wet day here in Pretoria this morning. As Eric said, the sky is crying.

[Jonnyboy]

This moment could be his 40 year master plan. Take out all world leaders in one big boooooooooooom.

[Hockey_saint]

The thing I don't understand (and it's a point Ian Douglas Smith, the former PM of Rhodesia always brought up in his defence). A few years before the national party took over in South Africa, when it was run by General Jan Smuts, a large majority of the Bantu people (who displaced the Khoisan) in that part of Africa (because don't think for one moment that the land they call South Africa is where most black South Africans are historically "from") had no interest in "white society" and most preferred to stay in their kraals and lead the life they had before.

 

Now, I agree, a sharing of cultures and technology is a good thing but let's not be disingenuous and suggest that without the white culture (which, unfortunately, would include the Afrikaans and their Apartheid doctrine) South Africa would look as it does today, as technologically advanced as it is today. I think the reporters who spawn over this South Africa today should have a look at the tribal violence and killings that currently South Africa is awash with and then I think they'd understand what South Africa would look like without European culture (and to anyone who argues against this....have a look at Ethiopia, a country never colonised by whites).

 

Having said this and gotten it off my chest, I will say that I think the video above is just a poor PR gaff, Nelson is clearly not singing the words and looks frightfully embarrised to be there at all.

[hutch]

The thing I don't understand (and it's a point Ian Douglas Smith, the former PM of Rhodesia always brought up in his defence). A few years before the national party took over in South Africa, when it was run by General Jan Smuts, a large majority of the Bantu people (who displaced the Khoisan) in that part of Africa (because don't think for one moment that the land they call South Africa is where most black South Africans are historically "from") had no interest in "white society" and most preferred to stay in their kraals and lead the life they had before.

 

Now, I agree, a sharing of cultures and technology is a good thing but let's not be disingenuous and suggest that without the white culture (which, unfortunately, would include the Afrikaans and their Apartheid doctrine) South Africa would look as it does today, as technologically advanced as it is today. I think the reporters who spawn over this South Africa today should have a look at the tribal violence and killings that currently South Africa is awash with and then I think they'd understand what South Africa would look like without European culture (and to anyone who argues against this....have a look at Ethiopia, a country never colonised by whites).

 

Having said this and gotten it off my chest, I will say that I think the video above is just a poor PR gaff, Nelson is clearly not singing the words and looks frightfully embarrised to be there at all.

You've been reading those history books written and approved by the Nationalist government puppets, haven't you? You can still find copies in the second hand bookshops occasionally.

 

I lived in Ethiopia for 3 years, there isn't really very much truth, or sense, in what you posted.

[Hockey_saint]

You've been reading those history books written and approved by the Nationalist government puppets, haven't you? You can still find copies in the second hand bookshops occasionally.

 

I lived in Ethiopia for 3 years, there isn't really very much truth, or sense, in what you posted.

 

The reason I threw up Ethiopia was simply because it was the only country in Africa not colonised....and look at it, tribal warfare, famine.....

 

Is this what South Africa would have looked like without the whites? No, I haven't read any nationalist propaganda and I know the pass laws were created by the British Government in the 19th century to circumvent the Boars...I am also aware of the rich culture in western African, the Ashanti people for example, who incredibly advanced and civilised people; the fact is, the tribal Bantu displaced the nomadic San, did not wish to change their traditional ways until it was forced upon them by a minority...so would South Africa have looked more "civilised" now if the whites were not there? I don't think so and I just feel it's disingenous to suggest otherwise.

[trousers]

http://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=12468&article=www.thinkscotland.org

 

Like millions in South Africa and round the world, I had a profound respect for Nelson Mandela. His life story and imprisonment is nothing but deeply moving. He endured the most intolerable hardships and went on to become the president of a country whose white elite had incarcerated him in Robben Island for 27 years. Yet despite this, he succeeded in pulling off a reconciliation and forgiveness that no-one thought possible.

 

But what has deeply disappointed me about the lugubrious coverage is how blinkered, unanalytical and often trite it has been. It has failed to explain how it was that this extraordinary man, now bestowed with all the gentleness, benevolence and compassion of a saint, was deeply feared by the country’s Afrikaners. It has been a coverage largely devoid of explanation or even context. And it has paid scant attention to the extraordinary leadership of the Afrikaner president, F W de Klerk. As Malcolm Rifkind pointed out this week it was to this extent harder for de Klerk than for Mandela, because while Mandela was acceding to power, the white president was surrendering it, and doing so for all time.

Edited 12 December, 2013 by trousers

[Sour Mash]

http://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=12468&article=www.thinkscotland.org

Good post, sums up the fact that most mainstream media isn't worth following for stuff like this, endless reports void of anything resembling analysis.

[Sour Mash]

You've been reading those history books written and approved by the Nationalist government puppets, haven't you? You can still find copies in the second hand bookshops occasionally.

 

I lived in Ethiopia for 3 years, there isn't really very much truth, or sense, in what you posted.

Why isn't there much truth in what he says?

[Hockey_saint]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ONLY country to step down and completely nuclear disarm is post apartheid South Africa (since it's comment knowledge they were building nuclear weapons....it's a bit more worrying they got the technology off the Israelis who supposedly were not nuclear capable at the time (early-mid 80's).

[Halo Stickman]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ONLY country to step down and completely nuclear disarm is post apartheid South Africa (since it's comment knowledge they were building nuclear weapons....it's a bit more worrying they got the technology off the Israelis who supposedly were not nuclear capable at the time (early-mid 80's).

 

Perhaps I’m being pedantic, Hockey, but South Africa dismantled its nuclear capability in 1989, slightly before the ending of apartheid. Also, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus gave up the nuclear arsenals they inherited from the Soviet Union

[Hockey_saint]

Perhaps I’m being pedantic, Hockey, but South Africa dismantled its nuclear capability in 1989, slightly before the ending of apartheid. Also, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus gave up the nuclear arsenals they inherited from the Soviet Union

Slightly pedantic, but '89? they knew it was coming but it wasn't completely dismantled until about 96 so you could suggest it was thanks to the end of apartheid...ergo...Mandela but the for CSSA states? that's just a technicality since, independently, they were never nuclear capable (in that they didn't try to build them on their own.

 

But, I hold my hand up, on a technicality with the former Russian states you are right. But since the nuclear ditterent for RSA was intended to stop countries like Cuba from attacking thanks to white rule and then them knowing it was coming to an end...you could suggest Mandela had a large part to play in that.

[Hockey_saint]

Why isn't there much truth in what he says?

 

It should be....I got a reasonable mark at A-Level on the subject of Modern history, specialising on the scramble for africa, particularly around the Limpopo river. But he could be right in the fact that the views of people like Jan Smuts (whilst being one of the founding fathers of the UN) was at best, paternalistic towards black Africans and at worst a horrible racist too and the same if not worse for Ian Smith (who was just an outright racist...and idiot too...but unlike Mugabe, not corrupt) and to mention them in context is always a bit of a dodgy thing as they are not particularly nice and often have BS reasons and stories. For example,Smith always stated that the Mashona tribe (mugabe's) would have been wiped out by the Ndebeles (matabeles, an offshot of the Zulu tribe...their leader had a falling out with the Zulu cheif) who were escaping Britain's wars with the said Zulu and that if the whites weren't there to "protect" them...with their maxim guns...theyd have died and Mugabe wouldnt be around today.......which is absolute boll0cks.

 

So for those reasons perhaps that could be considered wrong. BUT it is a FACT that the San/Khoi/Bushman people WERE in that part of Africa BEFORE the Bantu tribes and were pretty much displaced (Nelson Mandela actually looks a bit San) by them so my argument that it wasn't technically most black South African's land is also Technically true.....in a manner of speaking (this is obviously ignoring the blending of tribes as it were. I think it was more my "they didn't want the western society until late" bit. but I say again, cars, technology, modern laws. The Bantu culture didn't create these so without whites, the country would look a whole lot different, for better or worse and it's just silly to ignore this for PC purposes.

[Viking Warrior]

Question time tonight interesting coming from Jo Burg . Very worrying times ahead for the rainbow state if those on the panel and audience get their way .

[Sour Mash]

Question time tonight interesting coming from Jo Burg . Very worrying times ahead for the rainbow state if those on the panel and audience get their way .

What were they saying?

[trousers]

What were they saying?

 

Depends who was doing the sign language interpretation I guess...

[trousers]

[Grey Crab]

Just heard the news. Wow. Really sad to hear. I was a massive fan. Rest in peace, Madiba.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just heard the news. Wow. Really sad to hear. I was a massive fan. Rest in peace, Madiba.

 

Just heard? Where have you been? You obviously don't use the BBC.

[Saint in Paradise]

When the kind-faced mocha Yoda named Nelson Mandela passed into the great beyond last week, the world joined hands like one big giant Coca-Cola commercial to canonize and lionize and deify and sanctify his memory. The torrent of treacly encomiums and mawkish panegyrics hurled at Mandela’s glowing feet surrounded his legacy with a force field of such pulsating holiness that anyone who’s remotely skeptical or inquisitive would be able to discern it was all a mountain of ****.

 

This isn’t to say there was nothing to admire about the man. His stoic perseverance against all odds is the stuff of which heroic legends are made. But to keep such legends unsullied requires a vigilant and ruthless pruning of inconvenient facts that would undermine the carefully sculpted image of Human Goodness Incarnate that surrounds what was possibly the world’s most famous man.

 

The 20/20 special peddled such obviously fraudulent lies as the allegation that Mandela’s African National Congress was “committed to nonviolent resistance.” Not a peep was made about the fact that Mandela was sentenced to prison not for “treason”—which is the only charge the show mentioned—but that he pled guilty to an indictment accusing him of complicity in “the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence.” Nothing was said about the radical guerrilla army he founded called “Spear of the Nation” that was linked to hundreds of acts of violence and sabotage. Nothing was said about his claim that “violence in this country was inevitable.” Nor was it mentioned that he was offered freedom from prison in February 1985 if he agreed to foreswear violence but that he refused. And they certainly didn’t dare to show a clip of an ANC “necklacing” that’s one of the most brutal snippets of mob violence I’ve ever witnessed. Nothing was said about the Church Street Bombing or any of the other bombings and violent acts committed in the ANC’s name that in other contexts would have Mandela dubbed a violent terrorist. Instead, 20/20 referred to him with the much cheerier sobriquet of “freedom fighter.”

 

We hear glowing reminiscences that Mandela was a voice of “democracy” but not a word about the fact that he was a lifelong committed Marxist. Even though he shrugged off accusations of being a communist, the South African Communist Party claimed on Friday that “At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party’s Central Committee.” Nothing was mentioned about allegations that he handwrote a tract called “HOW TO BE A GOOD COMMUNIST” that claimed “THE CAUSE OF COMMUNISM IS THE GREATEST AND MOST ARDUOUS CAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.”

 

 

http://takimag.com/article/mandela_what_the_obits_omit_jim_goad

[Halo Stickman]

Shocked that the BBC didn’t give Mandela the Sports Personality of the Year award.

[Ludwig]

When the kind-faced mocha Yoda named Nelson Mandela passed into the great beyond last week, the world joined hands like one big giant Coca-Cola commercial to canonize and lionize and deify and sanctify his memory. The torrent of treacly encomiums and mawkish panegyrics hurled at Mandela’s glowing feet surrounded his legacy with a force field of such pulsating holiness that anyone who’s remotely skeptical or inquisitive would be able to discern it was all a mountain of ****.

 

This isn’t to say there was nothing to admire about the man. His stoic perseverance against all odds is the stuff of which heroic legends are made. But to keep such legends unsullied requires a vigilant and ruthless pruning of inconvenient facts that would undermine the carefully sculpted image of Human Goodness Incarnate that surrounds what was possibly the world’s most famous man.

 

The 20/20 special peddled such obviously fraudulent lies as the allegation that Mandela’s African National Congress was “committed to nonviolent resistance.” Not a peep was made about the fact that Mandela was sentenced to prison not for “treason”—which is the only charge the show mentioned—but that he pled guilty to an indictment accusing him of complicity in “the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence.” Nothing was said about the radical guerrilla army he founded called “Spear of the Nation” that was linked to hundreds of acts of violence and sabotage. Nothing was said about his claim that “violence in this country was inevitable.” Nor was it mentioned that he was offered freedom from prison in February 1985 if he agreed to foreswear violence but that he refused. And they certainly didn’t dare to show a clip of an ANC “necklacing” that’s one of the most brutal snippets of mob violence I’ve ever witnessed. Nothing was said about the Church Street Bombing or any of the other bombings and violent acts committed in the ANC’s name that in other contexts would have Mandela dubbed a violent terrorist. Instead, 20/20 referred to him with the much cheerier sobriquet of “freedom fighter.”

 

We hear glowing reminiscences that Mandela was a voice of “democracy” but not a word about the fact that he was a lifelong committed Marxist. Even though he shrugged off accusations of being a communist, the South African Communist Party claimed on Friday that “At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party’s Central Committee.” Nothing was mentioned about allegations that he handwrote a tract called “HOW TO BE A GOOD COMMUNIST” that claimed “THE CAUSE OF COMMUNISM IS THE GREATEST AND MOST ARDUOUS CAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.”

 

 

http://takimag.com/article/mandela_what_the_obits_omit_jim_goad

 

was the cut n paste function invented at your request?