Nelson Mandela, an icon of freedom, tolerance and equality, dies at 95

[Hudson Jones]

A great man has left us but his achievements will never be forgotten. He became a symbol of resistance around the world and in later years a symbol of reconciliation. This one man gave us hope and taught us that justice can be achieved no matter how difficult the path may be.

May we be inspired by this man and learn to better ourselves and work together to better humanity.

Link

Edited December 6, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[bud]

my strongest memory of mandela was during the 1998 general assembly opening at the UN. in the morning before the first addresses, he walked around in one of his signature shirts, chit-chatting with junior diplomats from all different countries. wherever he stood was the center of gravity of the room. even though other heads of state were in the hall as well, all eyes were on mandela. no one cared about the others

there was this special quality to his smile that he greeted you with. there was a undefinable purity to it, perhaps a smile that only those that truly have defeated hatred with love can carry.

however, later in the day, when mandela addressed the GA, i was stunned to see the israeli delegation stand up and walk out as mandela began to speak. this is the highest gesture of disapproval a country could show. disagreement between israel and mandela was no secret to anyone, but the apparent depth of it was still surprising to me.

it was very odd, almost surreal. because to the rest of the world, mandela was essentially a semi-god.

today, again, we are reminded of the tremendous love and respect mandela enjoyed. may he rest in peace.

[On Guard for Thee]

Having worked in South Africa I have seen at least a hint of the work he accomplished. I can recall voicing my complaint to my provincial liquor store here in BC about the presence on the shelves of SA wines during apartheid. And when I first flew myself out of Capetown a few years ago, I requested a departure that would take me over Robin Island before turning north on course. I couldn't resist putting the stick over and making a 360 over the place. I guess it was my own small way of showing respect.

If anyone ever deserved to rest in peace it would be Madiba.

[Shady]

Mandela is a great example of what non-violent protest can achieve. His capacity for true forgiveness is also very impressive. The Middle East should look to him as an example.

[Black Dog]

Important to remember that Mandela was very much hated by the mainstream right in the west for his associations with communism and for his leadership of what was considered a terrorist organization.

Mandela is a great example of what non-violent protest can achieve. His capacity for true forgiveness is also very impressive. The Middle East should look to him as an example.

"Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the A.N.C) and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, 'Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence.'" -Nelson Mandela

Edited December 6, 2013 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Important to remember that Mandela was very much hated by the mainstream right in the west for his associations with communism and for his leadership of what was considered a terrorist organization.

The ANC WAS a terrorist organiztion by any unbaised definition of the term. It never gave the South African Army much problem. It primarily attacked civilians. South Africa's own truth and reconcilliation committee also found that the ANC commited numerous acts of torture against its own recruits or those blacks suspected of being informers or collaborators.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Mandela is a great example of what non-violent protest can achieve. His capacity for true forgiveness is also very impressive. The Middle East should look to him as an example.

I'm assuming you meant this ironically, since Mandela was put in prison for trying to blow up a power station, and would have been released many years earlier had he been willing to foreswear violence.

He was, however, a paragon of virtue in terms of both honest government (for Africa) and reconciliation.

I have to admit that at the time I opposed giving in to the idea of majority rule in both South Africa and Rhodesia. I believed that both countries would simply become, well, what Zimbabwe became; a basket case of a corrupt marxist tinpot dictatorship with equality (ie, zero freedom) for all. It is largely due to Mandela that South Africa did not go the way of Zimbabwe.

[eyeball]

The ANC WAS a terrorist organiztion by any unbaised definition of the term. It never gave the South African Army much problem. It primarily attacked civilians.

You mean it retaliated against the people who sicced their government on innocent victims. Democracy is a powerful force that should be used more carefully and put to better purposes.

Edited December 6, 2013 by eyeball

[Argus]

You mean it retaliated against the people who sicced their government on innocent victims. Democracy is a powerful force that should be used more carefully and put to better purposes.

You can justify terrorism any way you want to, but it doesn't make it anything but terrorism.

[eyeball]

You can vilify freedom fighting any way you like too, except its a lot harder to take the slagging seriously when it's victorious.

[overthere]

He is one of the great human rights activists of the last century, along with Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

For me, one of his greatest moments came when he was invested as President of South Africa. He invited to the ceremony- as VIPs- the man who prosecuted his case and sent him to jail for 27 years, and a number of his white jailkeepers. Really, how many of us could be that generous?

It was part of his insistence on national reconciliation, not revenge.

[jacee]

You can justify terrorism any way you want to, but it doesn't make it anything but terrorism.

How do you justify oppression?

How do you defeat oppression?

[Shady]

Important to remember that Mandela was very much hated by the mainstream right in the west for his associations with communism and for his leadership of what was considered a terrorist organization.

That's just not true.

[cybercoma]

You can vilify freedom fighting any way you like too, except its a lot harder to take the slagging seriously when it's victorious.

You can call targeting and killing innocent civilians for political ends (no matter how right or moral those ends are) "freedom fighting" all you want, but Mandela by even the strictest definition of terrorism was indeed a terrorist. Let's not get all ridiculous here and start comparing the guy to Gandhi. Edited December 6, 2013 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

That's just not true.

Nonsense.

[cybercoma]

He is one of the great human rights activists of the last century, along with Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Comparing him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King is nothing short of absurdity. Gandhi and Martin Luther were about nonviolence and passive resistance. They were about peaceful protest. Mandela resisted with violence. His resistance was important and necessary, but comparing him to Gandhi and Martin Luther is completely wrong.

[Black Dog]

That's just not true.

It most certainly is and for all the reasons articulated by Argus above. Ronald Reagan opposed divestment efforts and vetoed a bipartisan bill to impose tough sanctions on the apartheid regime. Thatcher also fought against sanctions and famously quipped that anyone who thought the ANC would run South Africa was " living in cloud-cuckoo land."

The left fought apartheid. The right favoured apartheid in service of opposing communism.

[cybercoma]

How do you justify oppression?

How do you defeat oppression?

It's incredibly hypocritical that you would condone violence that targets civilians in one case, while criticizing drone strikes and other kinds of violence that result in civilian deaths as collateral damage. You can agree with Mandela's goals, while disagreeing with his methods.

[cybercoma]

The left fought apartheid. The right favoured apartheid in service of opposing communism.

Or they opposed the ANC because they were a terrorist organization and they believed strongly in not condoning violence by giving them what they wanted, even if it was the right thing to do. If you justify violent resistance to a recognized government, then where do you draw the line? When are groups allowed to bomb civilian targets and when aren't they? Who gets to decide when they're morally justified?

[Black Dog]

Or they opposed the ANC because they were a terrorist organization and they believed strongly in not condoning violence by giving them what they wanted, even if it was the right thing to do.

Nope. It had nothing to do with being opposed to violence qua violence (please show me where they condemned the South African government's systematic campaign of brutality and repression). It was all about the Cold War.

If you justify violent resistance to a recognized government, then where do you draw the line? When are groups allowed to bomb civilian targets and when aren't they? Who gets to decide when they're morally justified?

The winners, as always.

[cybercoma]

Nope. It had nothing to do with being opposed to violence qua violence (please show me where they condemned the South African government's systematic campaign of brutality and repression). It was all about the Cold War.

I never said it was violence qua violence. I said it was not giving into terms set by groups that kill civilians for political ends, even if you and I believe those ends are necessary. Hell, even if Reagan and Thatcher believed those ends were necessary, they STILL wouldn't give in to terrorist organizations. Edited December 6, 2013 by cybercoma

[Shady]

I'm assuming you meant this ironically, since Mandela was put in prison for trying to blow up a power station, and would have been released many years earlier had he been willing to foreswear violence.

He was, however, a paragon of virtue in terms of both honest government (for Africa) and reconciliation.

I have to admit that at the time I opposed giving in to the idea of majority rule in both South Africa and Rhodesia. I believed that both countries would simply become, well, what Zimbabwe became; a basket case of a corrupt marxist tinpot dictatorship with equality (ie, zero freedom) for all. It is largely due to Mandela that South Africa did not go the way of Zimbabwe.

I was referring to more of his life after prison. Obviously he had some issues beforehand though, you're correct.

[Black Dog]

I never said it was violence qua violence. I said it was not giving into terms set by groups that kill civilians for political ends, even if you and I believe those ends are necessary. Hell, even if Reagan and Thatcher believed those ends were necessary, they STILL wouldn't give in to terrorist organizations.

Not sure why you're giving those two so much credit. The attitudes described by Argus were pretty widespread among the right at the time (and not wholly without justification), with the main thread being the linkages between the ANC and communism.

Christ, both Thatcher and Reagan were pretty comfortable with "groups that kill civilians for political ends" provided those ends were their own.

[Shady]

It most certainly is and for all the reasons articulated by Argus above. Ronald Reagan opposed divestment efforts and vetoed a bipartisan bill to impose tough sanctions on the apartheid regime. Thatcher also fought against sanctions and famously quipped that anyone who thought the ANC would run South Africa was " living in cloud-cuckoo land."

The left fought apartheid. The right favoured apartheid in service of opposing communism.

Yes, sanctions were initially opposed, but not because they were pro-apartheid. In addition, there were many Republicans that were for the sanctions, Bob Dole for example. You're over-simplifying things again. Oh, and is the Pope part of the "left" that fought apartheid. Many on the right fought it as well, in addition to communism, which the left absolutely did not fight, and practically embraced. But it's sad that people like you have to turn this death into a poltical football.

[overthere]

"Let's not get all ridiculous here and start comparing the guy to Gandhi."

It is not unreasonable to compare him to Gandhi, but it is too early in the evolution of the nation he helped create. Better to wait a decade or two and see how South Africa does as a democracy.

India has done amazingly well given the circumstances of a large country with extremely disparate cultural, religious and lingusitic issues. It is by far the largest democracy on the planet. 1 billion + people. 30+ official languages.

Let's hope South Africa thrives in Mandelas abscence, that his spirit lives on and inspires.