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

[Big Guy]

How do you justify oppression?

How do you defeat oppression?

Sounds dangerously close to rationalizing that "The end justifies the means". Once the initial "sainthooding" of Mandela dissolves with time then a more objective evaluation of his life may take place. Terrorism is an act to instil terror in an attempt to satisfy an agenda. The act is reprehensible but is often viewed in the context of subsequent developments.

A number of years ago, a member of the Irgun (a "terrorist" organization) was involved in the bombing of buildings,the hanging of police and was declared a "terrorist" by Interpol. A number of years later, he was elected as Prime Minister of his nation and presented with the Noel Peace Prize. This individual, Menachem Begin, is still revered in many circles as the saviour of Israel.

Unfortunately, it appears that the act of bombing and killing innocent people to satisfy an agenda varies with the intent and subsequent success of the process. After all, we all know that those hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be roasted "for the better good".

They did - didn't they ?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Big Guy

[Black Dog]

Yes, sanctions were initially opposed, but not because they were pro-apartheid.

Those that opposed sanctions and cozied up to the S.A. government in hopes of influencing gradual reforms (reforms which never took place), can be considered pro-apartheid in practical terms. Being theoretically against something but unwilling to do anything to change it when you have the power to do so gets you no props.

In addition, there were many Republicans that were for the sanctions, Bob Dole for example. You're over-simplifying things again.

Guess you didn't see the word "bipartisan" above. Some Republicans came around, but leading lights like Thatcher and Reagan and Cheney never did.

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.

In South Africa's case, opposing apartheid and opposing communism were often mutually exclusive.

But it's sad that people like you have to turn this death into a poltical football.

Yes, how sad to talk about politics following the death of a politician. Good grief.

[Shady]

Those that opposed sanctions and cozied up to the S.A. government in hopes of influencing gradual reforms (reforms which never took place), can be considered pro-apartheid in practical terms. Being theoretically against something but unwilling to do anything to change it when you have the power to do so gets you no props.

Guess you didn't see the word "bipartisan" above. Some Republicans came around, but leading lights like Thatcher and Reagan and Cheney never did.

In South Africa's case, opposing apartheid and opposing communism were often mutually exclusive.

Yes, how sad to talk about politics following the death of a politician. Good grief.

Again, what you're saying is factually incorrect. The Thatcher government was significantly involved in opposing apartheid. Stop trying to rewrite history for partisan potlical reasons. Stop using Mandela's death in a cheap way. it's unbecoming.

[dre]

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.

Mandela helped organize an armed rebellion against the South African government, and was considered a terrorist by many conservatives in the west, like Margerate Thatcher.

If a similar person existed in the middle east, he would be on the terrorist list, and you would be howling for his extermination.

[Michael Hardner]

It is not unreasonable to compare him to Gandhi,

Actually - it is completely unreasonable. They were opposites.

You can re read Argus' and Cybercoma's posts if you don't understand why. I've always wondered why Mamdela became so Ghandi like in his depiction, even though he was a warrior. Strange that we're examining his mythology so soon after his death.

[Black Dog]

Again, what you're saying is factually incorrect. The Thatcher government was significantly involved in opposing apartheid.

Feel free to show your work at any point.

Stop trying to rewrite history for partisan potlical reasons. Stop using Mandela's death in a cheap way. it's unbecoming.

Spare me the faux-pious bromides. If we're going to remember the man, we need to remember the times in which he lived and the nature of his struggle. If that exposes your heroes as the bastards they were, well, that's just the cherry on top.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Black Dog

[Argus]

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

When you set off bombs in restaurants and markets its terrorism. Full stop. End of story. It's not 'freedom fighting' or 'guerrila warfare'. It's terrorism.

[Argus]

How do you justify oppression?

How do you defeat oppression?

I don't need to justify oppression. And there are a variety of ways to overcome it, some peaceful, some violent.

Most don't involve targeting civilians in bars and farmers at their homes.

[Argus]

Nonsense.

Given the strength of Marxism and Communism, amongst many of the anti-apartheid groups, including the ANC, and their alliances, sometimes including armed alliances with Cuba and Angloa, it's hardly a shocker that a lot of conservative groups distrusted them.

[Black Dog]

I don't need to justify oppression. And there are a variety of ways to overcome it, some peaceful, some violent.

Most don't involve targeting civilians in bars and farmers at their homes.

Civilians as collateral damage is ok though?

[Argus]

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

You could as easily say the Left didn't give a damn if South Africa and Rhodesia became communist/marxist hellholes (as Zimbabwe did become), and the right was a lot more concerned about that. Frankly, the people of Zimbabwe would have been better off if the anti-apartheid efforts had failed.

[Argus]

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.

Yeah, I'd agree to an extent. As a conservative at the time I did worry about an anti-western group taking over there, but in all honesty, I didn't think the groups opposing apartheid would make life any better for the people, including blacks, than it was under apartheid anyway. There were zero succesfull African democracies at the time. I'm hard pressed to think of more than two or three even now.

[Argus]

A number of years ago, a member of the Irgun (a "terrorist" organization) was involved in the bombing of buildings,the hanging of police and was declared a "terrorist" by Interpol. A number of years later, he was elected as Prime Minister of his nation and presented with the Noel Peace Prize. This individual, Menachem Begin, is still revered in many circles as the saviour of Israel.

I accept that Begin was a terrorist.

[Black Dog]

You could as easily say the Left didn't give a damn if South Africa and Rhodesia became communist/marxist hellholes (as Zimbabwe did become), and the right was a lot more concerned about that. Frankly, the people of Zimbabwe would have been better off if the anti-apartheid efforts had failed.

I'd say it was a question of which was the lesser of two evils, but for the fact I never got the sense there was much moral opposition from the right towards apartheid. In some darker quarters (but by no means the fringe), the idea of a state where blacks knew there place was a comforting thing in a world gone topsy-turvy. Let's not forget that the anti-apartheid struggle was going on at the same time as the civil rights movement was underway in the U.S.

Yeah, I'd agree to an extent. As a conservative at the time I did worry about an anti-western group taking over there, but in all honesty, I didn't think the groups opposing apartheid would make life any better for the people, including blacks, than it was under apartheid anyway. There were zero succesfull African democracies at the time. I'm hard pressed to think of more than two or three even now.

I think looking back the question is why did South Africa succeed while so many others did not (the answer in part is "Africa is not a monolith").

[cybercoma]

Actually - it is completely unreasonable. They were opposites.You can re read Argus' and Cybercoma's posts if you don't understand why. I've always wondered why Mamdela became so Ghandi like in his depiction, even though he was a warrior. Strange that we're examining his mythology so soon after his death.

i think people believe that criticizing his methods is a criticism of his goals. It's not obviously. I don't understand why people can't distinguish between those things.

[cybercoma]

Civilians as collateral damage is ok though?

no, it's not ok. However, there is a conceptual difference between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and killing them unintentionally while engaging a valid target. This is why negligence causing death carries a different sentence than first degree murder. Edited December 6, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I don't disagree with what Mandela did. It was necessary. The state engaged in war against his people by interning them. When there's no democratic means to freedom then war is the only solution. Mandela was no Gandhi though and I think people are forgetting that. He supported horrible things, namely killing and torturing innocent civilians, to get the political change he desired. It seems a bit surreal that we would compare him then to peaceful resistance movements like Gandhi's and MLK's. So I take exception to these nonsensical comparisons and glorifications of someone who was indeed a terrorist, regardless of how righteous his goals were.

Edited December 6, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

i think people believe that criticizing his methods is a criticism of his goals. It's not obviously. I don't understand why people can't distinguish between those things.

I wouldn't even say I criticize his methods. I can't say what it would be like to live in that type of situation. Of course there are times when aggression becomes self-defense. And at a certain point, it's hard to contain violence to willing combatants.

And it's horrible. Let us all hope that this way of life is moving into our collective past.

[overthere]

Actually - it is completely unreasonable. They were opposites.

You can re read Argus' and Cybercoma's posts if you don't understand why. I've always wondered why Mamdela became so Ghandi like in his depiction, even though he was a warrior. Strange that we're examining his mythology so soon after his death.

Both were heavily involved in the birth of their nations. Nothing opposite there, though the paths they took were different. A great deal of that divergence was due to the nature of their respective opposition; the situations were different but the objectives and outcomes were similar. Interim outcome would be more accurate in the case of South Africa, it is too early now.

Gandhi was an extraordinary warrior

Edited December 6, 2013 by overthere

[Michael Hardner]

Both were heavily involved in the birth of their nations. Nothing opposite there, though the paths they took were different.

In that respect, they are like Stalin and ... uh ... Remus and Romulus ? I wonder if anybody will eulogize Mandela that way. Also - I just noticed both Ghandi and Mandela had legs and - AND - they BOTH knew what birds were... so yes they were the same. Say - let me ask you - would you characterize yourself as somebody who doesn't like being wrong ?

Anyway, suffice it to say that I disagree 100%, that it represents a major misunderstanding of who they are to say they're the same IMO, and have no more to add.

[overthere]

In what way was Stalin a nation builder or in any way interested in freeing his oppressed people?

[Michael Hardner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[GostHacked]

I wouldn't even say I criticize his methods.

Careful, if are not critical of those methods Mandela used and supported, then you should not be very critical of terrorism in general. And if you support it there, you support it everywhere, including here at home.

However, when you have nothing left to lose, disparity comes in and violence usually is a result. Remember he was imprisoned for 27 years for his actions related to those tactics. You attempt to over throw any government and you will feel the brunt of that government, no matter if they are legitimate, corrupt, or in the good.

By supporting people who violently overthrow governments is supporting terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

Careful, if are not critical of those methods Mandela used and supported, then you should not be very critical of terrorism in general. And if you support it there, you support it everywhere, including here at home.

I hear you, and it's difficult for me since I do identify as a pacifist. But everybody has their limits. Just try stealing my parking spot and you'll find out.

However, when you have nothing left to lose, disparity comes in and violence usually is a result. Remember he was imprisoned for 27 years for his actions related to those tactics. You attempt to over throw any government and you will feel the brunt of that government, no matter if they are legitimate, corrupt, or in the good.

By supporting people who violently overthrow governments is supporting terrorism.

Well said. I guess I would say I support the right to self-defense but what that means I can't say with precision. There's that famous passage in 1984 when Winston Smith decries the immorality of Big Brother, whereupon his words are played back to him; he indicated that he would attack a child to overthrow Big Brother.

I read an interview with Miles Copeland, ex-CIA, where he stipulated that at a certain level it's just about numbers - how many you're saving vs. how many lives it costs to do the saving. There's no adequate calculus here...

[Shady]

I think it's very admirable as well that Mandela left office after one term, by choice.