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

[Rue]

Feel free to show your work at any point.

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.

Take a look at this B-D:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22069896

http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/secret-1985-letter-from-thatcher-pw-botha-urges-release-of-mandela.htm

She was most certainly against removing anti apartheid sanctions but its more complicated then that to just say this made her pro apartheid or anti Mandela.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Rue

[Shady]

Take a look at this B-D:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22069896

She was most certainly against removing anti apartheid sanctions but its more complicated then that to just say this made her pro apartheid or anti Mandela.

Yes, his simplistic and partisan rewriting of history is to project his own partisan political desires. Facts be damned, and context be damned.

[Rue]

To add to this discussion there is no doubt that at one point of his life Nelson Mandela was both a communist and a proponent of using terrorism or terrorist tactics to try change the government in South Africa.

When Mandela was first arrested it is a fact that Amnesty International refused to take on his case because they asserted that he was no political prisoner but had committed numerous violent crimes and had had a fair trial and a reasonable sentence. You can go find out what they said.

It is also public record he did plea guilty to 156 acts of public violence including planting bombs in public places such as the Johannesburg railway station leading to the subsequent death of innocent people.

It is a fact that in 1961, along with Joe Slovo, they founded the " Umkhonto we Sizwe " also known as the MK. It was the military wing of the ANC.

Mandela was the chief commander of the MK.

Joe Slovo wrote a book " South Africa – No Middle Road ", nd in that book describes Mandela's role in leaving South Africa and heading to Easterb Europe to receive assistance to train ANC members.

Mandela underwent military training in Algeria in 1962.

He in fact led ANC operatives trained in Cuba, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia (when it was communist dominated), North Korea, Russia, China, East Germany and the then Czechoslovakia.

Mandela wrote he was a communist. He stated he was a Marxist revolutionary. There is no point trying to revise history to hide or deny that. He certainly never did.

In these years from 1961-1962, during a cold war era, South Africa was concerned with Marxism in Africa and the efforts of Russia and Cuba to undermine and take over African states so it was an ally of the US and the UK in the cold war. The US and the UK at one point had him on their terrorist lists.

What we also know Mandela was arrested for undermining activities and jailed for five years in 1962 and then in the Rivonia trial (1963-1964) this is where he was found guilty and jailed for life for treason, etc.

History does not lie. History can not be revised. He was a terrorist. He was trained as a lawyer and in his young days felt a peaceful transition with the ruling government of South Africa was impossible. He openly stated the only way to usher in change was through a Marxist revolution. he was a Marxist not even a socialist.

This put him in direct odds with the West at the time whose main concern was the cold war. He was expendable and put in jail.

Interestingly his main proponent P.W. Botha later replaced by De Clerk offered him freedom if he denounced terror years later and he refused to denounce terror as a tactic.

Here is the point. He started off as a terrorist. Had he not been arrested be probably would have been killed by South African intelligence or regular forces one or the other. His arrest assured his life.

In prison over a considerable period of time he transformed from a violent man to a peaceful man. That is what we should be focusing on. There is no point pretending he was never a terrorist or his tactics at one point were not violent. They were. Terrorism as far as I and many others concerned can nto be condoned. But I agree with what Cyper said in one post that we can criticize certain tactics but this does not mean we throw the whole lesson out with it.

I think the most important part of the story is that he transformed from violent man to peaceful man. This was a man before going to jail sang about killing whites. This is a man who left jail embracing whites. This is a man who evolved past his hatred, his anger, his frustration, his despair, and chose rational thought process to violence. He transcended his anger and evolved to a peaceful man, a man who had a power base when he left that came from walking up and embracing his enemies. You listen now to the politicians who knew him in South Africa and disagreed with him and that is what they are saying about him-he embraced his enemies instead of holding a grudge against them and turning into a Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

This to me is how I think we should remember him-a man overwhelmed by what he saw as injustice and slavery of his people, who turned to violence, was imprisoned, and then transformed spiritually and through that transformation came in touch with a forgiving side of himself, a side that let go of the past and anger and embraced forgiving and tolerance.

I do think when people die we tend to look at them only in a positive light yes and they gain a sort of mythical sainthood yes.

Sure that is probably happening now.

However one must admit his transcending violence provided along with Martin Luther King the most crucial lessons since World war Two in teaching tolerance.

So I remember that in the man. Flawed yes, but a man who showed us peace and tolerance can be as powerful a change agent as violence-yes that is who he was and I embrace that decision. Why not? He taught us violence and terror is not the way to change things.

[eyeball]

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.

So is going to a ballot box and authorizing your government's maltreatment and murder of innocents.

[Shady]

So is going to a ballot box and authorizing your government's maltreatment and murder of innocents.

Nope, that's not terrorism. Unless you're trying to redefine it.

[waldo]

Facts be damned, and context be damned.

your new signature?

[eyeball]

Nope, that's not terrorism. Unless you're trying to redefine it.

Politicizing it you mean. In any case, what would you call it when voters give their governments a mandate to murder and subjugate people? Why shouldn't you target people who do that when they're so fundamentally and ultimately responsible for their government's actions?

[Shady]

Politicizing it you mean. In any case, what would you call it when voters give their governments a mandate to murder and subjugate people? Why shouldn't you target people who do that when they're so fundamentally and ultimately responsible for their government's actions?

I disagree with your premise. It's absurd. Nobody votes to give a government a mandate to kill and subjugate people. Anyways, stop hyjacking the thread.

[eyeball]

Apartheid was a legislated policy that resulted in death and subjugation. People voted for it and gave their government a mandate to implement it. You disagree that people in democracies are not accountable for their government's actions?

[cybercoma]

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.

The thing is, what happens if the First Nations started terrorizing innocent people and setting off bombs in cafes? Or what if Quebec's quest for self government turned violent because democratic means haven't worked?

Like I said, it becomes complicated when you consider the implications of supporting Mandela's means, regardless of how much your support the ends.

[cybercoma]

Politicizing it you mean. In any case, what would you call it when voters give their governments a mandate to murder and subjugate people? Why shouldn't you target people who do that when they're so fundamentally and ultimately responsible for their government's actions?

If First Nations were fed up with how the Harper Conservatives treated them, would you be ok with them murdering your family because they supported Harper's majority? Fact is, you don't know how individuals voted and how they felt about their government. I'm sure there were people in South Africa that were working against apartheid in a democratic way as well.

[jbg]

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

At last I find a post of yours with which I totally agree.

[eyeball]

If First Nations were fed up with how the Harper Conservatives treated them, would you be ok with them murdering your family because they supported Harper's majority? Fact is, you don't know how individuals voted and how they felt about their government. I'm sure there were people in South Africa that were working against apartheid in a democratic way as well.

I never said there weren't but the National Party was in power for 46 years which seems to indicate a lot of popular support for their policies.

I guess if the Harper Conservatives were murdering people and my family was voting for it I'd disown them. Trust me that's as unlikely as the day is long, but since you asked.

I'd grieve like anyone else.

[Jimmy Wilson]

The thing is, what happens if the First Nations started terrorizing innocent people and setting off bombs in cafes? Or what if Quebec's quest for self government turned violent because democratic means haven't worked?

Like I said, it becomes complicated when you consider the implications of supporting Mandela's means, regardless of how much your support the ends.

Unfortunately,both of these things have taken place...

First nations haven't set bombs off (to my knowledge) but there have been violent uprisings in the recent past (Ipperwash,for example)...

And Quebec's quest for government was violent (October Crisis) and was headed for a Northern Ireland type of thing if Pierre Trudeau had not invoked the War Measures Act upon the province...

[Jimmy Wilson]

I disagree with your premise. It's absurd. Nobody votes to give a government a mandate to kill and subjugate people. Anyways, stop hyjacking the thread.

At the risk of invoking Goodwins Law upon myself...

Does the German federal election of 1933 not fit the bill?

[On Guard for Thee]

To add to this discussion there is no doubt that at one point of his life Nelson Mandela was both a communist and a proponent of using terrorism or terrorist tactics to try change the government in South Africa.

When Mandela was first arrested it is a fact that Amnesty International refused to take on his case because they asserted that he was no political prisoner but had committed numerous violent crimes and had had a fair trial and a reasonable sentence. You can go find out what they said.

It is also public record he did plea guilty to 156 acts of public violence including planting bombs in public places such as the Johannesburg railway station leading to the subsequent death of innocent people.

It is a fact that in 1961, along with Joe Slovo, they founded the " Umkhonto we Sizwe " also known as the MK. It was the military wing of the ANC.

Mandela was the chief commander of the MK.

Joe Slovo wrote a book " South Africa – No Middle Road ", nd in that book describes Mandela's role in leaving South Africa and heading to Easterb Europe to receive assistance to train ANC members.

Mandela underwent military training in Algeria in 1962.

He in fact led ANC operatives trained in Cuba, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia (when it was communist dominated), North Korea, Russia, China, East Germany and the then Czechoslovakia.

Mandela wrote he was a communist. He stated he was a Marxist revolutionary. There is no point trying to revise history to hide or deny that. He certainly never did.

In these years from 1961-1962, during a cold war era, South Africa was concerned with Marxism in Africa and the efforts of Russia and Cuba to undermine and take over African states so it was an ally of the US and the UK in the cold war. The US and the UK at one point had him on their terrorist lists.

What we also know Mandela was arrested for undermining activities and jailed for five years in 1962 and then in the Rivonia trial (1963-1964) this is where he was found guilty and jailed for life for treason, etc.

History does not lie. History can not be revised. He was a terrorist. He was trained as a lawyer and in his young days felt a peaceful transition with the ruling government of South Africa was impossible. He openly stated the only way to usher in change was through a Marxist revolution. he was a Marxist not even a socialist.

This put him in direct odds with the West at the time whose main concern was the cold war. He was expendable and put in jail.

Interestingly his main proponent P.W. Botha later replaced by De Clerk offered him freedom if he denounced terror years later and he refused to denounce terror as a tactic.

Here is the point. He started off as a terrorist. Had he not been arrested be probably would have been killed by South African intelligence or regular forces one or the other. His arrest assured his life.

In prison over a considerable period of time he transformed from a violent man to a peaceful man. That is what we should be focusing on. There is no point pretending he was never a terrorist or his tactics at one point were not violent. They were. Terrorism as far as I and many others concerned can nto be condoned. But I agree with what Cyper said in one post that we can criticize certain tactics but this does not mean we throw the whole lesson out with it.

I think the most important part of the story is that he transformed from violent man to peaceful man. This was a man before going to jail sang about killing whites. This is a man who left jail embracing whites. This is a man who evolved past his hatred, his anger, his frustration, his despair, and chose rational thought process to violence. He transcended his anger and evolved to a peaceful man, a man who had a power base when he left that came from walking up and embracing his enemies. You listen now to the politicians who knew him in South Africa and disagreed with him and that is what they are saying about him-he embraced his enemies instead of holding a grudge against them and turning into a Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

This to me is how I think we should remember him-a man overwhelmed by what he saw as injustice and slavery of his people, who turned to violence, was imprisoned, and then transformed spiritually and through that transformation came in touch with a forgiving side of himself, a side that let go of the past and anger and embraced forgiving and tolerance.

I do think when people die we tend to look at them only in a positive light yes and they gain a sort of mythical sainthood yes.

Sure that is probably happening now.

However one must admit his transcending violence provided along with Martin Luther King the most crucial lessons since World war Two in teaching tolerance.

So I remember that in the man. Flawed yes, but a man who showed us peace and tolerance can be as powerful a change agent as violence-yes that is who he was and I embrace that decision. Why not? He taught us violence and terror is not the way to change things.

Good Lord, you most obviously have never been to SA. I'd probably blow up a few things if I was treated the way blacks were back in Mandelas days, and in many ways still are. The Boers are just as boerish as ever from what I saw there.

[cybercoma]

Unfortunately,both of these things have taken place...

First nations haven't set bombs off (to my knowledge) but there have been violent uprisings in the recent past (Ipperwash,for example)...

And Quebec's quest for government was violent (October Crisis) and was headed for a Northern Ireland type of thing if Pierre Trudeau had not invoked the War Measures Act upon the province...

Hence, why I made the association. My point is that no matter how much you agree with the ends that they seek, murdering innocent civilians, destroying power grids, and blasting highways is not something governments anywhere can condone. Even as individuals, if you condone this kind of violence you make yourself a target for these attacks. While I completely support what Mandela was fighting for, the ANC's methods should not be condoned on any level. The Catch-22 is that democratic pathways were completely closed to them, so they had no other choice.

[cybercoma]

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.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/07/21794290-us-government-considered-nelson-mandela-a-terrorist-until-2008

In August of 1988, the State Department listed the ANC among "organizations that engage in terrorism.” It said the group ''disavows a strategy that deliberately targets civilians,” but noted that civilians had “been victims of incidents claimed by or attributed to the ANC.”

Communism was only one aspect of the situation. They didn't simply disavow the ANC for Communism alone. Being the Cold War period, they blamed the terrorism on military support from the Soviets because everything was Communism's fault back then.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing is, what happens if the First Nations started terrorizing innocent people and setting off bombs in cafes? Or what if Quebec's quest for self government turned violent because democratic means haven't worked?

Well, yes, exactly... what if ? I don't condone aggression against non-combatants but one can imagine circumstances where individuals are driven to such extremes.

[Rue]

Guard I do not understand your response. You feel Mandela's decision to engage in terrorism at that time of his life was justified.

I didn't address that in my response at all. I did not comment on whether the terrorism was justified or not, just that pretending he did not choose terrorism OR a terrorist at one point is pointless. He admitted he was. It is a fact.

If you want to engage in idolization of the time in his life when he was a terrorist and use that as a platform to justify terrorism that

is your opinion of course but I did not come on this thread to engage in a debate on whether terrorism is an acceptable political practice.

What I will state is his terrorist path did not achieve the independence, his statesmanship did and that is how I choose to remember him.

I embrace him not because of his choice of terrorism but because he chose the path Ghandi and Martin Luther King did, the closest examples of political leaders I can think of to him that demonstrated great men are not necessarily violent men.

[Rue]

M Harder years ago when I was 17 and a very very angry young man I was studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. My

professor of history was a former Irgun member and a concentration camp survivor. To survive he was hidden I a latrine and held his breath under the shit and urine time and time again.

When he came out and was smuggled to Israel he was young and only knew violence.

What he told me in his latter years is he made peace with himself but it was a complicated struggle and

he would go to his death bed regretting many things he did.

This is not someone who to me ever tried to justify what he did as the only way to do it and it was the words

of someone who wished he could have found a way other than violence in his life.

So when someone tries to justify terrorism I remember him. For his sake, I chose to embrace those who

never have to use terrorism and find other ways to achieve justice.

[Argus]

Civilians as collateral damage is ok though?

Are you suggesting killing someone by accident is as culpable as killing someone deliberately?

[Argus]

What we also know Mandela was arrested for undermining activities and jailed for five years in 1962 and then in the Rivonia trial (1963-1964) this is where he was found guilty and jailed for life for treason, etc.

Just one quibble. My understanding was that Mandela and those tried with him for treason were, in fact, acquitted.

[Argus]

So is going to a ballot box and authorizing your government's maltreatment and murder of innocents.

I am getting the impression, eyeball, that you find nothing morally wrong with terrorism.

[Argus]

Apartheid was a legislated policy that resulted in death and subjugation. People voted for it and gave their government a mandate to implement it. You disagree that people in democracies are not accountable for their government's actions?

One could make the point apartheid wasn't what resulted in death, but opposition to apartheid.

You might suggest that blacks in SA had no freedom to which the white voters would say "and so?" No blacks in Africa had freedom, regardless of the skin pigmentation of their rulers. What the white voter did was not invite the blacks into their cozy little western capitalist world of freedom and democracy, but it could also be argued that their little world could not possibly have sustained such numbers of illiterate third world newcomers anyway, and would have collapsed.

You could also say the end justifies the means, I suppose, but then you'll have to explain to me the benefits which were showered upon the former black citizens of Rhodesia when they 'won' their 'independance' from white rule.