Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918-2013), an anti-apartheid leader, was the first president of a free, democratic South Africa.
- Political party: African National Congress (ANC), one of several anti-apartheid parties. It was for multiracial, socialist democracy.
- Race: Black
- Ethnicity: Xhosa
- Education: British
- Religion: Methodist
- American terrorist watch list: 1980s to 2008
- Heroes: Joe Louis, Samora Machel
- Wives:
- 1944-1955: Evelyn Mase (pictured), cousin of Walter Sisulu
- 1958-1996: Winnie Mandela
- 1998-2013: Graça Machel, widow of Samora Machel
- Milestones:
- 1950s: an ANC leader, practises nonviolence
- 1962-1990: Political prisoner, mainly on Robben Island
- 1993: Nobel Peace Prize
- 1994-1999: President of South Africa
- 2013-: sanitized icon
- Best quote: “Your freedom and mine cannot be separated.”
Apartheid: Like Jim Crow in America, it kept the races apart with Whites on top and Blacks at the bottom. Asians and Coloureds (mixed-race) were in between. Blacks could not vote, were shut out of many fields of work, were given terrible educations (sometimes with no English or even mathematics!), had to carry passbooks to move about the country, etc. Whites had taken most of the good land, forcing Blacks into ghettos and so-called homelands (reservations), often far from work.
In the 1950s the ANC fought this in the courts and through nonviolent protest. Mandela was one of the ANC leaders.
Nonviolence did little good. The government blocked peaceful means of protest, limited Black rights yet further and, in time, carried out a violent crackdown. The Sharpeville massacre in 1960 made news round the world, making apartheid infamous.
Mandela and the ANC answered violence with violence – not with massacres of White people, but sabotage against property. That did not work either. Mandela was moving towards guerrilla warfare when he and others were thrown in prison for life for treason.
While breaking rocks in prison day after day he did not lose hope. On most days he knew the country would change, that one day he would walk out of prison.
In the 1980s the ANC used “Free Nelson Mandela” as a rallying cry, not only to keep up spirits at home but to give supporters abroad something morally clear-cut to push for. The danger was that it built Mandela into something of a political messiah – but it wound up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Because of increasing political unrest at home and isolation abroad South Africa’s White rulers were forced to talk to him. The country was falling apart – and he was now the only one with the moral authority to save it.
By 1988, even though he was behind bars, he now had the power to reshape the country by cutting a deal with White leaders: end apartheid and, in exchange, Whites would get to keep most of their wealth, as ill-gotten as it was. Without him South Africa could have easily sunk into an endless civil war where Whites lost everything.
Once president he helped to heal the divisions of the country through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. To show forgiveness he wore the Springbok gold-and-green rugby jersey, long hated by Blacks as a symbol of White supremacy.
See also:
Great Post, Abagond.
LikeLike
I had mixed feelings watching the funeral reports on TV yesterday because as much as Mr Mandela holds my affection and respect, the way he is being portrayed by the European media makes him look like a “Magical Negro”.
And this manipulation makes me cringe.
It’s as if the media here want him to be such a special black person.
It’s as though he has “overcome” his blackness, he “struggled” so selflessly, he did not seek revenge, and this makes every thing okay with them because they never had to struggle to”overcome” anything whiteness purveyed and Mr Mandela just embraced everyone, black, white or purple with sky-blue spots on…
If attention turns to Mr Mandela’s legacy there will be many who will say “South Africa is even worse now than it was under Apartheid.
“Was it worth the sacrifice?” or worse and predictably:
“Well, what do you expect when you put blacks in charge?”
It’ll be after a respectable mourning period, if ever — before open discussion will point the finger at the white-owned and white-control diamond, mineral, or oil industries. There might some talk of the emergent black middle class, but the super-rich’s standing will be contrasted to the plight of South Africa’s “poorest of the poor” (the impoverished black majority and the Coloureds).
Only then might questions be asked, like:
– why was the ANC’s plan to make the country’s super-rich pay a wealth tax to fund developmental projects abandoned?
– why were International and domestic corporations — enriched generation after generation by South Africa’s resources and cheap black labour made only disposable through the Apartheid regime — never compelled to pay reparations to the new South Africa without Apartheid? Or,
– why would such a rich country take out an IMF loan on the eve of its first democratic elections, putting South Africa in debt just as it was being re-born?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2013/11/13/south-africa-tops-africas-50-richest-johann-rupert-is-countrys-richest-man/
How did this happen?
It might only be discussed later that this was allowed to happen because South Africa’s super-rich mining chiefs were conducting confidential, late-night negotiations at the Development Bank of South Africa.
These negotiations were between South Africa’s mineral and energy CEOs, the heads of UK’s and US’s companies with businesses in South Africa, and…. inexperienced ANC economists who had been inducted in western economic policies.
These young economists were supposed to report back to Mr Mandela.
Yet, it turns out, they had been intimidated (or played) by the powerful, seasoned white men across the table, who made it clear to them that if the new South Africa did not submit to the tried and tested economic policies, the consequences would be catastrophic, and their black-led Rainbow Nation would soon be in ruins..
(Explained in: “Lost in Transformation: . South Africa’s Search for a New Future Since 1986”, written by S. Terreblanche–
http://amandla.org.za/amandla-magazine/current-issue/1607-book-review–lost-in-transformation-by-sampie-terreblanche)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your picture is from the Soweto Uprising, not Sharpeville. That’s Hector Pieterson, I believe, the dying boy.
LikeLike
@ Robert
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
Great comment. Yep, you can see it coming and, in fact, it’s already started as the usual suspects are already talking about SA being “in ruins” because of black majority rule.
Also, it’s instructive to look at the examples of Mugabe and Chavez. Mugabe was always Mugabe but the West loved him, he even received a Knighthood, until the land redistribution program and the government taking control of the economy. All of a sudden they started to pretend to care about his bad qualities and “democracy” and he became the latest bogeyman.
Insofar as Chavez, he was probably the most important and influential leader in LA over the past 25 years and the West, particularly the US, tried to overthrow him and practically spit on his grave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Bulanik,
But sometimes the people know the deal, eh?:
An excerpt from the following:
allafrica.com/stories/201312101528.html
“South Africa: Cheers Greet Mugabe At Mandela Funeral
Johannesburg — ZIMBABWEAN President Robert Mugabe received a standing ovation at the funeral of former South African President Nelson Mandela while the country’s president Jacob Zuma was booed.
There were raptures after his presence was acknowledged at the FNB Stadium in Soweto by the country ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa.
Mugabe waved back to the thousands of mourners at the giant stadium which accommodates a capacity 90 000 crowd.
Mugabe was seated next to his wife Grace and children when other African heads of state clapped and stood in appreciation of his presence.
Goodluck Jonathan, the Nigeria President, and Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, are two other heads of state that drew ovations, nonetheless lesser than Mugabe.
Several international media houses were ahead of the event portraying Mugabe as unpopular in South Africa.”
LikeLike
@ ks 😀
You know the saying — you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people…
LikeLike
@ kiwi
“Has anyone else noticed how somehow, of the thousands of leaders who have fought against white supremacy, only a few individuals (MLK, Mandela, Gandhi) are chosen to represent their respective country’s struggle as some warm, fuzzy, utopian, rainbows, lollipops, and unicorns wonderland where all the kids get together, hold hands, sing and dance and everybody kisses and makes up?”
Oh yeah I notice alright, same thing with movies they only show a certain kind of slave movie as well. They love showing the kumbaya black people but will not show the ones that fight back in a positive light, they will demonize them. it is the turn the other cheek kind of thing they love to show. They do the same to native americans we learned about Squanto and pocahontas but we don’t learn about the native americans that fought back. They love to show people that helped them or didn’t seek justice against them. Because they hate being wrong, if they were going around calling people savages and if one of those savages dared stand up against their evil they would not admit they were wrong, that a savage was more morally right than them.
“South Africa is no longer politically white-dominated, but its entire economy is controlled by whites (80-90%) who make up less than 10% of the population”
yep, this is why it does not matter if whites are the minority in the us by 2043 or whatever year it is. it won’t matter because they could be 5% of the population and will still own majority of things. There is strength in numbers but there is even greater strength in knowing what to do with the numbers u have no matter how small. They have been a minority all over the world the only thing is they are smart enough to not divide themselves but divide others.
LikeLike
I believe Mr. Mandela was a great leader, but I think the media is giving us the safe sanitized version of him. Recently on Broadway there was a stage play called “The Mountaintop” with Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett, it shows Dr. King as a cigarette smoking, and he liked his occasional alcoholic beverage every now and then. I think he even swears in the play. This to me is another dimension of the good Reverend. I think there are other dimensions of Mr. Mandela, that the media is not showing us. We get the good sweet, kind, grandfather. I wonder will they ever let us see the militant warrior? I want to see all the good the bad and the ugly, that equals to human, not just this one dimensional character that they are presenting to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought Mugabe was an evil dictator why are people clapping for him?
LikeLike
A tribute video to Mandela.
LikeLike
@ Legion: Thanx for the video, when time permits I will view it. I always appreciate you sir.
LikeLike
kiwi
While that’s cute it’s not true. The British never considered Washington anything other than a gentleman. He never attacked civilians. Everything he did was on the battlefield facing a professionally trained army.
LikeLike
^ Yes, but you can’t say the same thing about William Wallace, (Brave Heart) and White people went to the movies in DROVES to cheer his terrorism against King Edward Longshanks! And when in 1940, Hitler’s combined forces defeated and the occupied France, nobody refers to the French Resistance as “terrorists” instead, they use a much more polite word, “partisan.”
The French resistance set BOMBS on trains, in factories, enemy encampments, police stations, Nazi press, etc. They engaged in deadly guerrilla warfare. They did everything they could to resist, disrupt, and overturn the occupational government… yet they were not terrorists!
Why? Only one reason. Because they were on the side that won.
Mandella too was on the side that eventially won, and therefore for the exact same reasons, he too was never a “terrorist.” He may have been a partisan, a freedom fighter, a member of the resistance, a patriot, but that is different.
LikeLike
Again I must educate you. Sigh.
Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779
“The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.
I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.
But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.” [5]
SOURCE: Fitzpatrick, John C (1931–1944). “Instructions to Major General John Sullivan”. The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, 1745–1799. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
LikeLike
Kiwi, you may feel perfectly justified in calling General George Washington a terrorist, since he himself freely admits that the very purpose of his orders against the Iroquois Confederacy were to inspire terror. He also made no exception for age or gender, nor between warrior and civilian.
LikeLike
I keep hearing how Mandela’s a terrorist. Yet, no one has explain how that’s so. As far as I’m concerned, he’s fought against a terrorist system. I’m just saying.
LikeLike
@ mary burrell
“I thought Mugabe was an evil dictator why are people clapping for him?” Who says Mugabe is an evil dictator? Most of the stuff you read in the media regarding the “evil” of Mugabe is due to the fact that unlike Mandela he dared to tell white farmers to clear the land they stole after trying to get them to do so willingly. This article might help you understand the situation in Zimbabwe better http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/courses/54037
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Legion what do you see as economic and industrial freedom?
Btw I don’t think that unrestrained capitalism provides freedom for anybody but big business. If that’s what you meant, we are in vigorous agreement.
Interestingly, Mandela was a social democrat. I think social democracies are generally the most equal – look at Denmark for example.
LikeLike
@ Mary
The “evil dictator” part is only one side of the story. Here is the other one:
http://www.herald.co.zw/why-mugabe-is-a-true-african-hero/
LikeLike
idk this is kind of unsorted, but these are some of the key issues that seem to define some type of context for me with regards to mr. mandela:
Don’t forget, 1962 was right between the Bay of Pigs and JFK getting shot, re: Mandela’s incarceration as a political prisoner, ostensibly, for being social democrat:
http://links.org.au/node/3631
“CIA and Mandela: Can the truth be told now?”
in regards to him getting out, it was during the time of the end of the soviet union and from a geopolitical perspective, again, symbolic of the US’s support of a ‘puppet regime’ in that yes, mandela did not renounce violence, but he was wearing the soccer jersey or whatever sort of showing a ‘white cooperation’ stance? i guess, and yes there may have been majority black rule, but as has been pointed out the people did not really benefit ie production workers in mineral industries, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost
and mugabe? I remember reading about the ‘land grab’ i believe it was called back in the early 2000’s, and from what i recall it went from a ‘policy’ to armed guards and workers killing white farmers and families, and travel advisories and such, but that’s nothing different than eminant domain here, i reckon.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201312101528.html
South Africa: Cheers Greet Mugabe At Mandela Funeral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe
idk, your mileage may vary.
LikeLike
a liberation movement that didn’t liberate. typical.
LikeLike
http://www.policymic.com/articles/76375/8-photos-you-didn-t-see-from-obama-s-trip-to-south-africa
“It’s almost as if photographers go out of their way to present isolated images of political figures …”
LikeLike
LikeLike
@Kiwi,
Re Mugabe: you have it right.
LikeLike
“the Zimbabwe dollar stopped circulating in early 2009; since then, the US dollar and South African rand have been the most frequently used currencies”
http://www.indexmundi.com/zimbabwe/economy_profile.html
LikeLike
and no i immediately thought, damn i’m gonna get in trouble for this one, just saying the entropy injected into the process with land reform did not do service to the zimbabwean economy
LikeLike
its a two party party
LikeLike
“the Zimbabwe dollar stopped circulating in early 2009” Detroit is bankrupt along with a number of US cities. Capitalism is failing worldwide.
LikeLike
@v8driver,
From the article linked to in Dahoman X’s post above:
“When the British and US governments of Tony Blair and George W Bush reneged on an undertaking by their respective predecessors, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to provide money for the compensation of former Rhodesians whose land was to be restored to Zimbabweans, Mugabe’s government implemented land reform without the payment of compensation. His government did not have the money and ordinary Zimbabweans had taken the initiative to recover the land by themselves.”
LikeLike
Another great post @Abagond
You should go into books and make money off of all this writing you do.
My computer is playing up, but I have to try and pop in and say, slow clap @Bulanik
LikeLike
I agree @mstoogood4yall
Absolutely. Mandela is a marvellous and shining example of the true stretch of human capacity, especially in our time now, in contrast to this “reality show, hyper-materialistic, mass consumption” of an era we’re currently living in. But, the truth is, Mandela is celebrated and embraced the world over, not because he is a hero to Black Africa and the African diaspora, but because he’s a hero to Whites. If this were not the case, his name would be mentioned as rarely as a Black leader/hero like Garvey, or, his name would be clouded with a sinister air like that of Malcolm X. King and Mandela are convenient heroes; this doesn’t take away from how great these remarkable human beings/heroes/leaders were, are, and will always be, but, it does put the worldwide celebration, renown, and acceptance, into perspective.
@King
I agree, in regards to what is, and what is not considered “too radical,” or defined as “terrorism,” as opposed to heroic.
LikeLike
@ks i read that article about 3x, it is quite dense in terms of layers of stuff to parse and it defies my ability now to respond to it at this moment.
LikeLike
Side note: Mandela was a very handsome man, I hadn’t noticed that before. I wonder why so many of his marriages didn’t work out?
LikeLike
@ kiwi
Yeah having better schools would do wonders for anybody. Resources can be controlled and run out but brain power is the only thing each individual has for himself/herself. Nobody can take that.
@ legion
great vid, I didn’t know about that. she kind of reminds me of Cynthia McKinney, love people that tell the truth and don’t let themselves be intimidated. a lot of corporations do not care about their workers, that is a shame people are dying from the exposure and they are trying to do the same in Colorado. People should care about what they are doing to workers overseas because they try it out over there first then try it here. lets not forget the history of how the us had child workers and people working in bad conditions, its the same thing only difference is they do it to people in other countries because there is less regulation and they can just use and discard people. Unfortunately the corporations control the government too Oh yea people thought it was bad and heartless that a lot of companies had people working for thanksgiving and some for Christmas they ain’t seen nothing yet.
LikeLike
@ ebonymonroe
Yeah u are right, if he would’ve been more against the whites they would hate him, heck some do because they don’t like the way he stood up to them. even some of the republicans are getting backlash from their crazy supporters for praising mandela. They expect people to be humble and accept the bad that’s been done to them and to not try to right a wrong. It is just crazy to me that people can go to another country and receive more rights than the original inhabitants, they did the same in Australia with the aboriginals and in America with the native americans, yet these same people will complain about immigrants. Mr mandela was a handsome man, maybe his marriages didn’t work out because he could’ve been stressed and still suffering from his ordeal and it put a strain on his marriages. Who knows.
LikeLike
king
While I appreciate your generous offer to “educate” me, your own understanding is in need of correction. Words actually mean things. The meanings of those words don’t change simply because someone chooses to use them in a manner other than what’s supported by the evidence. In this case, you allege terrorism simply because the word was used in a letter and not because the actions warrant it. The expedition in question involved two things. Destruction of bases used to launch attacks and the detention of it’s inhabitants. That doesn’t fit the definition of “terrorism”.
Similarly, I don’t consider Mandela’s destruction of property to be terrorism even if it involved bombing. It’s sabotage, vandalism, etc but not terrorism. The acts considered terrorism were the deliberate murder of non-hostile civilians through bombs, necklacing, etc.
LikeLike
@ Dahoman X : Thank You for the link.
LikeLike
@ gro Jo: Thank you for the link.
LikeLike
@ Legion: Thanx for everything.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Does it surprise you that I am interested in your education? If I truly considered you to be as stupid as most of the other regulars on this blog seem to, then I wouldn’t bother to offer you facts nor arguments. But I give you some credit for intelligence. I hope I’m not wrong.
Yes words do have meanings—their meanings are static in the short term, but fluid in the long term. But let’s be a bit more precise. Words have definitions, which are both more formal and unambiguous than subjective “meanings.”
[A] “Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.“[1][2] Wiki – Terrorism
[B] Terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t
Your argument is that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, but George Washington was not. You purport to base this on the idea that “terrorism” is defined as the deliberate murder of non-hostile civilians, a definition that you just made up in your own head while writing the above post. It is your own personal definition.
So when you say that words have meanings, what you mean is that every person can just make up their own meanings for words as you have just done.
I stated that George Washington was a terrorist. And here are the reasons why:
Reason: He “used of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes” Definition 1 Wiki
Example: “The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible.”
Reason: His “used violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” Definition 1 Dictionary
Reason: He consciously sought to “create state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization” Definition 3 Dictionary
Example: “Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.” – All done to subjugate and control the Native American population.
But add to that the fact that he targeted civilians, including children, not just the warriors. He did not declare a state of war, and then address himself only to the soldiers of the Iroquois nation. He attacked their homes, kidnapped their women and children, and refused to accept their surrender, until his troops had inflicted sufficient terror and laid waste to their civilization.
THAT IS TERRORISM by all the the definitions.
LikeLike
Oh, BTW Abagond (in case it comes up) The Mandela wedding picture used near the top of the post is a bit “doctored,” so should probably be seen as a wedding photo-collage rather that an event photograph.
LikeLike
Brothawolf
I keep hearing how Mandela’s a terrorist. Yet, no one has explain how that’s so. As far as I’m concerned, he’s fought against a terrorist system. I’m just saying.
*****
Well the problem is white people don’t understand that. Most white people have convinced themselves of the innate inferiority of black people. They believe that we were kept down because it was the natural order of things. And then suddenly things changed through their benevolence.
They do not realize or care that they oppressed us through horrific violence of unprecedented scale. They do not recognize the violence that they caused in the past or the violence that they still inflict.
This is why the focus is now on “black on black” crime or any violence or crime committed by black people.
They pretend revere Dr. King and Nelson Mandela for their “peaceful” campaigns as if responding to violence and murder by asking for peaceful concessions is something they truly admire.
White people will never see that their own violence justifies black retribution. They kill us, we march, that’s fine with them. Their biggest fear is, and always has been, that we will pay them back for what they do to us. Meaning they are very aware of the threat they pose to us and they fear the consequences.
It’s easy to label Mandela a terrorist. It’s the worst kind of evil blindness that allows them to act as if they didn’t have it coming.
LikeLike
ThatDeborahGirl,
I know. Part of my comment was based on sarcasm directed towards the white right who consider Mandela a terrorist without any evidence to back their claim. Like you said, white people are so hung up on the myth of inherit black violence, they avoid seeing their own or if they do, they justify it. Anything to maintain that just image is used as an excuse to maintain their image, and not the real image.
LikeLike
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
The ‘i am prepared to die’ quote here sounds like
‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…’
LikeLike
king
If I truly considered you to be as stupid as most of the other regulars on this blog seem to, then I wouldn’t bother to offer you facts nor arguments. But I give you some credit for intelligence. I hope I’m not wrong.
Yes, well, most of the other regulars on this blog aren’t very bright. You (and Legion) are smarter than they so you must have noticed.
I couldn’t help noticing your points A and B. Point A was quoted from Wikipedia to show “terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition” and point B was a rather generic definition from dictionary.com. Then you attack my ‘definition’ as being arbitrary
I have two objections. First, to be nitpicky I never specifically stated my definition. I simply said those were the acts by Mandela which I considered terrorism as opposed to the destruction of property which I consider mere sabotage, vandalism, etc. Which brings me to my second objection. My description of “the deliberate murder of non-hostile civilians” fits Wikipedia’s description of the common definitions. From Wikipedia:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
So why quote the preceding sentence from Wikipedia and then go to dictionary.com for a definition rather than simply quoting the very next sentence from Wikipedia? We both know the answer to that. It must have taken a while to find a dictionary whose definition was vague enough not to obviously support my ‘definition’. And since Wikipedia does support my ‘definition’ it’s obvious that my earlier argument is valid. The Washington letter makes it very clear that 1) the purpose of the expedition was not political but to prevent further attacks and 2) the goal was to destroy the settlements from which the attacks were being launched and not to harm non combatants. That. Is. Not. Terrorism.
Mandela was different. Although many ANC/MK attacks did target property (i.e. sabotage) others targeted the public including bombings at bars, restaurants, banks, courts, supermarkets and sports stadiums. Not to mention killing people who didn’t support him by hacking their hands off with machetes, placing a gasoline soaked tire around their necks and burning them to death in the streets. That’s violence against non-combatants for a political objective. That. Is. Terrorism.
I realize the facts don’t fit the narrative you’d like. But don’t be like those other nimrods. Don’t keep arguing after the point has been lost. It won’t change the reality and costs you your integrity. Learn from me. Accept reality for what it is. Even the parts you don’t like. It won’t kill you. It makes you a stronger person.
LikeLike
legion
There are a number of people who comment who seem very smart to me.
You’re generous.
There are a couple jingoists and some victim oriented people
Is there? I hadn’t noticed.
LikeLike
LOL @ Da Jokah,
As usual trying to change and/or control the narrative. I guess this time we’re supposed to only focus or discuss Mandela’s terrorism and not the State terrorism which caused it and re-define terrorism to excuse others. Also, yeah let’s ignore that Mandela/ANC was non-violent for decades until after the Sharpville massacre and conflate Nelson Mandela with Winnie Mandela and finally, care only about those Blacks who suffered due to, mostly, the leadership of the latter and ignore the generations of the Black majority who suffered under the white racist apartheid regime.
Yeah, that’ll work…not!
LikeLike
No, actually there are quite a few posters who are frighteningly intelligent. Many of them female. You should look more closely.
Quote A dealt with a LEGAL interpretation (or lack thereof) therefore;
Quote B moved from legality to a simple dictionary definition
It was a descending progression. I assumed that was obvious.
I assume you have proof that Nelson Mandela himself ordered these people killed or maimed? If so, now would be the time to present the incontrovertible evidence… (post links here)
Not really. I looked at Merriam Webster and Oxford as well, they all pretty much had the same definitions. You can check if you like.
FINALLY you get to the heart of it.
The Iroquois Nations Confederacy was political entity that predated the American colonies. I’ll quote Wiki again because it’s convenient.
So, you see the Iroquois were a powerful political confederacy that held a great deal of territory and influence, centered in the area now known as the State of New York. In fact, their form of democratic government even influenced Benjamin Franklin in forming our own democracy.
http://voices.yahoo.com/iroquois-democracy-influences-benjamin-franklin-and-11381764.html
When the American Colonists broke away from Britain in the Revolutionary War, the Iroquois tried to stay neutral. However both sides eventually pressed the Iroquois nations to choose sides. The Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the American Colonies, while the Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga and Cayuga chose loyalty to their British allies. This was not something they wanted initially, but it rapidly became a war that would effect their own futures.
George Washington would have been bound by Jus in Bello in the making of war, as it was well codified and well accepted, particularly in the methods of napoleonic warfare that were used in the late 1700s.
The first very doctrine is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residents and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians. This General Washington knowingly set aside. Had it been a European nation rather than a Native American nation, he would not have destroyed residences, and taken women an children as prisoners of war. Such atrocities were thought of as terrorism or terrorizing of civilian populations and were thusly forbidden.
General Washington assumed that the statutes of Just War did not apply to non-Whites (people who did not look like himself). Why should General Mandela be held to a higher standard?
Don’t forget to provide those proofs of terrorism I asked for earlier.
LikeLike
it might even be a positive skew in their favor.
Legion, I agree to that!
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
There are hundreds of different definitions of terrorism, many of them conflicting.
Your argument seems based on Ganor’s definition of terrorism. Ganor claims terrorism is universally understood to be violence that is:
– politically motivated
– indiscriminate
– directed at civilians
– designed to cause fear (i.e. terror).
It’s easy to debunk this:
1. Governments routinely describes organisations that are NOT politically motivated as terrorist groups. The drug cartels in Mexico are a good example.
2. The US routinely describes suicide bombing operations in Iraq as acts of terrorism, despite the fact that the vast majority (particularly between 2005-2008) were aimed at military targets.
3. Organisations that do not cause any human casualties at all are classified as ‘terrorist’. The Animal Liberation Front, for example, is officially classified as a terrorist group. While the ALF has engaged in a lot of vandalism and theft, its activities have never killed or injured anyone.
This does not mean for one minute that the activities of the above groups are not completely immoral or that the government should not act strongly to quell the security/moral threats they present.
What I am pointing out is that the term ‘terrorist’ is so subjective that it is IMPOSSIBLE to define. The majority of the world’s political scientists would probably agree with me.
LikeLike
^ See what we mean? lol!
LikeLike
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
LikeLike
king
I’m not interested in the political history of the Iroquois Confederation. It doesn’t change the facts concerning either Washington’s expedition or Mandela’s terrorism. Like I said, words mean things and you’re trying to twist the meaning of terrorism to suit your bias.
I assume you have proof that Nelson Mandela himself ordered these people killed or maimed?
Aside from the fact he founded a terrorist organization, his wife publicly encouraged terrorism and he refused to denounce it? Yeah. I have proof. He went to prison for 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. I know what you’re going to say.– just because someone goes to prison doesn’t mean they’re guilty blah blah blah. Except he plead guilty. He confessed. And he refused to denounce terrorism in exchange for being released. So not only was he an admitted terrorist but an unrepentant one as well. You can deny reality but you can’t win this argument because the facts simply aren’t on your side. Sometimes it just bes that way.
Don’t forget to provide those proofs of terrorism I asked for earlier.
You can write to the South Africa Justice Department for a transcript.
See what we mean? lol!
No. That organizations such as ALF are labeled “terrorists” even though their bombings never kill anyone does nothing to exonerate those who have. I’d already said I don’t consider destruction of property terrorism but sabotage. As I’ve said before, the meanings of words don’t change simply because someone chooses to use them in a manner other than what’s supported by the evidence.
+
ks
Sharpsville Massacre? Really??? Have you actually looked into the details of that? Or are you simply throwing that out because of the name? A mob of 19,000 militants surround an isolated police station. After a siege of more than 24 hours they charge they attack the station. What do you think the mob would have done — hand them flowers? A similar siege of a police station less than 2 months prior led to the massacre of all the policemen inside. Were the police at Sharpsville supposed to let a mob do the same to them?
LikeLike
Even when you dismissively state that Washington’s actions were *not* politically motivated? So we have this powerful non-European nation under who’s shadow the Europeans have had to exist for over 200 years, and Washington’s orders to terrorize their non-combatants, as an admitted detterent to them striking back was not political?!!
Yes, I’m sure that makes a nice bumper sticker, but some words are clearly better defined than others. I already pointed out that “terrorism” does not have an agreed upon legal interpretation. wordynerdygirl points out quite logically why Ganor’s definition is not universally accurate. And I have given you several examples of “terrorists” who conveniently weren’t terrorists, because they were on the “right side.”
– William Wallace
– George Washington
– The French Resistance WWII
But I could add to this:
– The (American Backed) Mujahideen
– The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
– The British Navy (buccaneering)
There are PLENTY of terrorists who are not terrorists. Words have meaning… yet only apply to people whom we want them to apply to. But when those same definitions impugn those whom we happen to admire or find common cause with, then those same meanings no longer lead to the same accusations and conclusions.
You’ve got nothing here. You’re talking in circles.
Alleged Proof of Mandela’s Terrorism
Really? Which terrorist organization did he found?
LikeLike
@wordynerdygirl
I liked your last comment. 🙂
LikeLike
“Da Jokah,
Aside from the fact he founded a terrorist organization, his wife publicly encouraged terrorism and he refused to denounce it? Yeah. I have proof. He went to prison for 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. I know what you’re going to say.– just because someone goes to prison doesn’t mean they’re guilty blah blah blah.”
Linda says,
Da Jokah, I have to “Thank You” for continuing to live up to your moniker as a “simple white race realist” who comes here to just “disrupt”– and as usually, you’ve managed to take over the conversation by calling Mandela a “terrorists” and everyone is trying to “defend” Mandela…
Nelson Mandela does NOT need to be defended — he was a Royal-born Leader who did his duty and what was Necessary to fight the occupying Foreign invaders… that is why he is held up as a “Freedom Fighter” on the Continent of Africa.
but at the end of the day — WHO CARES what you white Racists think!
it’s perfectly expected, that to you white racist Losers of the world, Nelson Mandela was a “terrorist” —
Nelson Mandela and organizations like the ANC are every white Racists worst nightmare: a black or brown man who can’t be enticed by money or power; and he is willing to shed white blood to get rid of the “Foreign Insects” that Invaded and settled his ancestral country.
Most Freedom Fighters are called “Terrorists” by the better ARMED and financially stronger Oppressors, who realize that their actions reap consequences and that “payback is a b’tch”!
The ONLY and Real “Terrorists” of this sorry Saga and Scenario — are the white Dutch and other Europeans occupiers — Occupiers who were not “Invited Guests” who were taken hostage, they were
Invaders who occupied and settled land that they felt they could just TAKE south Africa by “any means Necessary”— and then they proceeded to follow a Nazi strategy of mass Removal towards the Indigenous/Native Africans, in both benign and VIOLENT, MURDEROUS ways…
white South Africans had better be THANKFUL that it was Nelson Mandela who took the reigns
because the long-awaited (and Overdue) Civil War would have definitely broke out and then white South Africans would be burying their dead and arranging flights back to Europe or elsewhere in the world
(following the footsteps of many French, British, Portuguese occupying white settlers of other African countries)
Nelson Mandela and the ANC’s war against the white South African government was Not a JOKE– it was continued Life and Death struggle for the Indigenous/Native people, a struggle which began 300 years ago.
So you can take your “Nelson Mandela was a terrorist” diatribe and shove it …
The fact that these white Occupying settlers from Europe thought that they could sail to a new land in Africa and set up shop, kill, enslave, and eventually remove the Original people who already lived there — is a testament to the Lack of HUMANITY and Consciousness shown by Europeans just over 100+ years ago
(I guess Hitler and Stalin doing house cleaning on the European continent, woke them up to the realization that they should try to give Peace and Non-Violence a chance)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Linda,
Congratulations!
You just won the very coveted “Dahoman X Prize for the most bestest post of the thread”.
*bows in adoration*
LikeLike
Thank You, Dahoman X, I humbly accept the prize 🙂
Reality needs to be maintained — one man’s “sinner” is another man’s “savior”, that’s why conflict in the world is a never-ending revolving door.
LikeLike
Linda, I don’t usually have the concentration needed to read the Jokah, but as I slowly read through this thread, I find myself concurring with Dahoman!
😀
LikeLike
@ kiwi
Education was absolutely key to independence, certainly.
But, down the line, weren’t the intellects of Africans “stolen” by educating some of the best minds of these nations in policies that would best suit the interests of their former racist regimes and colonial masters?
Wasn’t that part of that particular education?
Wasn’t that the true price of the scholarships bestowed on them?
So, if South Africa’s black, Coloured and Indian political elite are immersed in neo-liberalism, then they won’t defy the likes of the IMF and the World Bank will they? Everyone will be on the same page, right? I mean, how accepting are the IMF, the World Bank or the World Trade Organization of RADICALS, anyway? Radicals are flies in the ointment.
I think the perception is that the world runs more smoothly if the educated elite of new African nations let themselves be “advised” and intimidated and seduced by those powerful institutions whose teachings they know all too well.
So, that is why what was state-owned became privatised. Why the massive mineral, diamond and oil wealth was never nationalised. Why basic services are commercialised. Why the austerity measures imposed on the population came from the ANC. Because of an educated belief in “the market”.
***********************************************************************************************
@ mary burrell
It’s sentimentality. Symbolism.
This is the way a politicized society like Apartheid South Africa is de-politicized and made safe for the world.
We’re supposed to vision Mr Mandela as exceptional: a “good” African leader, not the usual crazed dictator, reeking of Marxist sulfur, like Mr Mugabe or whoever.
I used to understand the rhetoric of the ANC.
Now, I don’t know what it stands for. I think that government over-relies on “image” these days, mainly Mandela’s.
It’s the same way, in English-speaking Europe at least, it’s made to look like it was the hard work of good white people who “freed Mandela”, by not buying South African vegetables and such. That’s what freed Mandela! not the protesters of the black trade union movement, for example, who occupied the mines and battled and got battered by the South African security forces.
That agency and commitment seems to be absent.
This is why sentimentality is so big in this story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
king
and Washington’s orders to terrorize their non-combatants, as an admitted detterent to them striking back was not political?!!
Like I said, you allege terrorism simply because the word was used in a letter and not because the actions warrant it. The expedition in question involved two things. Destruction of bases used to launch attacks and the detention of it’s inhabitants. That doesn’t fit the definition of “terrorism”. Your repeating the allegations doesn’t make them true.
I already pointed out that “terrorism” does not have an agreed upon legal interpretation.
Actually, lots of countries have an agreed upon legal definition. And they’re pretty much the same around the world. I’ll make an analogy regarding murder. The legal definition of murder varies slightly from place to place. There are subtle differences in what constitutes murder vs legitimate self defense. What constitutes murder in one jurisdiction may legally be considered self defense in another. Or an act defined as murder in one jurisdiction may be defined as manslaughter in another. However, there is nowhere that one private citizen walking up to a complete stranger and shooting them point blank in the face without provocation won’t be considered murder.
Similarly, there is some variation over whether politically motivated attacks on property should be considered terrorism or sabotage. I tend to consider attacks on property sabotage and that includes Mandela’s attacks on property. However, there is no dispute over whether politically motivated attacks on innocent non combatants should be considered terrorism and those are the acts which make Mandela a terrorist. Your claiming that Mandela isn’t a terrorist is like claiming that private citizen in my analogy isn’t a murderer. Wordy’s logic fails for the same reason yours does.
And I have given you several examples of “terrorists” who conveniently weren’t terrorists, because they were on the “right side.”
I have no doubt the French Resistance engaged in terrorism. Some of them probably should have been hanged. But I have no idea.whether any of those other groups engaged in terrorism without researching it. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. Either way, it has no bearing on this discussion and doesn’t justify Mandela’s role in the murders of hundreds of innocent people. You only bring it up to deflect because you know Mandela’s murders are indefensible.
Words have meaning… yet only apply to people whom we want them to apply to. But when those same definitions impugn those whom we happen to admire or find common cause with, then those same meanings no longer lead to the same accusations and conclusions.
At least you finally admitted it.
Really? Which terrorist organization did he found?
Umkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, translated as “Spear of the Nation”)
You’ve got nothing here. You’re talking in circles.
I’ve already won the argument. You lack the maturity and integrity to admit the obvious. TNB.
++
Linda
Invaders who occupied and settled land that they felt they could just TAKE south Africa by “any means Necessary”– and then they proceeded to follow a Nazi strategy of mass Removal towards the Indigenous/Native Africans, in both benign and VIOLENT, MURDEROUS ways…
Actually, that describes the blacks more than the whites. The prior inhabitants of South Africa were the bushmen whom they invaded and subjugated and continue to do so to this day. The zulus in particular slaughtered an estimated 2 million others in their invasion. But they never went much further than the Limpopo river because they were from equatorial Africa and their crops wouldn’t grow in the temperate South African climate. In other words, the afrikaaner were actually in much of South Africa first. Many of the blacks in South Africa aren’t even descended from these early negr0 invaders but of those who migrated from other parts of Africa for jobs. I’m always amused at blacks who assume that the whole of Africa is negr0. You can see this same attitude in terms of North Africa. On the one hand, blacks try to claim North Africans were black.while on the other dismissing them as “Arab invaders”.
LikeLike
@bulanik I don’t think in particular, South Africa, as has been abundantly made clear lately, Zimbabwe, Nigeria state control over resources has been particularly beneficial to the general person on the street…
LikeLike
that ANC stuff, i liken it to abortion clinic bombings, ineffectual at best, unless it runs down along sectarian/xenomorphic/other categorical lines
LikeLike
called going off half-cocked
LikeLike
*moddied
LikeLike
“Da Jokah,
The prior inhabitants of South Africa were the bushmen whom they invaded and subjugated and continue to do so to this day. The zulus in particular slaughtered an estimated 2 million others in their invasion. But they never went much further than the Limpopo river because they were from equatorial Africa and their crops wouldn’t grow in the temperate South African climate. In other words, the afrikaaner were actually in much of South Africa first. Many of the blacks in South Africa aren’t even descended from these early negr0 invaders but of those who migrated from other parts of Africa for jobs. ”
Linda says,
You’re so full of Sh’t, not even you know for sure, which hole it’s coming from!
Lets see: 1652 AD– first time a Dutch/white European person/group set up shop and built outpost in south Africa: so white Europeans have been in South Africa for 361 years
500 AD — Nguni ethnic group (indigenous Africans) settled into south and East territories of south Africa and intermixed with the Khoi, so Bantu-speaking people have been in south Africa for 1,513 years
361 years (white Europeans) versus 1513 years (Indigenous Africans)… Gee, sounds like Native black South Africans have been in South Africa a h’ll of a lot longer than white Europeans.
All you white “race realists” like to bring up the Bantu expansion to try to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by the Dutch/Europeans — as if that means something in order to excuse your fellow white Racists shameful past
but to be fair, you are only regurgitating the lies that the racist South African government wrote in order to justify Apartheid…
they would have us believe that South Africa’s history began with them in 1600’s and that the land was “empty”…total bullsh’t… ever heard of the Xhosa wars, ethnic Bantu-speaking people who lived on the southern/SE coastal region since 500 AD (ie VERY South of the Limpopo River by the way)- who fought the white Dutch who were stealing their land.
you should ask the Portuguese if the Cape was empty of “black” people, as the Portuguese found out in 1510 when they opted not to colonize the southern Cape because Francisco d’Almeida got his a’s handed to him by the Khoi and Xhosa warriors at Table Bay
your BS half-revisionists version doesn’t hold water, son… Google does exist for those who don’t know actual facts (such as yourself)
http://www.historytoday.com/shula-marks/south-africa-myth-empty-land
All these Ethnic groups traded and migrated back and forth across South Africa, they were not Stationary and none of them were “new” comers by the time the Dutch East Company decided to set up their trading post (1652 Cape of Good Hope) — the Khoi/San happened to be the dominant Ethnic group of that region, but other Ethnic groups still lived in those regions.
Shaka, the Zulu king, making a Land grab in the 1800’s by invading south of the Highveld, doesn’t constitute a “Bantu migration” either.. that’s called making a strategic political move to expand and rule territory — just like the Dutch Boars and British were doing at the same time when they got into wars with the Zulus.
What is even more hilarious, during Apartheid, the Khoi/San were designated as “coloured” because some of the early Dutch intermixed with the women. (they also intermixed with Xhosas before the wars)
How convenient that white South Africans mainly have a problem with Bantu-speaking aka “negro” Ethnic groups and like the Egyptians, they want to “reclassify the Indigenous Africans into another “race” to try to make the Khoi/San “less black African”
because some white South Africans don’t want to admit they might have “black” blood in their veins… but that black blood is the ONLY way a white person in Africa can ever claim “indigenous”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Da Jokah,
The zulus in particular slaughtered an estimated 2 million others in their invasion.”
Linda says,
You bring up one historical event, Shaka, the Zulu King of the 1800’s and try to paint a false picture about an entire Zulu ethnic group.
Shaka, in his quest to gain power and expanded his empire, killed around 2 million people during his reign but he also grew HIS clan from 1500 people to 300,000 — this strategic military/political conquest had nothing to do with so called “Bantu Expansion”… so once again, you are trying to turn lies into Truth.
Shaka was a bada’s (and a little crazy), who gave the Boers and British a good thumping every now and again.
The Zulu’s migrated into South Africa around 1200 AD and they did not kill or commit mass murder —they did not try to wipe the Xhosa or KhoiKoi/San from the face of the earth …the Dutch/European did that.
As we all know, the European tribes –“the English and Germans” each have killed off more than 2 million white European people apiece in their quests of domination and Ethnic cleansing of other “white” Ethnic groups
Irish Ethnic Cleansing _ courtesy of the English
From 1649 to 1652, one-third of the population of Ireland was destroyed. Petty, an English historian says, “660,000 Irish people were killed.” Twenty thousand Irish boys and girls also were sold into slavery to the West Indies
the British pursued a barbarous policy of mass starvation in Ireland from 1845-50
“By the mid-19th century, Ireland was a country of Eight Million, mostly peasants. They were forced to exist on a single crop: the potato
Food, from 30 to 50 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint (from Ireland) by 12,000 British constables, reinforced by 200,000 British soldiers, warships, excise vessels, and coast guards… Britain seized from Ireland’s producers tens of millions of head of livestock, tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry and dairy products-enough to sustain 18-million persons.
Gallagher estimates 2 million died from the famine. Writer Chris Fogarty, however, places the numbers “murdered at approximately 5.16 million, making it the Irish holocaust”
http://www.noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
and I don’t have enough space here to list all the Irish people who were killed by the English government between 1652 to 1850 and that’s just 1 country…
the British Empire was just so large, we could be here all day just talking about all their
victimscolony(s) and conquests.but I think it’s safe to say that the Shaka, the Zulu King, couldn’t hold a Candle to the British when it comes to mass murder– and of course, I don’t EVEN have to talk about the Germans_ their mass murders inspired movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Da Jokah you are wrong to claim that legislated definitions are consistent. For example:
– Australia’s amended Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 describes terrorist acts as violent activities aimed at the public and intended to advance a political or religious cause by intimidating or coercing the Government.
– The United States has 22 different legislated definitions of terrorism, MANY of them conflicting. The US Code, for example, defines terrorism as violence perpetrated or intended by a group or ‘clandestine’ individuals which is politically motivated, premeditated and directed at non combatants. On the other hand, the US DSC Anti-Terror Handbook defines terrorism as unauthorised violence perpetrated by a group/individuals for political purposes.
– Zimbabwe’s Public Order and Security Act (Ch 11:17) takes an even broader approach. It describes terrorists as any person who furthers an insurrection, forcibly resists the Government or forcibly alters government law or policy by using or threatening to use weaponry to harm others, destroy property or cause economic damage.
As I stated, there are some points of commonality between the definitions, but not enough to claim that there is a universal understanding of what terrorism is.
You dismissed my points about the uneven application of the term but they were highly relevant. Whacking so many different types of groups with the terrorist label means that it is, as I stated, highly subjective.
Personally, I think we need to reinvestigate the way different types of informal violence are categorised. I would argue that this would actually help governments to design more effective and targeted security strategies.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
You write well, but there are some gaping holes in your knowledge base.
I have a comment in moderation that addresses a couple of them.
LikeLike
Funny thing all this Mandela hooplah is that the guy was a communist too. Realist when he came out but a communist still. He held Fidel Castro and Cuba in high esteem. He was also in the US terrorist list up untill 2008. And now everybody and their uncle are sooooooooooooooo very much in love with the man. Why didn’t they respect him when he was alive or in jail?
LikeLike
Linda
I think you’re the one engaging in revisionism. The article you linked even admits it’s not the consensus view. She’s trying to twist the ruins of a couple of isolated iron age villages whose inhabitants she admits are unidentified into a land claim. But South Africa was an enormously large and largely uninhabited chunk of ground. I’m doubling down. The first inhabitants of South Africa were bushmen. And few negr0s migrated into South Africa prior to the early 1800’s during a period known as the Mfecane. That’s indisputable.
++
Wordnerdy
you are wrong to claim that legislated definitions are consistent.
I agree with the US and AUS definitions and see nothing contradictory in them. But Zimbabwe’s definition is the exception that proves the rule. Mugabe is a dictator and terrorist in his own right. It should be obvious why he would wish to label anyone who disagrees with him as a “terrorist”. No one would take his definition seriously.
LikeLike
sami parkkonen
Who is to say people didn’t? I usually advice people to think before they speak, but then I would bot get a few laughs if people did that.
LikeLike
“You’re so full of Sh’t, not even you know for sure, which hole it’s coming from!”—-ROFL!
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Again, you are incorrect. There are significant differences between the definitions I cited. You also failed to respond to my point about the 22 definitions offered by different pieces of US legislation.
As I stated, ‘terrorism’ is so subjective a term that it has lost any utility as a descriptor. Let’s look at how the term is used for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for example:
– The Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a dispute concerning territory which they both have a historical claim to.
– Both are motivated by religion. Israeli Zionists arguably have as much regard to ideology as Palestinian movements such as Hamas.
– Both use violence against the other to further their ideological aims, which has often resulted in civilian casualties. For example, the PLO made use of suicide bombing attacks. On the other hand, Israeli forces routinely respond to unarmed protests with real gunfire. They have also engaged in targeted bombing/military operations without regard for civilian casualties. That is, indiscriminate violence
– Despite the similarity in the aims, tactics and (non combatant) targets of the two ethno cultural groups, Palestinian militants are routinely characterised by Western governments as terrorists while the Israeli military are not
– Classing pro-Palestinian groups as terrorists gives the actions of the Israeli military a moral legitimacy. It also detracts from the valid desire of the Palestinians for an independent state.
Again, my point in stating this is not to claim that any of these activities are legitimate. I believe in a Jewish homeland. both Israelis AND Palestinians deserve statehood.
But your argument that ‘terrorist’ is an accurate descriptor is incorrect. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is a consensus viewpoint among most political scientists/foreign policy experts.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
My last paragraph was very unclear. What I meant to say is there is a broad consensus among political scientists that ‘terrorist’ is a subjective term.
LikeLike
@ sami parkkonen
Are you aka sam, the longstanding and regular commenter from Finland?
This comment above sounds like one of yours. Lol.
If it is you, I completely get where you’re coming from because there was the time when being identified as a Communist in pro-Apartheid media did not confer respect at all. Mr Mandela was demonised as a “terrorist” and, “Communist” was a slur-descriptor in Western Europe for a long time.
Perhaps this was why Mr Mandela’s affiliation and participation within the SACP (South Africa Communist Party) had to be concealed. When he was on trial for Treason in the early 1960s, the world was defined by Cold War tensions.
The Apartheid he wanted to dismantle didn’t care whether Mr Mandela’s affiliations had more to do with making effective political alliances, rather than ideology. Either way, an open disclosure of his alliances with anti-Apartheid Communists states could have damaged his endeavours and stunted vital support in the West. Also, Communism was illegal in South Africa at the time.
The ANC also had Irish links, too. Those links with the IRA were for military training and the making of bombs, because the IRA were the then experts at gueilla warfare against colonial powers. This link was provided through Abdul Kader Asmal, an Indian South African who took exile in Ireland for some years and was part of the anti-Apartheid movement here. No surprise that the leader of Sinn Fein was an honoured guest at Mr Mandela’s funeral, and Sinn Fein is the IRA’s political arm.
As I remember it, the Free Nelson Mandela campaign in Western Europe was centred on Mr Mandela as being a figurehead for Compromise most of all.
He wasn’t on the right, he wasn’t on the left, because his focus was perceived as a moral than political.
http://www.icosirl.ie/eng/irish_aid_fellowships/kader_asmal_fellowship
LikeLike
Typo *guerilla warfare
LikeLike
@sharina: ???
@bulanik: Yes I am.
I find extremely hilarious when guys like Bill Clinton, during whose presidency Mandela stayed put on the terrorist list, now griefs the man so deeply.
I find it so funny that the same leaders who fought tooth and nail against communists in the Third world are now trying to dance with the corpse of the man they hated when he was alive.
I find really comical that the men who were active enemies of Nelson Mandela and ANC for decades, who really tried to eliminate him, are now pretending to be his best buddies.
Nelson Mandela thought that Fidel Castro was a hero of his people. He made a speech were he praised Muammar Gaddafi. For him these were the men who supported actively ANC during its long years of struggle. These were the men who gave the money and other assistance to ANC during its underground years.
Mandela was a great leader, he was uncorruptible. But we should not try to make him something he was not politically. He was a leftist, a communist when younger, and it is ok.
The guys who hated him a and tried to kill him so many years are now white washing him in more than one way.
LikeLike
Ah, sam, it IS you!
As I remember it, Mr Mandela’s Leftist politics were carefully “managed” (concealed) by anti-Apartheid protesters so that the public would not be put off.
That was because of all the disrespect that was heaped on Communism and Communists. People truly feared and despised the threat of Communism.
LikeLike
sami parkkonen
I guess it would be better (for me) if I asked questions for clarification. Who are you referring to when you speak of not respecting him until he is gone? Average people (in which case I stand by the question of who is to say they didn’t) or government officials in which case I concede and agree with you on the basis of liars and manipulators.
LikeLike
“Da Jokah,
The article you linked even admits it’s not the consensus view. She’s trying to twist the ruins of a couple of isolated iron age villages whose inhabitants she admits are unidentified into a land claim.”
Linda says,
why don’t you double-down on trying to find 2 sticks to rub together to light up a brain cell and your eyesight, so you can read what is written and stop trying to peddle your lies.
the article stated “There is no way the archaeological data can tell us what language the newcomers spoke.”. —
it said Nothing about No “consensus view” on the Xhosa or the other Nguni people who lived there for 1000+ years… it was not in dispute nor was it an assumption__ it was the South African scientist themselves who made these scientific and anthropological findings known.
“In the 1920s and 1930s South Africa led the way in research on early man and the Stone Age but it has only been relatively recently, and in part in response to developments north of the Limpopo, that South African archaeologists have begun to investigate sites dated to the last couple of thousand years.
As more and more carbon dates have been processed from the Early Iron Age sites which stretch in a thin scatter over southern, central and eastern Africa, so it has become apparent that the first Iron Age farmers south of the Limpopo River as to the north of it, arrived there early in the first millennium AD
and not, as had been previously assumed, relatively late in the second . The earliest dates we have for the Iron Age in South Africa go back some 1,200 years before the Portuguese first rounded the southern tip of the continent
In order to understand the history of southern Africa, and indeed of Africa, before the advent of literate observers– we have to turn to the findings of archaeologists, linguists and anthropologists.
Over the past ten or fifteen years, scholars in these disciplines, together with the historians, have begun to assemble a picture of South Africa’s past which is dramatically at variance with the official version
http://www.historytoday.com/shula-marks/south-africa-myth-empty-land
So, all these people must be liars because your racist a’s and racist white South Africans want to try to justify their Theft and Apartheid… GTFOH with your lies.
History doesn’t begin with the Europeans and when they wrote stuff down… I guess for you and the lying white south Africans, the dinosaurs didn’t exist either because they didn’t leave behind a detailed diary of their existence and no one white person was there to witness and prove it!
this is why I can’t stand you … you try your best to sound intelligent, act like you actually read the articles , then come back to spew more of your ignorant, racist garbage into the stratosphere, AS IF, no one else can read or use google.
and by the way, I hate to break it to you but the Khoikoi are still– wait for it: BLACK… they are still black .. and lived, intermarried, and traded with their Bantu-speaking Nguni neighbors for hundreds of years…. so get over it
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Linda
I just love reading your commentary. It truly makes me feel comfortable in my steps forward to not give a sh*t what I say about or to these trolls.
LikeLike
Sharina,
glad I can aspire 🙂
LikeLike
meant “inspire”… I aspire to inspire
LikeLike
Linda, you do more than aspire, you succeed. Agree with Sharina.
LikeLike
@sharina: Yes, I was talking about the so-called “world leaders”
LikeLike
No, I allege terrorism because terror was used. (in this case as a tool of warfare.)
The destruction of a “base” means attacking Camp Pendleton… not burning all of San Diego to the ground and then leading the survivors away in chains.
No, it is their truthfulness that makes them true. All I am doing is not applying a double standard, that’s all.
Don’t you mean that General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s should have been hanged as a terrorist? After all, in his military memoir, Crusade in Europe he made this statement.
“Throughout France, the Free French had been of inestimable value in the campaign.” …Without their great assistance, the liberation of France and the defeat of the enemy in Western Europe would have consumed a much longer time.”
So, you see, he openly supported the French Resistance. Doesn’t that make him 100% responsible for every act that the French Resistance did. Just like you hold Mandela is 100% responsible for every action that every member of the ANC did?
LikeLike
Lmao!
Oh, the brutality of it!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Mbeti's Blog and commented:
The Comments section has it covered – very intelligent and honest people here….
LikeLike
@ Legion
Thanks for thinking it over. I don’t have the answers either.
LikeLike
Townhall link comment:
LikeLike
(http://youtu.be/Wg8ZyaN7msw)
LikeLike
He was a very honorable and respectable man. I admire his courage to standing up against the apartheid government in South Africa despite being imprisoned for over thirty years. Now he was a courageous man that will go down in history.
LikeLike
That you for this post. I learned alot despite having studied him in the past.
LikeLike
Why was he hated by black? As for me he was a great person and leader that tried to influence politic without violence. You can have a look at research paper on our forum http://essay-writer.club/forums/f/questions-about-research-paper/ about his life and politics. I think it should be quite interesting to read for those who want to get to know more about Nelson Mandela.
LikeLike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TiUhhm7cQ)
Rare Video: Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine.
LikeLike
I was one of those people who loved Nelson Mandela- one of the saddest days in my life when he passed away. As a sculptor and as ode to him, I had lovingly, sculpted two heads of him.(One for my child and for my future grandchildren) One is painted with oils and his shirt with gold-leaf. I had made a cast of one in marble dust. A few visitors (I have become a little reclusive ) have expressed appreciation for them, urging me to sell them.
I was still sourcing limestone to make casts for a series to sell, while making sense once and for all the negotiated ‘revolution’. All three now are constant reminders of deep unforgivable betrayal in that secret Faustian pact with jewish and afrikaner Mephistopheles.
My heart was not in it to sell them when I had created them, thinking then it would have been exploitative. Now I am not sure what to do with them at all. Hide them away, sell them to white capitalists who would ‘thankful’ to their prized pet for letting them keep their stolen wealth?
For the moment, they are in the garden, where the birds can visit.
LikeLike
Son of a bi***. I was just watching some material that pointed out one of the techniques of social control and propaganda: having black people injure other black people/people of colour.
I had posted a video about a U.S. govt. official (a black lady) who was used by the U.S. govt. to dupe Mandela while he was P.M. She came to see, after the fact, how she had been an unwitting Trojan Horse. I can’t remember her name. I knew my comment deletions would bite me in the ass at some point. Damn.
LikeLike
End Rasicism Now.
LikeLike
I give Mandela credit for being kinder to Whites than Mugabe was.
LikeLike
Every human being has something of value that they brought to the table, especially Dr. Verwoerd. Mandela also had things of value that he brought to the table, so did Shaka, Pretorius, and Kruger. Even Malema, a racist fanatic, brings something of value to the table in that his murderous, hateful rants have helped whites in America understand the plight of the Boers. Dingaan, however, was a treacherous, murderous pagan who brought nothing of value to the table, and is currently burning for all eternity for his wicked deeds.
I love Mandela, but I also love Dr. Verwoerd. I won’t let the feminists tell me that I need to love them and all the BS they keep pushing, but that I can’t love an intellectual giant like Dr. Verwoerd. He contributed so much great stuff to the world and feminists have contributed nothing of value.
LikeLike