55Likes
3
Post By Dywyddyr
3
Post By John Galt
4
Post By Ascended
3
Post By billvon
2
Post By jrmonroe
2
Post By Flick Montana
4
Post By river_rat
5
Post By KALSTER
1
Post By Stargate
2
Post By Tranquille
5
Post By marnixR
4
Post By adelady
1
Post By Tranquille
1
Post By Fossilborealis
1
Post By Tranquille
3
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By river_rat
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By Tranquille
5
Post By marnixR
1
Post By Harold14370
1
Post By marnixR
December 10th, 2013, 12:44 PM
Now we have lost a real giant in terms of morals, and ethics, I am sure not everyone thinks that way, but there has to be something to be said about this man.
What are some of the lessons do you think Mandela has given us? Do you think we can capitalize on them, or do you think we will fall back into that kind of darkness?
He managed to convince some people that he was a "real giant of morals and ethics".
That was a pretty good trick for a former terrorist.
Your cynical comments tempt me, for the first time on any forum, to abuse my moderator powers and ban you. However, in honour of Madiba I shall, instead, forgive you your foolishness.
People can have their owns opinions about how he started off, tactics and methods etc....., what is not in question is what he managed to achieve. He left the world a legacy that should serve as an example to bring all races together, he managed to make everyone understand that racial segregation is wrong and regardless of race each man is equal at a heavy personnal cost which meant he spent many years locked away alone in prison. So yes he changed the world and that's why he is rightly so now revered and respected around the world.Originally Posted by Stargate
And Jesus, a socialist thug with a history of vandalism and violence, did pretty well for himself. But some people can only see the bad.
Why would you throw out a gratuitous insult to Christians in a thread about Nelson Mandela? What is the connection?And Jesus, a socialist thug with a history of vandalism and violence, did pretty well for himself. But some people can only see the bad.
I heard Obama repeatedly refer to Mandela as "Madiba", so I began reading his bio in Wikipedia and found that his birth name "Rolihlahla" means something like "troublemaker", but was given the name "Nelson" early in his childhood. ("Madiba" turns out to be his Xhosa tribal name.)
Interestingly, if you read about his childhood and early adult life, he was something of a South African "Moses", though not exactly. I think he left us with a strong example of, like Moses, when you've taken an honest look at a terrible situation, and know in you heart that you're right, you stick to your principles.
Whether or not your own government throws you in prison for almost 30 years ...
Whether or not the world's greatest superpower and another highly influential government label you a terrorist ...
Whether or not your government asks you to compromise for your release ...
Whether you die or are killed in prison, or whether the government releases you unconditionally ...
Whether or not the heads of those terrorist-labeling governments and many other highly-influential governments welcome and honor you ...
Whether or not your countrymen elect you to lead them ...
Whether or not you succeed in ending the oppression and implement a reconciliation ...
... you stick to your principles.
I think it was more of a comment as to how we judge people than it was an insult to Christians.Why would you throw out a gratuitous insult to Christians in a thread about Nelson Mandela? What is the connection?And Jesus, a socialist thug with a history of vandalism and violence, did pretty well for himself. But some people can only see the bad.
I am looking at the other side of the coin in terms of a good man doing bad things to make good things. There is no doubt that Mandela had to use violence, right or wrong, it brought him freedom for himself and his people. There is no question he was facing violence by a force that created that violence. When can one say this was done in self defense, or in the name of terror. The question is how do we define terror in such a case?People can have their owns opinions about how he started off, tactics and methods etc....., what is not in question is what he managed to achieve. He left the world a legacy that should serve as an example to bring all races together, he managed to make everyone understand that racial segregation is wrong and regardless of race each man is equal at a heavy personnal cost which meant he spent many years locked away alone in prison. So yes he changed the world and that's why he is rightly so now revered and respected around the world.
Anyone who uses guerilla tactics against an established authority could be considered a terrorist. Depending upon your viewpoint, America could have been liberated from British rule by terrorists. The Jewish resistance during Nazi occupation could be considered a terrorist organization. Just depends upon your perspective.
In other words Mandela is a bad and good man? Does it make any difference these days to define who is doing what? Or what do we call this group? How do we define the good from the bad?
Mandela is the kind of man you judge him to be. If you believe he fought on the side of right, he is a social liberator. If you think he was a communist guerilla, you probably consider him a terrorist.
Personally, I don't know enough about his struggle to say one way or another. Kalster would probably be the best person to weigh in on this one.
?? It's not an insult; just facts about his life. He vandalized the money changers in the temple and went after them with a whip! Quite a violent guy at that time. He esposued a great many anti-capitalist (even communistic) ideals - give your money to the government, sell your worldly goods and give the proceeds to the poor, the rich have a very hard time getting into heaven etc. These are all right there in the Bible. Why would you find such facts insulting, when saying the same thing about Mandela is fine with you?
To be pedantic, Nelson Mandela was guilty of being a saboteur and not of being a terrorist - the bombings he was instrumental in were specifically done to government targets at night to minimize the risk to human life. The worst of the terrorist style bombings happened in the 1980's (Church Street etc) and they were under the authority of Oliver Tambo or by another group entirely (The PAC for example). It's up to history to decide if these later targets were legitimate military targets or not but the TRC did grant amnesty for many of them.
Madiba's defining quality in the history of South Africa was that he took a country on the brink of civil war and through force of will, inspiring politics and perhaps plain stubbornness got us safely into our first democratic elections. Perhaps it really was just a magic trick, something which you really don't want to pull the curtain away from too much as all the awe and wonder disappears when the wires and trap doors are revealed but it was a glorious magic trick to behold when you were witnessing it first hand. Watching the real fear, the misunderstanding from all sides melt away just enough for us as a nation to make it through very dark days.
The racial and identity politics of my home are too complicated to explain in a short post like this and other people have filled books with it. However, I recently read a moving story by a columnist who I disagree with about as often as I agree and would like to share his story with any interested party. My old South African flag | Daily Maverick
It is obviously a complex issue. As was stated earlier, one man's terrorist is another's liberator.
At one end you have Mandela and his people fighting for liberation with some violence, eventually. Then you have buffoons who are trying to fight for a return to white domination with violence and getting cast into jail for their efforts (where they belong until their carcasses have stopped stinking). Our morals as a species evolve and while each viewpoint can be the righteous one from a certain viewpoint, we have to decide what is the right path for ourselves as communities with open hearts and minds with a belief that we should strive for what is best for all of humanity. With this view, there can only be one good side and that has to be the side of those that fought for the rights and liberty of their people in my country, that which was denied them by popular minority vote.
So while Mandela and his compatriots were put away for crimes they committed according to the laws of the day, what grew ever more inside of that man and what he got out and showed the whole of South Africa and the world is what true selfless compassion for your fellow man is all about. There was a real fear amongst the minorities that his release would unleash a torrent of retribution and bloodshed that has been witnessed many times in other countries in Africa and across the world in the past, but what actually happened is that he came out and preached tolerance for ALL, equality for ALL. He gripped the hearts and minds of South Africans of all walks of life and races and creeds and united us behind a hope for a better South Africa. After we won the world cup in 1995 and Mandela was on that stage with joy on his face and the whole country was cheering in unison, it was probably the most special and proudest day in my life as a South African.
Then all through his life after prison until his death he was a sustained beacon of hope, compassion, understanding and so many other things to millions of people around the world. He was not just someone it was fashionable to express your admiration towards, he was a true role model, a true inspiration and will remain so for a long time to come and it makes me extremely proud to have had him as a fellow countryman, a fellow South African.
It is even more apparent how great a man he was when you compare some of his compatriots to him. It is clear that he was a singular man and the only man who could have done what he did. But he did not magically fix South Africa. He gave us the tools to fix ourselves and while his struggles were definitely righteous, the landscape in South Africa is different now and we need a new change, one that is gradually taking place, but will take generations to fully develop.
There is so much more to say about this and so many issues to delve into, I'll leave it there before I start going all over the place.
Mangosuthu Buthelezi ?
(I seem to remember him saying something like: "When the ANC speaks, no Zulu are heard")
I think what you are saying is powerful. I try to put myself in his position and ask myself if I was capable of what he did, to be honest I cannot answer. It is much easier to think it was done by someone else, and much easier to give thanks that there was someone capable of doing what he did. Now I think we all have an opportunity to learn the lesson he tried to teach us.
Kalster I know its a long story, and I know you must feel proud to have such an inspiration as your country man. I feel the world has lost a daddy.
Resistance fighters in WWII were also terrorists then. Do you think he should have done nothing in the face of absolute repression? Bent over and just taken it? Would you have? He did what he had to do in the face of a political climate that left him no other choice. When peaceful marches and protests against the regime were met with police opening fire on peaceful protesters, he was left with no choice. He deliberately set out to ensure no civilians were killed and the targets were always Government targets, struck at night, when there was no one there. Is that what a terrorist does?
We can lock you up for 30 years, force you to do hard labor because you believed that all people should be equal. Then we can see how you go when you are released and what your message would be. That is why Mandela was a real giant of morals and ethics and why he will always be that giant.
Mandela's captors, the prison guards who controlled his every movement, remembered him as a person who did not swear at them, who did not hate them, but instead encouraged them to be their best. Upon his release, even after he became President, he still kept in contact with his former captors, asked about their families, still kept encouraging them to be their best and most of all, still kept referring to them as his friends. Some terrorist.
I have to ask, was it his message of equality that bothered you? Or just the fact that he was, by every definition, a resistance fighter against a brutal regime?
what matters most to me is what he achieved once he got out of prison
just based on his achievements in the 1990s he must be seen as one of the few real peacemakers amongst politicians, and unlikely other african politicians who cling to power for dear life, he was willing to demonstrate a democratic spirit by letting go of the reins when he felt his time was up (mind you, he was still a great influencer out of office)
his achievements make anything that preceeded his imprisonment irrelevant
I recall hearing once that the person a tyrant had most to fear was not the hot-headed anarchist, it was the reluctant revolutionary. The ones who were left with no other option.
Mandela started out as an advocate for non-violent, Gandhi-style protest and resistance. He only changed that view in his late 30s - in 1955 - that the ANC had no other avenues available. And when he was released from prison decades later, he went straight back to his original non-violent, pro-reconciliation approach.
If only we had more like him. I am grateful to have had just the one.
Pretoria Street church bombing:
In his book "Long Walk to Freedom", Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism.
You know that site is a white supremacist site, right?Pretoria Street church bombing:
In his book "Long Walk to Freedom", Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism.
We're expected to take the apartheid supporting jingoistic drivel from that site seriously?
It's pretty much been white supremacist apartheid supporters who maintained that he 'signed off' on the bombing. Reality is quite different.
May I ask, why are you linking white supremacist apartheid supporting drivel on this site and trying to pass it off as the truth? Did you support the apartheid regime?
You do know there's a difference between "ordering" and "signing off on something" don't you?
So you're saying that Mandela DIDN'T sign off on it?May I ask, why are you linking white supremacist apartheid supporting drivel on this site and trying to pass it off as the truth?
Irrelevant. (But the answer is no).Did you support the apartheid regime?
He didn't always do it in the way we'd like to see it done. He wound up doing it in the only way he knew HOW to get it done.
I like this....because I think it sums it up.
MarnixR said it best!
what matters most to me is what he achieved once he got out of prisonjust based on his achievements in the 1990s he must be seen as one of the few real peacemakers amongst politicians, and unlikely other african politicians who cling to power for dear life, he was willing to demonstrate a democratic spirit by letting go of the reins when he felt his time was up (mind you, he was still a great influencer out of office)
his achievements make anything that preceeded his imprisonment irrelevant
Thanks MarnixR!
He was NO angel....albeit, but sometimes desperate men have to take desperate measures.......
His visits were supervised, his letters read, in and out of the prison and they were censored. His phone calls were monitored.
How exactly would he have signed off on it?
The only people who sought to blame him for the bombing (and continue to do so) were white supremacists and supporters of the regime. Have you read his book?
One of the funniest things about this comment is that the only people to use the words 'signed off" are white supremacists and the people who parrot those words have been getting it from their sites.So you're saying that Mandela DIDN'T sign off on it?
White supremacist sites you appear to be frequenting and where you seem to be getting this information misrepresented his words. He saw himself as responsible for the actions of the organisation he co-founded prior to his imprisonment. T
He felt responsible. Which is very different to his signing off on the actual bombing. I can assure you, there was no way he would have been able to sign off on the bombings considering all of his mails and phone calls were censored and listened to and his visits were monitored.
Perhaps you could explain why you are relying on apartheid supporting white supremacist sites for information?Irrelevant. (But the answer is no).
According to official estimates, a quarter of the population is unemployed, According to a 2013 Goldman Sachs report, that number increases to 35% when including people who have given up looking for work. A quarter of South Africans live on less than US $1.25 a day.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Xma8sjCyd8cjHg
It does? Here is the text of a Long Walk to Freedom - I can't find the claimed passage. https://archive.org/stream/LongWalkT...I3231_djvu.txt
It does if you read white supremacist and pro Apartheid sites like Dywyddyr seems to be relying on. They all use the exact same term that Dywyddyr used in this thread. "Signed off on".
And every single one of them misrepresented this passage and every single one used the exact same words Dywyddyr used. I do not know whether Dywyddyr has read the book and whether he chose to misrepresent the context and actual words written by Nelson Mandela, or perhaps he chose ignorance and instead relied on pro Apartheid sites which are more concerned about the preservation and the pure bloodlines of white South Africans because it fit into what he wanted to believe about Mandela. Only Dywyddyr can know the answer to that.
Here is the passage Apartheid supporters and those of their ilk use try to portray him as a terrorist by misrepresenting it:
As I said, it only does if you are a white supremacist and supporter of Apartheid.AT POLLSMOOR, we were more connected to outside events. We were aware that the struggle was intensifying, and that the efforts of the enemy were similarly increasing. In 1981, the South African Defense Force launched a raid on ANC offices in Maputo, Mozambique, killing thirteen of our people, including women and children. In December 1982, MK set off explosions at the unfinished Koeberg nuclear power plant outside Cape Town and placed bombs at many other military and apartheid targets around the country. That same month, the South African military again attacked an ANC outpost in Maseru, Lesotho, killing forty two people, including a dozen women and children.
In August of 1982, activist Ruth First was opening her mail in Maputo, where she was living in exile, when she was murdered by a letter bomb. Ruth, the wife of Joe Slovo, was a brave a nti -apartheid activist who had spent a number of months in prison. She was a forceful, engaging woman whom I first met when I was studying at Wits, and her death revealed the extent of the state's cruelty in combating our struggle.
MK's first car bomb attack took place in May of 1983, and was aimed at an air force and military intelligence office in the heart of Pretoria. This was an effort to retaliate for the unprovoked attacks the military had launched on the ANC in Maseru and elsewhere and was a clear escalation of the armed struggle. Nineteen people were killed and more than two hundred injured.
The killing of civilians was a tragic accident, and I felt a profound horror at the death toll. But as disturbed as I was by these casualties, I knew that such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle. Human fallibility is always a part of war, and the price for it is always high. It was precisely because we knew that such incidents would occur that our decision to take up arms had been so grave and reluctant. But as Oliver said at the time of the bombing, the armed struggle was imposed upon us by the violence of the apartheid regime.
Hard to say. South Africa? Rape of women epidemic. Per capita murder rate 30 times higher than in other former Dominions like Canada and Australia. Lots of well educated Ex pat South Africans in my city and other Commonweath cities. No way would they raise their kids in South Africa. They took out both their expertise and know how.
Is a child better off in South Africa or the rest of Subsaharan Africa than under White rule. No. The bottom line...will they eventually be better off in their lifetime?...the jury is still out. difficult to fight against a system but even more difficult to replace it with a better one.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...Castro, Ghandi, Mandela. What did they actually active for the average person? In contrast others like Washington, Mao oversaw replacements that actually improved society.
I do not understand what you are saying. Do you think South Africa was better under the apartheid rule? Do you think any society could recover from that dreadful nightmare, and every body cut and forget what happened the day before? As a normal thinking person, it must be obvious that South Africa will take a while to recover from the terrible past, it is and cannot happen overnight.
I am sorry your thoughts sounds awfully one sided. Just take a look at crime and violence that are occurring in some countries that are wealthy and have not had a legacy as South Africa.
Yes, it's funny isn't it?
I post a (deliberately) less-than diplomatic reminder that Mandela, despite the press, wasn't quite the unalloyed angel he's being lauded as and I get accused of "frequenting" white supremacist sites.
FYI the link I gave was on the first page that Google gave me, I'm not in the habit of "frequenting" such sites.
Then again, history, should I ever get any recognition, may well tell a different story about me.
I just started reading the book last night, and I found that too.The killing of civilians was a tragic accident, and I felt a profound horror at the death toll. But as disturbed as I was by these casualties, I knew that such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle. Human fallibility is always a part of war, and the price for it is always high. It was precisely because we knew that such incidents would occur that our decision to take up arms had been so grave and reluctant. But as Oliver said at the time of the bombing, the armed struggle was imposed upon us by the violence of the apartheid regime.
Yup - INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of the path he chose to take - oh sorry, he didn't choose to, it was imposed on him.
And then the later refusal to renounce violence in support of his aims.
ETA: I did like John Galt's response, though. (Even though I'm still not sure if it was tongue in cheek or not).
You don't understand? I thought I was clear. Answer. no. Children are NOT better off. Violence, especially rape is epidemic. Services have deteriorated. Corruption is rampant. The country is going down the toilet.I do not understand what you are saying. Do you think South Africa was better under the apartheid rule? Do you think any society could recover from that dreadful nightmare, and every body cut and forget what happened the day before? As a normal thinking person, it must be obvious that South Africa will take a while to recover from the terrible past, it is and cannot happen overnight. I am sorry your thoughts sounds awfully one sided. Just take a look at crime and violence that are occurring in some countries that are wealthy and have not had a legacy as South Africa.
Why are are murder, rape corruption justified by 'can't happen overnight?'. Time it will improve? What do you base this observation upon on? Zimbabwe? Malawi? Botswana? Zambia? All that keeps South Africa together is the former infrastructure. This is falling apart as East Indian and white people retire. The children of of these have sent mosttheir older children to other Commonwealth countries. South Africa not only has Black rule, it also has Blacks now running much of the infrastructure.
He never claimed to be perfect or an angel. Far from it.Yes, it's funny isn't it?
I post a (deliberately) less-than diplomatic reminder that Mandela, despite the press, wasn't quite the unalloyed angel he's being lauded as and I get accused of "frequenting" white supremacist sites.
FYI the link I gave was on the first page that Google gave me, I'm not in the habit of "frequenting" such sites.
Then again, history, should I ever get any recognition, may well tell a different story about me.
You posted a quote and used the words "signed off on", which all pro-Apartheid sites use in misrepresenting that passage. Next time, read the book first instead of relying on such sites.
I am not sure of how old you are, so you may not know of the brutality of the Apartheid regime. The path to violence was after years and years of being treated like animals. It was a culmination, where after nothing else had worked for a number of years, they felt they were left with little choice. As he notes, it was not an easy decision to make. And yes, it was inevitable. But you blithely disregard the violence and murders perpetrated against black children and adults, in their schools and homes, for daring to want to stand up to the regime. Apartheid was never passive. It was not peaceful. It was a murderous and brutal regime, where white children were brainwashed by the State to view blacks as barely human and certainly not worthy of recognition.I just started reading the book last night, and I found that too.
Yup - INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of the path he chose to take - oh sorry, he didn't choose to, it was imposed on him.
And then the later refusal to renounce violence in support of his aims.
ETA: I did like John Galt's response, though. (Even though I'm still not sure if it was tongue in cheek or not).
What do you think were his aims?
He came out of prison and he could have raised his fist in the air and demanded a bloodbath in revenge for what was done to him and to the thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians murdered by the regime. What do you think were his aims? He came out and begged for peace and the end to the bloodshed. He asked for unity, what he had asked for prior to his imprisonment. Have you read his speech? Where he detailed his actions and why? That he wanted a South Africa where all who lived within its borders were equal and had equal say and equal rights. Do you think those aims were wrong? Or do you think they should have just shut up and taken it and allowed massacre after massacre to continue for every peaceful protest (You do know of the Sharpeville massacre?)? They had no choice and they felt that violence against objects and buildings owned by the Government was what they should do.
By your very argument in this thread, you would probably find Jewish resistance fighters to be terrorists. Has the demand been made to resistance fighters during the war, to renounce all of their violence? No. So why do you expect him to renounce what he was clearly given little choice in doing? After years and years of beatings, shootings, murders, arrests for peaceful protests. When it gets to the point where police officers are shooting unarmed children for singing a protest song, I would say it is a fair point to claim it was imposed on them. And frankly, your words here show that you are either ignorant because of your age or because of something else.
Maybe you are seeing what you want to see for you reasons known only to yourself.
Maybe next time you post on my visitor page you could actually read what it says there.And frankly, your words here show that you are either ignorant because of your age
or because of something else.And maybe you're assigning an attitude/ values to me that aren't actually there.Maybe you are seeing what you want to see for you reasons known only to yourself.
ONE MORE TIME: a (deliberately 1) less-than diplomatic reminder that Mandela, despite the press, wasn't quite the unalloyed angel he's being lauded as.
The general, overall reaction (e.g. the OP: a real giant in terms of morals, and ethics) is that he was indeed a perfect angel.
1 I.e. just because I'm being a cynical bastard for the sake of it does NOT mean that I'm, for example, a white supremacist 2.
2 I have, in my earlier years, done my bit for racial equality 3.
3 I once bought a Tracy Chapman record.
I do not think you understand, the country was down the toilet, and you seem to think it was alright or may be they should go back because they have violence now. I think you need a pass to get to your town and you should be pushed to live in a toilet against your will, and maybe, only maybe, you will understand what it means to have a sick set of rules only for you.You don't understand? I thought I was clear. Answer. no. Children are NOT better off. Violence, especially rape is epidemic. Services have deteriorated. Corruption is rampant. The country is going down the toilet.I do not understand what you are saying. Do you think South Africa was better under the apartheid rule? Do you think any society could recover from that dreadful nightmare, and every body cut and forget what happened the day before? As a normal thinking person, it must be obvious that South Africa will take a while to recover from the terrible past, it is and cannot happen overnight. I am sorry your thoughts sounds awfully one sided. Just take a look at crime and violence that are occurring in some countries that are wealthy and have not had a legacy as South Africa.
Why are are murder, rape corruption justified by 'can't happen overnight?'. Time it will improve? What do you base this observation upon on? Zimbabwe? Malawi? Botswana? Zambia? All that keeps South Africa together is the former infrastructure. This is falling apart as East Indian and white people retire. The children of of these have sent mosttheir older children to other Commonwealth countries. South Africa not only has Black rule, it also has Blacks now running much of the infrastructure.
I don't think you really understand, I think you really need to educate your self a lot more, or this disease of degrading and demoralizing people will not stop. I don't mean for it to stop for black people alone, but for all peoples of the world. Some of the points you raise shows me you do not have a clue as to really what is happening in Africa. Do you know the real story of Zimbabwe? And you also mentioned the commonwealth, have you ever noticed that the majority of third world nations are commonly poor, thus making the name a mockery and an insult to many.
Go back? Impossible. In the 'real world' South Africa is a basket case. South Africa, like India, did not need a noble soul with a big smile...they needed a Mao or a Washington. Tear down the old and replace it with a workable infrastructure. Instead Mandela smiled while his despicable wife and her henchmen have ingrained a system of corruption and rot. A country in which 75% of women have been sexually assaulted...where people in most neighbourhoods can't walk the streets in the evening. The farming, mining industries in decline. White and East Indian 'know how' has or is leaving. Blacks left to deal with thugs and corrupt police officers.Apartheid was going to end in both South Africa and Zimbabwe....the mess that has come afterwards is not justified by apartheid. Th alternative to segregation is not the rape of women and corruption.
What was South Africa like before the Boers got there? What was Zimbabwe like? What was Southern Africa Like before the Sh-- came down on the heads of the people? What did South Africa look like when the despicable system of apartheid collapsed? What was there in place for a misplaced people? You sound like you would welcome apartheid back at any cost?
Mao, seriously?
Murders are actually half as high as during the early 90's, that's a pretty big improvement.
Crime in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The place is a mess, and by all evidence always has been.
The world is in a mess, it was wrong to put the people to shame and create a legacy that will take some time to evaporate. The good thing is though, that the South Africans are a strong people, they have survived apartheid, and they will recover, they have the history to back them up.
It's been what? A year? Just under a year since we conversed by that method. It's not as if I stare at your page on a daily basis for updates and reminders.
Maybe you will read his words next time instead of relying on opinions from such sites.And maybe you're assigning an attitude/ values to me that aren't actually there.
As I said previously. He never said he was an angel or perfect. In fact, he was sure to remind people that he was never what people lauded him as being. You seem to take the words "real giant in terms of morals, and ethics" as being saint like or being an angel. Do I think he was a giant in terms of morals and ethics? Yes. And that is based on the strength of his character and for standing up for what he believed in, even at great personal cost and for not hating the very people who sought to destroy him and those who enjoyed killing black people. Instead, his want of a unified South Africa, even before he was jailed, is what makes him a giant of ethics and moral of character. He was never perfect and never claimed to be perfect. But he stood up for what he believed in and after being met with violence for what? 15 years? 20 years of peaceful protests? Being met with police opening fire on peaceful protesters, he decided that perhaps, they needed to fight back? Who would have lasted that long? Could you have?ONE MORE TIME: a (deliberately 1) less-than diplomatic reminder that Mandela, despite the press, wasn't quite the unalloyed angel he's being lauded as.
The general, overall reaction (e.g. the OP: a real giant in terms of morals, and ethics) is that he was indeed a perfect angel.
If people see him as a perfect angel, it is because of his strength of character and his standing up for his beliefs in the face of absolute horror and coming out of it nearly 3 decades later, not a broken man, but a man still pushing for a message of uniting all people, even those who wanted to destroy him. Posting links from pro Apartheid sites more concerned about preserving their racial purity to be the cynical bastard was frankly, in poor taste and if I am to be honest, lazy.
1) Next time, read the book before blindly posting the first thing that fit what you were searching for from Google and next time, actually read the sites you post from.1 I.e. just because I'm being a cynical bastard for the sake of it does NOT mean that I'm, for example, a white supremacist 2.
2 I have, in my earlier years, done my bit for racial equality 3.
3 I once bought a Tracy Chapman record.
2) Refer to 1).
3) This is me being the cynical bitch.. But.. Is this your "I have black friends argument"? If it is, you are failing.
I really must be less subtle next time with the parody...
Yes, although considering the source (ie, who applies the label).
Reminds me of German philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas describing NATO’s military intervention in Kosovo as “illegal but morally necessary.”
this would be the same Mao who let millions starve because of some misguided ideas about ideological purity ? it certainly isn't Mao who made China the economic powerhouse it is now, which is a process initiated by Deng Xiaoping, and which he only could start following Mao's death and the purging of the Gang of FourMao, seriously?
It's hard to know what to believe about South Africa, since I expect any news reporting from there to be extremely tinged with politics. But the incident with the sign language interpreter speaks volumes. Nothing like that could happen without massive, wholesale, incompetence and corruption.
at least no-one was killed in the incident, unlike the HIV-does-not-cause-AIDS denialism of Thabo Mbeki which sent millions to an early grave
Aids Quackery International Tour
if you could lay anything on Nelson Mandela's doorstep in his later years, it's that he didn't speak up sooner and more forcefully against this quackery scandal
| « The Fourth Dimension | Forum operation » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
