View Full Version : Mandela: Hero or Villain? - Issue 7
http://ukyp.org.uk/203361.html
Hero
By Adam Joggee, MYP for Haringey
If you ask any young person anywhere in the world to name somebody they look up to and admire, the name Nelson Mandela is never far away; which says everything about him as a person and the changes he has seen through during his life.
From his time as a trial lawyer in Johannesburg, to his time on Robben Island, his time as President through to his present role as international statesman; Nelson Mandela has shown remarkable courage, commitment and dedication. The dedication with which he helped free his people from the grip of the harsh apartheid regime, the courage he showed during 27 years in jail and his full and total commitment to a non-racial and democratic South Africa.
Nelson Mandela is a man who won’t just be confined to the history books. If you ask your parents, teachers or other adults where they were or what they were doing the day Mandela was released, they could probably tell you.
His life, ideals and beliefs will continue to serve as guiding principles to generations to come. He truly is one of a kind!
Villain
By Bubatunde Williams, DMYP for City of London
Very few people know much about Nelson Mandela. Many foolishly compare him to Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi, and yet the specifics are known by few people. Nelson Mandela, a man who dares to mention the fact that Gandhi is his inspiration, obviously did not take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book. Mandela was the founder of the armed wing of an organisation called the African National Congress (ANC), what some would now call a terrorist movement. The military action by the ANC lasted from 1961 up till 1990. The ANC were responsible for so many casualties and injuries, that the figures are currently “unknown.”They targeted public arenas as well as government offices.
Apartheid was evil, do not get me wrong, but the techniques that were used to bring it down, and those who supported it, were in no way comparable to the Civil Rights Movement, or Gandhi. Read up on Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and John F. Kennedy. These were men who believed in acquiring peace through peaceful means, and followed it through at the highest cost. History often tells two tales, sometimes, one of them is fact and the other is a mere story, most choose believe the story, as it has a happy ending of human trial and tribulation.
Gotlieb Alexander
08-22-2008, 15:25
I think Mandela had good intentions but we shouldn't accept politics of people who use violent means.
The ANC are not destroying South Africa, changing it from a prosperous nation into another Zimbabwe.
When De Clerk ended Apartheid he should have been left in charge for longer, that way the transition from apartheid to freedom would be much better and the government wouldn't have become a one-party state.
It's a shame that Mandela is the name most associated with ending apartheid, De Clerk should be the man with a statue in Parliament square
It is the case that people are sometimes elevated "heroes", and when that happens all manner of wrong doing or personal flaws are erased from them, and it is consider bad form to even cast a bad or questioning light on them. People like Nelson Mandela, or Winston Churchill, are classic examples.
Lets not forget that for the majority of their lives they did great things, but the way some of the darker periods of their history are brushed over after their moment of glory and they become "above" all kinds of criticism and debate is a slightly sorry affair. People forget that for a time NM was the head of the militant wing of the ANC, previously labelled a terrorist group, and although he later stated he would have not used violence if he had been the same man then, it is nevertheless vital for future generations that we can have a unbiased, fair look on our history, where popular views and conceptions do not become no-go areas for debate and revision.
And yes, I think it would be interesting to now how many people have actually heard of De Klerk, the person who ended apartheid.
EmmaGallen
08-22-2008, 16:19
I think Mandella is a hero and i don't think the fact he used violence makes hima villian. He wasn't a "terrorist". He's a freedom fighter. I hadn't heard of de Clerk untill recentltly but mandella is still important.
Gotlieb Alexander
08-22-2008, 16:26
I think Mandella is a hero and i don't think the fact he used violence makes hima villian. He wasn't a "terrorist". He's a freedom fighter. I hadn't heard of de Clerk untill recentltly but mandella is still important.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I don't think he qualifies as a hero because he was ineffective, he was a figurehead to the apartheid fight and an international icon but be didn't bring about the changes. It's commonly assumed that apartheid was ended under his presidency, but by simple logic that can't be true because when SA was under apartheid he was in prison and Blacks and coloureds couldn't vote
You have to wonder how did NM end apartheid and be let out of prison if he was stuck in there with all channels of communication controlled. The simple truth is that only a white Afrikaner could have the power and position to end apartheid in south africa by going against the normal of the day.
De Klerk stuck his neck out for what what he though was moraly and ended an unfair apartheid system. Mandela was a figurehead for the anti-aparthied movement, but as to what he did and the measure to which he "ended apartheid" while in prison is another matter.
Hamsterwaffle
08-22-2008, 16:52
I think Mandella is a hero and i don't think the fact he used violence makes hima villian.
No but the fact his organisation killed civilians, committed countless human rights violations and accomplished nothing does.
Gotlieb Alexander
08-22-2008, 17:07
No but the fact his organisation killed civilians, committed countless human rights violations and accomplished nothing does.
The only thing the ANC achieved is one of the worst AIDS records in Africa
NickDowson
08-22-2008, 19:13
Let's put things in context.
De Klerk ended apartheid from the comfort of a presidency, knowing full well the world was changing(1990; collapse of soviet union) and white south africans would do better with the international community behind it. He entered talks with foreign business leaders etc. and the anc, and as a consequence black south african gained the vote but white south africans have largely maintained economic power. And for his thoughts he got a nobel prize (I think).
Mandela spend decades in prison because of a commitment to equality, at the notorious robben island where human rights abuses were committed.
The Churchill analogy is a good one. He played a major part in liberating Europe - including supporting partisans/resistance fighters on the continent. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. He also put british troops in russia against the bolsheviks from 1919-21/22; prolonging the civil war their and terrorising civilians.
Terrorism is the "systematic means of terror as a means of coercion". State terrorism anyone? Most, if not all the countries in the world are guilty of that.
I think you shouldn't use terrorist as a blanket term to discredit people/organisations. Debate the facts, the issues - don't sling dirty words about as an easy option.
NickDowson
08-22-2008, 19:17
Hamsterwaffle, one of your quotes is "race is a feeling, not a reality."
May I ask, what is that supposed to mean?
Gotlieb Alexander
08-22-2008, 21:53
Hamsterwaffle, one of your quotes is "race is a feeling, not a reality."
May I ask, what is that supposed to mean?
I don't mean to second-guess the hamster but I assume it's something along the lines of:
"We are only divided by race because we think we should be"
EmmaGallen
08-22-2008, 21:58
I don't think Mandella is more important the De Klerk. Just that Mandella isn't a villian.
And I challenge you to find a politician who has a better gong naemd after them.
Hamsterwaffle
08-22-2008, 22:04
Hamsterwaffle, one of your quotes is "race is a feeling, not a reality."
May I ask, what is that supposed to mean?
I'm not sure what the person who originally said it meant, but I have always interpreted it to mean that if you consider yourself to be German, French, British etc, then you are, regardless of where you or your family were from.
Hamsterwaffle
08-22-2008, 22:04
Just that Mandella isn't a villian.
But he is hardly capable of being considered a hero.
Gotlieb Alexander
08-22-2008, 22:07
Who here thinks he deserved his prison sentence?
EmmaGallen
08-22-2008, 22:09
I think comppareed to most he poeple over here he didn't deserve his.
Hamsterwaffle
08-22-2008, 22:09
Who here thinks he deserved his prison sentence?
Well he was arrested for treason and sabotage and I doubt anyone could deny that he was guilty.
Conzales
08-22-2008, 22:53
Would you have done the same as Nelson?
EmmaGallen
08-22-2008, 23:07
I wouldn't have been brave enough.
Mandela actually achieved very little. He founded an organisation to blow things and people up. He got caught. He went to prison. International pressure brought an end to apartheid. He got released. There were free elections. He was voted president (at a point, note, when he was older than John McCain is now, so if you think McCain's too old, Mandela was too old... ;)). He served a term. Really, it was outsiders who realised the wrongs of South Africa's apartheid regime who brought it down because it couldn't effectively function without them (and no thanks to Mandela: the Canadian PM John Diefenbaker, who led the charge to force South Africa out of the Commonwealth when it re-applied for membership on becoming a republic in 1961, probably had more effect than Mandela). He's neither a hero nor a villain but if I had to choose one it would be villain.
NickDowson
08-23-2008, 01:04
Let's be fair, the ANC only turned to violence when i was forced underground, it didn't choose that route.
Would there have been international pressure without Mandela raising awareness (regardless of methods)?As with all other humanitarian crises in the world, we only hear about them cos someone sticks there neck out, and that was mandela.
Well, I don't think he did all too much with his time in power, but you've got to respect someone who sacrificed most of his life to improve the lives of others.
Hamsterwaffle
08-23-2008, 01:06
Well, I don't think he did all too much with his time in power, but you've got to respect someone who sacrificed most of his life to improve the lives of others.
Although to be fair, the end of Apartheid did improve Mandela's life more than any other black person in South Africa.
Let's be fair, the ANC only turned to violence when i was forced underground, it didn't choose that route.
Would there have been international pressure without Mandela raising awareness (regardless of methods)?As with all other humanitarian crises in the world, we only hear about them cos someone sticks there neck out, and that was mandela.
Well, I don't think he did all too much with his time in power, but you've got to respect someone who sacrificed most of his life to improve the lives of others.
Yes, there would have been international pressure. Diefenbaker's move to force South Africa out of the Commonwealth came well before Mandela was arrested and imprisoned. If anything, it was the brutality of the regime (not the ANC's actions) which led to international pressure on the apartheid government. Mandela just sat around in prison for 27 years and was credited as a hero when he came out.
y.righteous
08-25-2008, 00:55
No but the fact his organisation killed civilians, committed countless human rights violations and accomplished nothing does.
speakin as a young aouth african and having know the oppresion my people went through i wouldnt justify what anc done although they done it for the right reasons to gain freedom from in their own country for thier people it was rather approached in a wrong manner but u also have to remmember the harsh things that happend to black people... the seggreagtion the mass murders flase inprionsments june 16(youth uprising) education system... in a way the is no wrong or right answer to him been a hero or villain beacuse we are intitled to our opinions... i personaly view him as an inpiration for my people beacuse without him my country would still be in aparthieed era and i for one would nt be in this country along with many south africans the south africa you know today would not be there because of this man it would still be a place of suffering n despire like how zimbabwe is right now... really n truly is our opinionps hw we view madiba.
how it is all history we can not change what happened we can only shape our future by learning from the past.
Adam J Roberts
08-31-2008, 16:54
If blowing up buildings makes you a terrorist, then Mandela was one; but the difference between Mandela and other "terrorists" is whether Mandela meant to kill, and also what he was fighting against.
When Mandela - and the organisation he co-founded, 'Umkhonto we Sizwe' ('MK') - blew up buildings, he didn't kill people: he blew the buildings up when people weren't there, either by getting them evacuated or destroying them when no-one was actually at work. So yes, he blew up buildings, but he wasn't trying to kill people like other terrorists do.
Of course, when the guerilla war started, things changed a little; civilians got killed, and Mandela did things he shouldn't have done. But even then, Mandela wasn't trying to get civilians killed: when he had the choice, he kept them out of the way. Terrorists are the ones who try to kill civilians: the ones who try to make you feel vulnerable, and scare you into thinking what they did to others they could just as easily do to you. Mandela didn't do that: he targeted the government, and only the government.
In the UK, the IRA - who were terrorists - bombed places where they knew lots of people would be: Harrods, for example. By scaring civilians, they tried to make the government change. By contrast, Mandela in South Africa fought the government, rather than playing dirty and sticking civilians in the crossfire. They deaths they caused were never deaths they wanted to cause. They wanted change, and eventually they got it.
Both 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' do similar things, but their aims are entirely different. Mandela was a freedom fighter, and a careful one at that; but he was no terrorist.
Its interesting you make a comparison to the IRA because, in most cases, they warned the police beforehand to evacuate the area just like the ANC did. People forget that terrorism is not, by definition, just killing civilians for the sake of it.
It involves damaging the infrastructure of another country and creating fear because of it, because they can do it again. The sam "excuse" used by Mandela and the ANC is exatly the same as for that used by the IRA. Yet you clearly say the IRA are terrorists (based on misconceptions at that), probably because it is something you are much closer to, yet defend Mandela's actions.
This all comes back to my first post on this thread; when people become in the popula mind heroes they become untouchable and it almost automatically brands you a villian or racist for those who look upon him in a less favourable light. The evidence is blatent yet people persist in hushing or excusing the actions of Mandela. The aparthied system was not good, but neither were the ANCs actions against it and so the perception of Mandela as some righteous, never-do-wrong figure is somewhat less than realistic, and the fact he is revvered above people like De Klerk is a travesty of justice.
In the UK, the IRA - who were terrorists - bombed places where they knew lots of people would be: Harrods, for example. By scaring civilians, they tried to make the government change.
The IRA (almost) always called in warnings to the police to evacuate the area. They didn't deliberately bomb civilians. They deliberately bombed/shot RUC/Army but always informed police of bombs in civilian areas. That's why Omagh with its 29 deaths is the deadliest single incident of the troubles, and that was the police's fault because they herded the people towards rather than away from the bomb.
Why don't you count the loyalist militias in Northern Ireland as terrorists? They killed people at a funeral! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2523000/2523953.stm) Both sides are equally to blame - or taking your opinion the IRA are blameless freedom fighters because they were oppressed and provided warnings.
Apartheid could be compared to the lack of civil rights and gerrymandering against catholics in Northern Ireland - was either armed struggle acceptable? They are effectively the same...
We are 100 percent sure that he went to Robben island suffered all the humiliation and court cases for Aparthied, but we are not 100 percent sure if he was in support or even responsible for all the actvities of the armed wing of the ANC
We are 100 percent sure that he went to Robben island suffered all the humiliation and court cases for Aparthied, but we are not 100 percent sure if he was in support or even responsible for all the actvities of the armed wing of the ANC
Again people rush to Mandela's defense when their is definitive proof of armed activities in the ANC mandela was involved in. I mean he dounded the whole militant wing, and admitted he was involved in violence in later life (and for his credit showed remorse).
Why is it that as soon as someone becomes "hero" status it becomes impossible to look at their past actions in a fair, even midely critical light. The way popular opinion crushes views and gives one, untouchable version of history is historical revisionism and its most dangerous and numerous.
We are 100 percent sure that he went to Robben island suffered all the humiliation and court cases for Aparthied, but we are not 100 percent sure if he was in support or even responsible for all the actvities of the armed wing of the ANC
At his trial - which, by the standards of evil bogeymen countries of the sort which the South Africa of the day is supposed to have been, was fairly just - Mandela in no way denied this. Mandela himself said the following:
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
(Source: ANC website http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1960s/rivonia.html)
NickDowson
09-02-2008, 22:39
I suspect some hypocrisy here.
If anyone here's prepared to stand up and say they're a pacifist, renouncing all violence, I think they can fairly criticise Mandela.
Otherwise, Blacks having suffered horribly for decades, under an undemocratic system which used force, torture, murder against the majority of the population ( Soweto), Mandela took the only options left to him,(being denied any part in the political process), and after attempts to struggle peacefully, turned to violence.
Is violence an acceptable means to an end?
I can see arguments both ways, but I think to say Mandela had no right to use it entails a belief that the british army (and all others) should be abolished..
Gotlieb Alexander
09-02-2008, 22:42
One thing with Mandela is that his violence wasn't a means to an end, it was simply means. What he did is unlikely to have had much affect on the outcome of apartheid
soph41190
09-02-2008, 22:59
History is told by the victors. If Mandela had not been successful, he would now be a 'terrorist'. But one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If the Iraqi's won their war, in about 50 years, the story would be told as of the 'richeous' freedom fighters against the tyranny of the west.
Hamsterwaffle
09-02-2008, 23:04
But one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Can I just say that this phrase is complete bull. By no way of looking at it can nutjobs in exploding rental cars be considered freedom fighters.
Gotlieb Alexander
09-02-2008, 23:13
Can I just say that this phrase is complete bull. By no way of looking at it can nutjobs in exploding rental cars be considered freedom fighters.
A terrorist is a freedom fighter with deluded morality
soph41190
09-02-2008, 23:18
Can I just say that this phrase is complete bull. By no way of looking at it can nutjobs in exploding rental cars be considered freedom fighters.
Literally speaking this is true.
But if we were invaded tomorrow, for example, stripped of human rights, the vote, the media etc, constantly subject to physical abuse, segregation....violence, threats and starvation. One man sets fire to a car of one of these invaders, do you still label him a violent ugly monster? You'd probably, quietly cheer.
I'm sure many here would still claim that even when subject to the most outrageous things, they would remain a wonderful, christ-like human being......but I think THAT is bull.
Hamsterwaffle
09-02-2008, 23:20
Attacking enemy soldiers=freedom fighter.
Attacking civilians=terrorist.
soph41190
09-02-2008, 23:22
Attacking enemy soldiers=freedom fighter.
Attacking civilians=terrorist.
Can civilians not be evil too? The holocaust couldn't have been sustained without the intervention of suspicious neighbours or Nazi sympathisers.
Gotlieb Alexander
09-02-2008, 23:23
Attacking enemy soldiers=freedom fighter.
Attacking civilians=terrorist.
These distinctions can be easily blurred in war.
For example, do you attack the MoD, it controls the military but is run by civilians? how about a bomb factory? an airport etc
Hamsterwaffle
09-02-2008, 23:24
Can civilians not be evil too? The holocaust couldn't have been sustained without the intervention of suspicious neighbours or Nazi sympathisers.
Depends on the circumstances.
soph41190
09-02-2008, 23:27
Depends on the circumstances.
[QUOTE=Attacking enemy soldiers=freedom fighter.
Attacking civilians=terrorist.[/QUOTE]
Its either definite or it isn't.
That's why I say, it always depends on the circumstances, surely evil is evil, or it isn't.
Hamsterwaffle
09-02-2008, 23:30
Its either definite or it isn't.
Well it is. Attacking military=OK(relatively) Attacking civilians=bad
The main problem is where you draw the line.
Gotlieb Alexander
09-02-2008, 23:35
Well it is. Attacking military=OK(relatively) Attacking civilians=bad
The main problem is where you draw the line.
That surely means it isn't definite, because what one person calls a military target another calls a civilian
And normally the attacking side calls it military and the attacked side calls it civilian. Did you know that among the many acts of terrorism classified by America inlcudes "shooting down military aircraft with missiles".
That really takes the biscuit. When they bombed Baghded (hardly military) its "shock and awe" tactics, yet when the Iraqis lauch missiles back its "terrorism".
As for Mandela, although I don't thnk violence can be justified (see my signature) it is a good point that its easy to criticise living in a time where we've never been oppressed and attacked like that. In the end whether it was excusable for Mandela to use violence comes down to your own personal opinion. However, it is completely wrong to portray Mandela as some chirst-like, peaceful hero or to give him this current untouchable status. As for giving him the Noble peace prize... if I were De Klerk I would be annoyed sharing it with him that's for sure.
EmmaGallen
09-03-2008, 15:11
Attacking enemy soldiers=freedom fighter.
Attacking civilians=terrorist.
Surely then the British Army are terrorists then?
Hamsterwaffle
09-03-2008, 15:14
Surely then the British Army are terrorists then?
I think you will find that they attack enemy soldiers, although civilians sometimes get caught in the crossfire.(As in all wars)
EmmaGallen
09-03-2008, 15:16
I think you will find that they attack enemy soldiers, although civilians sometimes get caught in the crossfire.(As in all wars)
Not really the same as them attacking civilians first and then civillians deciding to become "freedom fighters" so as to prevent thigns liek that recurring.
How i see it is:
Provos = freedom fighters
real IRA = terrorists.
Gotlieb Alexander
09-03-2008, 15:18
I think you will find that they attack enemy soldiers, although civilians sometimes get caught in the crossfire.(As in all wars)
Some campaigns by the Army, such as the bombing of Dresden in WWII didn't exactly take steps to avoid civilian casualties
Sylvester Okomboa
09-03-2008, 17:49
I don't like the way Mandela is seen as "The saviour of Black people", he's no saint that's for sure.
I'm not sure if I would call him a villain because he fought for a noble cause but he certainly isn't a hero.
Besides, I think that South Africa is a lot worse now than it used to be and I think it would be a better place today if Mandela didn't win the election in 1992. (Although I don't think the current problems are his fault)
I think that anyone who thinks that Nelson Mandela is either a villian or that SA is in worse condition today is either very racist or very naive!!
The Apartheid govt before Nelson Mandela was disgusting! here are a list of some of their policies:
1) Black people must carry passes
2) black people must have a curfew and be off the streets before dark
3) black people can be arrested and imprisoned with no trial indefinately
4) black people are not allowed to use any of the following:
White public transport
White swimming areas
White shop entrances
the list of their policies continues much further than this! but as you can see, they were a nazi govt with a less extermination (which did happen, in the form of black politicians being thrown out high windows, and the encitement of violence between between different black groups, especially between Zulus and the Encarta movement)....which led to lots of bloodshed!
So yes, it was a great country if you were a racist white!
As for the argument of the problem of AIDs, it needs to be pointed out that AIDs was only not a problem in SA pre the 1994 election, because it was a disease that affected very few whites, and the government didnt really care if the blacks had AIDs. so since then, the problem has been addressed, and the figures have been shocking!
And as for Nelson Mandela using violence, Id like you all to read his autobiography "A long walk to freedom". He spent 27 years in prison, for being affiliated with the ANC party. Thats a long time! and yet still no progress was made! would any of you blame a Jew if they had used violence to get rid of Hitler? I thought not. The ANC used the tactic of bombing, which they planned and did only to power lines and train lines and other public uses....but by doing so they MADE SURE THEY HURT AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE! they only did a few bombs in a public places (eg Prettoria and on Durban beach) which killed about 100 people (predominantly whites). This was nothing compared to the number of blacks that were killed by the whites! And do any of you blame the suffrogettes in the UK for the violence some of them did to get women the vote? probably not, and remember, the amount of women in britain who wanted the vote is A LOT LESS than the millions of Blacks, coloured and Indians in SA who wanted the vote! And women in the UK only didnt have the vote! the blacks had no human rights at all!
So is SA worse today? maybe there is more AIDs, and crime. but as Ghandi said "Its better to have a people with free will than a happy people with none". and the blacks were not happy.
Therefore, in short conclusion.....Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest heroes of our time, and nothing but! he has all my respect for the life he gave up to fight the whites for the freedom of his people.
As for giving him the Noble peace prize... if I were De Klerk I would be annoyed sharing it with him that's for sure.
Why? have you ever been oppressed with no rights? Id be annoyed being Mandela having to share it with that racist! which he was! He only gave up the Apartheid due to HUGE pressure from abroad. In his time in office, and his predeccessors time...thousands of innocent lives were slain in the name of the apartheid.
Imagine being born, and because of your skin colour your life is not worth living through the eyes of those with a "more superior skin colour".
Please do youself a favour and watch the film (or read the book) "Red Dust". Its about the truth and reconcilliation commition following the end of apartheid. it shows just a few of the huge war crimes done against the blacks. People were raped, beheaded, tortured, murdered because they believed that as blacks they were as superior as whites, and yet you think that Mandela, the one who brought an end to this, does not deserve a peace prize?
The other equivolents to the ANC were a lot more violent, and had they won the election, they would have done serious retribution against the whites. Nelson Mandela did none.
He was the equivolent of a Jew who took up arms against Hitler. do you really still call him a villian? maybe britain should not have interferred with Germany in the 2nd world war, but because we did, does that make every brit a villain? (remember, a lot more germans died than whites died from the violence the ANC did)
This all comes back to my first post on this thread; when people become in the popula mind heroes they become untouchable and it almost automatically brands you a villian or racist for those who look upon him in a less favourable light.
I think that anyone who thinks that Nelson Mandela is either a villian or that SA is in worse condition today is either very racist or very naive!!
That kind of proves my point. By questioning the ethics of Mandela I must be a racist supporter of the nationalists, as opposed to maybe a historian asking interesting questions which challenge popular conception...
The Apartheid govt before Nelson Mandela was disgusting! here are a list of some of their policies:
1) Black people must carry passes
2) black people must have a curfew and be off the streets before dark
3) black people can be arrested and imprisoned with no trial indefinately
4) black people are not allowed to use any of the following:
White public transport
White swimming areas
White shop entrances
Again, you list points about why the nationalists are in the wrong, and justly why apartheid is such a terrible concept. However, the tactics used by Mandela, and his actual affect on the end of apartheid, is what is coming under fire on this thread, not whether the ANC were good or bad. Unless you are trying to guilt us into even thinking of criticising Mandela, this does not give anything constructive.
And as for Nelson Mandela using violence, Id like you all to read his autobiography "A long walk to freedom". He spent 27 years in prison, for being affiliated with the ANC party. Thats a long time!
You just admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela himself! Even if his intentions were just and he didn't want to kill others, I'd hardly consider that to be legal in any country, whether he was white or black. Whether it was because of his political affiliation is unknown, and quite a dubious statement. Seeing as this source was taken by Mandela's personal biography, it's hardly the most neutral place to take "facts" about his honourable life. Its a bit like using Mein Kampf to argue Hitler was a great guy.
The ANC used the tactic of bombing, which they planned and did only to power lines and train lines and other public uses....but by doing so they MADE SURE THEY HURT AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE! they only did a few bombs in a public places (eg Prettoria and on Durban beach) which killed about 100 people (predominantly whites).
Only a few hundred people you say! Predominantly white, you say! Well, this cats an entirely new light on things...
The number of people killed by the IRA is probably only a few hundred. Most of the bombs were targeted towards civilian infrastructure, and except for the Real IRA they warned the police to evacuate the area. Their intentions were to create fear and hindered the British government from functioning, hurting as few people as possible. But would you say they were just as well in their tactics? Methinks not...
Therefore, in short conclusion.....Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest heroes of our time, and nothing but! he has all my respect for the life he gave up to fight the whites for the freedom of his people.
Why, what did he actually do except by imprisoned and elected president after De Klerk ended apartheid. You may consider his actions jsutified, and in comparison less harsh, but nevertheless he is not really "peace prize" material, and he is undeserved of this untouchable hero satus, where anyone who criticises him or looks in a different light is branded unfairly with the same brush as apartheid by the popular perception and shouted down, when they are both unconnected. After all, he only killed a few hundred people, and they were white after all...
Sylvester Okomboa
09-07-2008, 16:44
I think that anyone who thinks that Nelson Mandela is either a villian or that SA is in worse condition today is either very racist or very naive!!
That's the kind of language that prevents any rational debate on the issue, why can't white people support peaceful means without being called racist?
Why? have you ever been oppressed with no rights?
Id be annoyed being Mandela having to share it with that racist!
De Klerk ended apartheid and ran free and fair elections, Mandela on the other hand set off a few bombs and waited in prison until the politicians sorted it out.
If De klerk is such a monster then why would Mandela have made him Vice president?
Gotlieb Alexander
09-07-2008, 16:54
Imagine being born, and because of your skin colour your life is not worth living through the eyes of those with a "more superior skin colour".
Being born into unpleasant conditions doesn't make one a hero, I would call Mandela a hero if he had brought about an end to apartheid through peaceful means. However he didn't end apartheid, let alone do it peacefully, therefore I consider De klerk as much more worthy of praise
Why? have you ever been oppressed with no rights? Id be annoyed being Mandela having to share it with that racist! which he was! He only gave up the Apartheid due to HUGE pressure from abroad. In his time in office, and his predeccessors time...thousands of innocent lives were slain in the name of the apartheid.
Imagine being born, and because of your skin colour your life is not worth living through the eyes of those with a "more superior skin colour".
Please do youself a favour and watch the film (or read the book) "Red Dust". Its about the truth and reconcilliation commition following the end of apartheid. it shows just a few of the huge war crimes done against the blacks. People were raped, beheaded, tortured, murdered because they believed that as blacks they were as superior as whites, and yet you think that Mandela, the one who brought an end to this, does not deserve a peace prize?
The other equivolents to the ANC were a lot more violent, and had they won the election, they would have done serious retribution against the whites. Nelson Mandela did none.
He was the equivolent of a Jew who took up arms against Hitler. do you really still call him a villian? maybe britain should not have interferred with Germany in the 2nd world war, but because we did, does that make every brit a villain? (remember, a lot more germans died than whites died from the violence the ANC did)
Again, you are just going on and on and on and on about how bad tha nationalists were and how compared to others Mandela wasn't half bad. But this is not the debate; it does not excuse Mandela from his past actions. I would not give him the peace prize because he could have killed millions but didn't (only, as you say, a few hundred). This is just debating the popular view as Mandela being some saintly, peaceful person who never did a thing wrong in his life. This is untrue.
I think its revealing you call Mr. De Klerk a racist, simply because he was white and of the past actions of white in south africa. Its like saying the Germans are all evil because of what the Nazis did. Lets look at what the mosnterous Nazi Mr Klerk was and what he did in his time of Office.
"However, after a long political career and with a very conservative reputation, in 1989 he placed himself at the head of verligte ("enlightened") forces within the governing party, with the result that he was elected head of the National Party in February 1989, and finally State President in September 1989 to replace then president P.W. Botha when the latter was forced to step down after a stroke.
In his first speech after assuming the party leadership he called for a non-racist South Africa and for negotiations about the country's future. He lifted the ban on the ANC and released Nelson Mandela. He brought apartheid to an end and opened the way for the drafting of a new constitution for the country based on the principle of one person, one vote.
His presidency was dominated by the negotiation process, mainly between his NP government and Mandela's ANC, which led to the democratisation of South Africa.
In 1990, De Klerk gave orders to roll back South Africa's nuclear weapons programme; the process of nuclear disarmament was essentially completed in 1991. The existence of the programme was not officially acknowledged before 1993.
After the first free elections in 1994, De Klerk became vice-president in the government of national unity under Nelson Mandela, a post he kept until 1996. In 1997 he also gave over the leadership of the National Party and retreated from politics."
Yeah, Mandela, the founder of the militant wing of the ANC, was really ****ed of having to share the prize with the man most people have never heard of...
Gotlieb Alexander
09-07-2008, 16:58
Id be annoyed being Mandela having to share it with that racist! which he was!
You clearly think you'd make a better Mandela than Mandela then.
Far from the rough and tumble of the politics of our own country. I would like to take this opportunity to join the Norwegian Nobel Committee and pay tribute to my joint laureate. Mr. F.W. de Klerk.
He had the courage to admit that a terrible wrong had been done to our country and people through the imposition of the system of apartheid.
He had the foresight to understand and accept that all the people of South Africa must through negotiations and as equal participants in the process, together determine what they want to make of their future.
The number of people killed by the IRA is probably only a few hundred. Most of the bombs were targeted towards civilian infrastructure, and except for the Real IRA they warned the police to evacuate the area. Their intentions were to create fear and hindered the British government from functioning, hurting as few people as possible. But would you say they were just as well in their tactics? Methinks not...
Why, what did he actually do except by imprisoned and elected president after De Klerk ended apartheid. You may consider his actions jsutified, and in comparison less harsh, but nevertheless he is not really "peace prize" material, and he is undeserved of this untouchable hero satus, where anyone who criticises him or looks in a different light is branded unfairly with the same brush as apartheid by the popular perception and shouted down, when they are both unconnected. After all, he only killed a few hundred people, and they were white after all...
It's not like Bobby Sands got a peace prize... (Was it Trimble and someone else who got it?) ... bobby got murals!
Why? have you ever been oppressed with no rights? Id be annoyed being Mandela having to share it with that racist! which he was! He only gave up the Apartheid due to HUGE pressure from abroad. In his time in office, and his predeccessors time...thousands of innocent lives were slain in the name of the apartheid.
So you yourself are admitting that the end of apartheid was more to do with the international community than Nelson Mandela?
A lot of people who are citing the Holocaust are forgetting the alternative example of Gandhi. Gandhi brought down British rule without having to blow up the Bombay railway or the New Delhi central post office (if there is such a thing). He persuaded people to follow his cause and renounce - rather than, as Mandela and MK did, embrace - the violence of his oppressors and he had for more success than Mandela, who, let's face it, planned a rather abysmal terrorist campaign, got caught, didn't deny his attempts at terrorism, got sent to prison and got out in 1990. Not exactly much of a contribution to the end of apartheid.
As for the British Army in NI, one has to remember the notion that the Army was commissioned by the State to engage in war (see Aquinas' just war theory), rather than a group of indivuduals acting on their own behalf (such as our knee-capping Provo and Catholic shooting UDF chums). As such, the Army possesses a legitimacy the terrorists don't have. That doesn't necessarily excuse actions but it does in some way explain them.
EmmaGallen
09-07-2008, 20:34
It's not like Bobby Sands got a peace prize... (Was it Trimble and someone else who got it?) ... bobby got murals!
Don't knock trimble! He did plenty for the end of the troubles. And it was John Hume who he shared it with.
Bobby Sands was a sad story but it did feck all for peace here. he was a martyr who didn't help end violence at all and he just added to the death toll.
Don't knock trimble! He did plenty for the end of the troubles. And it was John Hume who he shared it with.
Bobby Sands was a sad story but it did feck all for peace here. he was a martyr who didn't help end violence at all and he just added to the death toll.
I was just saying that the case of Mandela and Sands were similar in the basics:
imprisoned
achieved political office
'hero' status amongst community, who were being discriminated against
Wasn't dissing Trimble just saying the difference ... Although the dirty protest (was he in that?) doesnt exactly make you look dignified enough to get (posthumous) prizes.
racist supporter of the ANC,
this statement in itself is just a tad contradictory.
Again, you list points about why the nationalists are in the wrong, and justly why apartheid is such a terrible concept. However, the tactics used by Mandela, and his actual affect on the end of apartheid, is what is coming under fire on this thread, not whether the ANC were good or bad.
Are they not the same thing? if you can end a racist, harmful regime, are you not bringing peace?
You just admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela himself! Even if his intentions were just and he didn't want to kill others, I'd hardly consider that to be legal in any country.
"you just admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela himseld"....I dont quite understand, we are talking about Mandela, therefore himself!
and no, bombs arent legal. but maybe he should be granted the right to use them, when the people he was using them against had the right to imprison him, torture him and put him to death without trial (all of this legally!). so in a sociecy where those are legal, why not have bombs legal to to fight against it? If a family member of mine had been a strong apartheid supporter and been killed by one of those bombs (which killed very few), would I have been able to blame the attacker? no, i dont think so.
Whether it was because of his political affiliation is unknown, and quite a dubious statement. Seeing as this source was taken by Mandela's personal biography, it's hardly the most neutral place to take "facts" about his honourable life. Its a bit like using Mein Kampf to argue Hitler was a great guy.
That is not taken from his autobiography, but from common historical fact. look it up, it was a pretty major trial called the Rivonia trials.
And comparing Nelson Mandela to Hitler is a bit extreme I think we would both agree. Predominanty because one was persecuting entire races of people, and the other was trying to free entire races of people (just a small difference i suppose). secondly because mein kampf was written as a huge piece of propoganda to aid Hitler in his rise to power, whereas Nelson Mandela wrote his autobiography after coming to power. hardly written for propoganda purposes.
Only a few hundred people you say! Predominantly white, you say! Well, this cats an entirely new light on things....
theres a very simple reason for why it was predominantly whites.....because blacks had been forcefully removed out of white areas into townships and were not allowed to be in white areas. casts an entiresly new light again!
The number of people killed by the IRA is probably only a few hundred. Most of the bombs were targeted towards civilian infrastructure, and except for the Real IRA they warned the police to evacuate the area. Their intentions were to create fear and hindered the British government from functioning, hurting as few people as possible..
But would you say they were just as well in their tactics? Methinks not.
and what were the IRA fighting for, anything as significant as the basic right to life? or the basic right to be equal to others? and as a % of population, if we want to get picky, the IRA probably quickly HUGE amounts more!
Why, what did he actually do except by imprisoned and elected president after De Klerk ended apartheid.
How long an essay would you like in response to this one? ill try keep it simple....would you give up your friends, most of your life, your family and your dignity for a belief and your right to be acknowledged as a human? probably not. he did! and if I got very picky with your last statement, according to the statement he did nothing, and therefore why could he be thought of as villian? but thats just a weakness in your last statement, so lets ignore it shall we?
You may consider his actions jsutified, and in comparison less harsh, but nevertheless he is not really "peace prize" material
then who is? the person who initiated apartheid? De Klerk maybe, for ever so kindly being forced into acknowledging the human rights of 90% of his country?
and he is undeserved of this untouchable hero satus
obviously not untouchable when you have recently compared him to Hitler.
where anyone who criticises him or looks in a different light is branded unfairly with the same brush as apartheid by the popular perception and shouted down, when they are both unconnected. After all, he only killed a few hundred people, and they were white after all...
yea, maybe we should look at Hitler in a different light to. the poor chap, he only hated Jews, lets forgive him for what he did shall we? like come on, it was only 6 million you know!
so yea, i agree, Mandela was a villian, LONG LIVE APARTHEID! i hope not
and what were the IRA fighting for, anything as significant as the basic right to life? or the basic right to be equal to others? and as a % of population, if we want to get picky, the IRA probably quickly HUGE amounts more!
The IRA were fighting for civil rights (well catholics were anyway - Big Ian and other protestants in the political establishment were really quite bigoted - to the IRA it may have been a convenient support builder); for a united Ireland; against gerrymandering. The IRA also performed internal security/policing duties within the nationalist communities.
According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, [89] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,821 people during the Troubles up to 2001. This figure represents 48.4 percent of the total fatalities in the conflict.
621 of these casualties were civilians.
A total of 655 were British armed forces; 465 from the British Army, 190 were from the Ulster Defence Regiment (a part time local British Army reserve unit).
272 were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 14 were former Royal Ulster Constabulary members, six were British Police, 20 were Northern Ireland Prison Service officers, two were former prison officers.
A further 35 were loyalist paramilitaries (21 Ulster Defence Association (UDA), three former UDA, 11 Ulster Volunteer Force).
Six were Gardaí and one was Irish Army.
About 180 were republican paramilitaries, including 12 Official IRA members, one Irish People's Liberation Organisation member, 63 alleged informers and 103 accidental deaths of Provisional IRA members due to premature explosions.
Another detailed study, gives the following figures for people killed by the Provisional IRA up to 2004:
644 civilians,
456 British military (including British Army, RAF, Royal Navy, and Territorial Army), 273 Royal Ulster Constabulary (including RUC reserve), 182 Ulster Defence Regiment,
163 Republican paramilitary members (including from the IRA),
28 loyalist paramilitary members, 23 Northern Ireland Prison Service officers, 7 Gardaí or Irish Army, and five British police officers (Lost Lives, page 1536).
Lost Lives therefore concludes that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date. It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.
The IRA lost 276 members during the Troubles according to the CAIN figures. Lost Lives states that 294 Provisional IRA members died in the Troubles. In addition, many members of Sinn Féin were killed, some of whom were also IRA members, but this was not publicly acknowledged. An Phoblacht gives a figure of 341 IRA and Sinn Féin members killed in the Troubles, indicating between 50-60 Sinn Féin deaths if the IRA deaths are subtracted.
In roughly 123 of these cases, IRA members caused their own deaths. Twelve IRA members died on hunger strike. Another hundred or so were killed by their own explosives in premature bombing accidents - 103 deaths according to CAIN, 105 according to an RUC report of 1993. Thirteen were killed on allegations of having worked for the security forces (CAIN). Lost Lives gives a figure of 163 killings of republican paramilitary members (but this includes bombing accidents and feuds with republicans from other organisations). Most of the remaining 200 or so IRA killed were by the British Army, followed by the RUC and then the loyalist paramilitaries.
Far more common than the killing of IRA volunteers however, was their imprisonment. Journalists Eamonn Mallie and Patrick Bishop estimate in The Provisional IRA (1988), that between 8-10,000 Provisional IRA members were, up until that point, imprisoned during the course of the conflict, a number they also give as the total number of IRA members during the Troubles. The total number of Provisional IRA members imprisoned must therefore be considerably higher, once the figures from 1988-1998 are included.
The point? You can't have special standards that exonerate one group but criminalise and demonise another...
EmmaGallen
09-07-2008, 21:57
can we start specialising in which IRA we mean? The Provos were teh ones who wanted civil rights.
EmmaGallen
09-07-2008, 22:01
I do think Mandella is a hero though. Not the greatest man but he isn't what i'd call a bad man.
Also he did NOT deserve to be compared to Blake Fielder-Civil. The only worthy comparison is that they inspire musicians.
can we start specialising in which IRA we mean? The Provos were the ones who wanted civil rights.
The quoted bit stated that it was PIRA not OIRA/RIRA/CIRA
And comparing Nelson Mandela to Hitler is a bit extreme I think we would both agree. Predominanty because one was persecuting entire races of people, and the other was trying to free entire races of people (just a small difference i suppose). secondly because mein kampf was written as a huge piece of propoganda to aid Hitler in his rise to power, whereas Nelson Mandela wrote his autobiography after coming to power. hardly written for propoganda purposes.
obviously not untouchable when you have recently compared him to Hitler.
That is a complete load of bull, and a foul insult to me personally. You really do like jumping to the worsty possible conclusion, and by branding me as some hitler-loving Nazi do shout down my arguements is childish and isulting. Let's look back at what I said.
and as a % of population, if we want to get picky, the IRA probably quickly HUGE amounts more!
How foolish of me, we should look at "percentage" and not the physical numbers. I suppose this is because countries with large population reduce the value of a single persons life... Frankly one hundred people is still one hundred people. If I were to go to China and kill ten thousand, would I be less of a villain because of the small percentage.
Seeing as this source was taken by Mandela's personal biography, it's hardly the most neutral place to take "facts" about his honourable life. Its a bit like using Mein Kampf to argue Hitler was a great guy.
Did I once say Mandela was like Hitler. No. I compared using his own autobiography to find historic facts was like using Mein Kampf to find facts about Hitler's life. Generally when people right autobiographies about themselves it is nevertheless unwise to take every point they make as the unalterable truth now is it? That's what Historians like myself do, they question the validity or potential bias of sources. Seeing as half your last posts where shouting about me being a Nazi-lover, you may want to rething what you said.
theres a very simple reason for why it was predominantly whites.....because blacks had been forcefully removed out of white areas into townships and were not allowed to be in white areas. casts an entiresly new light again!
What I was pointing out was that you said he "only killed a few hundred people, predominantely whites" as though that fact made it less of a bad thing. Not everyone in south africa was a nationalist, and if even by comparison Mandela was not that bad, I just don't like it how everyone excuses him of every action he did.
yea, maybe we should look at Hitler in a different light to. the poor chap, he only hated Jews, lets forgive him for what he did shall we? like come on, it was only 6 million you know!
so yea, i agree, Mandela was a villian, LONG LIVE APARTHEID! i hope not
This is exactly the kind of iodiocy I was referring to when the argument was still civilised. In History, it is important to challenge popular conceptions and views, to question things commonly accepted as true. That is the essence of History. As it is, to so much as question those with this untouchable status and the following responce is triggered:
"Mandela was anti-apartheid, if you criticise him your are pro-apartheid, therefore you are wrong". That argument is baseless. When have I ever said long live apartheid? When have I ever said Hitler was a nice chap? Trying to shout me down like some extremist looney, because even questioning the actions of Mandela must by extension make me a lover of some of the most abhorrent ideas in human history.
You go on and on about how bad the Nationalist regime was, trying to guilt me into thing that by attacking Mandela I am pro-nationalist. Why do I have to support one or the other? Why does anyone who questions Mandela automatically join the ranks of those Nationalists? In fact, all I said about Hitler in the entire passage was a throw-away example about biased sources which I used simply because it was a more extreme, clearer example!
So from mentioning mein kampf as an innacurate source to "long live Mein Fuhrer" in 30 seconds, eh...
then who is? the person who initiated apartheid? De Klerk maybe, for ever so kindly being forced into acknowledging the human rights of 90% of his country?
I think we've covered this before. Something along the lines of "you don't 100% support the actions of Mandela. By questioning him you must also oppose him being anti-apartheid, therefore you love the person who initiated it"
Frankly these baseless accusations are starting less to insult me but more to bore me. Let us just make it clear that I do oppose apartheid, and also to point to the overwhelming source about De Klerk being "forced" to acknowledge human rights, when Mandelae was automatically born with them. He wasn't the only person who believed everyone was equal you know...
"you just admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela himseld"....I dont quite understand, we are talking about Mandela, therefore himself!
You admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela both at his trial and in later life and, with great credit, admitted he would not have used those tactics had he been in his shoes now and apologised for them. Nevertheless, the image of him being some heroic symbol of peace and unity, who has never done wrong in his life, is what I am contesting. Not, as you seem to imagine, how great apartheid is and how Mandela was a neo-nazi. Although seeing as I do not automatically revere Mandela as a hero, that pretty much classifies me as such to the popular media. That's what I mean by untouchable (basically people like you biting off any historians head for not sharing the idylic views as Mandela as a saint and giving them crude connections as NP members, when really it may be quite unconnected with what he's trying to say).
this statement in itself is just a tad contradictory.
Are they not the same thing? if you can end a racist, harmful regime, are you not bringing peace?
Not necessarily. Mugabe supposedly was the wonder-man who was dispolacing the evil white racists and look what happened in Zimbabwe.
"you just admitted he used bombs, as did Mandela himseld"....I dont quite understand, we are talking about Mandela, therefore himself!
and no, bombs arent legal. but maybe he should be granted the right to use them, when the people he was using them against had the right to imprison him, torture him and put him to death without trial (all of this legally!). so in a sociecy where those are legal, why not have bombs legal to to fight against it? If a family member of mine had been a strong apartheid supporter and been killed by one of those bombs (which killed very few), would I have been able to blame the attacker? no, i dont think so.
Gandhi didn't need to use bombs and he brought down the colonial rulers of the world's largest imperial entity. Mandela got locked up and let the foreigners end apartheid. He just stewed in prison.
then who is? the person who initiated apartheid? De Klerk maybe, for ever so kindly being forced into acknowledging the human rights of 90% of his country?
De Klerk is probably more of the hero (I use that relatively. Relatively). Whilst international pressure was by no means inconsiderable, the Afrikaner spirit could have led to him perpetuating apartheid in search of that God-given Boer state. As it happens, as I have mentioned and will mentioned, Mandela's contribution was a couple of bombs and surviving a prison sentence.
yea, maybe we should look at Hitler in a different light to. the poor chap, he only hated Jews, lets forgive him for what he did shall we? like come on, it was only 6 million you know!
so yea, i agree, Mandela was a villian, LONG LIVE APARTHEID! i hope not
Just because we don't agree with Mandela's violent methods or with the popular perception of him as South Africa's saviour doesn't mean I support Hendrik Verwoerd. Saying that I am the one thing because I'm not the other is a very poor argument.
this statement in itself is just a tad contradictory.
Actually that was a type, I meant NP. Although on the point of that not everyone in the ANC was all rave for the idea of equality (although, before you again start flinging baseless assumptions at me simply because if I do not agree with your saintly view of Mandela automatically mkaes me a racist bigot, Nelson Mandela was in prison and not responsible for this).
Tell me, have you ever heard of "necklacing"...
You clearly think you'd make a better Mandela than Mandela then.
lol, thats abit of an odd argument coming from someone who thinks they could have done a much better job than Mandela without ever having to resort to violence of any form! well, actually, thats assuming you wanted the end of apartheid??
That is a complete load of bull, and a foul insult to me personally. You really do like jumping to the worsty possible cocnlsusion, and by branding me as some hitler-loving Nazi do shout down my arguements is childish and isulting. Let's look back at what I said..
then why compare the 2 of their books if you realised they were so different? its like comparing a year 7s english homework to shakespeare's Macbeth (except theyre going to be more similar than Mein Kampf and a long walk to freedom)
Gandhi didn't need to use bombs and he brought down the colonial rulers of the world's largest imperial entity. Mandela got locked up and let the foreigners end apartheid. He just stewed in prison.
Ghandi didnt, I agree, but look at what he couldnt stop which Mandela did......the division of India into India and Pakistan. That caused huge amounts of violence between the 2 peoples. And is the reason why Mandela deserves the peace prize, because he stopped the equivilant happening in SA, and managed stop widespread ethnic cleansing happening (as was seen in examples such as Rwanda and Zimbabwe)....which many other anti-apartheid parties that stood in the election alongside the ANC would not have been able to stop.
Mandela brought love to the country, which has saved the country so far.
That is a complete load of bull, and a foul insult to me personally.
i suppose I was pretty harsh, and I apologise. However this thread has really peed me off, seeing as I was in SA at the end of Apartheid and saw how great a person Mandela was, which I dont think anyone if you havent lived there at the time can understand...therefore I am a very very passionate supporter of his.
Mandela got locked up and let the foreigners end apartheid. He just stewed in prison.
that is a rather ignorant thing to say! Mandela did HUGE amounts to end apartheid. The foreign pressure (which took ages to come!!) only helped sway the balance slightly at the end.
Although on the point of that not everyone in the ANC was all rave for the idea of equality (although, before you again start flinging baseless assumptions at me simply because if I do not agree with your saintly view of Mandela automatically mkaes me a racist bigot, Nelson Mandela was in prison and not responsible for this).
Tell me, have you ever heard of "necklacing"...
firstly...no, i have not heard of necklacing.
secondly...if nelson mandela was sitting in prison doing nothing, then how did he become state president? I assure you, thats not a position given to someone for doing nothing.
while in prison, he was the one holding negotiations with De Klerk and the current Apartheid authorities, and it was through these that he persuaded De Klerk into holding the first free election (no small fete seeing as people had been trying to do that for 80 years already). De Klerk realised that the PFP were gaining more votes, and that he would soon loose an election if he did not negotiate with Nelson Mandela.
then why compare the 2 of their books if you realised they were so different? its like comparing a year 7s english homework to shakespeare's Macbeth (except theyre going to be more similar than Mein Kampf and a long walk to freedom)
What I was trying to point out was that taking sources from an autobiography (as you appeared to say you were) you just keep a healthy amount of criticism about what the person is writing about themselves. Even a very honourable person like Mandela is likely to give a presentation what they did in a positive, one-sided light, seeing as that is what he believed.
I was saying using Mein Kampf as a slightly more extreme example of why you should you should be cautious taking what someone writes about themselves as the full, completely unalterable facts. They are both (the books) similar in that they were autiobiographies written about themselves at different stages in their lives. It doesn't mean the people who wrote them were similar, but I was just saying the same caution should be applied to any book where there is probably (if not as extremely as Mein Kampf) going to be some bias.
secondly...if nelson mandela was sitting in prison doing nothing, then how did he become state president? I assure you, thats not a position given to someone for doing nothing.
while in prison, he was the one holding negotiations with De Klerk and the current Apartheid authorities, and it was through these that he persuaded De Klerk into holding the first free election (no small fete seeing as people had been trying to do that for 80 years already). De Klerk realised that the PFP were gaining more votes, and that he would soon loose an election if he did not negotiate with Nelson Mandela.
I admit that Mandela did more than just sit around in prison, nor I am suggesting that apartheid was right, or that Mandela was not a great person. The two reasons I have been debating on this thread, just so it is clear to you what I am saying is this.
Although Mandela was a great person, I dislike it how when people reach a certain exceptance as "heroes" there is an immediate block any any form of revisionism or questioning. Although Mandela came to symbolise the anti-apartheid movement, it doesn't mean he is the anti-apartheid movement. He is still a human and, like all humans, he is not perfect. Yet any attempt to say that and it appears you are attacking the anti-aparthied movement in itself. As such many of the deeds Mandela did in his later life have been brushed under the carpet, and those who bring them up are considered extremists or such. I believe that it is normally the faults in great people who define who they are, and no one should be given this kind of "untouchable" status, such as the perception of Mandela having forever been a saintly, peace-loving figure. I'm not saying Mandela is a bad person, espicially not now from his later actions, yet immediately people jump to defend or excuse his actions in his youth, and I don't think that's right.
The second problem, drawing in from the latter, is people also assumes (and defened vigorously) the perception that Mandela, and only the ANC brought down aparthied. Its amazing how few people have heard of De Klerk; he shared the Nobel prize and served under Mandela. Him and other white, NP members seem somehow forgotten in all this, and just as no one forced Mandela into believing equality or freedom, has it ever occured that perhaps people like De Klerk also genuinely believed in the same ideals and were not just made by Mandela (who would have needed their help) to end Apartheid.
Ghandi didnt, I agree, but look at what he couldnt stop which Mandela did......the division of India into India and Pakistan. That caused huge amounts of violence between the 2 peoples. And is the reason why Mandela deserves the peace prize, because he stopped the equivilant happening in SA, and managed stop widespread ethnic cleansing happening (as was seen in examples such as Rwanda and Zimbabwe)....which many other anti-apartheid parties that stood in the election alongside the ANC would not have been able to stop.
But that's because didn't have Jinnah constantly hankering after a state for Muslims! Moreover, de Klerk was more than willing to oversee the transition from apartheid state to democracy. Mandela would have had little effect on the white populace (barring the pro-ANC activists &c.) had de Klerk not been instrumental in persuading them of the merits of ending apartheid.
The first foreign pressure came when Canada's Diefenbaker forced SA not to re-apply for membership of the Commonwealth in 1961. That's even before Mandela got caught. Mandela became President because he became ANC leader on his departure from prison...
Ghandi didnt, I agree, but look at what he couldnt stop which Mandela did......the division of India into India and Pakistan. That caused huge amounts of violence between the 2 peoples. And is the reason why Mandela deserves the peace prize, because he stopped the equivilant happening in SA, and managed stop widespread ethnic cleansing happening (as was seen in examples such as Rwanda and Zimbabwe)....which many other anti-apartheid parties that stood in the election alongside the ANC would not have been able to stop.
Mandela brought love to the country, which has saved the country so far.
India was divided because Muslims felt sidelined - frankly here it was a lot clearer for a division than a racial division of South Africa would have been (because generally they stayed in distinct separate regions - not really any enclaves apart from Bangladesh) ... South Africa may be a success locally, but not on international standards.
If I'm correct South Africa did split into two countries; Namibia and South Africa, following the election of Mandela.
If I'm correct South Africa did split into two countries; Namibia and South Africa, following the election of Mandela.
In all due fairness, though, South West Africa (Namibia) was never technically part of South Africa and was considered to be a separate territory under South African rule internationally. Namibia attained independence in 1990, before Mandela became President.
EmmaGallen
09-09-2008, 21:03
that is a rather ignorant thing to say! Mandela did HUGE amounts to end apartheid. The foreign pressure (which took ages to come!!) only helped sway the balance slightly at the end.
what he did was use violence. You going to claim that's not the truth?
then why compare the 2 of their books if you realised they were so different? its like comparing a year 7s english homework to shakespeare's Macbeth (except theyre going to be more similar than Mein Kampf and a long walk to freedom)
He wasn't comparing the content of Mein Kampf with the content of Mandella's biography, he was comparing their forms. you know when you are studying a Shakespeare sonnet and a Manley Hopkins Sonnet? It's like that.
Hamsterwaffle
09-09-2008, 22:20
that is a rather ignorant thing to say! Mandela did HUGE amounts to end apartheid.
Such as? He blew a few people up and then went to prison having accomplished nothing but a big list of victims.
Gotlieb Alexander
09-11-2008, 17:33
firstly...no, i have not heard of necklacing.
Necklacing is a brutal form of murder advocated by some members of the ANC
Necklacing is a brutal form of murder advocated by some members of the ANC
Sounds pretty brutal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
Necklacing (sometimes metonymically[citation needed] called Necklace) refers to the practice of summary execution carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with gasoline, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire...
...The practice became a common method of lethal lynching during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Necklacing sentences were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of circumventing the apartheid judicial system. Necklacing was also used to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid regime. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was frequently carried out in the name of the African National Congress (ANC), and was even implicitly endorsed by Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela and a senior member of the ANC, although the ANC officially condemned the practice...
...The first recorded victim of necklacing was the young girl Maki Skosana in July 1985 “Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee.”...
...Archbishop Desmond Tutu once famously saved a near victim of necklacing when he rushed into a large gathered crowd and threw his arms around a man accused of being a police informant, who was about to be killed. Tutu's actions, which were caught on film, caused the crowd to release the man.
http://www.cwporter.com/imagernh.jpg
http://www.cwporter.com/deadnigger3.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_33659_necklace.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1997/the_winnie_mandela_trial/33659.stm
The following five years were increasingly controversial. In 1986 she made a speech in which she talked about achieving liberation from apartheid by using "necklaces" - a reference to the brutal murder of suspected collaborators by putting tyres round their necks and setting them alight. There was also the matter of an opulent £125,000 house built in one of the poorest areas in the country.
The most serious allegations, however, stemmed from the activities of her personal bodyguards, the so-called Mandela United Football Club. Reports of their brutality were commonplace in Soweto and her house was attacked in 1988 by local people who had had enough.
iv been away for a month or 2, so havent read all that has been posted since....however with the argument of necklacing, I do believe what you quoted is that it was supported by Winnie Mandela? if thats true, then it is also very viable to realise that Nelson Mandela divorced Winnie because of her more violent tendancies, as he did not support them!
Also, people are saying De Klerk deserves the peace prize, but Mandela doesnt due to him using violence......again I will point out that his violence was controlled, and that the ANC would give warnings to the appropriate place before the set off any bombs, in order to keep casualties to a minimum. De Klerk on the other hand turned blind eyes to black people "falling accidentally" out of the highrised windows of the police headquarters in Joburg on frequent occassions. I also wonder why noone ever "accidentally" fell out of ground floor wondows?
Im unlikely to have time to read this again, so should you like to debate with me, please send me a message on the forum and ill get back to you asap!
TheVoice
10-09-2008, 03:23
Because they got up, bruised and embarrassed, and went back inside?
On a serious note, if Gorbachev deserves the peace prize, so does De Clerk.
Patriot 167
10-09-2008, 19:06
Right, I don't want any more pictures of the use of the necklace!
It's one of the worst things I have ever seen!
Hamsterwaffle
10-10-2008, 17:22
It could in fact be argued, that Mandela and his associates prolonged Apartheid. Their terrorist campaign likely had the effect of making the whites fear the blacks, hence reducing the likelyhood of them supporting blacks taking part in the Government. QED.
Gotlieb Alexander
10-10-2008, 17:37
It could in fact be argued, that Mandela and his associates prolonged Apartheid. Their terrorist campaign likely had the effect of making the whites fear the blacks, hence reducing the likelyhood of them supporting blacks taking part in the Government. QED.
Well any political protest naturally enhances its opposition. That's why the NF used to tip off the Anti-Nazi League about their rallies, causing the ANL to demonstrate against them. The anti-NF protests created a lot of support
Samuel Drake
10-12-2008, 12:22
He utilised tactics designed to cause terror, surely by definition he was a terrorist?
----------------
Now playing: The Music - The Spike (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/the+music/track/the+spike)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)
http://ukyp.org.uk/203361.html
Hero
By Adam Joggee, MYP for Haringey
If you ask any young person anywhere in the world to name somebody they look up to and admire, the name Nelson Mandela is never far away; which says everything about him as a person and the changes he has seen through during his life.
From his time as a trial lawyer in Johannesburg, to his time on Robben Island, his time as President through to his present role as international statesman; Nelson Mandela has shown remarkable courage, commitment and dedication. The dedication with which he helped free his people from the grip of the harsh apartheid regime, the courage he showed during 27 years in jail and his full and total commitment to a non-racial and democratic South Africa.
Nelson Mandela is a man who won’t just be confined to the history books. If you ask your parents, teachers or other adults where they were or what they were doing the day Mandela was released, they could probably tell you.
His life, ideals and beliefs will continue to serve as guiding principles to generations to come. He truly is one of a kind!
Villain
By Bubatunde Williams, DMYP for City of London
Very few people know much about Nelson Mandela. Many foolishly compare him to Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi, and yet the specifics are known by few people. Nelson Mandela, a man who dares to mention the fact that Gandhi is his inspiration, obviously did not take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book. Mandela was the founder of the armed wing of an organisation called the African National Congress (ANC), what some would now call a terrorist movement. The military action by the ANC lasted from 1961 up till 1990. The ANC were responsible for so many casualties and injuries, that the figures are currently “unknown.”They targeted public arenas as well as government offices.
Apartheid was evil, do not get me wrong, but the techniques that were used to bring it down, and those who supported it, were in no way comparable to the Civil Rights Movement, or Gandhi. Read up on Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and John F. Kennedy. These were men who believed in acquiring peace through peaceful means, and followed it through at the highest cost. History often tells two tales, sometimes, one of them is fact and the other is a mere story, most choose believe the story, as it has a happy ending of human trial and tribulation.
i believe he is a hero he spoke the truth justice
Hamsterwaffle
10-15-2008, 15:30
The only effect Mandela had on Apartheid was to prolong it.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.