Do not allow liberals to sanitise history. Mandela was a symbol of non-peaceful resistance and of the progress that it can bring.
But he didn't. He tried to bridge the huge divide. At the time, and I speak as someone who was living through it, there was a real fear that the country would erupt into a civil war. There was so much hate on both sides. It is widely believed by people from all South African political views that Mandela was responsible for reconciling the opposing sides and beginning a path of building a new country.
Was he perfect? Of course not. But he achieved what so many deemed impossible in a noble manner and this is extremely rare in political leaders anywhere in the world.
Edit: found the citation. http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=l...
>Others said that we should approach this issue not from the point of view of principles but of tactics, and that we should employ the method demanded by the conditions. If a particular method or tactic enabled us to defeat the enemy, then it should be used. In this case, the state was far more powerful than we, and any attempts at violence by us would be devastatingly crushed. This made nonviolence a practical necessity rather than an option. This was my view, and I saw nonviolence in the Gandhian model not as an inviolable principle but as a tactic to be used as the situation demanded. The principle was not so important that the strategy should be used even when it was self- defeating, as Gandhi himself believed. I called for nonviolent protest for as long as it was effective. This view prevailed, despite Manilal Gandhi's strong objections.
There is no ONE correct solution for every situation. Sometime peaceful non-violence is required, sometimes using high tech solution is appropriate to make things more productive, and sometime military force is required to defend one self.
Rather than standing behind one principle, try addressing the concerns of relevant parties.
Leadership is granted by those people who lead you and those whom you lead.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to
change the world."
- Nelson MandelaMandela: "...without violence ... no way ... to succeed in .. struggle against ... white supremacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_fo...
He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. As with Arafat, I think he reached a point where violence as a tactic wasn't possible or useful.
"If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently." - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, p.537)
"If the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. It is up to you... not us to renounce violence.” p.537
Looking at things tactically, it's a question of where your opponent is vulnerable: internally or externally. Pacifism is necessary to create the perception of legitimacy needed to mobilize external political support.
No, you're attempting to portray him as someone who employed peaceful protest only when it proved convenient, or as a last resort. One only needs compare your 'quote' (all ellipses and no context) with the full quote posted by azernik.
He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence.
The opposite, you've got the wrong order. Read the link you posted on motivation for the formation of MK, then watch his interview in 1961, here (first posted by Q_the_Novice): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA.
As Q_the_Novice put it, "first educate yourself ... before posting ...".
Pacifism is defined as opposition to violence. Mandela, unlike many Western leftists, never ruled out violence as a tactic. Would his movement have succeeded without killing civilians and torturing enemies? Possibly not.
Well, golly. If you insist.
My issue is not really with whether Apartheid is great, or Israel is great.
What my post was about was the way people on the far left or far right get away with their views whatever they are, but people in the center are required to assert that Apartheid is evil, while Israel is OK. You literally cannot call yourself a moderate if you do not believe these two things. And yet Israel and Apartheid South Africa are not very different. Both commit human rights violations against the native population. Both have (had) no clear path for the native population to become politically independent. Both claimed to look after the native population better than they could look after themselves. Both justified the situation because it was necessary to preserve their cultural/ethnic identity, and by claiming their opponents were terrorists.
So I call myself a moderate, but because I cannot accept the discrepancy between the way people are expected to view Israel and Apartheid, I would probably be considered a racist (for thinking that Apartheid was partly understandable) and also and anti-semite (for thinking that the desire for a Jewish state is not different for the desire for a White state).
You mean when Hamas or Islamic Jihad detonates a bus bomb in Tel Aviv?
To pretend that Israeli military and/or police action against the terrorist government in Gaza takes place in a vacuum, or that it is aimed principally at civilians, ignores the reason why Israel is so militarized in the first place - very real security threats against the Israeli people and state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
You're welcome.
As a white South African who was born in apartheid I saw first hand just how evil the system was. As for your examples you are after with regards to " one instance of white apartheid South Africans intentionally killing women and children" here you go: 1.) Ruth First (Joe Slovo's wife) was killed by a parcel bomb in Maputo. 2.) Soweto Uprising in which about 170 to about 600 people (mainly children) were killed by police... oh and one of the first people to be killed there was not some older man, the poor person was Hector Pieterson, he was only 13.
I know that Nelson Mandela wasn't a saint, (even he said that). However he gave to South Africa what it really needed. Peace and reconciliation, something that is still sorely needed in this world.
I'll judge him on that.
edit: Downvote this if you like, but the above are facts. Rather than the liberal whitewash that the media in the west prefers.
Which is exactly why it's problematic to present Mandela as a symbol of Peace, Love and Understanding. There are people here trying to represent his advocacy of armed struggle during the apartheid era as some kind of youthful indiscretion for which he should be overlooked or forgiven, which does the man's legacy no favours at all.
In full:
Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be
no way open to the African people to succeed in their
struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All
lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle
had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a
position in which we had either to accept a permanent
state of inferiority, or take over the Government.
You've made yourself quite a frail stawman. You will find that this "western pacifist" you speak of is a figment of your imagination and doesn't exists in any serious form.
Emphasizing the non-peaceful roots, and the fact that there was much violence in the struggle against the oppression of apartheid is to ignore his own words on the topic and to only tell half a story.
Also your flame-baiting attack on liberals is very confused - the key criticism by conservatives against liberals on this topic, for years, was their support for a terrorist who advocated violence, thereby themselves supporting violence. The truth is nuanced, but not to such a degree that it's incomprehensible to ordinary people.
There's a paragraph near the end starting "Our struggle has reached a decisive moment...". I read it as "keep your guns, they're what's keeping those guys at the negotiating table.". He was a smart politician, neither dogmatically for violence ... or dogmatically against it.
-Nelson Mandela
edit: also, "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
Your statement on Mandela is un-nuanced and simplistic. We all evolve through life, hopefully for the better. Mandela clearly became one of the great 20th century champions of peace alongside MLK and Gandhi. None of them were perfect human beings, but that doesn't diminish their greatness at all.
Mandela was in prison for 27 years, oppressed his whole life before and after that, and once he gets power, his watchwords? Truth and Reconciliaton.
That's why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because with any other leader (just pick a country on the same continent, Zimbabwe's right next door) that situation turns into a shitshow at that point.
The fact that he was in the ANC isn't what makes him notable, plenty of other guerilla leaders in Africa who threw out colonialists or white minority rule. That's not why we're talking about him. What he did when he won made him notable.
The "he wasn't peaceful" idiots on this thread are either incapable of seeing the big picture or fighting some dumb US domestic political battle.
(I don't think the Rhodesia precedent was exact, as the white rulers of Rhodesia were probably far more acceptable, and blacks far less oppressed, than they were in RSA; RSA was sufficiently self-sufficient that this could have gone on indefinitely. The other cases were anti-colonialism, which is also different; the Boers were not particularly tied to any European power, so there was no European state pulling out to end the colonial situation, either.)
Did I get that right?
Blowing up civilians is probably required at times, I don't know, but the exact border line where it moves from acceptable to unacceptable is a difficult one. Some people (justly) hold that it is always unacceptable and there is definitely nothing wrong with that stand. Others are more pragmatic and can accept that killing 10 civilians is preferable to having 10,000 slaves.
It's not an easy answer, don't dismiss it as an ad hominem.
> We all evolve through life, hopefully for the better.
Yes, and:
"Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as "Spear of the Nation") was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, fought against the South African government....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
Indeed, let's not allow anyone to sanitise history. It's a fact that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and PW Botha all called him a terrorist.
'''Veto by President Reagan[edit] Reagan vetoed the compromised bill on September 26, calling it "economic warfare" and alleging that it would mostly hurt the impoverished black majority and lead to more civil strife.[10] He again offered to impose sanctions via executive order, while also working with Senate Republicans on concessions to avoid them overriding his veto. Reagan's veto was attacked harshly by anti-Apartheid leaders like Desmond Tutu who said Reagan would be "judged harshly by history".[11] In the week leading up to the subsequent vote, President Reagan enlisted South African foreign minister Pik Botha to call Republicans on the fence, though this was seen to backfire.[12] Veto override[edit] Reagan's veto was overridden by Congress (by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83) on October 2.[13] This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.[2] Apartheid opponents in America and South Africa applauded the vote, while critics argued that it would be either ineffectual or lead to more violence.[12][14]'''
It is not a coincidence that after the Berlin wall fall and the "threat of communism" receded, a political settlement became possible in South Africa. The cold war has a lot to answer for.
Is a bit like being called a wanker by Onan.
edit - pekk, it won't let me reply at the moment, but in answer to your comment, Thatcher was no idiot by any stretch of the imagination, but she did send the SAS to train Pol-Pot led forces, while Reagan put up the money, so I think she definitely had more than a little blood on her hands. - http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137397
Therefore to say Margeret Thatcher is not a terrorist is like saying "blue things are not yellow." Duh. The term exists specifically to describe violence conducted by people who are not Thatchers.
Unless you're Mark Thatcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher#2004_Equatorial_G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
Also, if you're going to judge statesmen by the regimes they supported, then you should know that Mandela was a big supporter of Cuba's Castro, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and North Korea. Does that make Mandela a horrible man or statesman? Probably not, you'd be hard put to find a single statesman in history who never supported at least one evil regime.
from that article -
Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O'Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the "non-communist" members of the "coalition" had been going on "at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years". The instructors were from the SAS, "all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain".
Or is The Telegraph and Jane's Defence Weekly still too left wing for you?
That says more about them than it says about Mandela.
I think the fact that Mandela was on it until 2008 is pretty much all you need to know about the US terrorist list. It can't be a very good list.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But Mandela fought for a very important cause: the freedom of an oppressed people. And he always used the most effective and appropriate weapons to fight that fight.
Anyone who calls him a terrorist is a crook.
It is possible [Edit: and, I think, reasonable] to think the former but not the latter.
I apologise for the clumsy phrase. The semantics of that doesn't matter, I just want to know what mathieuh is trying to say by calling special attention to "liberals" and not mentioning anyone else.
I suspect trolling. Mandela was deeply "liberal".
I am calling special attention to liberals because at this moment liberal media are writing him off as having been a 'peaceful protestor' or some such banality.
I don't know why you are reading so much into this, I meant only what I wrote, I wasn't implying anything else.
I am fully aware (as I assumed most people were) that the right has labelled him a terrorist, and that until as recently as 2008 he was officially a terrorist according to the US.
So liberals are singled-out apparently because they tend towards this particular narrative of pure nonviolence.
But as discussed in other comments, he could mean anything by "liberals" so we have no idea why he calls them out.
You may have had a point, but your phrasing was atrocious, essentially built to generate conflict and suppress any rational thought.
You could have made your point in a much better way such that people would actually reflect on what you said, rather than start political fights.
From here in the UK, Americans sneering the word liberal is a give away for a right wing nut job. Glen Beck etc. To us, well, me at least, it is highly amusing that so called right wing patriots wet them selves over the USA which is supposed to champion liberty, while using the word liberal as some sort of insult. Mean while, the right seem to actually support liberty in gun ownership etc. Very strange. Actually, very funny.
You should be aware that the left is vehemently against liberalism, as it presents such a rosy view of current society that it reduces the terrible things happening to being some floaty idea that doesn't apply to Me. As liberal media are doing currently by saying that Mandela was just a peaceful protestor.
What does that statement even mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United...
(Perhaps it is easier to consider that right wingers and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing, and can very easily be in conflict with each other. I'm not entirely sure if that helps..)
In this instance, it seems to me that mathieuh is very much a leftist, and likely considers Mandela to be the same. Certainly he seems to approve of what Mandela did (I think several people here are misinterpreting what mathieuh has said as criticism of Mandela). He thinks that liberals are attempting to co-opt Mandela as one of their own and apply ideologies associated with liberalism (nonviolence as an ends of its own) to Mandela, even if those associations are not grounded in history. In doing this, they obscure Mandela's true leftist ideologies, which were exceedingly successful. By rewriting leftist victories as liberal victories, diminishing the perceived value of leftist techniques, they present a threat to leftists.
I'm still not 100% sure if mathieuh (and you) are using the word "liberal" to mean "left" or "not left". I first assumed "left" but he's not making much sense that way.
I suggest that if you insist on using that word, be aware for the potential for great misunderstanding and confusion, and define somewhere what you mean by it. matthieuh's statement "I meant only what I wrote" is really not that, it presupposes that we speak the same language. And we don't.
> mathieuh is very much a leftist, and likely considers Mandela to be the same.
I also consider Mandela a leftist. This is due to the fact that his political party, the ANC, was in alliance with the South African Communist Party, and produced the Freedom charter http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72 (see particularly nationalisation advocated in the section "The People Shall Share in the Country`s Wealth").
So it's not really a subjective matter, it's historic fact.
I think, in the sense used in the post at issue:
"Left":"Liberal"::Bolshevik:Menshevik
So liberal is to the left of Center but to the right of Left.
So in more concrete terms, mathieuh thinks that liberals oppose violent resistance, instead insisting on forms of nonviolent resistance such as civil disobedience (perhaps even when that proves ineffective). Liberals, wanting to claim Mandel as one of their own, "rewrite history" to make Mandel align with nonviolent resistance in a more strict way.
I believe mathieuh views liberalism as the enemy in the same way a Lamborghini owner might rage at a minivan in the fast lane. That is being a bit uncharitable though.
(I am trying hard not to inject my own opinion on what liberalism and leftism are; I am trying to explain how mathieuh is using these words, while remaining relatively charitable to his point of view. As such, I may be incorrect about what mathieuh thinks but the things I think he thinks might be correct. Similarly, I might be correct about what he thinks, but the things that he thinks may be incorrect. It would be best if he just gave a clear explanation of what he thinks...)
Also, the word 'liberal' is hopelessly lost for definition when having an international conversation.
Seem to be more pacifist tendencies than liberal tendencies. Most pacifists may be liberals, but the converse is not even approximately true.
"ridiculous" is generous here.
An earlier poster asked "Could you explain why you think that 'liberals' are trying to sanitise history more than anyone else?"
The ideas that keep the left and right from posing a political problem to the established order are, respectively, pacifism and patriotism. Pacifism limits conflict to electoral and symbolic efforts. Patriotism does the same by loyalty rather than dissidence. To reenforce the idea of pacifism, for the benefit of the left wing, the mainstream media canonizes pacifist heroes, such as Mandala and Ghandi, downplaying the roles of militants in their self-determination movements.
We respect our heroes not for their flaws, but for their feats. It's no secret to anybody that the ANC used terror for political causes; what followed Mandela's jail term, however, is far more important. He didn't fix South Africa completely. Nobody could have, but the forgiveness he showed during his tenure, to both blacks and whites alike, is the notable part of his life. To myopically describe Mandela's actions as terroristic is to do a disgrace to one of the great leaders of our time.
No one's perfect but it's unreasonable to only focus on the negative.
We cannot allow people to only paint him as peaceful completely simply because non-violent struggle is not what brought about long-term peace. Both did.
I think the idea is more along the lines of "violence had its place in that conflict, it was for a good cause, and it worked."
Injecting my own opinion here: I think that if we forget the usefulness of violence then we may risk failing to repeat Mandela's success, should the need ever arise. Nonviolence is great, but only when it works. When it doesn't, violence should be embraced. We should embrace whatever is necessary to get the job done, nonviolence should be seen as a (typically very effective) means to an end, not an end in itself.
Oh, wait. That's not what happened at all, is it?
...is what Mandela said in his first speech after being released from prison. I'm not sure which half of your comment is intended to be sarcasm, but fwiw those are the words he used.
Some great listening on the subject:
http://mandelahistory.com/ -a 5-part radio series documenting the struggle against apartheid through rare sound recordings, the voice of Nelson Mandela himself, as well as those who fought with him, and against him.
He used violence when violence was needed, he used peace when peace is needed.
I'd like to be as pacifist as I can possibly be, but there simply are situations where violence is necessary. And severe oppression without non-violent means to end the oppression, is one of them. Some things need to be fought.
Wow.
Edit: the thing that makes Mandela special is that, once he became the government, it would have been just as "legitimate" for him to have behaved as the Apartheid government had, but he effected peace instead.
What Mandela fully understood at the time of his release was that the country required reconciliation. Nobody expected the power handover to go as smoothly as it did. Mandela was a huge contributor to that.
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It was the right that supported apartheid, almost until the end like Reagan and Thatcher. Dick Cheney voted against a 1986 resolution calling for the release of Mandela from prison. A month before Nelson Mandela was elected president Ron Paul's newsletter warned of a'South African Holocaust.' Get your facts straight.
It seems you're the one right-washing this.
/reductio-ad-fascism
http://santee.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/dunc...