Hacker News Reader

It seems to me that both casca and mathieuh are correct - he was both a symbol of non-peaceful resistance, and a creator of peace amidst a push for war. Furthermore, his post-apartheid actions seem the more historically important, as they were the more novel and their relative success the more surprising.

That's cute. A man dedicates his life to freeing his people from their oppressors, including spending 27 years in jail on principle, and upon release (and with overwhelming support) calls for "truth and reconciliation". We're talking about an entire life spent resisting an oppressive and violent regime. Many of us can't even begin to comprehend what that means, or what actions we may choose if in the same situation. Yet here you are with the benefit of hindsight, in relative comfort, analyzing a statement he made decades before his death. If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.

I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach.

"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.

I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach.

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 ...".

I'm pointing out facts about him, nothing more. My quote was brief because I'd tweeted it and ended up copying the abbreviated form, but the substance of it is clear: it is a statement advocating militant struggle. The video clip you posted for some reason expresses a similar sentiment. And the quotes from his book I mentioned earlier, advocating violence in certain conditions, were from his book published in 1994.

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.

That's cute. Now find me one instance of the white apartheid government intentionally bombing innocent civilians like Mandela's ANC did.

I can see how that kind of logic applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to apply it in this case is horrible and racist. Shame on you.

Wait, it is racist to ask for one instance of white apartheid South Africans intentionally killing women and children like Mandela's ANC did repeatedly?

Well, golly. If you insist.

I was employing irony there, which can be a useful tool for those on the right of the political spectrum.

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).

Both commit human rights violations against the native population.

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.

The South African resistance to apartheid also bombed civilians. And I suspect that they did not recognize the right of South Africa to exist as a White country.

Are you specifically interested in bombing as a method of killing innocent people, or are you more generally interested in the killing of innocent people, the method notwithstanding? Coz, surely, you're not implying that white, apartheid South Africans didn't kill innocent people, are you?

The Sharpeville Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre

You're welcome.

Well, when you control the police and the army, bombing innocent civilians is neither necessary nor logical.

16 JUNE 1976!

Cook1929, your name suits you as you are still trapped in the 1920s.

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.

If you can't find instances of the apartheid government intentionally doing terrible things to civilians all by yourself, then you don't deserve to be on the internet.

His torrorist organization bombed many civilian targets, such as railway stations. He also cheated on his first wife, and was a member of the communist party.

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.

You don't know much about it. You could start educating yourself here: http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=3430

> If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.

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.

I think there is a very different perspective (namely one that spans the entirety of Mandela's adult life) from which one can look at this. Yes, under a violent and oppressive racist regime which virtually anyone in the technologically-literate world would condemn, Mandela founded the MK and rebelled violently. He was imprisoned for a long time, released, and became the figurehead for positive, reconciliatory, peaceful change in a tumultuous part of the world. It's important to not deify the man, but it can come across as pedantic to bring to light the long-ago wrongs of someone who did, and stood for, an awful lot of right.

That's a lot of ellipses.

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.

Not that it changes the immediate political meaning much, but it shows some of the thought processes involved.

The point of quoting it was simply to show that Mandela considers violence a legitimate tactic. Mandela, unlike Western pacifist activists, has never claimed violence should be ruled out as an option.

Such short sightedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA . Do you have any idea what it was like to be black or non-white in Apartheid South Africa? First educate yourself about our people's history before posting ignorant public comments.

I am not making a value judgement, simply pointing out facts. Mandela's organization killed innocent people and tortured enemies. Why they did this is entirely understandable, given the circumstances, but pretending it didn't happen and painting Mandela as a pacifist, when he was in fact a pragmatist that never condemned violence wholesale as Western pacifists do, is to distort history.

ah yes the mythical "western pacifist" who thinks violence is never justified and that, for example, police forces should not forcefully arrest violent criminals but limit themselves to trying to convince them of going to jail.

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.

The decade or so I spent involved in activism in a variety of organizations is, hopefully, not a figment of my imagination.