Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Candlelight, Dec 5, 2013.
I do see where Mister Spock is coming from and I do agree there was a much darker side to Nelson Mandela.
There is a rather interesting biography of Nelson Mandela by Dr Pieter Möller, the former deputy leader of the HNP -- a right wing party which supported Apartheid. So naturally they (HNP) would want to sling on Mandela's image, even so if Mandela was an angel they would not have had so many grievances against him.
A glimpse into Mandela's mindset can be found in his statement at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia Trial (1963/1964). He admitted endorsing 'controlled violence' and how Marxism comprised a large part of the ANC
The Rivonia Trial was brought about after Mandela and the ANC devised an armed coup of South Africa, in what was known as Operation Mayibuye. Had Operation Mayibuye occurred it would have splintered South Africa and probably led to years of civil war. The following is one of the pieces of evidence in the Rivonia Trial which detailed both the ANC's and MK's (Umkhonto we Sizwe -- a terrorist group) objectives of Operation Mayibuye.
Mandela freely admitted to all the charges of sabotage during the Rivonia Trial, and that is why the Rivonia Trial occurred because at the time the ANC, MK, Mandela and his associates were the number one danger to South Africa's stability.
The biggest misconception about this trial is the belief that Mandela was tried strictly because he was opposed to Apartheid, when really he was tried for being the head of a terrorist organisation which threatened South Africa's stability, government and people. That's why the CIA still had Mandela on their terrorist lists even up to 2008 and why Margaret Thatcher thought very poorly of Mandela and the ANC.
As for Nelson Mandela's record as President of South Africa it was pretty poor. The economy deteriorated, unemployment rose, inflation sharply increased and the only winners seemed to be the ANC. Ironically one type of Apartheid had been replaced with another; gone was racial Apartheid and in its stead was an even worse economic Apartheid. The EISA (Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa) has a great (but long) summary of the various economic metrics which deteriorated under Mandela's presidency.
While John Pilger, one of the best investigative journalists out there, investigates the economic imbalances which were left unchecked in South Africa in his documentary "Apartheid Did Not Die (1998)"
Even now South Africa is still an economically troubled country and the Marikana miners' strike of last year is a testament to that.
Finally Dr. Peter Hammond's (a South African missionary who worked with Frontline Fellowship; a non-profit organization which supports various churches in South Africa) meeting with Mandela (who was then president) concerning persecution of the countries Christians is another insight into Mandela's actions and thinking. After the meeting Frontline Fellowship received a lengthy tax audit, I guess Mandela had little tolerance for Peter Hammond.
Part 1 of Hammond's account of the meeting.
Part 2 of Hammond's account of the meeting.
Mandela's aim of destroying Apartheid was a noble one, it was a very messed up system, and his talk of freedom, democracy and tolerance still holds up today. I really do think he believed in those things but the means in which he set out to accomplish this are at best dubious. While under his leadership, the vision he had of a strong and prosperous South Africa did not exactly come into fruition.
As such my feelings towards Mandela are pretty much neutral. On one hand he passionately fought against Apartheid and helped bring about the first democratic elections in South Africa, but on the other hand he was a terrorist, a communist and economically South Africa suffered during his term as President.
That's why I think it is unwise to place him on this pedestal which so many people have; he was no saint put it that way. At any rate omitting and altering history to portray the commonly held view of Mandela smacks of propaganda to me. If we're going to remember this man, let us not remember a false image of Nelson Mandela because that would be disrespectful. Instead let us remember him for both his words and actions, what he truly believed in and the impact he made upon this world (for both good and bad).
"I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying." — Nelson Mandela
They would probably, however, be interested in dishonestly playing up the supposed "terrorist" threat of MK -- the ring exposed at Rivonia was in fact noticeably amateurish and not really capable of threatening apartheid militarily, which everyone who subsequently tried to make a vast deal of it and tries to this day has to have known. Mandela's subsequent authority came from his moral and public relations victory in the courtroom, not his military activities.
Except for the part where he prevented a civil war and made a peaceful transition to democracy in the country possible in the first place.
The ANC post-apartheid made pace with neo-liberal globalism in part to prevent the NP's captains of industry from agitating against the new order. It worked, but no doubt it came at a terrible price; Mandela's situation was one in which there were no perfect options.
... funnily enough, a crank in charge of a notoriously shady right-wing Christian ministry and the second far-right figure you've chosen to cite as an "authority" on Mandela. I'll bet what he has to say is just durned fascinating. Maybe later.
It's not necessary to put Mandela on a pedestal, but I'm fascinated that a certain wing of political opinion outside South Africa has this obsessive, desperate need to keep demonizing him after the people who actually fought him have moved on. I wonder if you all realize how petty and pathetic it looks.
Taking that bio seriously would be like taking a bio on MLK written by the Klan seriously.
Let me say firstly that I appreciate your taking the time and effort to post information, as well as sources for that information. Having read through the sources you've posted, however, I find that nearly all of them are very biased, and in the case of the first link to Dr. Moller, outright hyperbolic to the point of unintentional satire.
To add, I don't see anyone here who considers Mandela a saint. What Mandela did was fight against a powerful, pervasive, oppressive, violent enemy with violence of his own. Mandela advocated armed conflict when it was deemed necessary. What he didn't do, however, was specifically target innocent people. Instead, he aimed to disable the government regime itself. That doesn't make him a terrorist by any stretch of that definition.
He is lauded because of his efforts to break the yoke of oppression and hate by a government that sought only to trample on the rights of others, a government that did so quite violently. His ultimate goal wasn't power or influence, but the liberation of human rights. There is a big, fat red line between the actions of Nelson Mandela, and those of a terrorist. He most certainly wasn't a saint, and he was the first to say so, but he also wasn't this terrorist that some people claim him to be.
Aww, darn. I would read it, but I'm totally engrossed in not reading Barack Obama: An Unauthorized Biography by David Duke, and that's taking up all my not-reading books by racist assholes time.
The very fact that you chose to lead off your post by implying that an unrepentant former leader in the racist right-wing party that oppressed millions of blacks in South Africa is a credible source of information about Nelson Mandela doesn't bode well, but let's soldier on anyway.
That last part is the key, isn't it? The ANC's Marxist leanings close the book on them being on the RIGHT side of history. Never mind the fact that the God-sanctioned forces of capitalism and democracy were actively aiding in their oppression by supporting the apartheid government for decades, Marxists and anyone working with Marxists are the "bad guys" every time, without any shades of gray, nuance, or consideration of the situation that led them there allowed. No big shock that your argument is completely black and white given the subject matter, though.
So, where does the leap from "controlled violence" to "terrorist" come in, exactly? Controlled violence, in the context it's being used in here, refers to acts of sabotage against government owned and affiliated facilities and infrastructure designed to minimize government and especially civilian casualties. It's the opposite of true terrorism (as opposed to the label we throw against those who happen to fight us with guerrilla tactics), which seeks to terrify the civilian populace by making them believe that they are vulnerable to an attack at any time, and that there is nowhere that they can not be reached.
Why is sabotage and controlled attacks wrong to use against a minority government that is violently oppressing you? Passive resistance is great when it works, but it's not the end all and be all answer to ending oppression. It requires that the oppressor you're facing actually gives a little bit of a damn about how they look on the world stage. I guess the French Resistance were just a bunch of terrorists too, huh?
A civil war fought over racial inequality(*)? Inconceivable!!! Boy, I hope nothing like that ever happens here, and that if it does, we make sure the leaders fighting to free blacks from oppression are punished as the terrorists they clearly are. Perhaps with a bullet to the back of the head or something?
What? Too soon?
* Sorry, I meant "state's rights." States rights to perpetuate the institution of slavery, but state's rights nonetheless.
Stability? That's hilarious. It was a false sense of stability enforced with violence that exploited and excluded the vast majority of the population and was created entirely by the white minority to maintain their hold on power.
You've placed maintaining stability as the highest virtue even if that alleged stability is violently oppressive. And exactly how did that "stability" work out during the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960?
I suppose you would have told Rosa Parks to give up her seat lest it upset the stability of the segregated Montgomery bus system?
Well, I'm sure the CIA is thought very highly of in Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. and has never done any terrorist-type activities themselves, because they're the good guys.
So, he's unworthy of praise because after decades of neglect the South African government actually started having to take the needs of its black population into consideration, and there were some understandable economic growing pains as a result of that massive transition? I don't think anyone was claiming he was a miracle worker. You can't overcome decades of systemic economic, social, and legal inequality in a few years.
Do you have any actual evidence of Mandela giving the order to audit them, because it doesn't seem all that unusual for a large NPO to be audited? And an audit is hardly horrendously oppressive government in action or indicative of anti-Christian bias. Frankly, I think NPOs and large religious institutions should be audited every year to make sure their finances are above board.
No one here has called him a saint, nor has Mandela himself.
You quoted actual propaganda from an actual apartheid leader, so your admonition to refrain from it is hilariously misplaced. Physician, heal thyself.
Your call for respect is equally amusing after posting this apologist screed that labels the man fighting oppression as the real problem because he dared to upset the apartheid apple cart.
Well, that's all I need to know.
You say it like it's a bad thing.
One more reason to praise him.
Well, I was watching the memorial service on a PC without speakers, but the sign-language interpretation was eye-opening. I admit I was a bit shocked as Obama related how Mandela rode a wet rhinoceros into battle and ate many goats with sauce, and then captured an owl with a basket of rainbow. I hadn't heard that before.
Did it make that much sense? I read the "interpreter" signed "dhfgf @$ssdg ^$ sgdfgio(#$%yhgbx", or something close to it.
You could be right. I was reading a lot into it.
What's kind of frightening is that anyone who would pretend to be a sign-language interpreter and isn't, and would stand up on stage like that, is probably mentally unbalanced - and somehow passed muster to get up there! I guess he's the world's top photo-bomber now.
Wow, nice to see Ln X got thoroughly trounced in here.
What I find frightening is 1) how did a fake interpreter get on stage in the first place, 2) where is the real interpreter?!
I was just adding food for thought plus providing sources which are either overlooked or not well known about. Personally I like to contrast the popular perception with lesser known facts. But I knew I was going to get a bloody nose for providing an alternative viewpoint/opinion.
Hopefully some readers clicked on the links I provided.
He was the real interpreter rather than an imposter, in that the ANC actually did hire him from a service that has been accused of using untrained interpreters in the past. He's a registered interpreter who has signed at ANC events before (and gotten prior complaints apparently), but while he does speak Xhosa and can sign in South African Sign Language, he doesn't understand English very well and has no formal training as an SASL interpreter. Add to that that he's schizophrenic and was --according to him, so possibly take it with a grain of salt-- having an episode on stage, and that's why it was all gibberish.
Allow me to translate from bullshit:
"I was just innocently using racist right wing propaganda from a still unapologetic apartheid leader to discredit another leader who brought legal racial equality to his country and brand him a terrorist. I don't see why anyone had a problem with simply posting a harmless racist's alternate opinion like that."
It gets fucking better, the unreliable interpreter also has an eye opening criminal record going back two decades and they let this potentially very dangerous, mentally unsound bozo within arms length of a parade of world leaders including the motherfucking POTUS?! Besides that and the First Lady giving dark looks when her husband was flirting with the very attractive Danish PM.
I'm almost expecting the late Leslie Nielsen to gatecrash that event.
Right, because racist propaganda is simply a neutral "alternative viewpoint" that doesn't negatively impact anyone or anything.
Separate names with a comma.