Thread: Mandela paradox Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025916
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
"Madiba" ( as South Africans reverence him) is on a life support machine.

During his lifetime he effected a racial reconciliation beyond all expectation.

Now, at the last, his own family are threatening to disabuse his lifetime work.

Question: how and why is it that a public ministry is so often called into question by private ( family) dissonance?

How much of it is due to the fact that his "public" persona meant that he was an absentee father/grandfather?

I find it a disturbing issue.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
So do I - I started to wonder when his wife divorced him.

All I know is that many of my heroes had feet of clay.

It doesn't stop them being heroes - in fact it endears them to me all the more because they are normal failures just like me.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The thing is, he may be a personal disaster (I have no idea, but he may be), which should not detract from the fact that some of his achievements have been astounding.

We sometimes have the idea that people who do good things must be/should be perfect throughout. That is not true. Bad people can do good things. Good people can do bad things. People are not black and white.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Or the fallacy that good people necessarily produce good offspring.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
How does the fact that Nelson Mandela was a sinner call into question the good things that he accomplished?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I think what you are seeing at present is the result of the power vacuum that his death is creating in his family. Yes there are ill feelings going on and many may have been hidden for years but they were hidden because while he was active there was felt to be no advantage in venting them. It does not to me suggest an absent parent syndrome but rather the opposite, all the power has for a time resided with Mandela.

That said Mandela has never been a plaster saint, too complex for that. Yes a big man even a great man but one who has walked in paths of life which no persons walks and comes out with feet clean from the dung of human existence. To try and pretend otherwise is to be dishonest about what he has achieved.

Jengie
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
All the people I admire were humans. Gandhi, MLK and Dietrich Bonhoffer had limitations and faults just like anyone else, but what sets them apart is that, in a very specific historical context, they transcended them and did something that was truly, unutterably great. And in their flawed nature is held out the possibility that you too can aspire to do something, however small, that changes your part of the world.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think "absentee father" often goes hand in hand with the kind of work Mandela did. MLK's kids I believe had similar issues. To me, it only adds to the poignancy of their sacrifice, knowing that it came at a cost not to them alone, but to their entire family. We like the myth that you can "have it all"-- give yourself to a cause, sacrifice your time and freedom and passion to do an extraordinary thing-- without any collateral damage. But I'm afraid that's just a myth.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And - and this is no criticism - you will be corrupted by the power and its sexual power, like MLK and JFK - it doesn't mean you are not a saint.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
Absentee father? Being stuck in prison for longer than most murderers in my country might have had an impact on his family!
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
All the people I admire were humans. Gandhi, MLK and Dietrich Bonhoffer had limitations and faults just like anyone else, but what sets them apart is that, in a very specific historical context, they transcended them and did something that was truly, unutterably great. And in their flawed nature is held out the possibility that you too can aspire to do something, however small, that changes your part of the world.
Quite. People don't have feet of clay - they have feet of flesh and bllod.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And - and this is no criticism - you will be corrupted by the power and its sexual power, like MLK and JFK - it doesn't mean you are not a saint.
Both were probably corrupted well before they came into any power.

In Mandela's case no one disputes that he committed the crimes for which he was imprisoned, in the name of whatever cause. What picture will history have of him - I suspect that most will focus on his political achievement and airbrush his prison past (or romanticise it in the interests of a cause).

Ask around: most people are unaware of the prison years and the reasons it happened. When they do know, most people think it was imprisonment by virtue of his race alone.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
People are not black and white.
Very true indeed.
 
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In Mandela's case no one disputes that he committed the crimes for which he was imprisoned, in the name of whatever cause. [...] Ask around: most people are unaware of the prison years and the reasons it happened.
You mean the 57 bombs on Dingaansdag 1961 which he condoned? Which damaged some telephone posts and barrack gates? In response to a dictatorship that allowed blacks no legal ways to strive for equality and justice. Mandela had tried the legal route for years, to no avail.
Wow! You're right, surely anyway would have been imprisoned for life for THAT. Colour of skin and political leadership had nothing to do with it, neither the original "crime" nor the later sentence.

Mandela was in prison for 38 years. Your statement: "Ask around: most people are unaware of the prison years" says more about the ignorant folk you appear to hang out with than about Mandela's public perception.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I was wondering what 'most people' refers to, since Mandela's name is often mentioned in relation to debates over violence, and the 'armed struggle'.

It is pretty widely known that the ANC did eventually adopt a form of armed struggle, through their wing, Umkhonto weSizwe. I don't really know what the extent of this was, or whether they killed people.

This was why the slogan 'Hang Nelson Mandela' was used by some right-wingers, and the idea that he was a terrorist was widely touted.

Of course, the debate over armed struggle in different situations has never really gone away, yet probably off-topic here.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This was why the slogan 'Hang Nelson Mandela' was used by some right-wingers, and the idea that he was a terrorist was widely touted.
Never has the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" been so appropriate. Yes, we all (AFAIK) agree with the man's cause, but let's not sugar coat some of the methods he used to further its aims. The only difference between him and the people who plant IEDs on Afghanstani roadsides is which side of the battle our sympathies happen to be on.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, that heads into an endless debate about violence, and who is entitled to use it. I suppose the conservative line is that only governments are; however, it's surprising how often a particular group is made an exception of!

[ 05. July 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Well, I'm glad I logged in.

Already I've learned that the only difference between the Taliban and someone who fights against an explicitly racist regime is what side our sympathies are on.
 
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 
To be a Christian is not the same as "being right". It's not even the same as "being good".

It is to, as best we can, follow the promptings of the Holy spirit and follow after Christ despite our failing, despite being a sinner, and admitting and asking forgiveness for our faults.

As St Peter said "don't worship me, worship God" (paraphrased, from Act 10:26)
 
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The only difference between him and the people who plant IEDs on Afghanstani roadsides is which side of the battle our sympathies happen to be on.
Quite.

The role of the Taliban in Afghan history is quite comparable to the role of Blacks in SA history.

And of course lying in waiting to explode roadside bombs when soldiers come by is the same as planting bombs away from the proximity any humans and exploding them in the middle of the night in order to avoid human casualties.

And a child's tricycle is basically the same as Mark Cavendish's Tour bike.

PS:
To be fair I cannot now remember whether anybody got injured in MK's very brief spell of bombings, but their strategy was clear: No harm to people.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think "absentee father" often goes hand in hand with the kind of work Mandela did. MLK's kids I believe had similar issues. To me, it only adds to the poignancy of their sacrifice, knowing that it came at a cost not to them alone, but to their entire family. We like the myth that you can "have it all"-- give yourself to a cause, sacrifice your time and freedom and passion to do an extraordinary thing-- without any collateral damage. But I'm afraid that's just a myth.
Quite so.

Having it all is a load of bull. Something always gives. It's a matter of priorities.

Are people right or wrong to sacrifice their families on the altar of whatever?

[ 05. July 2013, 13:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This was why the slogan 'Hang Nelson Mandela' was used by some right-wingers, and the idea that he was a terrorist was widely touted.
Never has the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" been so appropriate. Yes, we all (AFAIK) agree with the man's cause, but let's not sugar coat some of the methods he used to further its aims. The only difference between him and the people who plant IEDs on Afghanstani roadsides is which side of the battle our sympathies happen to be on.
Given Sylvander's response, would you care to substantiate this seemingly outrageous statement, Marvin?
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think "absentee father" often goes hand in hand with the kind of work Mandela did. MLK's kids I believe had similar issues. To me, it only adds to the poignancy of their sacrifice, knowing that it came at a cost not to them alone, but to their entire family. We like the myth that you can "have it all"-- give yourself to a cause, sacrifice your time and freedom and passion to do an extraordinary thing-- without any collateral damage. But I'm afraid that's just a myth.
Quite so.

Having it all is a load of bull. Something always gives. It's a matter of priorities.

Are people right or wrong to sacrifice their families on the altar of whatever?
Was it really the Altar of Whatever?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think "absentee father" often goes hand in hand with the kind of work Mandela did. MLK's kids I believe had similar issues. To me, it only adds to the poignancy of their sacrifice, knowing that it came at a cost not to them alone, but to their entire family. We like the myth that you can "have it all"-- give yourself to a cause, sacrifice your time and freedom and passion to do an extraordinary thing-- without any collateral damage. But I'm afraid that's just a myth.
Quite so.

Having it all is a load of bull. Something always gives. It's a matter of priorities.

Are people right or wrong to sacrifice their families on the altar of whatever?
Was it really the Altar of Whatever?
I think Evensong was just trying to generalize to include other examples. For Mandela and MLK it's the altar of "freedom and civil rights". For someone else it could be some other worthy cause-- freeing child slaves, ending sex trafficking, ending extreme poverty-- possibilities are endless. The point remains the same, that the great personal sacrifices and risks to the heroic leader are usually met with complementary sacrifices and risks by family. I don't hear Evensong using "whatever altar" flippantly here-- the "altar" we're talking about is significant, just, worthy. Just generalizing to include other important causes.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Already I've learned that the only difference between the Taliban and someone who fights against an explicitly racist regime is what side our sympathies are on.
In terms of what we think of them? Yes, it is. That's the trouble with things like morality and politics - there's no such thing as an objective, impartial observer. We think we're right because we think we're right.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Given Sylvander's response, would you care to substantiate this seemingly outrageous statement, Marvin?
My point was that comments like "he wasn't a terrorist because he was fighting for a worthy cause" are bullshit, because as far as they and their supporters are concerned every terrorist is fighting for a worthy cause.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Aren't we all here because we believe in a higher law?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Aren't we all here because we believe in a higher law?
Yes, we believe we are serving a Higher Law. So do the Taliban.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
When you visit the Apartheid Museum in Jo'burg, there is an entire display about why the ANC chose to use violence, with photos of their weapons and sabotage acts etc.

I'm not sure if I'm entirely happy with it, but at least they're not trying to hide it.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Aren't we all here because we believe in a higher law?
I have no problems condemning both the US and UK governments as well as the Taliban.
 
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
Madiba is revered here because he transcended race as the first democratic President.

He explicitly stood against revenge, despite the injuries falling overwhelming on the black population. Under his leadership the ANC confessed to (some) human rights abuses they committed under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process, despite the view of many that as the victims of oppression their actions were justified.

The results of, and morality of, the armed struggle can be endlessly debated. As the (white, foreign) mother of black South African daughters I respect those who gave up so much. By most definitions of 'war' there was a thirty year civil war in South Africa. Mandela helped to end it, and gave voice to the principle that South Africa belongs to 'everyone who lives in it' rather than the pan-Africanists who believe that white people cannot be African.

He also acknowledged, at Joe Slovo's funeral, that the children of those involved had suffered for their parents commitment.

It is an incredibly complicated, mixed up, ambiguous situation.

Madiba promoted forgiveness, as did various other visionary leaders. That is why he is loved.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Haydee: Madiba promoted forgiveness, as did various other visionary leaders. That is why he is loved.
Something that strikes me is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also looked at human rights violations committed by the ANC and by Umkhonto we Sizwe. For example the 'necklacing' of black people seen as traitors (putting a burning tyre around their necks).

Promoting forgiveness involves being prepared to admit your own mistakes as well.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
I don't particularly see a paradox.

Firstly, I have no idea what the actual personal relationships between Nelson and Winnie Mandela were. But I get the sense that the assumption in this thread seems to be that whatever the cause of the breakup of their marriage, it was (or mostly was) Nelson's fault. It's not always the husband's fault.

If indeed the breakup of the Mandela marriage it was the fault of either of them. Was Winnie not aware of Nelson's activism when she married him? Surely the possibility of time in prison could not have been an unexpected possibility. And she herself was an activist, indeed at times more militant and less conciliatory activist (not that that's a bad thing).

As to the question of whether one should abandon the struggle for family reasons, if that was followed uniformly ISTM that that would suit oppressive regimes just fine. (Full disclosure -- I am single without a family to care.)

As to the question about incidents of violence -- this was a war for freedom! Gandhian pacifism is one approach, but not the only one. After all the U.S. war of independence was not an exercise in Gandhian pacifism, and arguably had less moral justification than the South African struggle (My latest sig speaks to that)

[ 05. July 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I am single without a family to care.
That should read "I am single without a family to care for."
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
malik3000: Was Winnie not aware of Nelson's activism when she married him?
She most definitely was.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
At least Mandela was fighting for a cause.

Winnie was a monster who fought for nothing but Winnie and was prepared to murder in the process.

But it is the age old conundrum. Is violence ever justified? The ANC were not angels. The saintliness of Mandela is that, when in the same position as Mugabe, he did the opposite of what Mugabe did.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I don't particularly see a paradox.

Firstly, I have no idea what the actual personal relationships between Nelson and Winnie Mandela were. But I get the sense that the assumption in this thread seems to be that whatever the cause of the breakup of their marriage, it was (or mostly was) Nelson's fault. It's not always the husband's fault.
I don't see where you're getting that. I would say that one of several competing assumptions (and yes, of course, they are unfounded speculation-- we can't see inside someone else's marriage) on this thread has been that it was inevitable stress and strain of the long, enforced separation due to imprisonment, the heavy toll paid not just by Nelson but by the entire family, including children who didn't choose it. That's not blaming Nelson, it's acknowledging that even heroic, worthy endeavors come with heavy costs and collateral damage. I would not say he should have chosen differently, just would say he was not the only Mandela who sacrificed for the cause.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Nelson and Winnie are us. I feel very sorry for her in a completely different way. And no, violence is never justified. Never. And I'm off to a hot lions den where we'll see ...
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
LeRoc wrote:

quote:
Something that strikes me is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also looked at human rights violations committed by the ANC and by Umkhonto we Sizwe. For example the 'necklacing' of black people seen as traitors (putting a burning tyre around their necks).

And let's be honest here. In wartime, it is traditionally considered legitimate to execute people collaborating with the enemy.

I don't personally believe in that policy, but I don't see much of a difference between the necklacing of apartheid collaborators, and the execution of Union deserters during the Civil War(since we're remembering Getysburg these past few days), or for that matter the electrocution of the Rosenbergs(which couldn't even be justified with reference to an actual war, since there was none between the USA and Russia).

[ 05. July 2013, 17:35: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
cliffdweller: I would not say he should have chosen differently, just would say he was not the only Mandela who sacrificed for the cause.
Although this may be true, sometimes I have trouble seeing his family as victims. The media seems to present them as hawks, fighting over his heritage before he's even dead. I don't trust the media 100% either, I just pray that peace can come to them.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I must confess to finding the argument in this post difficult to identify because I’m ignorant of the customs of Nelson Mandela’s ethnic group. Until they are established we cannot have a clear opinion as to whether or not he has been morally deficient in his private life. One issue that intrigues me is why he found it necessary to get divorced.

The problems seem to arise from “same father different mother” relationships, which are not uncommon in polygamous or serially polygamous societies, especially where the inheritance of property and social status are involved. Nelson Mandela’s family problems are simply an exaggerated manifestation of the kinds of difficulties such societies engender. Avoiding the negative consequences are difficult to avoid whether the father is present or absent, as the classic biblical examples of Jacob and David illustrate.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The divorces are irrelevant the warring factions are all descendants of Mandela's first wife see BBC family tree.

Jengie
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Nelson Mandela has 3 periods of life first his ANC days then his term on Robbin Island then his time in leading a new SA , which seems to be a place where the evil of the period post 1948 has/is being dealt with and recociliation happens. This is the Iconic Mandela .
As for the behaviour of his family ? Does make one wonder whay people have children .
I hope his last days are more peaceful than his turbulent past.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Jengie John
quote:
The divorces are irrelevant the warring factions are all descendants of Mandela's first wife see BBC family tree.
Thanks for that, Jengie John. I found the reference most informative. [Overused]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LeRoc wrote:

quote:
Something that strikes me is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also looked at human rights violations committed by the ANC and by Umkhonto we Sizwe. For example the 'necklacing' of black people seen as traitors (putting a burning tyre around their necks).

And let's be honest here. In wartime, it is traditionally considered legitimate to execute people collaborating with the enemy.

I don't personally believe in that policy, but I don't see much of a difference between the necklacing of apartheid collaborators, and the execution of Union deserters during the Civil War(since we're remembering Getysburg these past few days), or for that matter the electrocution of the Rosenbergs(which couldn't even be justified with reference to an actual war, since there was none between the USA and Russia).
It would take a writer of the caliber of Orwell or maybe his disciple, Christopher Hitchens , to write an essay on that particularly terrible piece of rationalization of political terror
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The thing is, Mandela was fighting against something that we see as a wrong, fighting for the freedom of his people. He did this in ways that were not particularly pleasant or good.

There again, there is a tradition across a number of the African countries of torture and murder, of the most vicious atrocities. I am not meaning to be racist, as I think that there are cultural and historical reasons behind this, and the west are not guiltless.

We love to believe that those fighting on "our" side are the good guys, and never do anything wrong, while those fighting on the "other" side are the baddies and they do terrible and callous things. The truth is usually different - "our" side is also corrupt, malicious, cruel and unpleasant. "Our" troops - formally or otherwise - do unconscionable things. If we are prepared to be involved in fighting for any side in any battle, we have to accept this.

None of which should stop us fighting for right, and trying to do it in a moral and ethical way. But we also need to accept that there are others who fight the same battles with us with different moralities. There are people who are fighting the same battles that I fight that I don't agree with. But I believe in the battles I fight, because I believe in the things I am fighting for.

And yes, I also have to consider that I may be wrong, and that the ways that I fight may not be considered appropriate by others.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Our side created the nightmare of modern Africa. Christian - Western - Roman (all one thing) slaving on top of Muslim and in fact predating it by a thousand years is the norm. It became the main business of the West, sorry Christianity, 500 years ago. The compression of 10,000 kingdoms in to less than 100 took less than 100 years.

[ 07. July 2013, 10:49: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LeRoc wrote:

quote:
Something that strikes me is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also looked at human rights violations committed by the ANC and by Umkhonto we Sizwe. For example the 'necklacing' of black people seen as traitors (putting a burning tyre around their necks).

And let's be honest here. In wartime, it is traditionally considered legitimate to execute people collaborating with the enemy.

I don't personally believe in that policy, but I don't see much of a difference between the necklacing of apartheid collaborators, and the execution of Union deserters during the Civil War(since we're remembering Getysburg these past few days), or for that matter the electrocution of the Rosenbergs(which couldn't even be justified with reference to an actual war, since there was none between the USA and Russia).
It would take a writer of the caliber of Orwell or maybe his disciple, Christopher Hitchens , to write an essay on that particularly terrible piece of rationalization of political terror
[Disappointed]
Yes, I'm well-versed in Politics And The English Language(having read it in whole or in part about a dozen times), and am familiar with the parody of the Stalinist professer defending the purges in abstract disembodiments, in order to hide the horrors of what his hero was doing.

But you may also recall Orwell mentioning ideologues who get outraged at brutalities commited by one party(usually the people they don't like), while supporting the same sort of thing when it's done by someone else. I think he gives the example of British public reaction to British war atrocities vs. German war atrocities during WWI.

So, are you able to give me some rationale for viewing, say, the execution of a Union deserter during the Civil War(who was probably just afraid for his life, not trying to aid the south) as somehow less awful than the necklacing of a township collaborator during the war against apartheid?

Would it be that the necklacing is more painful? I can see that point, though, at the end of the day, both cross the line into murder, which is a pretty bad thing in and of itself(no one thinks Stalin was redeemed because he refrained from people alive).

I suppose there's also the argument that the Union was a legitimate state, whereas the ANC in the township was just a bunch of ragtag rebels. Which is true, but it's a pretty subjective distinction. Nazi Germany a legitimate state as well, and the people who put the bomb under Hitler's desk were a ragtag bunch of rebels.

If you're position is that the shooting of deserters and the necklacing of apartheid collaborators are equally wrong, I'd probably agree with that. And ask only that there be some consistency in our condemnations.

[ 07. July 2013, 15:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Would it be that the necklacing is more painful? I can see that point, though, at the end of the day, both cross the line into murder, which is a pretty bad thing in and of itself(no one thinks Stalin was redeemed because he refrained from people alive).
The pain, and the mindset of those who would inflict torture, is difficult to see beyond and certainly colour our perception.
But, yes, the motives are often the same.
Though, I think Stalin goes beyond the argument as one could be exiled or executed for being associated with a group who might be considering an action which had the potential to view the state in a negative fashion.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
predating it by a thousand years is the norm. It became the main business of the West, sorry Christianity, 500 years ago.
Muslim slavers were operating in Africa in co-operation with indigenous slavers for centuries before the European trans-Atlantic slave trade, which tapped into this existing system, commenced in the sixteenth century.

What on earth does your “thousand years” refer to?

Are you genuinely trying to make a historical point, or just venting?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And ask only that there be some consistency in our condemnations.
A “consistency in our condemnations” is a necessary and worthwhile exercise, but must co-exist with some sort of sense of proportion.

Sorry to use WWII as an illustration again, but it is just too damn convenient!

It is right to condemn the area bombing of German civilians (while simultaneously recognizing the courage of the young men of Bomber Command, and the fact that they almost certainly believed they were doing their bit to destroy Nazism), but not to conclude that Britain and the rest of the West were therefore morally equivalent to Nazism.

The moral equivalence fallacy was far more prevalent during the Cold War, because it was more ideologically congenial to condemn anti-communists than it was to condemn anti-Nazis, but C.S. Lewis, in his essay Dangers Of National Repentance, dissects and exposes an existing attitude on the part of certain young people that, “Who are we to criticize the wickedness of Nazi Germany when we British are so wicked ourselves?”
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
The moral equivalence fallacy was far more prevalent during the Cold War, because it was more ideologically congenial to condemn anti-communists than it was to condemn anti-Nazis, but C.S. Lewis, in his essay Dangers Of National Repentance, dissects and exposes an existing attitude on the part of certain young people that, “Who are we to criticize the wickedness of Nazi Germany when we British are so wicked ourselves?”
Yeah, I'm pretty cautious about moral equivalencies myself. I find they often tend to be used by people who are simply apologists for a regime. As opposed to people who are sincerely trying to find the plank in their own eye.

In this thread, I've tried to avoid juxtaposing actual opponents in conflicts, eg. I haven't said that shooting deserters made the Union no better than the Confederacy. I'm assuming that both the Union(at least after Emancipation) and anti-apartheid were just struggles, and comparing their respective tactics, within the context of a level ethical playing field.

Though I will say that, in retrospect, the Rosenbergs probably did humanity a favour, though not for the reasons that they might have thought. I prefer Harry Truman to Joseph Stalin, but I also think it would have been a pretty bad thing for any one country to have the monopoly on nuclear weapons. Not that Russia(and the British, and the Chinese etc) wouldn't have gotten nukes eventually.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
We didn't herd people into gas chambers, but blew them up.

Go, us.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
We didn't herd people into gas chambers, but blew them up.

Go, us.
I get what you're saying. But do you think that there would have been no difference for overall human well-being had the Axis won World War II?
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
It'd clearly have been disastrous for some people and much better for others, which isn't really in doubt. There's an assumption, though, that we shouldn't examine the behaviour of the Allies because they were fighting on the 'right' side, which overlooks a number of things - chief among them the fact that the Soviet Union were headed by the most prolific mass-murderer in history.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Well KC, the Roman economy was a slave economy for a thousand years before becoming Christian and didn't skip a beat locally for over another thousand. The - our - Roman=Christian (aka Great Babylonian) slave economy accelerated in its - our - colonies for another three centuries.

Islam - a polarization reaction in kind to Babylonian-Roman Christianity - was a late, second division slaver by comparison with Christianity.

You don't question the fact of the Christian ruin of Africa I'm glad to see. Why not, surely?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0