Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So you're admitting that you haven't been bothered to read anyone else's posts.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you have arguments and evidence to the contrary I would be interested to here what they are.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:The ANC is not a saintly organisation and I well remember the ugly antics of Winnie Mandela, but the apartheid regime must bear the moral responsibility for a great deal of the blood and injustice. If you oppress a people for long enough, they WILL rise up against the regime that oppresses them and there WILL be violence. Human history proves this in spades.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It is said that his greatness lay in a peaceful transition to democracy but even that isn't true. The amount of political violence, much of it ANC violence, in the years of negotiation leading up to the 1994 elections was quite high.
quote:She also lobbied the South African government for his release from prison.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very telling that the thankfully x Iron Lady regarded him as the leader of "a typical terrorist organisation"
quote:Oh please, the PAC! And how might the PAC have come to power? They would have found it very difficult to come to a negotiated settlement with the apartheid government. Unlike the ANC they had no real financial, diplomatic or military support from outside South Africa and the idea that they could have defeated the South African state by force is an absolute joke. There was never any danger of the PAC coming to power.
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm afraid this is such an elementary question it hardly deserves a response. You need to read up about the PAC, because they - and all out civil war - were the alternative.
quote:Actually history proves nothing of the sort. Many oppressive governments have survived for long periods without any violent uprising. The violence tends to happen when the government in question has been weakened and is seen as vulnerable. The bulk of the violence in South Africa was between different black anti Apartheid groups the ANC, the IFP APAZO and the PAC fighting each other for power.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The ANC is not a saintly organisation and I well remember the ugly antics of Winnie Mandela, but the apartheid regime must bear the moral responsibility for a great deal of the blood and injustice. If you oppress a people for long enough, they WILL rise up against the regime that oppresses them and there WILL be violence. Human history proves this in spades.
quote:Right so you're saying that the reason for his greatness is that once he came to power he didn't launch a bloody ethnic conflict that would have resulted in carnage on all sides and would have completely wrecked the economy of South Africa, destroying the lives and livelihoods of those of his supporters who survived the conflict. In other words he didn't turn South Africa into the DRC. That's quite a low bar.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I don't know how old you were in 1994, but I was 32. I will never forget seeing in the media those long, long, long lines of black South Africans peacefully waiting to cast their vote, the fruits of a long, hard campaign for them to have the same rights as white people. Many of us were dreading a bloodbath, a civil war in South Africa, at that time ... and it didn't happen. This is due in no small part to Mandela's attitude: during his long years in prison, for example, he put aside any desire for revenge he might have had against white people.
quote:I don't suppose you'd like to prove this ridiculous statement, would you?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The bulk of the violence in South Africa was between different black anti Apartheid groups the ANC, the IFP APAZO and the PAC fighting each other for power.
quote:You think refusing to give into your desire for vengeance is easy when you have the power and there are people who support you who would cheer to see it? You think it is easy to see the people who murdered friends and colleagues go free because they told the truth about their crimes? To give up on the hope of justice for the sake of truth and forgiveness, do you have any idea what that costs?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you're saying that the reason for his greatness is that once he came to power he didn't launch a bloody ethnic conflict that would have resulted in carnage on all sides and would have completely wrecked the economy of South Africa, destroying the lives and livelihoods of those of his supporters who survived the conflict. In other words he didn't turn South Africa into the DRC. That's quite a low bar.
Mandela was one of the better post colonial African leaders but again that's a pretty low bar to pass and I've never understood all the hero worship of him.
quote:Bibliophile, I am beginning to be aware of an unfortunate pattern in your posting habits here. You begin with a controversial OP stating your own views and inviting comments. Then as the thread continues, you also seem to me to be more interested in stirring the pot (by provocative and dismissive responses such as above) than really engaging in discussion.
Posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you're saying that the reason for his greatness is that once he came to power he didn't launch a bloody ethnic conflict that would have resulted in carnage on all sides and would have completely wrecked the economy of South Africa, destroying the lives and livelihoods of those of his supporters who survived the conflict. In other words he didn't turn South Africa into the DRC. That's quite a low bar.
Mandela was one of the better post colonial African leaders but again that's a pretty low bar to pass and I've never understood all the hero worship of him.
quote:Mandela was a mighty unifying force, and talked to his enemies. That is no small accomplishment. Your interpretation of recent history seems astonishingly shallow.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you're saying that the reason for his greatness is that once he came to power he didn't launch a bloody ethnic conflict that would have resulted in carnage on all sides and would have completely wrecked the economy of South Africa, destroying the lives and livelihoods of those of his supporters who survived the conflict. In other words he didn't turn South Africa into the DRC. That's quite a low bar.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:This.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You think refusing to give into your desire for vengeance is easy when you have the power and there are people who support you who would cheer to see it? You think it is easy to see the people who murdered friends and colleagues go free because they told the truth about their crimes? To give up on the hope of justice for the sake of truth and forgiveness, do you have any idea what that costs?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Anyone who bothered to read his autobiography (which, admittedly, is quite long) would appreciate that the man who entered prison was an embittered guerilla warrior. I don't think one needs to "forget" that to appreciate that the guy chose to come out of prison and talk about leading a "rainbow" nation rather than leading a violent revolt. Which he could quite easily have done.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:Yeah, not like anyone here belongs to a religion that believes in forgiveness or redemption.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:Exactly. I'm so glad there are no Christian saints who started life as evildoers, but ended up mending their ways. That would be inconvenient to certain strands of anti-Mandela bullshit, sorry rhetoric, and we can't have that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, not like anyone here belongs to a religion that believes in forgiveness or redemption.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:I wrote the above comment because that is my genuine opinion. I sometimes start threads on controversial topics because those are often the most interesting ones to discuss.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And while we're at it ...
quote:Bibliophile, I am beginning to be aware of an unfortunate pattern in your posting habits here. You begin with a controversial OP stating your own views and inviting comments. Then as the thread continues, you also seem to me to be more interested in stirring the pot (by provocative and dismissive responses such as above) than really engaging in discussion.
Posted by Bibliophile:
Right so you're saying that the reason for his greatness is that once he came to power he didn't launch a bloody ethnic conflict that would have resulted in carnage on all sides and would have completely wrecked the economy of South Africa, destroying the lives and livelihoods of those of his supporters who survived the conflict. In other words he didn't turn South Africa into the DRC. That's quite a low bar.
Mandela was one of the better post colonial African leaders but again that's a pretty low bar to pass and I've never understood all the hero worship of him.
Now such behaviour, if it becomes a regular pattern in online discussions, has a name. It is called flame-baiting. And we actively discourage such patterns of behaviour here. Read Commandment 1.
So please watch your step re provocation - as opposed to genuine engagement. Else your behaviour will be referred to Admin for their view on the emerging pattern of posting.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:Sorry but I don't quite see why it matters? Mandela wasn't Gandhi, people know he wasn't strictly pacifist.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:Yes he could have led a violent revolt. It would have resulted in carnage on all sides. The South African economy would have collapsed. The South African government would have been forced to the negotiating table and a negotiated settlement could then have followed. However since it was clear that the South African government wanted a negotiated settlement anyway I don't see what the point of launching such a violent revolt would be. Going straight to negotiations would have been by far the most expedient path.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Anyone who bothered to read his autobiography (which, admittedly, is quite long) would appreciate that the man who entered prison was an embittered guerilla warrior. I don't think one needs to "forget" that to appreciate that the guy chose to come out of prison and talk about leading a "rainbow" nation rather than leading a violent revolt. Which he could quite easily have done.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:You're repeating yourself.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:You're repeating yourself.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:Can you give a source for that, please? I can only find that he was charged for incitement, several times, and leaving the country illegally. And accusations of terrorism.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That said, most people forget or overlook that he was in jail for armed robbery
quote:Success? What I'm perplexed by is your (claimed) confusion over hagiography of leaders of popular mass movements. It's commonplace enough throughout human history.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I can understand people agreeing with his opposition to apartheid, it was a terrible system, but I don't see any reason why Mandela is considered such an icon exceeding by far all other 'liberation struggle' leaders in Africa.
quote:I'm not really a fan of George Washington either but I see the point you're making.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Success? What I'm perplexed by is your (claimed) confusion over hagiography of leaders of popular mass movements. It's commonplace enough throughout human history.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I can understand people agreeing with his opposition to apartheid, it was a terrible system, but I don't see any reason why Mandela is considered such an icon exceeding by far all other 'liberation struggle' leaders in Africa.
quote:My post was in response to mr cheesy who suggested that Mandela had the option of starting a violent revolt when he got out of prison. Now the ANC was at no point capable of an outright military victory against the South African security services so the only point of such a revolt would have been to force the government to the negotiating table. Now given that they were ready to negotiate anyway by that point then launching such a revolt would have been not just impractical but utterly senseless, not to mention highly dangerous. It was not really an option for the ANC at that stage.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not sure what your point is, Bibliophile.
History is replete with people doing the impractical to the detriment of their cause/people because they felt they were right.
So doing the practical thing is not just meh. but it isn't that Mandela chose expediency. He could have chosen to negotiate but still hold a fire under those who committed wrong under apartheid. Instead, many walked free who strict justice would have in jail. There was plenty of room between absolute violence and the path Mandela chose. And most of the world would have not condemned a little retribution.
He chose a higher path, one that many would not have.
Pick any, verified, historical figure and I will show you their flaws. Doesn't mean they have no good.
quote:Setting up some kind of tribunal to punish leading Apartheid politicians and security service members who had committed crimes wold hav had its own problems. Mandela and the rest of the ANC needed to negotiate with those politicians. He also needed the co operation of the security services, not least to keep order in the country after he came to power. The prospect of any such tribunal would also have made some big corporations nervous that they might be attacked for their role in the Apartheid years and those corporations pulled a lot of weight diplomatically, and the ANC also needed diplomatic support.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He could have chosen to negotiate but still hold a fire under those who committed wrong under apartheid. Instead, many walked free who strict justice would have in jail. There was plenty of room between absolute violence and the path Mandela chose. And most of the world would have not condemned a little retribution.
He chose a higher path, one that many would not have.
Pick any, verified, historical figure and I will show you their flaws. Doesn't mean they have no good.
quote:No she didn't. It looks like that was a little white lie spread by Norman Tebbit and Charles Moore.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:She also lobbied the South African government for his release from prison.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very telling that the thankfully x Iron Lady regarded him as the leader of "a typical terrorist organisation"
quote:From my office - if I stand at the correct window and crane my neck a bit - I can see Nelson Mandela Park - so named in the early 1980s.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, Mandela had an iconic status before 1994. Just think of how many Student Union buildings in the UK had a bar or other room (or, indeed the entire building) named after him. There was just enough to lift him above the countless others who worked in opposition to apartheid for him to be lifted to that somewhat symbolic status, a face and a name for all the people imprisoned for their opposition to apartheid.
quote:I'm not interested n 'hating on' Mandela. As I said earlier he was one of the better post colonial African leaders.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Once again, Bibliophile, simply and by itself to avoid confusion.
Even if all he did was to handle the transition in a practical manner, that would be worthy of note.
Don't know why you want to hate on Mandela when there are lauded politicians who did harm to their peoples. Such as Reagan and Thatcher.
quote:I find that hard to believe. This is the third thread where you've gotten a bee in your bonnet about this particular subject. Most of your assertions seem geared towards denigrating the agency of black South Africans or asserting that the only effort needed to end Apartheid was for black South Africans to sit back and wait for their benevolent white overlords to do the right thing. As the black South African most identified with taking an active role (rather than the passive one you prefer) in ending Apartheid Mandela seems to have come in for particular sanction (pun intended). That's a lot of hating on something you say you're not really interested in hating on.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not interested n 'hating on' Mandela.
quote:What other options do you think he had then? As I pointed out earlier no revolutionary party can ever establish itself in power in a country without either the support of part of the ruling class of that country or the overt or covert support of foreign government(s). Every successful revolutionary movement in history has had either one or both of those things.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a bit of a stupid argument. Of course he had options. They may not have been good options, but he could have gone down alternative roads to running post-apartheid South Africa. Political life is not some form of deterministic process where there is only one choice, for better or worse all of our political leaders have considerable freedom to choose different paths.
They may have left the people worse off, they may have led to the type of tyranny we see in Zimbabwe. But, there were plenty of other options open to him.
quote:My focus here on 'saintliness' is an observation of the way so many people view him. Concerning 'benevolent white overlords' there was nothing 'benevolent' about the motives of those in power who sought to end apartheid, they were motivated by economic self interest. Also I don't think its 'denigrating' to point out if someone is in error.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I find that hard to believe. This is the third thread where you've gotten a bee in your bonnet about this particular subject. Most of your assertions seem geared towards denigrating the agency of black South Africans or asserting that the only effort needed to end Apartheid was for black South Africans to sit back and wait for their benevolent white overlords to do the right thing. As the black South African most identified with taking an active role (rather than the passive one you prefer) in ending Apartheid Mandela seems to have come in for particular sanction (pun intended). That's a lot of hating on something you say you're not really interested in hating on.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm not interested n 'hating on' Mandela.
Your focus on "saintliness" made me think of a recent incident of less international significance but related theme. Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly made the observation that a 14 year old victim of police brutality was "no saint", which seems to come up a lot when discussing black people being confronted with white authority figures. It seems to be some understood pre-requisite that any black person confronting a white power structure, no matter how abusive, is doing so illegitimately unless they're a saint. Non-sainthood seems to be seen a disqualifying factor for any action taken by anyone with dark skin.
quote:Who are these 'many people'? If there were 'many people', you ought to be able to find at least one on this thread who won't have anything said against Mandela.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My focus here on 'saintliness' is an observation of the way so many people view him.
quote:Which foreign governments supported the Bolsheviks?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What other options do you think he had then? As I pointed out earlier no revolutionary party can ever establish itself in power in a country without either the support of part of the ruling class of that country or the overt or covert support of foreign government(s). Every successful revolutionary movement in history has had either one or both of those things.
quote:Ok...
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:No she didn't. It looks like that was a little white lie spread by Norman Tebbit and Charles Moore.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:She also lobbied the South African government for his release from prison.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very telling that the thankfully x Iron Lady regarded him as the leader of "a typical terrorist organisation"
quote:Imperial Germany.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Which foreign governments supported the Bolsheviks?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What other options do you think he had then? As I pointed out earlier no revolutionary party can ever establish itself in power in a country without either the support of part of the ruling class of that country or the overt or covert support of foreign government(s). Every successful revolutionary movement in history has had either one or both of those things.
quote:A more fair representation would be that she mentioned it, but did not push that hard.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Ok...
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:No she didn't. It looks like that was a little white lie spread by Norman Tebbit and Charles Moore.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:She also lobbied the South African government for his release from prison.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very telling that the thankfully x Iron Lady regarded him as the leader of "a typical terrorist organisation"
quote:Ah yes, suggesting that trade sanctions could be staved off by letting one old man out of jail. She showed a lot more compassion to Pinochet who was genuinely evil.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Ok...
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:No she didn't. It looks like that was a little white lie spread by Norman Tebbit and Charles Moore.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:She also lobbied the South African government for his release from prison.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very telling that the thankfully x Iron Lady regarded him as the leader of "a typical terrorist organisation"
quote:Why would it be more fair? This account seems to be based entirely around events at a meeting in June 1984 but the letter is dated October 1985.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A more fair representation would be that she mentioned it, but did not push that hard.
quote:OK. 2 mentions. Got anything better?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Why would it be more fair? This account seems to be based entirely around events at a meeting in June 1984 but the letter is dated October 1985.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A more fair representation would be that she mentioned it, but did not push that hard.
quote:You might not be surprised to know that I don't have the totality of correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the South African government between 1979 and 1990 in front of me, but the remarks that Mrs Thatcher made in her letter to President Botha suggest to me that the release of Nelson Mandela had been raised in a more than perfunctory way.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:OK. 2 mentions. Got anything better?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Why would it be more fair? This account seems to be based entirely around events at a meeting in June 1984 but the letter is dated October 1985.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A more fair representation would be that she mentioned it, but did not push that hard.
quote:What would you have expected her to do other than mention it? Mentioning things is what politicians do when communicating with one another, how else could she have expressed herself?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:OK. 2 mentions. Got anything better?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Why would it be more fair? This account seems to be based entirely around events at a meeting in June 1984 but the letter is dated October 1985.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A more fair representation would be that she mentioned it, but did not push that hard.
quote:People keep saying this but it just wasn't a realistic option for the ANC at the time. Perhaps someone could outline what they think is a realistic scenario by which the ANC could have taken such a route and say what they think the outcome would have been.
Originally posted by Polly:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1990.
quote:It should be noted that non-violence is not necessarily a requirement for "saintliness", at least not traditionally.
Originally posted by Polly:
The ANC was fully non-violent to begin with despite the beatings and the displacements etc. I guess we all have our breaking points. Mandela's and his party had theirs.
After 69 people were killed by the police in Sharpeville in 1960 (many children were amongst the dead) Mandela felt he had to change tactics and use violence. This wasn't the last massacre they people had to witness.
It must have been an unbearable decision to make and I am not sure I could have stood that much persecution without resorting to some myself.
Mandela and his peers will have to give account of his actions to God just like we all have to do.
As some have posted above he was no saint though and is like a number of Biblical characters.
quote:Any violence wouldn't have been entirely at the ANC's instigation. If Mandela had pushed for revenge the white South Africans and especially the Afrikaners would have taken up arms against any new state, with very bloody results.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:People keep saying this but it just wasn't a realistic option for the ANC at the time. Perhaps someone could outline what they think is a realistic scenario by which the ANC could have taken such a route and say what they think the outcome would have been.
Originally posted by Polly:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1990.
quote:If Mandela had 'pushed for revenge' in 1990 then a negotiated settlement would have been impossible and then how would he have got any new state in the first place.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Any violence wouldn't have been entirely at the ANC's instigation. If Mandela had pushed for revenge the white South Africans and especially the Afrikaners would have taken up arms against any new state, with very bloody results.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:People keep saying this but it just wasn't a realistic option for the ANC at the time. Perhaps someone could outline what they think is a realistic scenario by which the ANC could have taken such a route and say what they think the outcome would have been.
Originally posted by Polly:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1990.
quote:One difficulty with that is that the majority of deaths from political violence during the 1948-1994 apartheid period died in the years 1990-1994, 14,000 out of 21,000 (this means, rather shockingly that most of those killed in political violence during Apartheid were still alive when Mandela was released from gaol). Most of these were killed in, so called 'black on black' violence between the ANC and the IFP as well as other parties. The ANC has attributed this violence to a state sponsored 'third force' but the fact remains that the majority of 'low level murdurers belonged to various black parties. Now the ANC is hardly going to want to prosecute it own people so such a prosecution would mean prosecuting people in opposition parties, which would mean a new upsurge of violence with those parties.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Well, following the first free elections Mandela could have instituted a criminal tribunal along the lines of that convened in Germany in 1945 to prosecute those involved in the crimes of the regime, and executed those found guilty. There are also parallels with what happened in Iraq and Libya recently where former leaders and their associates have been executed for crimes committed on their watch. Even if he had to promise immunity for the senior apartheid leaders in order for a peaceful transition, he could have taken a very different line dealing with the low level torturers and murderers from that taken by the truth and reconciliation commission.
quote:He could easily have "Done a Mugabe" and promised peace and cooperation then reneged. Many politicians make commitments in manifestos then once in power ditch anything they are uncomfortable with.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If Mandela had 'pushed for revenge' in 1990 then a negotiated settlement would have been impossible and then how would he have got any new state in the first place.
quote:So true and re-reading my comments I feel I could have made that bit more clearer.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It should be noted that non-violence is not necessarily a requirement for "saintliness", at least not traditionally.
Originally posted by Polly:
The ANC was fully non-violent to begin with despite the beatings and the displacements etc. I guess we all have our breaking points. Mandela's and his party had theirs.
After 69 people were killed by the police in Sharpeville in 1960 (many children were amongst the dead) Mandela felt he had to change tactics and use violence. This wasn't the last massacre they people had to witness.
It must have been an unbearable decision to make and I am not sure I could have stood that much persecution without resorting to some myself.
Mandela and his peers will have to give account of his actions to God just like we all have to do.
As some have posted above he was no saint though and is like a number of Biblical characters.
quote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we in the west are able to have an objectivity about all these events.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:People keep saying this but it just wasn't a realistic option for the ANC at the time. Perhaps someone could outline what they think is a realistic scenario by which the ANC could have taken such a route and say what they think the outcome would have been.
Originally posted by Polly:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1990.
quote:Indeed. And any attempt to serve victor's justice against opposition parties, especially the IFP, could have led to renewed violence. The new government would then have had to rely on the security forces to restore order at a time when many in those forces would be worried about the prospect of being subject to 'victor's justice' themselves. Do you not see how that could be a huge problem for the new government?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Victor's justice usually only involves prosecuting your opponents. Bomber Harris was never prosecuted for war crimes, for example.
quote:Suppose it had led to civil war and violent ethnic cleansing. Now the facts were that the white South African government was far better armed than the ANC, that millions of black Africans were at the time dependent on white dominated corporations for work, the the SA government was dependent on the same employers for tax revenue and that most of the South African population was dependent on mostly white farmers to eat.
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we in the west are able to have an objectivity about all these events.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:People keep saying this but it just wasn't a realistic option for the ANC at the time. Perhaps someone could outline what they think is a realistic scenario by which the ANC could have taken such a route and say what they think the outcome would have been.
Originally posted by Polly:
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1990.
I don't know if you know any South Africans well enough who were around at the time of Apartheid but I have spoken to quite a number especially on this last trip?
The perception at the time was that civil unrest and even a continued arms struggle could have easily developed and who knows where this could have led.
quote:Mugabe kept to his agreement. Ian Smith and others were never prosecuted and indeed Smith lived on his farm in Zimbabwe without bodyguards for twenty five years after Mugabe came to power. The violent farm invasions happened after the agreement was broken by the Blair government in the UK which stopped providing money for land reform farm purchases as agreed.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:He could easily have "Done a Mugabe" and promised peace and cooperation then reneged. Many politicians make commitments in manifestos then once in power ditch anything they are uncomfortable with.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If Mandela had 'pushed for revenge' in 1990 then a negotiated settlement would have been impossible and then how would he have got any new state in the first place.
quote:Indeed. A brutal dictator willing to slaughter 20,000 of his own citizens nevertheless let Ian Smith live peacefully on his farm for a quarter of a century and largely kept to the terms of his agreement until it was broken by the UK government. That suggests to me that the agreement was not kept because of any generosity of spirit but because of political necessity. That necessity would have been even stronger in South africa.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
20,000 dead Matabeles might disagree.
quote:I suspect "convenience" is a better term for what you're describing than "necessity". After all, if keeping the arrangement was a necessity of Mugabe retaining power, we would expect him to be overthrown in the wake of the arrangement's collapse.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Indeed. A brutal dictator willing to slaughter 20,000 of his own citizens nevertheless let Ian Smith live peacefully on his farm for a quarter of a century and largely kept to the terms of his agreement until it was broken by the UK government. That suggests to me that the agreement was not kept because of any generosity of spirit but because of political necessity. That necessity would have been even stronger in South africa.
quote:I'm not, as you've already mentioned Mugabe had shown his true nature well before then. I'm noting its a matter of historical record that it was the Blair government that broke the agreement on land reform first.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm no fan of Tony Blair. Can't stand the smarmy twit. But pinning Robert Mugabe's excesses on him is a bit rich, I think.
quote:You wrote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I'm not, as you've already mentioned Mugabe had shown his true nature well before then. I'm noting its a matter of historical record that it was the Blair government that broke the agreement on land reform first.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm no fan of Tony Blair. Can't stand the smarmy twit. But pinning Robert Mugabe's excesses on him is a bit rich, I think.
quote:Are you saying that the violent farm invasions and the ending of funding were co-incidental? If you are, I'm not sure why you mentioned them together in the way that you did.
The violent farm invasions happened after the agreement was broken by the Blair government in the UK which stopped providing money for land reform farm purchases as agreed.
quote:Yes black people vastly outnumbered white people. Your relatives saw this and like many people concluded 'the black people are the vast majority of the population, if they were to rise up together they would easily win power'. It doesn't work like that. A general uprising would have had all the problems I mentioned in the post you replied to.
Originally posted by Polly:
@ Bibliophile
I am not sure you are really understanding what was going on at the time.
I had family from the States living in JoBurg during the 1980's and we got to visit a couple of times.
Many of the 'Whites' had a real fear that if Mandela did get freed then things may lead to civil war. Black people vastly outnumbered white people and it was known even then that Mandela had the potential in being able to unite the different tribes and political parties (ANC, PAC etc).
quote:I'm not arguing that Mugabe isn't a murderous tyrant whose reaction to the UK government breaking the agreement wasn't entirely unjustified and inhumane. I'm just pointing out that it was the UK government who were, in this case, the ones to break the agreement.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:You wrote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I'm not, as you've already mentioned Mugabe had shown his true nature well before then. I'm noting its a matter of historical record that it was the Blair government that broke the agreement on land reform first.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm no fan of Tony Blair. Can't stand the smarmy twit. But pinning Robert Mugabe's excesses on him is a bit rich, I think.quote:Are you saying that the violent farm invasions and the ending of funding were co-incidental? If you are, I'm not sure why you mentioned them together in the way that you did.
The violent farm invasions happened after the agreement was broken by the Blair government in the UK which stopped providing money for land reform farm purchases as agreed.
If you're saying that one caused the other, you appear to be blaming the farm invasions on Blair.
quote:Very interesting article I found here that suggests that this myth you believe in is simply not true.
Originally posted by Polly:
We have just returned from holiday in Cape Town and amongst the places we got to visit included Robben Island and the District 6 museum.
Before we went it was a little difficult to fully appreciate how South Africans perceived Mandela.
The ANC was fully non-violent to begin with despite the beatings and the displacements etc. I guess we all have our breaking points. Mandela's and his party had theirs.
After 69 people were killed by the police in Sharpeville in 1960 (many children were amongst the dead) Mandela felt he had to change tactics and use violence. This wasn't the last massacre they people had to witness.
It must have been an unbearable decision to make and I am not sure I could have stood that much persecution without resorting to some myself.
Mandela and his peers will have to give account of his actions to God just like we all have to do.
quote:
Officially, Mandela was a moderate black nationalist, clinging to hope of peaceful change until it was extinguished by the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. But in the prison memoir we find him plotting war as early as 1953, when he sent a comrade on a secret mission to beg guns and money from Red China, in flagrant violation of the ANC’s non-aligned and non-violent stance.
‘I was bitter and felt ever more strongly that SA whites need another Isandlwana,’ he explains. Driving around the country, Mandela constantly imagines rural landscapes as battlefields and cities as places where one day soon ‘the sweet air will smell of gunfire, elegant buildings will crash down and streets will be splashed with blood’. These vivid quotes did not make it into the bestseller.
quote:and then there's this
Emboldened, the ANC tackled cruel potato farmers, and brought them down too. Soon it was organising consumer boycotts all over the country, and often winning. At the same time, it was behind the ceaseless protests against the pass laws for women while winning stunning victories in the Treason Trial and elsewhere. The cost in ANC lives: zero. ‘To the best of my knowledge,’ writes Mandela, ‘no individuals [meaning political detainees] were isolated, forced to give information, beaten up, tortured, crippled or killed’ prior to December 1961, when the communists started their bombing campaign (see page 302).
Clearly, this could not be allowed to stand. It spoils the plot completely!
quote:sheds a rather different light on things.
In Long Walk, Mandela notes that the strike was completely effective in towns where it was enforced by violence or pickets. ‘I have always resisted such methods,’ he says, but goes on to reason that coercion is acceptable in cases where a dissident minority is blocking a majority. ‘A minority should not be able to frustrate the will of the majority,’ he concludes.
But in the prison manuscript, he says the opposite. ‘This is not a question of principle or wishful thinking,’ he says. ‘If force will advance [the struggle], then it must be used whether or not the majority agrees with us.’
quote:'The point'? Which point?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[Note to admins, I know normally long quotes are discouraged but I think in this case they are necessary to illustrate the point]
quote:Don't forget he was racist and imperialist.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Winston Churchill was often drunk. He was a failed politician, a terrible tactician and not a very good general. Why not have a pop at him?
quote:The hagiography around Mandela is widespread and elements of it have been shown in this thread. The hagiography says a number of things. It says that Mandela and the ANC started out peacefully but that they were driven to violence by the violence of the state. It says that all Mandela wanted was a better South Africa. It says that when he came out of prison he had the opportunity to wreak a terrible revenge on his oppressors but chose not to do so out of his personal magnanimity. None of these things are true.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:'The point'? Which point?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[Note to admins, I know normally long quotes are discouraged but I think in this case they are necessary to illustrate the point]
That Mandela was engaged in an armed struggle against apartheid isn't news. All you're doing is arguing about the timing of it.
Again: no one here is denying what you seem to believe we're all denying. There may or may not be a hagiography around Mandela, but folk here don't subscribe to it. That doesn't stop us from holding his example of post-conflict peacemaking in high esteem.
quote:He isn't proving anything. Bibliophile is asserting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bibliophile, I fail to understand what it is that you think you are proving.
quote:The reason I'm 'having a pop', as you put it, with Mandela isn't because he was some kind of uniquely terrible leader, he wasn't. He did indeed negotiate a more or less peaceful settlement, he was far from being the worst president in African history and he did retire from office peacefully.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Winston Churchill was often drunk. He was a failed politician, a terrible tactician and not a very good general. Why not have a pop at him?
quote:If you would like to point out which of my points I've failed to provide evidence for I would be grateful.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:He isn't proving anything. Bibliophile is asserting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bibliophile, I fail to understand what it is that you think you are proving.
quote:You provide plenty of argument, but invariably abstract. The evidence has been opinionated and unreliable.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:If you would like to point out which of my points I've failed to provide evidence for I would be grateful.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:He isn't proving anything. Bibliophile is asserting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bibliophile, I fail to understand what it is that you think you are proving.
quote:Yes Mandela managed a negotiated settlement that managed to transition without falling into civil war. So did De Klerk. The difference is De Klerk doesn't get the hero worship Mandela does.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact is that these things happened and despite the difficulties, multiracial South Africa emerged from apartheid without a full civil war. Even if Mandela was a lying scheming bastard (and brilliant actor), I can't see that this is a bad thing.
quote:As Sioni Sais says: these are just assertions. Mandela has had more words written about him than almost any late 20th century political figure - you can more or less pick a historian who agrees with your preformed opinion.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
None of these things are true.
quote:Because DeKlerk was part of an oppressive regime bowing to the inevitable? Getting favourable press ahead of the end so to escape justice?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The difference is De Klerk doesn't get the hero worship Mandela does.
quote:Thinking on a bit, it's a bit like our old friend proof-texting. There's precious little that can't be backed up with scripture, especially if one ignores other sources, occasionally in the same chapter.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:As Sioni Sais says: these are just assertions. Mandela has had more words written about him than almost any late 20th century political figure - you can more or less pick a historian who agrees with your preformed opinion.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
None of these things are true.
He's an iconic figure to many on the left. You think his reputation could do with taking down a peg or two. The two are not unconnected.
quote:Oh I think that iconic figures on the right could do with being taken down a peg or two as well. The way that the American right hero worships charlatan Ronald Reagan is absurd. I could start a thread here on that topic but there would be little point. Almost everyone here would agree with that point of view so there would be little to discuss. If this forum had been dominated by posters from the American right then I might have started a thread on Reagan. But here it would just be 'Reagan was terrible because of x,y,z' 'I agree, an awful man' 'I also agree, I would add his was also bad because of a,b,c. One of the worst Presidents ever'. You see what I mean, it wouldn't be a very interesting thread.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:As Sioni Sais says: these are just assertions. Mandela has had more words written about him than almost any late 20th century political figure - you can more or less pick a historian who agrees with your preformed opinion.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
None of these things are true.
He's an iconic figure to many on the left. You think his reputation could do with taking down a peg or two. The two are not unconnected.
quote:De Klerk supported an oppressive ideology (apartheid), Mandela supported an even more oppressive ideology (Marxist Leninism). De Klerk was implicated in state violence, Mandela was implicated in terrorist violence. Mandela reconciled and negotiated with his enemies to make a peaceful transition to democracy, De Klerk reconciled and negotiated with his enemies to make a peaceful transition to democracy. Why do you think De Klerk so much worse?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Because DeKlerk was part of an oppressive regime bowing to the inevitable? Getting favourable press ahead of the end so to escape justice?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The difference is De Klerk doesn't get the hero worship Mandela does.
quote:So you're admitting that you haven't been bothered to read anyone else's posts.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you have arguments and evidence to the contrary I would be interested to here what they are.
quote:An opinion with, yet again, no evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
De Klerk supported an oppressive ideology (apartheid), Mandela supported an even more oppressive ideology (Marxist Leninism).
quote:I'll give the link again here .
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:An opinion with, yet again, no evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
De Klerk supported an oppressive ideology (apartheid), Mandela supported an even more oppressive ideology (Marxist Leninism).
quote:I have read all of them and indeed replied to many of them. The trouble is many of them contained assertions without evidence. For example a number of people asserted without argument that Mandela 'could easily have led a violent revolt if he had wanted revenge'. I have replied with arguments and evidence that this wasn't true. The only argument I've seen on this thread defending the assertion is polly's point that 'the blacks vastly outnumbered the whites' which as I've pointed out doesn't cover it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So you're admitting that you haven't been bothered to read anyone else's posts.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you have arguments and evidence to the contrary I would be interested to here what they are.
quote:I quote the author:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I'll give the link again here .
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:An opinion with, yet again, no evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
De Klerk supported an oppressive ideology (apartheid), Mandela supported an even more oppressive ideology (Marxist Leninism).
quote:Have you ever spoken to any South Africans (particularly those who would have been classed as Blacks/Coloureds) who experienced apartheid?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I have read all of them and indeed replied to many of them. The trouble is many of them contained assertions without evidence. For example a number of people asserted without argument that Mandela 'could easily have led a violent revolt if he had wanted revenge'. I have replied with arguments and evidence that this wasn't true. The only argument I've seen on this thread defending the assertion is polly's point that 'the blacks vastly outnumbered the whites' which as I've pointed out doesn't cover it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So you're admitting that you haven't been bothered to read anyone else's posts.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you have arguments and evidence to the contrary I would be interested to here what they are.
quote:Everyone that we hold up as exemplars, iconic figures or otherwise consider worthy of respect have their shortcomings - though one might not include Jesus Christ in that list. Indeed it's possibly the people who made some poor decisions and yet still managed to turn away from those to contribute to something remarkable that make the more iconic figures - and, the relatively peaceful end to apartheid and the transition to a multiracial democracy without descending to the tyranny and brutality of many post-colonial governments is something worth celebrating. And, there can be no doubt that Mandela contributed to that.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think that iconic figures on the right could do with being taken down a peg or two as well. The way that the American right hero worships charlatan Ronald Reagan is absurd.
quote:Also, if I try to sing Free Frederik Willem de Klerk the words don't seem to fit properly.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Because DeKlerk was part of an oppressive regime bowing to the inevitable? Getting favourable press ahead of the end so to escape justice?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The difference is De Klerk doesn't get the hero worship Mandela does.
quote:Despite his undeniable contribution in bankrupting the USSR, of course - which is widely acknowledged.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh I think that iconic figures on the right could do with being taken down a peg or two as well. The way that the American right hero worships charlatan Ronald Reagan is absurd.
quote:Here is a New Staesman article that confirms Mandela's Communist Party Central Committee membership
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I quote the author:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I'll give the link again here .
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:An opinion with, yet again, no evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
De Klerk supported an oppressive ideology (apartheid), Mandela supported an even more oppressive ideology (Marxist Leninism).
"I went to see the movie version of Long Walk to Freedom armed with a pen and ready to fight yet another rearguard action for Afrikaner honour"
If he's being ironic, then it disqualifies the entire article (you don't use irony in exposes), if he's serious (which you think he is and I agree) then he reveals his purpose and motive.
It's worth remembering the Spectator's political stance - have a look at the comments which give a clue about its position. What would you think of something published in the New Statesman?
quote:With all respect to those people the understanding that ordinary people of South Africa had of strategic issues would have been slim to none.
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:Have you ever spoken to any South Africans (particularly those who would have been classed as Blacks/Coloureds) who experienced apartheid?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I have read all of them and indeed replied to many of them. The trouble is many of them contained assertions without evidence. For example a number of people asserted without argument that Mandela 'could easily have led a violent revolt if he had wanted revenge'. I have replied with arguments and evidence that this wasn't true. The only argument I've seen on this thread defending the assertion is polly's point that 'the blacks vastly outnumbered the whites' which as I've pointed out doesn't cover it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So you're admitting that you haven't been bothered to read anyone else's posts.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If you have arguments and evidence to the contrary I would be interested to here what they are.
quote:What you have just described is visiting a shrine and having a religious experience.
Originally posted by Polly:
Have you travelled to the places that mattered in South Africa like listening to first hand stories from a prisoner at Robben Island or those who come from the Townships?
It seems that you are preferring to listen to a political narrative that is purely from a hindsight perspective rather than listen to those who were there? I find your comments based on an idealised logic which has no place in historical reality.
The stories of apartheid were often ones of passion and belief and not on a logic that you have attempted to outline.
quote:Whether or not critising idols is easy doesn't stop it from being a worthwhile thing to do.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Despite his undeniable contribution in bankrupting the USSR, of course - which is widely acknowledged.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh I think that iconic figures on the right could do with being taken down a peg or two as well. The way that the American right hero worships charlatan Ronald Reagan is absurd.
Iconoclasm is easy. Almost pathetically easy. Whereas doing actual history is hard.
quote:Well, no. I don't think it is another issue. I think it all comes back to you having a very idiosyncratic view of history that is deliberately and provocatively against the broad and nuanced consensus, arrived at by people who have actually studied the evidence in the round.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Reagan's 'contribution to bankrupting the USSR' far from being undeniable is a highly controversial question, but that's another issue.
quote:What you have just described is that you still do not appreciate anything that is being discussed on this thread!
Bibliophile posted:
What you have just described is visiting a shrine and having a religious experience.
quote:In the issue of Reagan bankrupting the USSR there is no such consensus. There is plenty of debate on what role Reagan played in ending the Cold War but the view that he helped to bankrupt the USSR is highly contested. I don't mind challenging a consensus if I think its warranted but in this case I'm not doing that. I'm making the point that the claim is not 'undeniable' and no 'broad and nuanced consensus' in its favour exists.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, no. I don't think it is another issue. I think it all comes back to you having a very idiosyncratic view of history that is deliberately and provocatively against the broad and nuanced consensus, arrived at by people who have actually studied the evidence in the round.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Reagan's 'contribution to bankrupting the USSR' far from being undeniable is a highly controversial question, but that's another issue.
quote:Plenty of people do think he was a saint. Plenty more people who would not like to use the word 'saint' about him still consider him to have been some kind of moral giant or moral icon and that view has been repeatedly expressed in this thread. I've just pointed out the flaws in this way of thinking.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So Mandela isn't a saint. We know this. Yet you want to chip away at his obvious achievements. According to you, nothing good can possibly be laid at his door. That's not iconoclasm as such, merely illiteracy.
quote:As has been repeatedly expressed on this thread is the view that being a saint/moral giant/moral icon does not mean someone was perfect. Therefore, evidence of imperfection does not equate to evidence against being a saint/moral giant/moral icon.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Plenty of people do think he was a saint. Plenty more people who would not like to use the word 'saint' about him still consider him to have been some kind of moral giant or moral icon and that view has been repeatedly expressed in this thread. I've just pointed out the flaws in this way of thinking.
quote:This analysis seems to rely on your usual assumption of lack of agency on the part of South Africa's non-white population. The South African economy, then as now, was highly geared towards extraction industries and agriculture, things that white owners couldn't pack in a suitcase and take with them if they fled the country. Your analysis seems to depend on the assumption that non-white South Africans lacked the mental wherewithal or training to run the mines and farms where they already worked. BTW, "white farmers" should probably be better expressed as "white-owned commercial farms". Assuming an all-white labor force for white-owned South African businesses is a bit precious. Assuming a black farm hand or miner can't remember how to operate a tractor or drill without a white supervisor constantly reminding him is something else entirely. Interestingly (though perhaps unsurprisingly) this "black South Africans can't do anything without white folks in charge" premise is one of the underlying assumptions of the Apartheid system.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Suppose it had led to civil war and violent ethnic cleansing. Now the facts were that the white South African government was far better armed than the ANC, that millions of black Africans were at the time dependent on white dominated corporations for work, the the SA government was dependent on the same employers for tax revenue and that most of the South African population was dependent on mostly white farmers to eat.
quote:For some reason the expectation of non-violence seems to mostly apply to situations where non-white people are struggling against white oppressors. For example, no one in the West really condemned various Libyan groups from resorting to violence against Qaddafi. Nor do we usually consider it to be some kind of unforgivable wrong when Romanians violently overthrew Ceaușescu. And as I've mentioned before you can lead a violent campaign to expel the English and their Burgundian allies from France and be considered a literal saint. But black people using violence against white oppressors? That's an unparalleled evil!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The story of stoical non-violent Mandela forced by the violence of the state to turn to violence, then propelled to power by 'people power' and then making peace with his defeated oppressors out of pure benevolence is simply not true.
quote:That doesn't sound particularly respectful. In a lot of ways you seem to have re-created the legend of the "outside agitator" that was popular in the U.S. during the Civil Rights movement. The basic theme is that everyone, white and black, was perfectly content under Segregation/Apartheid until outside groups like the NAACP/ANC started convincing black people that they didn't really like Segregation/Apartheid. You seem to assume that absent some kind of 'outside agitation' South Africa's non-white population would have been content to continue under Apartheid indefinitely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
With all respect to those people the understanding that ordinary people of South Africa had of strategic issues would have been slim to none.
quote:You'll struggle to find anyone hereabouts who think Mandela was saintly. He was flawed, but led his people wisely and bravely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Plenty of people do think he was a saint. Plenty more people who would not like to use the word 'saint' about him still consider him to have been some kind of moral giant or moral icon and that view has been repeatedly expressed in this thread. I've just pointed out the flaws in this way of thinking.
quote:That's not enough, though. His achievements must be belittled, and his character traduced. If his feet are of clay, he must be toppled!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:You'll struggle to find anyone hereabouts who think Mandela was saintly. He was flawed, but led his people wisely and bravely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Plenty of people do think he was a saint. Plenty more people who would not like to use the word 'saint' about him still consider him to have been some kind of moral giant or moral icon and that view has been repeatedly expressed in this thread. I've just pointed out the flaws in this way of thinking.
A bit like King David I suppose.
quote:That pathetic lip-synch attempt is dragging down the tone of Purgatory. Here is a much more sensible one.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No more heroes anymore...
quote:Certainly someone can have many imperfections and still be considered a moral giant. However I would say that in order for someone to be considered a moral giant there should be some kind of evidence for moral greatness. I am not simply pointing out imperfections in the man, everyone has those. I'm pointing out the flaws in the arguments in favour of him possessing moral greatness.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:As has been repeatedly expressed on this thread is the view that being a saint/moral giant/moral icon does not mean someone was perfect. Therefore, evidence of imperfection does not equate to evidence against being a saint/moral giant/moral icon.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Plenty of people do think he was a saint. Plenty more people who would not like to use the word 'saint' about him still consider him to have been some kind of moral giant or moral icon and that view has been repeatedly expressed in this thread. I've just pointed out the flaws in this way of thinking.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Knowing how to do a job on a farm or in a mine is one thing. Actually running the place is something else. Of course Africans could do that with the appropriate education, training and practise. However those are not things that can be obtained overnight. A gradual process of training people up for roles, gradual land reform and quotas to enable people to gain experience could be an effective way to 'Africanise' the higher levels of the workforce. That is the route South Africa has taken, its the route a number of developing countries have taken, even then there can be problems but its a realistic if not problem free route. Suddenly expropriating businesses without any such gradual handover process however can be economically disastrous, as the experience of places like Zimbabwe and Uganda demonstrate.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This analysis seems to rely on your usual assumption of lack of agency on the part of South Africa's non-white population. The South African economy, then as now, was highly geared towards extraction industries and agriculture, things that white owners couldn't pack in a suitcase and take with them if they fled the country. Your analysis seems to depend on the assumption that non-white South Africans lacked the mental wherewithal or training to run the mines and farms where they already worked. BTW, "white farmers" should probably be better expressed as "white-owned commercial farms". Assuming an all-white labor force for white-owned South African businesses is a bit precious. Assuming a black farm hand or miner can't remember how to operate a tractor or drill without a white supervisor constantly reminding him is something else entirely. Interestingly (though perhaps unsurprisingly) this "black South Africans can't do anything without white folks in charge" premise is one of the underlying assumptions of the Apartheid system.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Suppose it had led to civil war and violent ethnic cleansing. Now the facts were that the white South African government was far better armed than the ANC, that millions of black Africans were at the time dependent on white dominated corporations for work, the the SA government was dependent on the same employers for tax revenue and that most of the South African population was dependent on mostly white farmers to eat.
quote:Its not disrespectful to point out that ordinary people in South Africa, like ordinary people everywhere, would have a very limited understanding of strategic questions. Every single successful revolutionary party or movement in history has succeeded with the help of either part of the ruling class in its own country or of the ruling class of another country. Every single one without exception.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That doesn't sound particularly respectful. In a lot of ways you seem to have re-created the legend of the "outside agitator" that was popular in the U.S. during the Civil Rights movement. The basic theme is that everyone, white and black, was perfectly content under Segregation/Apartheid until outside groups like the NAACP/ANC started convincing black people that they didn't really like Segregation/Apartheid. You seem to assume that absent some kind of 'outside agitation' South Africa's non-white population would have been content to continue under Apartheid indefinitely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
With all respect to those people the understanding that ordinary people of South Africa had of strategic issues would have been slim to none.
quote:Although to be fair that doesn't explain George Washington.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is another explanation, it may not be politics at all. It may just be because Mandela was black.
quote:This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Knowing how to do a job on a farm or in a mine is one thing. Actually running the place is something else. Of course Africans could do that with the appropriate education, training and practise. However those are not things that can be obtained overnight. A gradual process of training people up for roles, gradual land reform and quotas to enable people to gain experience could be an effective way to 'Africanise' the higher levels of the workforce.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This analysis seems to rely on your usual assumption of lack of agency on the part of South Africa's non-white population. The South African economy, then as now, was highly geared towards extraction industries and agriculture, things that white owners couldn't pack in a suitcase and take with them if they fled the country. Your analysis seems to depend on the assumption that non-white South Africans lacked the mental wherewithal or training to run the mines and farms where they already worked. BTW, "white farmers" should probably be better expressed as "white-owned commercial farms". Assuming an all-white labor force for white-owned South African businesses is a bit precious. Assuming a black farm hand or miner can't remember how to operate a tractor or drill without a white supervisor constantly reminding him is something else entirely. Interestingly (though perhaps unsurprisingly) this "black South Africans can't do anything without white folks in charge" premise is one of the underlying assumptions of the Apartheid system.
quote:The Iranian Revolution would seem to be an exception.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Every single successful revolutionary party or movement in history has succeeded with the help of either part of the ruling class in its own country or of the ruling class of another country. Every single one without exception.
quote:No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although to be fair that doesn't explain George Washington.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is another explanation, it may not be politics at all. It may just be because Mandela was black.
quote:The French Revolution (where they seemed to take an active delight in ridding themselves of the ruling classes). The Russian Revolution (ditto). Cuba. The Norman invasion of England.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Iranian Revolution would seem to be an exception.
quote:Home grown (if "home" includes English possessions on the other side of the Channel) but definitely involved "part of the ruling class".
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not so sure about the King Stephen v 'Queen' Eleanor war or the Wars of the Roses, but they appear to be home-grown affairs too.
quote:Surely the "Ruling class" are involved in some way? They aren't going to stand by doing nothing. The clue is in the term "ruling".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Home grown (if "home" includes English possessions on the other side of the Channel) but definitely involved "part of the ruling class".
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not so sure about the King Stephen v 'Queen' Eleanor war or the Wars of the Roses, but they appear to be home-grown affairs too.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Lego version of the above can be found here.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Judging on form, and some of Bibliophile's comments on other threads, I suspect George Washington falls short of 'moral greatness' on the grounds of rebelling against the legitimate government of the day - namely the British Crown.
Bibliophile doesn't believe in rebellion against 'God-ordained' authorities on the basis of the opening section of Romans 13 which is all about submitting ourselves to governing authorities which 'God has established' ...
Romans 13: 1-7
Which is fair enough - but it begs the question whether the USA should actually exist and whether it should repudiate its wicked rebellion against his Britannic Majesty's government and eschew its independence forthwith ...
It would also call into question the existence of any state or system that has come into existence through force of arms - either by internal rebellion against a previous regime or by external intervention ...
Which pretty much rules out most countries in the world, it seems to me ...
And of course, taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that it would have been sinful to resist Hitler or Stalin because their authority too was God-given and it would have been wrong to rebel - or even resist them ...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Well yes, or the relatives/descendants of Richard III, perhaps ...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Ah, but the house of Hannover were not the legitimate holders of the British crown, as every good Jacobite knows. At the time of the colonial tax dodgers' rebellion (as I have decided to take to calling it) the true ruler of Britain was in fact The King over the Water, Charles III.
quote:Richard had no legitimate heirs, King Harold's heirs were disinherited but the Stuarts are descendants of earlier Anglo-Saxon Kings, including Alfred. Fun isn't it?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, or the relatives/descendants of Richard III, perhaps ...
Or the descendants of King Harold, so cruelly conquered in 1066 ...
Or the descendants of various Welsh chieftains ...
Or ...
Or ...
quote:One the reasons for the conflict between Stephen and Matilda was because England in the Middle Ages couldn't accept a female head of state due their understanding of the nature of kingship. Queens couldn't lead armies into battle for a start.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The English Civil War was initiated by the English against a king influenced by a foreign queen. I'm not so sure about the King Stephen v 'Queen' Eleanor war or the Wars of the Roses, but they appear to be home-grown affairs too. If one considers the unification of Italy to be a revolution then that must qualify too.
I suppose we will be told that none of these were revolutions, but will any evidence be supplied?
quote:Part of England couldn't accept a female head of state. There wouldn't have been much of a conflict if none of the nobility in England could have accepted Matilda as queen.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
One the reasons for the conflict between Stephen and Matilda was because England in the Middle Ages couldn't accept a female head of state due their understanding of the nature of kingship.
quote:Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
quote:Subsistence farming wouldn't be enough to feed South Africa's large urban population. Don't forget that in the case of violent upheaval those that gain control of the management of the farms are not likely to be the most competant but are more likely to be ambitious political bosses looking for land to grab. This is exactly what happened after the farm invasions in Zim a few years ago and it resulted in that country becoming reliant on food aid.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Beside, let's remember that your assertion wasn't so much "lack the managerial skills to run something as a commercially successful enterprise", it was "forgets how to grow food at all on the same farm they've been working for years". That's the level of incompetence you're positing with your mass starvation scenario.
quote:No it wouldn't. Don't you think that there were members of the ruling class who didn't like the Shah's corruption but didn't want a communist state to be established and so went over to supporting the Islamists. For example
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Iranian Revolution would seem to be an exception.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Every single successful revolutionary party or movement in history has succeeded with the help of either part of the ruling class in its own country or of the ruling class of another country. Every single one without exception.
quote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/06/07/khomeini-is-reported-to-have-a-savak-of-his-own/
Though it came to power denouncing the shah's dreaded SAVAK secret service, the government of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has created a new internal security and intelligence operation, apparently with a similar organizational structure and some of the same faces as its predecessor.
The new organization is called SAVAMA. It is run, according to U.S. sources and Iranian exile sources here and in Paris, by Gen. Hossein Fardoust, who was deputy chief of SAVAK under the former shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and a friend from boyhood of the deposed monarch...
In Paris, a French lawyer who specializes in representing Iranian exiles told Washington Post correspondent Ronald Koven that "SAVAMA is SAVAK without any change in structure. They just replaced some of the chiefs. It is strikingly like the way the Soviet Cheka was formed out of the old Tsarist Okhrana," a reference to the evolution in Moscow of a political police force after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution...
Fardoust is the mystery man in the SAVAK-SAVAMA evolution. A longtime friend, classmate and confidant of the shah. Fardoust, Tabatabai says, was also head of a special SAVAK bureau that summarized all intelligence information. Fardoust delivered it personally to the shah daily.
Why khomeini kept him on, Tabatabai says, can only be conjecture, but one reason might be that Fardoust had switched allegiance secretly and was really working for the opposition forces.
quote:Well quite!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, you seem to be positing that revolutions that "succeed[] with the help of . . . part of the ruling class" are perpetually beholden to that ruling class ever after, which doesn't really sound like a successful revolution, more like a palace coup.
quote:Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture. Secondly he was just a revolutionary but, whatever good qualities he may have had, he was also a supporter of the thoroughly evil ideology of marxism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although to be fair that doesn't explain George Washington.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is another explanation, it may not be politics at all. It may just be because Mandela was black.
quote:So, despite managing to create the rainbow nation without destroying the economy or scaring over half the population away, Mandela gets dismissed out of hand because a) he's a bit black and b) he's a left-wing Marxist. Wow. Just. Wow.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
quote:Subsistence farming wouldn't be enough to feed South Africa's large urban population. Don't forget that in the case of violent upheaval those that gain control of the management of the farms are not likely to be the most competant but are more likely to be ambitious political bosses looking for land to grab. This is exactly what happened after the farm invasions in Zim a few years ago and it resulted in that country becoming reliant on food aid.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Beside, let's remember that your assertion wasn't so much "lack the managerial skills to run something as a commercially successful enterprise", it was "forgets how to grow food at all on the same farm they've been working for years". That's the level of incompetence you're positing with your mass starvation scenario.
quote:No it wouldn't. Don't you think that there were members of the ruling class who didn't like the Shah's corruption but didn't want a communist state to be established and so went over to supporting the Islamists. For example
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Iranian Revolution would seem to be an exception.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Every single successful revolutionary party or movement in history has succeeded with the help of either part of the ruling class in its own country or of the ruling class of another country. Every single one without exception.
quote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/06/07/khomeini-is-reported-to-have-a-savak-of-his-own/
Though it came to power denouncing the shah's dreaded SAVAK secret service, the government of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has created a new internal security and intelligence operation, apparently with a similar organizational structure and some of the same faces as its predecessor.
The new organization is called SAVAMA. It is run, according to U.S. sources and Iranian exile sources here and in Paris, by Gen. Hossein Fardoust, who was deputy chief of SAVAK under the former shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and a friend from boyhood of the deposed monarch...
In Paris, a French lawyer who specializes in representing Iranian exiles told Washington Post correspondent Ronald Koven that "SAVAMA is SAVAK without any change in structure. They just replaced some of the chiefs. It is strikingly like the way the Soviet Cheka was formed out of the old Tsarist Okhrana," a reference to the evolution in Moscow of a political police force after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution...
Fardoust is the mystery man in the SAVAK-SAVAMA evolution. A longtime friend, classmate and confidant of the shah. Fardoust, Tabatabai says, was also head of a special SAVAK bureau that summarized all intelligence information. Fardoust delivered it personally to the shah daily.
Why khomeini kept him on, Tabatabai says, can only be conjecture, but one reason might be that Fardoust had switched allegiance secretly and was really working for the opposition forces.
Former deputy head of secret intelligence. Quite a handy person to have on side if you want to set up your own dictatorship! I don't imagine for a moment he was the only one.
quote:Well quite!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, you seem to be positing that revolutions that "succeed[] with the help of . . . part of the ruling class" are perpetually beholden to that ruling class ever after, which doesn't really sound like a successful revolution, more like a palace coup.
quote:Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture. Secondly he was just a revolutionary but, whatever good qualities he may have had, he was also a supporter of the thoroughly evil ideology of marxism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although to be fair that doesn't explain George Washington.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is another explanation, it may not be politics at all. It may just be because Mandela was black.
quote:The second point is the giveaway. I doubt you would be one tenth as hung up on Mandela if he hadn't at some time been some kind of Marxist. All sorts of people have been Marxists, even Denis Healey.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
<huge snip for irrelevant material >Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture. Secondly he was just a revolutionary but, whatever good qualities he may have had, he was also a supporter of the thoroughly evil ideology of marxism.
quote:So you admit your using it as an example was completely mendacious bullshit irrelevant to the case of South Africa? Good to hear. Now that that's cleared up I'm sure you'll never mention it again!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
quote:Look, you're going to have to pick an argument and stick with it. Either Zimbabwe's problems were due to "Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence", in which case they're irrelevant to other nations lacking leaders incompetent in the exact same manner, or it's a generalizable case. Pick one and stick with it!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Subsistence farming wouldn't be enough to feed South Africa's large urban population. Don't forget that in the case of violent upheaval those that gain control of the management of the farms are not likely to be the most competant but are more likely to be ambitious political bosses looking for land to grab. This is exactly what happened after the farm invasions in Zim a few years ago and it resulted in that country becoming reliant on food aid.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Beside, let's remember that your assertion wasn't so much "lack the managerial skills to run something as a commercially successful enterprise", it was "forgets how to grow food at all on the same farm they've been working for years". That's the level of incompetence you're positing with your mass starvation scenario.
quote:Which is a far cry from providing indispensable support for the revolution. There has to be something more than "some members of the ruling class are dissatisfied about something", because that's a pretty universal condition and tells us nothing.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:No it wouldn't. Don't you think that there were members of the ruling class who didn't like the Shah's corruption but didn't want a communist state to be established and so went over to supporting the Islamists.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Iranian Revolution would seem to be an exception.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Every single successful revolutionary party or movement in history has succeeded with the help of either part of the ruling class in its own country or of the ruling class of another country. Every single one without exception.
quote:There will always be opportunists willing to switch sides when it's apparent who the winner is going to be. Given that it now seems apparent Fardoust's recruitment was after rather than before the revolution, it's pretty audacious to argue that he provided support without which the revolution would have failed. Again your argument seems to become so general as to be useless. If a revolutionary movement fails to replace every single person working for the state, then that support was required for success. Defining "support of part of the ruling class" so broadly makes it as meaningless as asserting "no revolution can succeed unless started on a day ending in 'Y'".
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For example
quote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/06/07/khomeini-is-reported-to-have-a-savak-of-his-own/
The new organization is called SAVAMA. It is run, according to U.S. sources and Iranian exile sources here and in Paris, by Gen. Hossein Fardoust, who was deputy chief of SAVAK under the former shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and a friend from boyhood of the deposed monarch...
<snip>
Why khomeini kept him on, Tabatabai says, can only be conjecture, but one reason might be that Fardoust had switched allegiance secretly and was really working for the opposition forces.
Former deputy head of secret intelligence. Quite a handy person to have on side if you want to set up your own dictatorship! I don't imagine for a moment he was the only one.
quote:Did I miss something? Has the capital of South Africa been re-named "Mandela"? Maybe if this thing ever gets built we can revisit the subject, but for now Washington seems pretty far ahead in the "more popular" game.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
quote:Actually, he did. He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Evil? Evil is a doctrine that teaches people to kill people, and I don't think Marx did.
quote:OK, I became an example of what I read about in "Straight and Crooked Thinking" a long time ago. One side takes an extreme position, and the other moves out to the extreme to counter them. Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Actually, he did. He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Evil? Evil is a doctrine that teaches people to kill people, and I don't think Marx did.
quote:Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
quote:If there had been a general uprising in 1990 then the ANC would not have had 25 years to train up farmers in the area they controlled, they would not have had one year. White farmers living in black majority areas would have presented extremely easy targets. In the context of a chaotic general uprising plenty of people would have taken he opportunity to carry out farm invasions in order to grab the land. By the time the ANC was able to re establish regular government in the area the land grabs would have been completed already with no time for an orderly handover and no time to trail new farmer. The entire agricultural sector would have been thrown into chaos.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So you admit your using it as an example was completely mendacious bullshit irrelevant to the case of South Africa? Good to hear. Now that that's cleared up I'm sure you'll never mention it again!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
quote:Washington certainly was more popular when they named the city and built the monuments. In 2015 Mandela is more popular.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Did I miss something? Has the capital of South Africa been re-named "Mandela"? Maybe if this thing ever gets built we can revisit the subject, but for now Washington seems pretty far ahead in the "more popular" game.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
quote:Its got nothing to do with him being black. Murdering tyrant Fidel Castro is as white as snow and I'm not a fan of him either. Yes negotiating a more or less peaceful solution was an accomplishment that required a great deal of political skill but it was an accomplishment that he shared with De Klerk and he never gets called a moral giant.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
So, despite managing to create the rainbow nation without destroying the economy or scaring over half the population away, Mandela gets dismissed out of hand because a) he's a bit black and b) he's a left-wing Marxist. Wow. Just. Wow.
Tubbs
quote:Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
quote:Imperialism and the pursuit of trade killed countless millions and wiped out entire peoples between 1492 and, I suppose, 1914. It's still going on to a lesser extent, but as an integral part of our economy I doubt many are too fussed.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
quote:Well done on answering the half of the question I'd already agreed on. Now, how about the other half?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
quote:Which is what I was thinking - if you look at the intransigence of those in power, impatience would suggest pushing them about a bit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
It's one of these things where reformers are held to a higher moral and political standard than people defending the privileges of the status quo.
quote:Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
quote:Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
quote:But there wasn't an uprising so what's your point?! Now, why wasn't there an upristing ...?! Oh, could it be because Mandela and the other ANC leaders, some of whom were Marxists, worked with the existing regime to make sure there wasn't one.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:If there had been a general uprising in 1990 then the ANC would not have had 25 years to train up farmers in the area they controlled, they would not have had one year. White farmers living in black majority areas would have presented extremely easy targets. In the context of a chaotic general uprising plenty of people would have taken he opportunity to carry out farm invasions in order to grab the land. By the time the ANC was able to re establish regular government in the area the land grabs would have been completed already with no time for an orderly handover and no time to trail new farmer. The entire agricultural sector would have been thrown into chaos.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So you admit your using it as an example was completely mendacious bullshit irrelevant to the case of South Africa? Good to hear. Now that that's cleared up I'm sure you'll never mention it again!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mugabe was stymied by his own incompetence. Quarter of a century would have been more than ample time to train up commercial black farmers in sufficient numbers. the fact that this wasn't done is down to his government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This runs counter to your earlier claim, using Zimbabwe as an example, that even a quarter century isn't enough time to train black Africans to do the work that was formerly done by white folks. If, as you contend, Mugabe was still stymied by black incompetence to the extent that he was still dependent on the sufferance of white supremacists a quarter century on, that's not "[a] gradual process", that's petrification in the status quo.
quote:Washington certainly was more popular when they named the city and built the monuments. In 2015 Mandela is more popular.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Did I miss something? Has the capital of South Africa been re-named "Mandela"? Maybe if this thing ever gets built we can revisit the subject, but for now Washington seems pretty far ahead in the "more popular" game.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Mandela gets more attention for two reasons. Firstly he's far more popular in contemporary culture.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, but it might explain why George Washington gets one brief, offhand post while Nelson Mandela gets three different threads of vitriol.
quote:Thanks for expanding that - I should have been more explicit.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
quote:If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Largely because Marx thought, based on the political events of his lifetime, that the authorities would quite happily use violence and terror to stop any social reform, and he didn't have Gandhi's faith in non-violent solutions.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Mind you, I wonder why Marx thought that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thought that violence and "revolutionary terror" were necessary for communism to take hold. Doesn't make him, or Marxism, evil, but it does tarnish his approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Part of my difficulties in taking your whole argument seriously has been this sense that you are standing judge and jury over the likes of Mandela and anyone who would stand with him.
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
quote:Well neo-liberalism as a political ideology first emerged in the 70s with the Pinochet coup. Since then we've had coups in El Salvador and elsewhere, the US invasions of Greneda, Panama, Afganistan and Iraq and well as the attack on Lybia. That's quite a lot but I still think it'll take some time for it to catch up with Marxism's bloody record.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well done on answering the half of the question I'd already agreed on. Now, how about the other half?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Marxism through the 20th century have engaged in violent revolution on a massive scale. In the Russian Empire, in China, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Yemen, Mozambique, Ethiopia etc Marxists were involved in violent takeovers. Communists also used violence to impose communist dictatorships in central and south eastern Europe. In addition to those countries numerous other countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America have suffered from marxist terrorism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Certainly, violent revolution is well within the sphere of Marxism. Where it stands on a scale against neo-liberal capitalism's recent excursions into the field of regime change is probably one of those 'hotly debated questions' that Bibliophile will refuse to acknowledge has a relatively straight-forward answer.
quote:Bollocks. Neo-liberalism emerged when some bright spark separated the profits of business from the liabilities in the concept of limited liability companies, which cannot go to jail or swing on a rope. The political parties supporting corporate entities take the responsibility for that, which goes back about 300 years.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well neo-liberalism as a political ideology first emerged in the 70s with the Pinochet coup. Since then we've had coups in El Salvador and elsewhere, the US invasions of Greneda, Panama, Afganistan and Iraq and well as the attack on Lybia. That's quite a lot but I still think it'll take some time for it to catch up with Marxism's bloody record.
quote:And you really and truly believe that? What about the people who ran the Underground Railroad to get slaves out of the USA? (To avoid incurring references to Godwin's Law and more recent examples.) What about the people who helped Catholic priests to travel about England and serve their community? What about the early Christians refusing to burn incense to the Emperor? and all the others down the centuries.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
quote:Absolutely. I am glad that you've come to realise that whole 1776 business was just so out of line. Speak nicely to HMQ and she will send you a Governor General in due course.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
quote:"Excuse me sir, would you mind removing my shackles, not raping me and my sister and, perhaps, let us have a bit more food? No? Well, alright then, carry on"
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
quote:The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them. It proclaims power to 'the workers' and then concentrates power in the hands of a bureaucratic class of the a new marxist elite who exercise absolute authority under the pretence that they represent the people. It is fundamentally based on a lie. It celebrates the 'rebel leadership' image of itself which should be no surprise. The very first rebel leader was of course the father of lies.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Ideally by attacking the ideology, not by attacking particular self-proclaimed practitioners.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Could you itemise the ways in which marxism-leninism is more wicked than apartheid?
You might object that De Klerk had previously supported the wicked system of apartheid. However I would point out that Mandela had been supporting the even more wicked system of marxism-leninism.
quote:Is that actually true? I'm only away of two massacres in South Africa in the early sixties. Cato Manor, where 4 white and five black policemen were murdered by a thousand strong mob, and Sharpeville a few weeks later. The latter massacre came about not because of any state policy to massacre protesters but because of the panicked response of inexperienced policemen who were unable to control the crowd and fearful of a repeat of Cato Manor. There was no excuse for that. Authorities should ideally only ever use the minimum amount of force needed to prevent mob rule, no more no less. The authorities there should have found a way to disperse the crowd which didn't involve shooting people in the back (more info on SharpeVille here http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-truth-about-sharpeville ) (and no that's not a right wing source before anyone asks).
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:Part of my difficulties in taking your whole argument seriously has been this sense that you are standing judge and jury over the likes of Mandela and anyone who would stand with him.
If peaceful and lawful protests do not induce the authorities to enact social reform then the correct solution is to respect the authorities' decision.
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens.
quote:I will again quote Rian Manan quoting Mandela
Originally posted by Polly:
The question is what would you do if you lived in a similar situation and you saw your family, friends and community continually being beaten, tortured and killed?
quote:http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116391/the-mandela-files/
Emboldened, the ANC tackled cruel potato farmers, and brought them down too. Soon it was organising consumer boycotts all over the country, and often winning. At the same time, it was behind the ceaseless protests against the pass laws for women while winning stunning victories in the Treason Trial and elsewhere. The cost in ANC lives: zero. ‘To the best of my knowledge,’ writes Mandela, ‘no individuals [meaning political detainees] were isolated, forced to give information, beaten up, tortured, crippled or killed’ prior to December 1961, when the communists started their bombing campaign (see page 302).
quote:It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
quote:Reading The Spectator article, it contains this rather telling quote about Rian Moran:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Bibliophile
Firstly who is Rian Manan? As far as Google shows he has no experience of Apartheid or was ever around in South Africa at the time. You quoting him as an authority on the subject seems a bit like asking Justin Bieber what good music is.
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
In addition the links below will educate you more about the horrific treatment blacks went through. 1000's died in police custody. The beatings were so cruel. People taken from their homes at night never to return. If you doubt this then at least do some reading on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
quote:Agenda much?!
We will therefore have to turn to Hollywood to complete this story. I went to see the movie version of Long Walk to Freedom armed with a pen and ready to fight yet another rearguard action for Afrikaner honour, only to find myself disarmed by the director Justin Chadwick’s take on the Mandela story. No one really expects movies to be true, and this one certainly isn’t. It’s a fable about a brave man who sticks up for what he believes in and, against all odds, wins in the end. Music swells, titles roll and I must hide the fact that I am moved. (Yes, I am a sucker.)
quote:It appears that this and this alone is the basis of your assessment of Nelson Mandela. Maybe you should start a thread titled "Why do so many people consider Marxist-Leninism to be such a rip-roaring success?" because it would cover your arguments far more thoroughly than this which looks at the life of one man, who was for a time a member of political party based on Marxist-Leninism.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them. It proclaims power to 'the workers' and then concentrates power in the hands of a bureaucratic class of the a new marxist elite who exercise absolute authority under the pretence that they represent the people. It is fundamentally based on a lie. It celebrates the 'rebel leadership' image of itself which should be no surprise. The very first rebel leader was of course the father of lies.
quote:Well, the express purpose, taken from the Communist Manifesto is this:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
quote:Perhaps Bibliophile would like to see himself as one of the ruling class, and is therefore taken to trembling at the mere mention of revolution. Us proles must know our place.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
quote:Well Rian Malan's bio on wikipedia says that he spent the first 23 years of his life living in South Africa from 1954 to 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rian_Malan
Originally posted by Polly:
@Bibliophile
Firstly who is Rian Manan? As far as Google shows he has no experience of Apartheid or was ever around in South Africa at the time. You quoting him as an authority on the subject seems a bit like asking Justin Bieber what good music is.
quote:well lets have a look at a description written by Patrick Laurence (a well respected journalist with strongly anti-Apartheid views - see http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/14/patrick-laurence-obituary ). He wrote
Originally posted by Polly:
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
quote:http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-truth-about-sharpeville
The first factor was the killing of nine policemen in Cato Manor, near Durban, by an enraged crowd of people living there a few weeks before...
Given the Cato Manor killings and the tale of the fate of Retief and his men that was taught repeatedly at white schools, it requires no feat of imagination to deduce that many of the young policemen were nervous as the black crowds began to press against the fence surrounding the police station in Sharpeville...
A major problem at Sharpeville on the fatal day was that PAC marshals appeared to be thin on the ground and/or not vigilant enough in preventing the crowd from pressing against the fence surrounding the police station. In his analytical chronicle of the Sharpeville shooting An Ordinary Atrocity, Philip Frankel goes a stage further when he writes: "... the much vaunted marshals, whose primary task was to steer up the mob ... were unable or unwilling to steer the crowd away from what was clearly becoming a cataclysmic situation."
Emeritus professor David Welsh provides another perspective in his excellent and newly published book The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. He identifies the immediate cause of the tragedy as two simultaneous events: firstly, a scuffle at the fence gate when security police officer Att Spengler open it to let a member of the crowd in and some of the people at the gate entered with him, possibly because they were pushed from behind; and, secondly, the arrival at scene of Geelbooi, a common law criminal who was drunk and armed with a handgun, and who, thinking he had spotted a policeman who had maltreated him, fired two shots in the air.
The reaction of the more nervous and younger policemen inside the perimeter of the fence was to open fire without being ordered to do so. The firing continued even as the purported would-be attackers were either felled by the fusillade of bullets or were still fleeing for their lives.
quote:And when did all that start?
Originally posted by Polly:
In addition the links below will educate you more about the horrific treatment blacks went through. 1000's died in police custody. The beatings were so cruel. People taken from their homes at night never to return. If you doubt this then at least do some reading on the Truth and Reconciliation process.
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
quote:http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116391/the-mandela-files/
‘To the best of my knowledge,’ writes Mandela, ‘no individuals [meaning political detainees] were isolated, forced to give information, beaten up, tortured, crippled or killed’ prior to December 1961, when the communists started their bombing campaign
quote:Quite right, I used the wrong word there. I wrote 'express' when I should have written 'evident'.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:It has the "clearly and openly stated" purpose of enslaving the population? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The ideology of marxism-leninism has the express purpose of enslaving the population under the pretence of liberating them.
quote:Maybe that Engels quote would make more sense to me if someone could explain what he understood to be the distinction between 'governing' on the one hand and 'administering' and 'directing' on the other. I've always got the impression that administering and directing were central to the process of governing.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the endpoint of socialism is reckoned to be the withering away of the state, although that is about as likely as a chocolate condom.
"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,” it withers away." Engels, Anti-Duhring.
quote:And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
quote:The people.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
quote:OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:The people.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:And who decides what it is that people need and how would those decisions be enforced?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Appears fairly obvious. Less telling people what to do. More concentrating on what people need to live.
quote:Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
quote:How would 'the people' decide amongst themselves? By representative or direct democracy? And who would be in charge of administering the voting?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
quote:And yet you try to use quotes from before his time in prison as a measuring rod for the rest of his life. This includes quotes you use from Rian Malan who refers to the manuscript that Mandela wrote whilst in Robben Island.
In the early 1960s, just before his arrest and incarceration for more than a quarter century, Mandela was, in fact, a very angry man. As his longtime friend Bishop Desmond Tutu once told Sky News, “he needed that time in prison to mellow.”]
quote:I have no idea of your gender, your age, your ethnicity or your level of education. But seriously? You don't think a bunch of people can come together, sort something out and then see it through without some blue-blood, God-ordained authority figure imposing his (and it probably will be a him) will on them?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:How would 'the people' decide amongst themselves? By representative or direct democracy? And who would be in charge of administering the voting?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Probably by whichever means the people decide amongst themselves to be the best.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
OK. And by what mechanism do 'the people' communicate and enforce their will on those doing the administering and those directing production?
quote:and have spoken about people's gratitude that he did not follow
South Africa could have easily slipped into a civil war if Mandela wanted 'justice/revenge' when released in 1997.
quote:And when I pointed out some of the huge strategic difficulties that would have faced Mandela if he had attempted to follow this path your response was to tell me to listen to some sad stories of people who suffered under apartheid. Well I'm sure these stories are very heart rending but but unless they contain specific information about the strategic situation then they are not helpful in shedding light on this question.
a desire to hunt down the authors of apartheid and serve 'justice'.
quote:Now apart from the fact that launch of the 'armed struggle' did indeed happen chronologically after the Sharpeville massacre this is untrue. It is simply untrue that every time the ANC wanted to protest they were left to mourn the loss of dozens. The Sharpeville Massacre was at a PAC demonstration and the only other massacre at that time was Cato Manor which was a massacre of nine policemen. Mandela himself, in the above mentioned quote, confirmed that he was not aware of ANC people being 'beaten, tortured and killed' until after the armed struggle was started in December 1961. That was over a year and a half after Sharpeville and what had happened in the meanwhile?
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens...
The question is what would you do if you lived in a similar situation and you saw your family, friends and community continually being beaten, tortured and killed?
quote:Going back to this point again I would remind you of what you said about how nervous many whites in South Africa were in the eighties about being so outnumbered by the black majority and you mentioned some of your own relatives.
Originally posted by Polly:
Next your perspective about Sharpeville is extremely offensive. 67 dead and 180 injured is not down to a few police being nervous.
quote:Well I'm not saying that he was all bad. I've already said that he was a skilled politician and I would add that he was clearly a man of great charisma and charm. I'm trying to communicate what is wrong with the simplistic picture that so many people have of Mandela and the situation in South Africa at the time.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is ridiculous.
Even if Polly is wrong about the chronology it doesn't take anything away from Mandela's subsequent behaviour after his release - granted, he wouldn't have had the logistical capacity to hunt down and take revenge on all the perpetrators of apartheid - even if he'd wanted to ...
But all his actions after his release point towards him not wanting to pursue such a course of action.
It strikes me that you are over-reacting to the beatification of Mandela by some of those you oppose on ideological grounds by going to the opposite extreme and not acknowledging that the guy had any saving graces at all ...
Ah well, if you are going to adopt a binary position on almost every issue you're confronted with then it's hardly surprising that you are going to reach overly simplistic and binary conclusions.
quote:And you are failing, mainly because no one here has that simplistic picture - as has been explained to you over and over again.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm trying to communicate what is wrong with the simplistic picture that so many people have of Mandela and the situation in South Africa at the time.
quote:Even during the day when they were allowed in town to work (pretty much slave labour) they had to use separate park benches, eating areas etc - and they were labelled. The police stepped in if they dared to sit in a non-designated place.
Originally posted by Polly:
Apartheid stated that blacks should separated from whites and only be allowed into their communities to work.Whole communities were being uprooted and moved to live in horrific conditions. their rights restricted and labelled as less than human.
quote:Except that I already said
Originally posted by Polly:
@ Bibliophile
What I find disturbing is that you seem to try to want to justify the violence, the killings, beatings and torture non-whites experienced from apartheid.
There simply is no justification for Sharpeville or any of the hideous treatment suffered in the years of apartheid. It seems that you think it is ok for whites to be nervous and use a gun but not the blacks who were constantly faced with aggression.
quote:Your next point
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now none of that excuses the continuation of fire after the crowd started scattering. None of that excuses the failure of the SA authorities to control the crowd in the first place. The authorities were clearly responsible for the massacre and bear the guilt for it.
quote:Well aren't stories about atrocities sad and horrible? Of course the South African government committed atrocities, I'm fully aware of that in case I hadn't made that clear. The question is whether, as you claimed, that the ANC's 'armed struggle' was a response to such atrocities. The timeline suggests not but rather suggests that these atrocities began to be used as part of a counter insurgency campaign after the armed struggle (and of course the ANC themselves committed atrocities during that struggle) had begun, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Polly:
As I quoted above 20000 people submitted their testimony at the TRC. These are not just sad stories but reality of people who have been eternally scarred by apartheid, who have lost loved ones, women raped, others silenced through fear.
Then your response is simply to label these stories as "sad". What will it take for you to recognise such atrocities?
quote:If by that you mean could Mandela have started a general uprising in 1989 if he had 'given the word' yes of course he could have. It would have been a disaster for the ANC and he knew it but theoretically that option was open to him.
Originally posted by Polly:
In addition you are always looking at the events in hindsight which completely ignores the temperature of feelings felt on the ground at the time by both the white community (including those who opposed apartheid) and the blacks who lived in townships such as Soweto.
Whatever terms you want to use like 'strategic' fails to appreciate the true atmosphere of the time.
quote:What you have been arguing is that he went into prison as an angry man who nevertheless held the moral high ground and that when he came out that he could easy have had 'revenge' if he had still been angry but magnanimously chose to forgive instead.
Originally posted by Polly:
What I and others have been underlining is not that Mandela was a Saint but upon his release he came out of prison as a changed man. His ambitions was to heal his nation and start a process that brought equality and opportunity for all communities. You have constantly wanted to dismiss and belittle this.
quote:Not this side of the eschaton, I'm afraid: I'm thoroughly pragmatic about the state of human nature. A widespread outbreak of international socialism will do me just fine.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not advocating communism - nor, do I think - are any of the posters on this thread, except perhaps Doc Tor who is 'redder than red' as it were ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:School doesn't start for another two weeks?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
4. Has anyone else a clue why this thread continues?
quote:
As stated previously the ANC was a non-violent political organisation that was until the massacres of Sharpeville and other places. Women and children were shot in the back as they fled and many, many people were killed.
It was at this point the ANC took up arms as every time they want to protest their communities were left to mourn the loss of dozens.
quote:There's x3 links to the timelines.
Bibliophile posted: The question is whether, as you claimed, that the ANC's 'armed struggle' was a response to such atrocities. The timeline suggests not but rather suggests that these atrocities began to be used as part of a counter insurgency campaign after the armed struggle (and of course the ANC themselves committed atrocities during that struggle) had begun, not the other way around.
quote:
The massacre of peaceful protestors at Sharpville brought a decade of peaceful protest to an end. On 30 March 1960, ten days after the Sharpville massacre, the government banned the ANC and the PAC. They declared a state of emergency and arrested thousands of Congress and PAC activists.
The ANC took up arms against the South African Government in 1961. The massacre of peaceful protestors and the subsequent banning of the ANC made it clear that peaceful protest alone would not force the regime to change. The ANC went underground and continued to organise secretly. Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) was formed to "hit back by all means within our power in defence of our people, our future and our freedom"
In 18 months MK carried out 200 acts of sabotage. But the underground organisation was no match for the regime, which began to use even harsher methods of repression. Laws were passed to make death the penalty for sabotage and to allow police to detain people for 90 days without trial. in 1963, police raided the secret headquarters of MK, arresting the leadership.
quote:The Soviet Union, mainland China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Albania etc.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Apartheid and its demonic cannibal allies were not as bad as communism as practised where at that time?
quote:I read it as
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm trying to follow the logic of the argument. I think I've got that:
a) Apartheid was bad, an oppressive regime
b) Communism is (according to Bibliophile) evil in any form, and worse than apartheid
That seems very clear. Point b) can be debated as I wouldn't say that there is universal agreement on that. But, for the sake of this discussion, work with it. What is a lot less clear is what seems to be the next step in the argument.
c) Communism is evil, therefore there was no need to seek to overturn apartheid, and that those who did contribute to overturning apartheid do not deserve recognition for what they did.
Is that how others see the argument that has been presented?
quote:There were terrible atrocities.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
quote:Under communism there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Ordinary people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:There were terrible atrocities.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
Then there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Black people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything.
quote:Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
Originally posted by Boogie:
They had to leave the towns and cities at night, to places they had been forced to move to.
quote:Well, yes.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism [some stuff]
[....]
Under communism [some other stuff]
quote:Of course, theoretically at least, it is possible for anyone to attain the privilege of senior party position. It may not have happened very often that a loyal party member showed promise and was promoted through the party ranks to high office, or for him to be promoted far enough that his sons started off a good ways up the ladder and made it close to the top, but it is always possible.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
quote:My husband's aunt lived in SA during the 70's. She remembers being called by the police and asked why her black housekeeper wasn't registered as she was working in a whites only area. Aunt was outraged as you registered dogs rather than people! One of the neighbours may have done it as the police never called again.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:There were terrible atrocities.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The atrocities occurred after 1961 and were part of a counter insurgency operation by the SA government responding to the 'armed struggle' i.e. they were occurring in a war situation.
Then there was everyday life. Not war, just oppression and total injustice. All day, every day and everywhere. Black people had no freedom. No freedom of movement, speech, anything. They even had to use different bus stops, by law - with armed police enforcing it. They had to leave the towns and cities at night, to places they had been forced to move to.
I lived in Johannesburg throughout the 1960s and it was terrible. My Dad worked in Soweto and he was treated with nothing but friendship and dignity by his black colleagues - the whole time we lived there. I was only 11, but I was ashamed to be white.
quote:Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness. It is therefore judging people on the 'content of their character' but it is giving privilege on the basis of bad character. How is that better than giving privilege based on accident of birth?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Of course, theoretically at least, it is possible for anyone to attain the privilege of senior party position. It may not have happened very often that a loyal party member showed promise and was promoted through the party ranks to high office, or for him to be promoted far enough that his sons started off a good ways up the ladder and made it close to the top, but it is always possible.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism there was a privileged class as well but with communism that was the party elite, who had their own special facilities for everything, rather than any particular ethnicity.
Under apartheid there was no possible way for a black or coloured person to attain the privilege of even the poorest white person.
Therefore, in terms of opportunity to attain a higher status communism is a better system than apartheid.
quote:Under apartheid if you were non-white then no matter how much willing you gave or how much you supported the system you could still not be elevated from the status you were given.
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
quote:Well, that really does depend on whether you consider communism (rather than any particular implementation of some aspects of communism) to be "incompatible with moral goodness".
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
quote:If only we had a way of knowing what Mandela would do if apartheid were defeated and he would become president ...
Bibliophile: Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
quote:Indeed, apartheid was a terrible, evil system. Whites who did not support this evil still had a privileged status whilst blacks who did work to support it did not gain such status. Under apartheid you had good and bad people with privilege and good and bad people without.
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:Under apartheid if you were non-white then no matter how much willing you gave or how much you supported the system you could still not be elevated from the status you were given.
Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
That's what I call incompatible with moral goodness!
quote:In 1990 the South African government was still militarily strong and the Berlin Wall had fallen. Whether or not he even still wanted to attempting to set up a communist state at that time was not an option for him.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:If only we had a way of knowing what Mandela would do if apartheid were defeated and he would become president ...
Bibliophile: Under communism higher status is obtained by showing a willingness and ability to support and maintain the power and ideology of communism, something that is incompatible with moral goodness.
Wait a minute, we do have a way of knowing that. Apartheid was defeated and he did become president. And none of the eeevil things you claim he would do, he actually did.
You're condemning him for things he would hypothetically do inside your head, but which he demonstratedly didn't do. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time for that.
quote:Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person? Do you think anyone in Hitler's government was basically a good person?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're really going to have to support a claim that no one within Communist governments was basically a good person.
quote:Of course he did. By that point, the apartheid government had done many evil things. Mandela hadn't. That gives him the moral high ground.
Bibliophile: My point is that many people think that in 1961 Mandela held the moral high ground over the apartheid government.
quote:I doubt very much whether this was true in all cases in practice. In order to survive, people learn how to "play the game". As indeed they did under apartheid.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Under communism you could only gain privilege by willingly and successfully supporting the system, in other words you could only get privilege by willingly and successfully doing evil. So whilst under apartheid the privileged class included at least some good people in communist countries people behaving in a good way are specifically excluded from being in the privileged class. How does that make communism better?
quote:I have never argued or even suggested that Communism is the better of two evils with Apartheid.
Under communism you could only gain privilege by willingly and successfully supporting the system, in other words you could only get privilege by willingly and successfully doing evil. So whilst under apartheid the privileged class included at least some good people in communist countries people behaving in a good way are specifically excluded from being in the privileged class. How does that make communism better?
quote:So, you want me to Google for good people within a Communist government?
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person? Do you think anyone in Hitler's government was basically a good person?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're really going to have to support a claim that no one within Communist governments was basically a good person.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that many people think that in 1961 Mandela held the moral high ground over the apartheid government. My point is that neither he nor any other communist in 1961 held such a position because they were supporting a system that was even worse.
quote:I'm pretty sure that defining Nelson Mandela (circa 1961) as "within a communist government" strains the definition of the term well past the breaking point. Of course, if you claim that Mandela was a communist then the post-Apartheid government he later headed was, by your definition, a communist government.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Of course no one within any communist government was basically a good person. How could anyone who has been promoted based on their willingness and ability to serve evil be basically a good person?
quote:Given the way Bibliophile has defined the terms, I'm pretty sure that Nelson Mandela is the example he's looking for. His communist government turned South Africa into some kind of police state murderplex, or so he claims.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you want me to Google for good people within a Communist government?
quote:Seems like a somewhat flawed measure.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How does receiving the Nobel Peace Prize seem to you as a measure of "basically good"?
quote:But Mikhail Gorbachev won the Peace Prize in 1990 for "for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community"..
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, there was I thinking my flaw was that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Nelson Mandela.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
In Russia! Any award that's given to a communist must be compromised and not worth having. quote:On that basis can there possibly be any good Roman Catholics?
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The covering up of child abuse in churches?
quote:I'm sure you could provide examples of communist leaders who have done good things. Bad people can do good things and as you say its relative. We are all bad to a greater or lesser degree in this fallen world. My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, communism glorifies rebellion against non-communist authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to communist ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, the strident atheism and hostility to God. Marxism is satanic in origin and nature. To support marxism is to support evil.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was just looking for some measure by which you could say whether or not someone is a good person, to counter the absurd assertion that there could be no good people* within senior ranks of Communist governments. It just takes one example of someone who is a good person in such a position to demolish the assertion.
quote:The war started in 1961 and South Africa did not start being involved until 1967. It could not possibly be accused of starting the war. The first country to militarily intervene in the war was Cuba not South Africa. Are you going to accuse Cuba of starting and maintaining the war?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If there is one thing evil in Angola and Mozambique, it was apartheid-era South Africa. It started and maintained civil wars in those countries that were of unspeakable cruelty. That you can even think that what South Africa did was a good thing is sick, very sick.
You are the one supporting evil here. That you waltz over the suffering over these people just to make an argument and feel smart-ass about it is utterly disgusting.
quote:And, your point is complete and utter bollocks.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil.
quote:There's a 'Hell' thread with my name on it if you want to start using language like that.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, your point is complete and utter bollocks.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil.
quote:It was the marxists who were maintaining a terrible civil war in Angola. Millions of people suffered. The foreign leader who bears the greatest degree of responsibility for their suffering was Fidel Castro.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, you don't get to play games like this. South Africa maintained a terrible civil war for no cause at all, just the same stupid "communism is evil and everything is valid against it" that you are spouting here.
If you want to make your stupid little arguments here, I don't care about that. But now you are using the suffering of millions of people just to be smug about it. You said that what South Africa did in Angola was a good thing. Take it back.
quote:My point is that the United States itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, the United States still glorifies its rebellion against the legitimate British authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to United States' ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, George III, the Lord's anointed, was in defiance of the will of God. U.S. Republicanism is, therefore, satanic in origin and nature, as was the War of Independence. To support such a state and its founding philosophy is to support evil.
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, communism glorifies rebellion against non-communist authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to communist ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, the strident atheism and hostility to God. Marxism is satanic in origin and nature. To support marxism is to support evil.
quote:You mean it was Marxist seventy-plus years before Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto?. Is there any other kind of evil on this earth?
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Bibliophilequote:My point is that the United States itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, the United States still glorifies its rebellion against the legitimate British authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to United States' ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, George III, the Lord's anointed, was in defiance of the will of God. U.S. Republicanism is, therefore, satanic in origin and nature, as was the War of Independence. To support such a state and its founding philosophy is to support evil.
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, communism glorifies rebellion against non-communist authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to communist ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, the strident atheism and hostility to God. Marxism is satanic in origin and nature. To support marxism is to support evil.
quote:The United States is a country not an ideology. Yes the rebellion against George III, who was not only a lawful but indeed also a good King, was thoroughly wicked. Yes the celebration of this rebellion is also wicked. However that does not make the country as a whole wicked.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Bibliophilequote:My point is that the United States itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, the United States still glorifies its rebellion against the legitimate British authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to United States' ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, George III, the Lord's anointed, was in defiance of the will of God. U.S. Republicanism is, therefore, satanic in origin and nature, as was the War of Independence. To support such a state and its founding philosophy is to support evil.
My point is that communism itself is intrinsically evil. The Devil rebelled against God, communism glorifies rebellion against non-communist authorities. The celebration of such rebellion is central to communist ideology. The glorification of violence and crime in the rebellion against established authority, the strident atheism and hostility to God. Marxism is satanic in origin and nature. To support marxism is to support evil.
quote:If this remark was was addressed to me, I find it difficult to respond because I’m not sure what point you are making.
You mean it was Marxist seventy-plus years before Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto?. Is there any other kind of evil on this earth?”
quote:But, surely, no country is an "ideology"? Ideologies are intellectual constructs, systems of belief, that might in this context inform the actions of politicians. Need I remind you that the founders of the United States had an ideology which they considered justified their rebellion against Britain:
“The United States is a country not an ideology. Yes the rebellion against George III...., was thoroughly wicked. However that does not make the country as a whole wicked.”
quote:Kwesi,
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Sioni Saisquote:If this remark was was addressed to me, I find it difficult to respond because I’m not sure what point you are making.
You mean it was Marxist seventy-plus years before Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto?. Is there any other kind of evil on this earth?”
quote:I think we is having our chain yanked.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The United States is a country not an ideology.
quote:He may well strike you as a fundamentalist literalist, but unless he explicitly self-identifies as such, it strikes me that there is a distinct possibility that saying so might be perceived as a personal attack.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Bibliophile strikes me as something of a fundamentalist literalist.
quote:That must include myself as a dissenter and Baptist then.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If being rebellious is a sure sign of Satanic influence then the USA is intrinsically Satanic as it owes its very existence as a nation to rebellion
If communism is intrinsically Satanic by this measure then so is US capitalism.
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Oppressive regimes are crap whatever ideology they belong too.
quote:In your very next post after accepting a host warning, you're making speculative personal attacks again. You can hardly say you haven't been warned.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It probably makes Bibliophile ev and rebellious too as a Protestant Christian.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:But the American Revolution was intensely ideological. As Kwesi pointed out, the revolutionary leaders issued an intensely ideological manifesto, ideological pamphlets were circulated to motivate the masses, and at the end the successful revolutionaries did not just re-create the British government but built something new based on their ideology.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The United States is a country not an ideology.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "thoroughly" here. It would seem to be expansive enough to cover "the country as a whole", but you indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes the rebellion against George III, who was not only a lawful but indeed also a good King, was thoroughly wicked. Yes the celebration of this rebellion is also wicked. However that does not make the country as a whole wicked.
