If one of Ronald Reagan's right hand men is able to put Mandela's actions into perspective, I think I can too.
Another trait of Mandela that was supremely admirable, was his genuine desire for reconciliation with past enemies. Obviously this ideal wasn't shared by many of his colleagues and followers, which is understandable, as it takes a great man (who was imprisoned for much of his adult life) to resist revenge and do what is best for society as a whole.
Again, it can't be because nothing wrong has been said.
True. Let's face it, we could condemn all our military troops for killing people in wars, but wars are fought for what is deemed to be a greater purpose. It's very easy to say that killing people is wrong, end of. But if you want your side to survive, you often have no choice but to fight, and yes, kill or be killed. Like it or not, war and killing are part of human behaviour.
Like it or not, war and killing are part of human behaviour.
We shouldn't be too hard on ourselves though, it's a trait found within every successful species. If our ancestors had been docile pacifists that fled from confrontation, we would quite possibly be extinct, along with over 99 percent of species that have ever existed at some point on this planet. Yes, we have the capacity to be aggressive, but it's also a factor in why we've evolved to be the top dog on this planet. As an optimist, I'd suggest we're also reaching the point where we're mentally capable of managing our aggression and resolving differences in a more intelligent manner, as what's happened in Western Europe since WW2.
We shouldn't be too hard on ourselves though, it's a trait found within every successful species. If our ancestors had been docile pacifists that fled from confrontation, we would quite possibly be extinct, along with over 99 percent of species that have ever existed at some point on this planet. Yes, we have the capacity to be aggressive, but it's also a factor in why we've evolved to be the top dog on this planet. As an optimist, I'd suggest we're also reaching the point where we're mentally capable of managing our aggression and resolving differences in a more intelligent manner, as what's happened in Western Europe since WW2.
I've reached a point where I don't even see it as a negative. It's animal nature, simple as that, and no more eradicable than sexuality.
I've reached a point where I don't even see it as a negative. It's animal nature, simple as that, and no more eradicable than sexuality.
Indeed. Ironically, the periods when the most rapid advances in science have been made, were during times of war and conflict. If it wasn't for WW2, the first Atomic bomb may not have happened for another 30 years. The Nazi's made exponential progress in jet and rocket technology, which the USA and Soviets developed even further during the Cold War (with the help of ex-German scientists). It's during times of peace where progress grinds to a snail's pace. America wouldn't have put a man on the moon in the 60's if the Soviets weren't trying to do the same thing. We thrive on conflict and competition with fellow humans, and some would say it even brings out the best in us.
As an optimist, I'd suggest we're also reaching the point where we're mentally capable of managing our aggression and resolving differences in a more intelligent manner, as what's happened in Western Europe since WW2.
To be brutally frank, the ONLY thing that has really done that was the prospect enshrined in the Red Menace glowering at Western Europe over the top of the Iron Curtain for 50 years.
We got along because we HAD to get along; and because the map of Europe was being redrawn for quite a few years after the end of the war. Our many and various politcal frameworks took the shape they did infuenced by those events AND by the prospect of what would happen if we didn't. It's suprising HOW long for example it really took to bring Germany back into the fold...
One aspect of all this that's often forgotten is exactly WHEN FW DeKlerk's government started talking to the ANC, when Mandela started being "reconciliated" and brought back into the "respectable" fold...
When South Africa was no longer essential as a bulwark to prevent the further expansion of Communism across Central Africa; when the U.S etc. didn't need to turn a blind eye to sanctions-busting etc...
I.E. when the end of the USSR, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the failure of Communism became apparent....and thus when Nelson Mandela could be reconciliated as a PURE anti-Apartheid activist and politician with absolutely no overtones at all of Marxist-Leninism...:p
So you agree that terrorism is acceptable if it achieves good in the end?
Before the terrorism began the NP government brutally put down any peaceful protests against Apartheid, murdering hundreds in the process.
Criticising the ANC for violence during the Apartheid years is akin to criticising the French Resistance for violence during World War 2. When you're living under a brutal occupation you will take up arms to fight your occupiers. That's human nature. You'd do it too if you're honest with yourself.
So, all these people who keep saying Mandela was a terrorist, do they understand what was happening in South Africa at the time?
Do they know that the ANC and Mandela tried non violent protest for years, and all it did was lead to even more violence against non whites?
Do they think of the French resistance and other countries resistance fighters who fought against the Nazis in WW2 as terrorists? Because I certainly don't.
How ANYONE can think that people who were the victims of a racist government,
a government which routinely used violence and murder in order to deny one set of human beings the same rights as another set of human beings, based on nothing more than the colour of their skin,
are "terrorists" because they fight back, against, what I can only describe as pure evil, Is just staggering, what would they want these people to do? fend off Alsations and shotgun rounds with flowers and smiles?
I understand why the Tories and many of their supporters refused to condemn apartheid when almost the entire world did,
(nature of the beast n all that)
it was because there was lots of cash to be made for their chums and supporters, so what if it was stained with the blood of dead school children?, it's not as though they were white school children,
But how a decent human being with a normal human beings moral compass, can call the man who fought against terrorists, a terrorist, is almost beyond belief,
Criticising the ANC for violence during the Apartheid years is akin to criticising the French Resistance for violence during World War 2.
Quite a few have and do, you know; it's simplistic to regard the "French Reistance" as all one united organisation when it was anything but, it was a remarkably loose and fractious grouping of nearly forty organisations, MOST of whom were networked together by the SOE....but who occasionaly ended up fighting among themselves rather than fighting the Germans!
Do they think of the French resistance and other countries resistance fighters who fought against the Nazis in WW2 as terrorists? Because I certainly don't.
To be equally fair - the many and various resistance organisations across Europe were JUST as ready to use violence and the threat of violence against their fellow countrymen to achieve their particular ends if necessary as they were to act against the Germans!
Quite a few have and do, you know; it's simplistic to regard the "French Reistance" as all one united organisation when it was anything but, it was a remarkably loose and fractious grouping of nearly forty orgnaisation, MOST of whom were networked together by the SOE....but who occasionaly ended up fighting among themselves rather than fighting the Germans!
OK, but you understand the point I'm making right?
Before the terrorism began the NP government brutally put down any peaceful protests against Apartheid, murdering hundreds in the process.
Criticising the ANC for violence during the Apartheid years is akin to criticising the French Resistance for violence during World War 2. When you're living under a brutal occupation you will take up arms to fight your occupiers. That's human nature. You'd do it too if you're honest with yourself.
It's what I keep saying, it would be interesting to see which side of the political spectrum those who insist he was a terrorist are from,
Yes, criminal acts in the context of an unequal system. A bit like a gay person who had a gay relationship when it was regarded as a criminal activity. It's not criminal now, is, it, thank God, due to some people having the courage to do what was right.
what a bizarre comparison. is there any cause or movement left that hasn't been likened to the homosexual agenda!?
It seems history has been rewritten.Nelson Mandela was a terrorist,now he is portrayed as a hero.He was responsible for killing many,why is this overlooked?
That is a grotesque, crude and incomplete simplification and we should remember that when Nelson Mandela became the duly elected president of South Africa, he chose the path of reconciliation, inclusiveness and forgiveness and for that alone he should be remembered. Thanks to him and his influence, that country did not descend into an all out civil war of vengeance, retribution and score settling which could so easily have been the case.
I think I'll leave the rest to the South African Afrikaner, Francois Pienaar:
Pienaar will forever be linked with Mandela, framed together in that image from the Ellis Park podium, the shot that went round the world. “I just wanted to hug him at that moment but did not think it was the thing you did with a head of state,” Pienaar told The Telegraph. “As we stood there he turned to me and said with that incredible, beautiful smile of his: 'Thank you for what you have done for South Africa.’ I couldn’t believe he had said that. With some people you meet, they are just courteous. Some you meet are politicking. With Madiba, it was always genuine. We had met a year before, in 1994. He had just been elected president and I had just been made Springbok captain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10501078/Nelson-Mandela-Francois-Pienaar-says-he-never-imagined-he-would-be-so-emotional.html
OK, but you understand the point I'm making right?
I understand....but the flipside of that is also understanding that comparing the criticsing of a NOT black&white situation like the French Resistance to Mandela IS to likewise accept that his is not a black& white story either...;-)
To be equally fair - the many and various resistance organisations across Europe were JUST as ready to use violence and the threat of violence against their fellow countrymen to achieve their particular ends if necessary as they were to act against the Germans!
Indeed they were, but having said that, IF this country hadn't been lucky enough to have the English channel, and the Nazis had occupied us, and there were British people who wouldn't (NOT couldn't) support the resistance, but instead aided the oppressors, then I wouldn't blame the resistance if they 'dealt' with them very severely,
in such severe and dire circumstances, the ends most certainly do justify the means,
Comments
They said nothing wrong so they can't be banned.
Another trait of Mandela that was supremely admirable, was his genuine desire for reconciliation with past enemies. Obviously this ideal wasn't shared by many of his colleagues and followers, which is understandable, as it takes a great man (who was imprisoned for much of his adult life) to resist revenge and do what is best for society as a whole.
Again, it can't be because nothing wrong has been said.
True. Let's face it, we could condemn all our military troops for killing people in wars, but wars are fought for what is deemed to be a greater purpose. It's very easy to say that killing people is wrong, end of. But if you want your side to survive, you often have no choice but to fight, and yes, kill or be killed. Like it or not, war and killing are part of human behaviour.
Right, but by your "end of discussion" definition, those people are innocent because they have committed no crime or offence.
We shouldn't be too hard on ourselves though, it's a trait found within every successful species. If our ancestors had been docile pacifists that fled from confrontation, we would quite possibly be extinct, along with over 99 percent of species that have ever existed at some point on this planet. Yes, we have the capacity to be aggressive, but it's also a factor in why we've evolved to be the top dog on this planet. As an optimist, I'd suggest we're also reaching the point where we're mentally capable of managing our aggression and resolving differences in a more intelligent manner, as what's happened in Western Europe since WW2.
So you agree that terrorism is acceptable if it achieves good in the end?
Picard says no.;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsoPPynIIc
I've reached a point where I don't even see it as a negative. It's animal nature, simple as that, and no more eradicable than sexuality.
Indeed. Ironically, the periods when the most rapid advances in science have been made, were during times of war and conflict. If it wasn't for WW2, the first Atomic bomb may not have happened for another 30 years. The Nazi's made exponential progress in jet and rocket technology, which the USA and Soviets developed even further during the Cold War (with the help of ex-German scientists). It's during times of peace where progress grinds to a snail's pace. America wouldn't have put a man on the moon in the 60's if the Soviets weren't trying to do the same thing. We thrive on conflict and competition with fellow humans, and some would say it even brings out the best in us.
To be brutally frank, the ONLY thing that has really done that was the prospect enshrined in the Red Menace glowering at Western Europe over the top of the Iron Curtain for 50 years.
We got along because we HAD to get along; and because the map of Europe was being redrawn for quite a few years after the end of the war. Our many and various politcal frameworks took the shape they did infuenced by those events AND by the prospect of what would happen if we didn't. It's suprising HOW long for example it really took to bring Germany back into the fold...
One aspect of all this that's often forgotten is exactly WHEN FW DeKlerk's government started talking to the ANC, when Mandela started being "reconciliated" and brought back into the "respectable" fold...
When South Africa was no longer essential as a bulwark to prevent the further expansion of Communism across Central Africa; when the U.S etc. didn't need to turn a blind eye to sanctions-busting etc...
I.E. when the end of the USSR, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the failure of Communism became apparent....and thus when Nelson Mandela could be reconciliated as a PURE anti-Apartheid activist and politician with absolutely no overtones at all of Marxist-Leninism...:p
Criticising the ANC for violence during the Apartheid years is akin to criticising the French Resistance for violence during World War 2. When you're living under a brutal occupation you will take up arms to fight your occupiers. That's human nature. You'd do it too if you're honest with yourself.
Do they know that the ANC and Mandela tried non violent protest for years, and all it did was lead to even more violence against non whites?
Do they think of the French resistance and other countries resistance fighters who fought against the Nazis in WW2 as terrorists? Because I certainly don't.
How ANYONE can think that people who were the victims of a racist government,
a government which routinely used violence and murder in order to deny one set of human beings the same rights as another set of human beings, based on nothing more than the colour of their skin,
are "terrorists" because they fight back, against, what I can only describe as pure evil, Is just staggering, what would they want these people to do? fend off Alsations and shotgun rounds with flowers and smiles?
I understand why the Tories and many of their supporters refused to condemn apartheid when almost the entire world did,
(nature of the beast n all that)
it was because there was lots of cash to be made for their chums and supporters, so what if it was stained with the blood of dead school children?, it's not as though they were white school children,
But how a decent human being with a normal human beings moral compass, can call the man who fought against terrorists, a terrorist, is almost beyond belief,
They are just white people denigrating a black man for standing up to his oppressors.
Nothing new here.
Quite a few have and do, you know; it's simplistic to regard the "French Reistance" as all one united organisation when it was anything but, it was a remarkably loose and fractious grouping of nearly forty organisations, MOST of whom were networked together by the SOE....but who occasionaly ended up fighting among themselves rather than fighting the Germans!
To be equally fair - the many and various resistance organisations across Europe were JUST as ready to use violence and the threat of violence against their fellow countrymen to achieve their particular ends if necessary as they were to act against the Germans!
Violence is acceptable in self-defense. That is why Mandela's actions were justified.
It's what I keep saying, it would be interesting to see which side of the political spectrum those who insist he was a terrorist are from,
I think I know the answer to that already, ;-)
what a bizarre comparison. is there any cause or movement left that hasn't been likened to the homosexual agenda!?
or someone like Gusty Spence, why just mention the republicans?
Sorry, me and my analogies.
That is a grotesque, crude and incomplete simplification and we should remember that when Nelson Mandela became the duly elected president of South Africa, he chose the path of reconciliation, inclusiveness and forgiveness and for that alone he should be remembered. Thanks to him and his influence, that country did not descend into an all out civil war of vengeance, retribution and score settling which could so easily have been the case.
I think I'll leave the rest to the South African Afrikaner, Francois Pienaar:
Pienaar will forever be linked with Mandela, framed together in that image from the Ellis Park podium, the shot that went round the world. “I just wanted to hug him at that moment but did not think it was the thing you did with a head of state,” Pienaar told The Telegraph. “As we stood there he turned to me and said with that incredible, beautiful smile of his: 'Thank you for what you have done for South Africa.’ I couldn’t believe he had said that. With some people you meet, they are just courteous. Some you meet are politicking. With Madiba, it was always genuine. We had met a year before, in 1994. He had just been elected president and I had just been made Springbok captain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10501078/Nelson-Mandela-Francois-Pienaar-says-he-never-imagined-he-would-be-so-emotional.html
I understand....but the flipside of that is also understanding that comparing the criticsing of a NOT black&white situation like the French Resistance to Mandela IS to likewise accept that his is not a black& white story either...;-)
Indeed they were, but having said that, IF this country hadn't been lucky enough to have the English channel, and the Nazis had occupied us, and there were British people who wouldn't (NOT couldn't) support the resistance, but instead aided the oppressors, then I wouldn't blame the resistance if they 'dealt' with them very severely,
in such severe and dire circumstances, the ends most certainly do justify the means,