8 ms·

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I've cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all perso

by 3am 13y ago

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I've cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." -Nelson Mandela edit: also, "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." Your statement on Mandela is un-nuanced and simplistic. We all evolve through life, hopefully for the better. Mandela clearly became one of the great 20th century champions of peace alongside MLK and Gandhi. None of them were perfect human beings, but that doesn't diminish their greatness at all.

rdl 13y ago
I wouldn't call Mandela a champion of peace, but of freedom.
- jbooth 13y ago
  AND of peace. Mandela was in prison for 27 years, oppressed his whole life before and after that, and once he gets power, his watchwords? Truth and Reconciliaton. That's why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because with any other leader (just pick a country on the same continent, Zimbabwe's right next door) that situation turns into a shitshow at that point. The fact that he was in the ANC isn't what makes him notable, plenty of other guerilla leaders in Africa who threw out colonialists or white minority rule. That's not why we're talking about him. What he did when he won made him notable. The "he wasn't peaceful" idiots on this thread are either incapable of seeing the big picture or fighting some dumb US domestic political battle.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I agree what he did after he won was amazing, and a great precedent, but I value the victory against Apartheid by ~any means (largely non-violent) more, mainly because if he hadn't won that victory, he wouldn't have been in a position to be noble in victory. (I don't think the Rhodesia precedent was exact, as the white rulers of Rhodesia were probably far more acceptable, and blacks far less oppressed, than they were in RSA; RSA was sufficiently self-sufficient that this could have gone on indefinitely. The other cases were anti-colonialism, which is also different; the Boers were not particularly tied to any European power, so there was no European state pulling out to end the colonial situation, either.)
  - cook1929 13y ago
    Let me get this right. Your logic is that intentionally bombing and killing mothers and children at civilian shopping malls are perfectly okay as long as apartheid exists. Did I get that right?
    - mbillie1 13y ago
      You have (at the time of my writing this) 3 comments, all in this thread, all anti-Mandela to the point of being almost pro-apartheid. Nice throwaway account!
      - cook1929 13y ago
        Nice ad hominem that completely ignores the argument!
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        netrus 13y ago
        Calling your comments 'pro-apartheid' is certainly not ad hominem.
        RyanZAG 13y ago
        Of course it is, it's the very definition. Obviously he's just trying to justify his stance, but you're still disregarding his argument which could be just as easily made by someone pro-apartheid or anti-apartheid since it's orthogonal. Blowing up civilians is probably required at times, I don't know, but the exact border line where it moves from acceptable to unacceptable is a difficult one. Some people (justly) hold that it is always unacceptable and there is definitely nothing wrong with that stand. Others are more pragmatic and can accept that killing 10 civilians is preferable to having 10,000 slaves. It's not an easy answer, don't dismiss it as an ad hominem.
        booyaa00 13y ago
        You can be anti-apartheid, whilst also disagreeing that a good solution is to start bombing shopping malls and railway stations.
rimantas 13y ago
> We all evolve through life, hopefully for the better. Somehow this does not apply for war criminals who are persecuted even at Mandela's age.

by 3am 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

I wouldn't call Mandela a champion of peace, but of freedom.

jbooth 13y ago
AND of peace. Mandela was in prison for 27 years, oppressed his whole life before and after that, and once he gets power, his watchwords? Truth and Reconciliaton. That's why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because with any other leader (just pick a country on the same continent, Zimbabwe's right next door) that situation turns into a shitshow at that point. The fact that he was in the ANC isn't what makes him notable, plenty of other guerilla leaders in Africa who threw out colonialists or white minority rule. That's not why we're talking about him. What he did when he won made him notable. The "he wasn't peaceful" idiots on this thread are either incapable of seeing the big picture or fighting some dumb US domestic political battle.
- rdl 13y ago
  I agree what he did after he won was amazing, and a great precedent, but I value the victory against Apartheid by ~any means (largely non-violent) more, mainly because if he hadn't won that victory, he wouldn't have been in a position to be noble in victory. (I don't think the Rhodesia precedent was exact, as the white rulers of Rhodesia were probably far more acceptable, and blacks far less oppressed, than they were in RSA; RSA was sufficiently self-sufficient that this could have gone on indefinitely. The other cases were anti-colonialism, which is also different; the Boers were not particularly tied to any European power, so there was no European state pulling out to end the colonial situation, either.)
- cook1929 13y ago
  Let me get this right. Your logic is that intentionally bombing and killing mothers and children at civilian shopping malls are perfectly okay as long as apartheid exists. Did I get that right?
  - mbillie1 13y ago
    You have (at the time of my writing this) 3 comments, all in this thread, all anti-Mandela to the point of being almost pro-apartheid. Nice throwaway account!
    - cook1929 13y ago
      Nice ad hominem that completely ignores the argument!
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - netrus 13y ago
        Calling your comments 'pro-apartheid' is certainly not ad hominem.
        RyanZAG 13y ago
        Of course it is, it's the very definition. Obviously he's just trying to justify his stance, but you're still disregarding his argument which could be just as easily made by someone pro-apartheid or anti-apartheid since it's orthogonal. Blowing up civilians is probably required at times, I don't know, but the exact border line where it moves from acceptable to unacceptable is a difficult one. Some people (justly) hold that it is always unacceptable and there is definitely nothing wrong with that stand. Others are more pragmatic and can accept that killing 10 civilians is preferable to having 10,000 slaves. It's not an easy answer, don't dismiss it as an ad hominem.
        booyaa00 13y ago
        You can be anti-apartheid, whilst also disagreeing that a good solution is to start bombing shopping malls and railway stations.

rimantas 13y ago

> We all evolve through life, hopefully for the better. Somehow this does not apply for war criminals who are persecuted even at Mandela's age.