5 ms·

Mandela founded the MK, a terrorist organization that bombed both military and civilian targets. Mandela: "...without violence ... no way ... to succeed in ..

Mandela founded the MK, a terrorist organization that bombed both military and civilian targets. Mandela: "...without violence ... no way ... to succeed in .. struggle against ... white supremacy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_for_formation_of_the_MK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_fo... He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. As with Arafat, I think he reached a point where violence as a tactic wasn't possible or useful.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sanderjd 13y ago
It seems to me that both casca and mathieuh are correct - he was both a symbol of non-peaceful resistance, and a creator of peace amidst a push for war. Furthermore, his post-apartheid actions seem the more historically important, as they were the more novel and their relative success the more surprising.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
eaurouge 13y ago
That's cute. A man dedicates his life to freeing his people from their oppressors, including spending 27 years in jail on principle, and upon release (and with overwhelming support) calls for "truth and reconciliation". We're talking about an entire life spent resisting an oppressive and violent regime. Many of us can't even begin to comprehend what that means, or what actions we may choose if in the same situation. Yet here you are with the benefit of hindsight, in relative comfort, analyzing a statement he made decades before his death. If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. "If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently." - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, p.537) "If the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. It is up to you... not us to renounce violence.” p.537 Looking at things tactically, it's a question of where your opponent is vulnerable: internally or externally. Pacifism is necessary to create the perception of legitimacy needed to mobilize external political support.
  - eaurouge 13y ago
    I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. No, you're attempting to portray him as someone who employed peaceful protest only when it proved convenient, or as a last resort. One only needs compare your 'quote' (all ellipses and no context) with the full quote posted by azernik. He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. The opposite, you've got the wrong order. Read the link you posted on motivation for the formation of MK, then watch his interview in 1961, here (first posted by Q_the_Novice): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA. As Q_the_Novice put it, "first educate yourself ... before posting ...".
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      I'm pointing out facts about him, nothing more. My quote was brief because I'd tweeted it and ended up copying the abbreviated form, but the substance of it is clear: it is a statement advocating militant struggle. The video clip you posted for some reason expresses a similar sentiment. And the quotes from his book I mentioned earlier, advocating violence in certain conditions, were from his book published in 1994. Pacifism is defined as opposition to violence. Mandela, unlike many Western leftists, never ruled out violence as a tactic. Would his movement have succeeded without killing civilians and torturing enemies? Possibly not.
mbillie1 13y ago
I think there is a very different perspective (namely one that spans the entirety of Mandela's adult life) from which one can look at this. Yes, under a violent and oppressive racist regime which virtually anyone in the technologically-literate world would condemn, Mandela founded the MK and rebelled violently. He was imprisoned for a long time, released, and became the figurehead for positive, reconciliatory, peaceful change in a tumultuous part of the world. It's important to not deify the man, but it can come across as pedantic to bring to light the long-ago wrongs of someone who did, and stood for, an awful lot of right.
azernik 13y ago
That's a lot of ellipses. In full: Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. Not that it changes the immediate political meaning much, but it shows some of the thought processes involved.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  The point of quoting it was simply to show that Mandela considers violence a legitimate tactic. Mandela, unlike Western pacifist activists, has never claimed violence should be ruled out as an option.
Q_the_Novice 13y ago
Such short sightedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA . Do you have any idea what it was like to be black or non-white in Apartheid South Africa? First educate yourself about our people's history before posting ignorant public comments.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  I am not making a value judgement, simply pointing out facts. Mandela's organization killed innocent people and tortured enemies. Why they did this is entirely understandable, given the circumstances, but pretending it didn't happen and painting Mandela as a pacifist, when he was in fact a pragmatist that never condemned violence wholesale as Western pacifists do, is to distort history.
  - BenoitEssiambre 13y ago
    ah yes the mythical "western pacifist" who thinks violence is never justified and that, for example, police forces should not forcefully arrest violent criminals but limit themselves to trying to convince them of going to jail. You've made yourself quite a frail stawman. You will find that this "western pacifist" you speak of is a figment of your imagination and doesn't exists in any serious form.
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      The decade or so I spent involved in activism in a variety of organizations is, hopefully, not a figment of my imagination.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sanderjd 13y ago

It seems to me that both casca and mathieuh are correct - he was both a symbol of non-peaceful resistance, and a creator of peace amidst a push for war. Furthermore, his post-apartheid actions seem the more historically important, as they were the more novel and their relative success the more surprising.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

eaurouge 13y ago

That's cute. A man dedicates his life to freeing his people from their oppressors, including spending 27 years in jail on principle, and upon release (and with overwhelming support) calls for "truth and reconciliation". We're talking about an entire life spent resisting an oppressive and violent regime. Many of us can't even begin to comprehend what that means, or what actions we may choose if in the same situation. Yet here you are with the benefit of hindsight, in relative comfort, analyzing a statement he made decades before his death. If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.

mcantelon 13y ago
I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. "If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently." - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, p.537) "If the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. It is up to you... not us to renounce violence.” p.537 Looking at things tactically, it's a question of where your opponent is vulnerable: internally or externally. Pacifism is necessary to create the perception of legitimacy needed to mobilize external political support.
- eaurouge 13y ago
  I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. No, you're attempting to portray him as someone who employed peaceful protest only when it proved convenient, or as a last resort. One only needs compare your 'quote' (all ellipses and no context) with the full quote posted by azernik. He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. The opposite, you've got the wrong order. Read the link you posted on motivation for the formation of MK, then watch his interview in 1961, here (first posted by Q_the_Novice): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA. As Q_the_Novice put it, "first educate yourself ... before posting ...".
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    I'm pointing out facts about him, nothing more. My quote was brief because I'd tweeted it and ended up copying the abbreviated form, but the substance of it is clear: it is a statement advocating militant struggle. The video clip you posted for some reason expresses a similar sentiment. And the quotes from his book I mentioned earlier, advocating violence in certain conditions, were from his book published in 1994. Pacifism is defined as opposition to violence. Mandela, unlike many Western leftists, never ruled out violence as a tactic. Would his movement have succeeded without killing civilians and torturing enemies? Possibly not.

mbillie1 13y ago

I think there is a very different perspective (namely one that spans the entirety of Mandela's adult life) from which one can look at this. Yes, under a violent and oppressive racist regime which virtually anyone in the technologically-literate world would condemn, Mandela founded the MK and rebelled violently. He was imprisoned for a long time, released, and became the figurehead for positive, reconciliatory, peaceful change in a tumultuous part of the world. It's important to not deify the man, but it can come across as pedantic to bring to light the long-ago wrongs of someone who did, and stood for, an awful lot of right.

azernik 13y ago

That's a lot of ellipses. In full: Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. Not that it changes the immediate political meaning much, but it shows some of the thought processes involved.

mcantelon 13y ago
The point of quoting it was simply to show that Mandela considers violence a legitimate tactic. Mandela, unlike Western pacifist activists, has never claimed violence should be ruled out as an option.

Q_the_Novice 13y ago

Such short sightedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBCgiFhmNA . Do you have any idea what it was like to be black or non-white in Apartheid South Africa? First educate yourself about our people's history before posting ignorant public comments.

mcantelon 13y ago
I am not making a value judgement, simply pointing out facts. Mandela's organization killed innocent people and tortured enemies. Why they did this is entirely understandable, given the circumstances, but pretending it didn't happen and painting Mandela as a pacifist, when he was in fact a pragmatist that never condemned violence wholesale as Western pacifists do, is to distort history.
- BenoitEssiambre 13y ago
  ah yes the mythical "western pacifist" who thinks violence is never justified and that, for example, police forces should not forcefully arrest violent criminals but limit themselves to trying to convince them of going to jail. You've made yourself quite a frail stawman. You will find that this "western pacifist" you speak of is a figment of your imagination and doesn't exists in any serious form.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    The decade or so I spent involved in activism in a variety of organizations is, hopefully, not a figment of my imagination.