5 ms·

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

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.
cook1929 13y ago
That's cute. Now find me one instance of the white apartheid government intentionally bombing innocent civilians like Mandela's ANC did.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I can see how that kind of logic applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to apply it in this case is horrible and racist. Shame on you.
  - cook1929 13y ago
    Wait, it is racist to ask for one instance of white apartheid South Africans intentionally killing women and children like Mandela's ANC did repeatedly? Well, golly. If you insist.
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      I was employing irony there, which can be a useful tool for those on the right of the political spectrum. My issue is not really with whether Apartheid is great, or Israel is great. What my post was about was the way people on the far left or far right get away with their views whatever they are, but people in the center are required to assert that Apartheid is evil, while Israel is OK. You literally cannot call yourself a moderate if you do not believe these two things. And yet Israel and Apartheid South Africa are not very different. Both commit human rights violations against the native population. Both have (had) no clear path for the native population to become politically independent. Both claimed to look after the native population better than they could look after themselves. Both justified the situation because it was necessary to preserve their cultural/ethnic identity, and by claiming their opponents were terrorists. So I call myself a moderate, but because I cannot accept the discrepancy between the way people are expected to view Israel and Apartheid, I would probably be considered a racist (for thinking that Apartheid was partly understandable) and also and anti-semite (for thinking that the desire for a Jewish state is not different for the desire for a White state).
booyaa00 13y ago
His torrorist organization bombed many civilian targets, such as railway stations. He also cheated on his first wife, and was a member of the communist party. I'll judge him on that. edit: Downvote this if you like, but the above are facts. Rather than the liberal whitewash that the media in the west prefers.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  You don't know much about it. You could start educating yourself here: http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=3430 http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=3430
Joeboy 13y ago
> If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions. Which is exactly why it's problematic to present Mandela as a symbol of Peace, Love and Understanding. There are people here trying to represent his advocacy of armed struggle during the apartheid era as some kind of youthful indiscretion for which he should be overlooked or forgiven, which does the man's legacy no favours at all.

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.

cook1929 13y ago

That's cute. Now find me one instance of the white apartheid government intentionally bombing innocent civilians like Mandela's ANC did.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
I can see how that kind of logic applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to apply it in this case is horrible and racist. Shame on you.
- cook1929 13y ago
  Wait, it is racist to ask for one instance of white apartheid South Africans intentionally killing women and children like Mandela's ANC did repeatedly? Well, golly. If you insist.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    I was employing irony there, which can be a useful tool for those on the right of the political spectrum. My issue is not really with whether Apartheid is great, or Israel is great. What my post was about was the way people on the far left or far right get away with their views whatever they are, but people in the center are required to assert that Apartheid is evil, while Israel is OK. You literally cannot call yourself a moderate if you do not believe these two things. And yet Israel and Apartheid South Africa are not very different. Both commit human rights violations against the native population. Both have (had) no clear path for the native population to become politically independent. Both claimed to look after the native population better than they could look after themselves. Both justified the situation because it was necessary to preserve their cultural/ethnic identity, and by claiming their opponents were terrorists. So I call myself a moderate, but because I cannot accept the discrepancy between the way people are expected to view Israel and Apartheid, I would probably be considered a racist (for thinking that Apartheid was partly understandable) and also and anti-semite (for thinking that the desire for a Jewish state is not different for the desire for a White state).

booyaa00 13y ago

His torrorist organization bombed many civilian targets, such as railway stations. He also cheated on his first wife, and was a member of the communist party. I'll judge him on that. edit: Downvote this if you like, but the above are facts. Rather than the liberal whitewash that the media in the west prefers.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
You don't know much about it. You could start educating yourself here: http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=3430 http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=3430

Joeboy 13y ago

> If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions. Which is exactly why it's problematic to present Mandela as a symbol of Peace, Love and Understanding. There are people here trying to represent his advocacy of armed struggle during the apartheid era as some kind of youthful indiscretion for which he should be overlooked or forgiven, which does the man's legacy no favours at all.