8 ms·

Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Millions of people think he was put in jail for protesting apartheid or

by jd_free 13y ago

Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Millions of people think he was put in jail for protesting apartheid or something else noble. He was actually a terrorist leader - his group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks. The "activism" he's credited with while in prison was mostly arranging more killings. Read about a practice his group created while he was in prison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

scarmig 13y ago
You can read more about the crimes his group was involved in in the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established after the abolition of apartheid.
garg 13y ago
From what I am reading all this happened while he was in prison. ANC had violent members while Mandela was in prison but how does that implicate Mandela? Desmund Tutu saved a man from Necklacing so why then would he be such an ardent supporter of Mandela?
- scarmig 13y ago
  In fairness, he started the military wing of the ANC, and his wife was involved in lots of very nasty stuff. Those were bleak times, though; I'm sure Mandela himself thought as much. But for some reason you don't see the people so outraged about the relatively limited violence the ANC engaged in even slightly concerned about the constant terrorism and mass violence that the apartheid state directed against it's nonwhite residents. (I would say citizens, but they didn't even have legal formal citizenship.) And more than anything it's Mandela's performance after abolition that has cemented his reputation: he could easily have been another Mugabe, but he pursued restorative justice for both sides, not vengeance. To paraphrase MLK... I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that a political movement in a deeply repressed and violent society itself occasionally resorts to violence, but it is even more unfortunate that the country's white power structure left the coloured community with no alternative.
larrys 13y ago
You've raised some interesting points and I don't know enough to know if this is correct (other than what you are referring to and I don't even come close to knowing how to vet anything on this). But I do know that currently Mandela is seen as a saint (just watching the news last night alone would tell you that). So I wonder if anyone with mainstream credibility has written or will write some definite document that confirms or denies what people are saying on either side of this issue?
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  Here's an account of the trial which I thought was pretty detailed: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandel... I thought it was pretty telling he was offered his freedom if he denounced the violence the ANC was taking part in and he refused.
  - larrys 13y ago
    Actually now that I'm thinking about it last night I think Brian Williams (NBC) said that but he said it in a tone of voice that didn't make it seem bad. I thought about it a bit but forgot until you just made your comment. Shows you how the press can infer importance or not just by the way something is presented.
- ismail 13y ago
  I think the media you are watching are doing you a disservice and quite possibly the world media. They are portraying Nelson Mandela as some kind of grand-father to the country, and yes in the last 15 years he has grown into that role, but there was more to the man that. He was not GREAT because he was a SAINT or a pacifist or forgiving. He was great, because he knew what needed to be done, and he did it at the right times. When the peaceful resistance, the marching, the uprisings were not working, it was time for the armed resistance. When the country was at the brink of civil war he reliased unity would be needed to ensure the country and people would be truly free. He was great, because he could get people to see his view of the world, not by force, not by demanding but just by speaking to them. He was not this cuddly teddy bear/saint that some here seem to think he was. When the time came, and he did what needed to be done, not for himself but for the people, for a cause and for freedom.
mrleinad 13y ago
This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. You can't make a revolution without guns, when the other side has all the power and lots of guns as well. Almost all independence wars (and I say almost, because there's this nice dude Gandhi, but I'm not sure it was an actual war) were fought with weapons, not with flowers and nice thoughts. If you're from the US you should know better, considering that your Constitution clearly states (paraphrasing) that you have a right to bear arms, in case the government tries to take away your freedoms.
- tcdent 13y ago
  I don't think most Americans understand the second amendment, even if they are in support of it.
- gwern 13y ago
  > This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. Bullshit? Should we infer that you think Castro's Cuba was a smashing success and has totally justified all the bad things he and his followers did?
  - tcdent 13y ago
    Care to elaborate on "all of the bad things"? If there's anything to take away from this discussion on Mandela, it's that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what actually happened, especially if you are primarily informed by American media.
    - noarchy 13y ago
      "all of the bad things" seem to continue: Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. The government of Raúl Castro continues to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they leave the country, the government continues to sentence dissidents in closed, summary trials. The government has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely. http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba Another source for info, if you don't like HRW: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba
bilbo0s 13y ago
I downvoted you and wanted to explain, as the downvote was not for your content. I, as a rule, downvote posts by sparsely populated, recently created accounts. Reason being, I generally believe them to be throwaway accounts created for the purposes of spamming and trolling. I think it does a disservice to HN to engage in that behavior. I wanted to give you some advice on how to avoid downvotes in the future. If you have something to say... say it on your own account is probably the best piece of advice. Also, if you really are a new member, perhaps you could put more profiling information in the account you create so that people don't ascribe malevolent intent to your activities. I know that the older members don't need to do so... but they have a track record of useful contributions to discussions. Lastly, if you are not a spammer or troll... Welcome to HN.
- tcdent 13y ago
  Automatic downvotes for green accounts?! If that was a good idea, it would be built into the software. Read, comprehend, and then interact based on the content. Meta posts like this are a waste of everyone's time.
- randac 13y ago
  Perhaps you should exercise self-control and refrain from passing ANY judgement then, if your reasons for doing so are unrelated to the content of the posts in question.
- middleclick 13y ago
  Oh look, someone is going all "respect my authoritah" here. You should stop taking imaginary internet points so seriously.
jbooth 13y ago
It's pretty amazing that we've got all these brand new accounts showing up, all to make sure that we're aware of what a terrible person Nelson Mandela was. I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing to do with race, I'm sure, they're just pacifists who oppose violence in all forms. If they were being oppressed by black people, they'd never have resorted to violence.
- mjb 13y ago
  > I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'm a South African. I am constantly disappointed by the amount of time and emotional energy some South Africans (and expats) put into historical revisionism and apartheid denial. There are many reasons for it, but it's worth reminding yourself that in 1992 more than 30% of South African voters voted to continue apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referendum,_1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referen...). History is ugly, recent history especially so.
  - iends 13y ago
    There seems to be revisionism on both sides. Before yesterday did not know that Mandela started the armed branch of the ANC which actively bombed government buildings and while Mandela was in prison (and maybe not involved) bombed public places where innocent people were killed. This isn't judgement, this is me as an American being shocked that the media and historical portrayal I've encountered never mentioned these facts (although, it's certainly not secret and not something I've investigated).
    - jd_free 13y ago
      Exactly. If you are under 35, there's a good chance you have literally no idea about anything bad Mandela ever did and believe that he was imprisoned for doing something Rosa Parks-like or something. The fact that history can be rewritten like that is disturbing regardless of how it's used.
      - 13y ago
mjb 13y ago
> He was actually a terrorist leader - his group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks. Mandela was extremely conflicted by the ANC's (and, more specifically, MK's) use of violence against the apartheid government. He saw it as a regrettable tool to be used to achieve better ends. It's clear from his later writings (his Time essay about Gandhi, for example) that he, at least, regretted needing to take these actions. You're also going to need to present citations for "thousands of innocents". While it is true that civilians were killed in MK bombings, "thousands" is a gross exaggeration. It's also interesting to compare these actions to those being taken on the other side, with the program run under Basson as a very good example. The TRC findings make it clear that both sides were involved in some really unpleasant and unacceptable activities, and Mandela did indeed know about many of MK's uglier secrets, but to cast him as a terrorist only interested in killing civilians is unfair and historically inaccurate. On the other hand, I suspect you're just a troll, so I'm not going to convince you with evidence.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- newman314 13y ago
  This is all well in good when you are having an armchair discussion. I suspect you would respond different if you were informed: "We regret this but we are going to have to kill you" (read in the voice of a Vogon)
anon808 13y ago
George Washington also resorted to violence, and if you're British during the late 1700s, you might even call it terrorism.
- danielweber 13y ago
  There seem to be people who think that Mandela was a pacifist like Ghandi. I can buy the "was justified in the use of violence" angle, but he was supported the use of violence for political ends enough that Amnesty International refused to call him a Prisoner of Conscience at the time. People are not totally good or totally evil.
mikebludd 13y ago
Black South African here It's a known fact that the ANC's guerilla campaign was largely a failure(most of the combatants were stuck in training camps across africa ).MK was founded after the Sharpeville massacre 21 March 1960 at which the apartheid gov killed 69 people who did not want carry ID's required for all black males.
ilitirit 13y ago
> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Ironic, considering that your post is basically revisionism at it's finest. Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela Mandela was jailed for sabotage. MK was founded after the ANC's policy of "non-cooperation" was continually met with violent opposition from the SA government. Were they "terrorists"? No, the intent was not to spread terror or harm civilians. They only attacked government and military targets in ways which that would result in the least harm to civilians. This is exactly what he was sent to prison for - sabotage. There was zero evidence that he had a hand in any activities that led to civilian casualties (if there had been, he would have been hanged). These "thousands of people" you claim that have been killed by MK (I'm not sure you can substantiate that) occurred while he has in prison. A large part of his sentence was carried out on Robben Island (Google it, it's literally an island) so he had little to no contact with the outside world, hence it would have been impossible for him to lead MK. He only found out about the group's activities when he was moved to a prison on the main land. And by then, his wife was running the show. Yes, MK did bad things, especially under Winnie Mandela. But Nelson Mandela had no part in it. In fact, the differences in political ideology was a big factor in their eventual separation and divorce.
brown9-2 13y ago
Are you sure that it is fair to blame Mandela for what some parts of the ANC did while he was imprisoned? Did he have control over all of the factions then?
- smsm42 13y ago
  That depends. Did he raise his voice against the practices and use the fullest of his authority to stop it, but failed, or did he accept the practices as something people do, but not talk about in the polite society?
ZoFreX 13y ago
> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. I agree. It's quite amusing to see politicians that were definitively not on his side coming out after all these years in favour of him: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/follow-nelson-mandela-laugh-rightwing-fawning http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/follow-... In response to the rest of your comment: wow such edgy.

by jd_free 13y ago

scarmig 13y ago

You can read more about the crimes his group was involved in in the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established after the abolition of apartheid.

garg 13y ago

From what I am reading all this happened while he was in prison. ANC had violent members while Mandela was in prison but how does that implicate Mandela? Desmund Tutu saved a man from Necklacing so why then would he be such an ardent supporter of Mandela?

scarmig 13y ago
In fairness, he started the military wing of the ANC, and his wife was involved in lots of very nasty stuff. Those were bleak times, though; I'm sure Mandela himself thought as much. But for some reason you don't see the people so outraged about the relatively limited violence the ANC engaged in even slightly concerned about the constant terrorism and mass violence that the apartheid state directed against it's nonwhite residents. (I would say citizens, but they didn't even have legal formal citizenship.) And more than anything it's Mandela's performance after abolition that has cemented his reputation: he could easily have been another Mugabe, but he pursued restorative justice for both sides, not vengeance. To paraphrase MLK... I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that a political movement in a deeply repressed and violent society itself occasionally resorts to violence, but it is even more unfortunate that the country's white power structure left the coloured community with no alternative.

larrys 13y ago

You've raised some interesting points and I don't know enough to know if this is correct (other than what you are referring to and I don't even come close to knowing how to vet anything on this). But I do know that currently Mandela is seen as a saint (just watching the news last night alone would tell you that). So I wonder if anyone with mainstream credibility has written or will write some definite document that confirms or denies what people are saying on either side of this issue?

at-fates-hands 13y ago
Here's an account of the trial which I thought was pretty detailed: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandel... I thought it was pretty telling he was offered his freedom if he denounced the violence the ANC was taking part in and he refused.
- larrys 13y ago
  Actually now that I'm thinking about it last night I think Brian Williams (NBC) said that but he said it in a tone of voice that didn't make it seem bad. I thought about it a bit but forgot until you just made your comment. Shows you how the press can infer importance or not just by the way something is presented.
ismail 13y ago
I think the media you are watching are doing you a disservice and quite possibly the world media. They are portraying Nelson Mandela as some kind of grand-father to the country, and yes in the last 15 years he has grown into that role, but there was more to the man that. He was not GREAT because he was a SAINT or a pacifist or forgiving. He was great, because he knew what needed to be done, and he did it at the right times. When the peaceful resistance, the marching, the uprisings were not working, it was time for the armed resistance. When the country was at the brink of civil war he reliased unity would be needed to ensure the country and people would be truly free. He was great, because he could get people to see his view of the world, not by force, not by demanding but just by speaking to them. He was not this cuddly teddy bear/saint that some here seem to think he was. When the time came, and he did what needed to be done, not for himself but for the people, for a cause and for freedom.

mrleinad 13y ago

This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. You can't make a revolution without guns, when the other side has all the power and lots of guns as well. Almost all independence wars (and I say almost, because there's this nice dude Gandhi, but I'm not sure it was an actual war) were fought with weapons, not with flowers and nice thoughts. If you're from the US you should know better, considering that your Constitution clearly states (paraphrasing) that you have a right to bear arms, in case the government tries to take away your freedoms.

tcdent 13y ago
I don't think most Americans understand the second amendment, even if they are in support of it.
gwern 13y ago
> This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. Bullshit? Should we infer that you think Castro's Cuba was a smashing success and has totally justified all the bad things he and his followers did?
- tcdent 13y ago
  Care to elaborate on "all of the bad things"? If there's anything to take away from this discussion on Mandela, it's that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what actually happened, especially if you are primarily informed by American media.
  - noarchy 13y ago
    "all of the bad things" seem to continue: Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. The government of Raúl Castro continues to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they leave the country, the government continues to sentence dissidents in closed, summary trials. The government has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely. http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba Another source for info, if you don't like HRW: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba

bilbo0s 13y ago

I downvoted you and wanted to explain, as the downvote was not for your content. I, as a rule, downvote posts by sparsely populated, recently created accounts. Reason being, I generally believe them to be throwaway accounts created for the purposes of spamming and trolling. I think it does a disservice to HN to engage in that behavior. I wanted to give you some advice on how to avoid downvotes in the future. If you have something to say... say it on your own account is probably the best piece of advice. Also, if you really are a new member, perhaps you could put more profiling information in the account you create so that people don't ascribe malevolent intent to your activities. I know that the older members don't need to do so... but they have a track record of useful contributions to discussions. Lastly, if you are not a spammer or troll... Welcome to HN.

tcdent 13y ago
Automatic downvotes for green accounts?! If that was a good idea, it would be built into the software. Read, comprehend, and then interact based on the content. Meta posts like this are a waste of everyone's time.
randac 13y ago
Perhaps you should exercise self-control and refrain from passing ANY judgement then, if your reasons for doing so are unrelated to the content of the posts in question.
middleclick 13y ago
Oh look, someone is going all "respect my authoritah" here. You should stop taking imaginary internet points so seriously.

jbooth 13y ago

It's pretty amazing that we've got all these brand new accounts showing up, all to make sure that we're aware of what a terrible person Nelson Mandela was. I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing to do with race, I'm sure, they're just pacifists who oppose violence in all forms. If they were being oppressed by black people, they'd never have resorted to violence.

mjb 13y ago
> I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'm a South African. I am constantly disappointed by the amount of time and emotional energy some South Africans (and expats) put into historical revisionism and apartheid denial. There are many reasons for it, but it's worth reminding yourself that in 1992 more than 30% of South African voters voted to continue apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referendum,_1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referen...). History is ugly, recent history especially so.
- iends 13y ago
  There seems to be revisionism on both sides. Before yesterday did not know that Mandela started the armed branch of the ANC which actively bombed government buildings and while Mandela was in prison (and maybe not involved) bombed public places where innocent people were killed. This isn't judgement, this is me as an American being shocked that the media and historical portrayal I've encountered never mentioned these facts (although, it's certainly not secret and not something I've investigated).
  - jd_free 13y ago
    Exactly. If you are under 35, there's a good chance you have literally no idea about anything bad Mandela ever did and believe that he was imprisoned for doing something Rosa Parks-like or something. The fact that history can be rewritten like that is disturbing regardless of how it's used.
    - 13y ago

mjb 13y ago

> He was actually a terrorist leader - his group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks. Mandela was extremely conflicted by the ANC's (and, more specifically, MK's) use of violence against the apartheid government. He saw it as a regrettable tool to be used to achieve better ends. It's clear from his later writings (his Time essay about Gandhi, for example) that he, at least, regretted needing to take these actions. You're also going to need to present citations for "thousands of innocents". While it is true that civilians were killed in MK bombings, "thousands" is a gross exaggeration. It's also interesting to compare these actions to those being taken on the other side, with the program run under Basson as a very good example. The TRC findings make it clear that both sides were involved in some really unpleasant and unacceptable activities, and Mandela did indeed know about many of MK's uglier secrets, but to cast him as a terrorist only interested in killing civilians is unfair and historically inaccurate. On the other hand, I suspect you're just a troll, so I'm not going to convince you with evidence.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
newman314 13y ago
This is all well in good when you are having an armchair discussion. I suspect you would respond different if you were informed: "We regret this but we are going to have to kill you" (read in the voice of a Vogon)

anon808 13y ago

George Washington also resorted to violence, and if you're British during the late 1700s, you might even call it terrorism.

danielweber 13y ago
There seem to be people who think that Mandela was a pacifist like Ghandi. I can buy the "was justified in the use of violence" angle, but he was supported the use of violence for political ends enough that Amnesty International refused to call him a Prisoner of Conscience at the time. People are not totally good or totally evil.

mikebludd 13y ago

Black South African here It's a known fact that the ANC's guerilla campaign was largely a failure(most of the combatants were stuck in training camps across africa ).MK was founded after the Sharpeville massacre 21 March 1960 at which the apartheid gov killed 69 people who did not want carry ID's required for all black males.

ilitirit 13y ago

> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Ironic, considering that your post is basically revisionism at it's finest. Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela Mandela was jailed for sabotage. MK was founded after the ANC's policy of "non-cooperation" was continually met with violent opposition from the SA government. Were they "terrorists"? No, the intent was not to spread terror or harm civilians. They only attacked government and military targets in ways which that would result in the least harm to civilians. This is exactly what he was sent to prison for - sabotage. There was zero evidence that he had a hand in any activities that led to civilian casualties (if there had been, he would have been hanged). These "thousands of people" you claim that have been killed by MK (I'm not sure you can substantiate that) occurred while he has in prison. A large part of his sentence was carried out on Robben Island (Google it, it's literally an island) so he had little to no contact with the outside world, hence it would have been impossible for him to lead MK. He only found out about the group's activities when he was moved to a prison on the main land. And by then, his wife was running the show. Yes, MK did bad things, especially under Winnie Mandela. But Nelson Mandela had no part in it. In fact, the differences in political ideology was a big factor in their eventual separation and divorce.

brown9-2 13y ago

Are you sure that it is fair to blame Mandela for what some parts of the ANC did while he was imprisoned? Did he have control over all of the factions then?

smsm42 13y ago
That depends. Did he raise his voice against the practices and use the fullest of his authority to stop it, but failed, or did he accept the practices as something people do, but not talk about in the polite society?

ZoFreX 13y ago

> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. I agree. It's quite amusing to see politicians that were definitively not on his side coming out after all these years in favour of him: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/follow-nelson-mandela-laugh-rightwing-fawning http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/follow-... In response to the rest of your comment: wow such edgy.