7 ms·

Mandela was more than happy to use violence against the government as a tool in his cause for equality (although later he seemed to regret the need for it). Usi

• scarmig 13y ago
  Weren't those laws only really enforced when non-white people broke them, though? After all, the apartheid state was more than happy to bulldoze thousands of people's homes and not pay restitution; it was more than happy to shoot hundreds or thousands of peaceful protestors and not prosecute anyone for it; it was more than happy to take political prisoners, break their limbs, and throw them out of airplanes a hundred miles from the coast; it was more than happy to plant biological bombs of yellow fever and cholera in refugee camps to lower the number of undesirables. If a law is observed more in the breach than in the general, is it really a law?
  • moolriaz 13y ago
    "Weren't those laws only really enforced when coloured people broke them, though?" What? 'Coloured' people also refers to a very specific subset of South Africans It doesn't mean what you think it does here.
    • scarmig 13y ago
      You're right--I've revised to convey my meaning correctly. Thanks for the correction!
    • iends 13y ago
      Can you elaborate? When I visited South Africa, a few white people used it to refer to the non-whites. I do not know if they were just trying to be descriptive or discriminatory. Perhaps it didn't mean what I thought it meant.
      • nbm 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured is fairly accurate. "Coloured" refers to (and is used self-descriptively by) a subset of people of mixed race of generally one or more of usually British and Dutch ancestry on the "White" side, and generally one or more of various Bantu groups (mostly Xhosa, Zulu, some Ndebele, &c.) or Khoisan ancestry, and sometimes also of Malaysian or other South-East Asian ancestry (from ex-Dutch colonies).
        • markdown 13y ago
          A more descriptive, if not less offensive, term would be half-caste. Half-caste means the same thing everywhere in the world. I am one.
      • emp 13y ago
        I would get scowled at using that term when I first moved out of SA. It is referring to a specific group of people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds
  • iends 13y ago
    I don't know anything about the laws being enforced. My point was, it's hard to argue that "the moral thing to do" is to harm others or destroy property.
    • dannypgh 13y ago
      I actually think apartheid is a good example of why the moral thing to do sometimes is to harm others and/or destroy property. It's not hard to argue at all. Preventing the suffering of the many by harming a relatively small number of people (or destroying practically any amount of property, really) is a clear win from a utilitarian perspective.
      • iends 13y ago
        I understand your perspective and realize it's an easy argument to make. I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2. There is not much more to say on this topic with two opposing viewpoints :)
        • deleted 13y ago
          [deleted]
        • coldtea 13y ago
          >I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2. Only that use was totally unjustified, as Japan was surrendering anyway, a military defeat was already 100% feasible, and the bomb was used needlessy to send a message to the USSR.
          • smsm42 13y ago
            Read your history. Japan wasn't "surrendering anyway" at the time - not even after the destruction of Tokyo (which btw resulted in more casualties than the nuclear attack). In fact, six Japan's largest cities were destroyed and they weren't "surrendering anyway". They rejected the Potsdam declaration as late as end of July. Even after Hiroshima they were only ready to surrender if the whole power structure and the government were preserved and granted the authority to deal with the aftermath of the war (that's like Hitler demanding Nazi party would stay in power and be responsible for investigating Nazi war crimes). In fact, the Japanese military was completely convinced they can and should go on with the war even after Hiroshima.
• rhizome 13y ago
  That is a simplistic assessment. "We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence." Civil disobedience was outlawed and then the government used violence against peaceful demonstrators. Only after that did they fight fire with fire, and history tells us it's possible that that may be the only language that governments understand.
  • iends 13y ago
    Ghandi may disagree. Maybe not, I'm weak on history. I don't agree the end justifies the means, maybe you do, it's far too easy to get into a debate on morality in these topics. :)
    • genwin 13y ago
      You probably agree that the end justifies the means, but not seeing that because you haven't explored the situations in which it would for you.
    • rhizome 13y ago
      I would suggest that while the ends don't justify the means, sometimes the end does depend on the means.
• Crito 13y ago
  I don't think there is much dispute over what Mandela did or did not do, but rather over what we call it and if we should approve of it. Whether you call somebody a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" in response to these sort of actions is a matter of perspective. Movements don't get called "terrorists" by people who side with them. We know this because, in other times in history against other wildly racist and tyrannical regimes, resistance movements have carried out similar violent attacks, but rarely do we hear those groups described as "terrorists". I have never heard somebody describe the French or Polish Resistance as terrorists; they receive the terminology "freedom fighters" because damn near everybody agrees that they were on the correct side of that fight. So what is the deal with people who chose the "terrorist" terminology, rather than "freedom fighter", for the ANC and Mandela? Do they merely lack perspective, or are there actually still a significant number of people who side with the Apartheid government?
  • pyre 13y ago
    I think it's just an attitude of people that see all of the praise for a public figure as ignoring the possibly not so 'saintly' things that they have done[1]. I would be willing to bet the a majority of people only know all of positive things about Mandela, and few of the negative/questionable things. I'm not in the camp of calling him a terrorist, but I do get a bit annoyed (sometimes) when the hero-worship seems to present a skewed perspective on reality. For example, I'm annoyed that many US politicians will dote over how awesome Mandela was in expressing their sympathies over his passing, but there is no talk of how we sided against him. [1] For example, Mother Theresa explicitly withheld pain-killers from the people that she treated because she felt that the pain brought them closer to God. It's unquestionable (to me at least) that treating those people (even with this attitude) was a good thing because they would get no care otherwise. On the other hand, I don't put her up on a pedestal as a perfect human being like others do.
• brown9-2 13y ago
  By the same argument we should criticize and negatively judge the American Revolution as well. This path of argument seems unable to acknowledge that there are times where "the law" is so unjust that you are left with no non-violent actions whatsoever. I think it's fine if you believe this, but you should be able to clearly say that you believe in nonviolence in all situations and that any deviation from that path is immoral.
  • iends 13y ago
    War is terrible, no matter what. The laws Mandela broke were not the same ones he thought were unjust, at least, it seems he broke a superset of the laws he thought were unjust. He did this as a means to an end. I'd like to say I believe in non-violence, but it's one thing to say it, it's another thing not to punch you after you've just pushed my wife.
• ilitirit 13y ago
  > Laws such as planting bombs, destroying property, and physically harming others. The problem with this statement is that he did not physically harm others, or instruct others to do so.
  • iends 13y ago
    Do you have a source? Mandela himself was pretty clear on violence being a tool to effect change.
    • ilitirit 13y ago
      In his own words: 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. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela The entire speech is worth reading.
• 001sky 13y ago
  he broke reasonable and justified laws The logic here escapes me. The purpose of the laws he broke was to support the unreasonable and unjust ones from being challenged. Right? The difference between something like apartheid (or the 3rd reich) and something like a dysfunctional democracy (which will have some bad laws) is the centrality of evil in the core of the system of idendity of the state. Clearly, in SA the apartheid regime was central to the concept of the citizens of SA. Similarly, was the situation under the Nazis. That being said, the country of SA has not integrated gracefully by any means. The crime and apalling violence has led to many of the best and brightest fleeing the country for the UK and other anglophile countries. One of my classmates from Uni had his wife mudered in a most horriffic manner. The sad realizaton is that there are not really any good success stories in sub-saharan africa, in terms of ethical governance, economic prosperity, and the rule of Law. It boggles the mind that the only way to make things work is (apparently) political strongmen and what are in essence forms of exploitative labour arrangements under one guise or another. Hopefully it will one day be a better place.
  • moolriaz 13y ago
    This is at best anecdotal evidence for a mass exodus of the 'best and brightest' fleeing SA. The only time I have been mugged, attacked, or stalked was during my time as a student in the UK (have had all three happen). Ironically I suffered a serious racist attack in the UK, where someone tried to stab me because I wasn't the right colour. The only time I have serious feared for my life. I have never had any such problems in SA. I have never been robbed, threatened, or put in a bad racist situation - this has only happened to me abroad. For many of the millions oppressed during Apartheid, SA is far, far better now. Don't forget crime was rampant during Apartheid, and police protection was not afforded equally to those of difference races. My family, living in non-white areas, had a total of 9 cars stolen during Apartheid. This doesn't happen anymore. Crime statistics are far more accurate now, and show a decreasing trend since Apartheid, though of course it is still high. This crime remains mainly in township areas of SA - set up during Apartheid. I'm not sure what you mean by success stories. There are numerous successful companies in SA, especially tech companies in the Cape Town. My family have risen from rags through businesses and professional work, and my father was able to rise to a judge where people are now fairly tried regardless of race. I'd say that is a success in the rule of law. Our government is not perfect (which is?), but it sure has come a long way. Just while growing up in SA, malls have risen, houses built for millions who lived in shacks, universities opened up to reflect the demographics of the population - the country has prospered even during the rescission, and property value and sky rocketed in some areas. I have numerous opportunities in SA, and run a startup there. I carried out research both at Oxford, in the US, and in South Africa. The researchers I worked with in SA are as highly regarded as their peers in their field abroad (bioinformatics), as highly cited, and are happy in South Africa. I know of people going abroad to do PhD's, then returning to lecture here. I only know 1 other person who has moved to the UK permanently, and this is because they have no family in SA and no higher education.
• rayiner 13y ago
  What legitimacy do laws have, when opposed by a majority of the population and imposed on them by a minority? Calling the ANC "terrorist" turns the term on its head. "Terrorism" is when a minority group uses violence to achieve goals it cannot achieve politically. When the majority uses violence to safeguard its own well-being, that's not terrorism. That's exercising an ability possessed by people in the state of nature, one not superseded by any legitimate law or social contract. In the terminology of American criminal law, the violence is not only justified (where a crime is deemed to have been committed but the actions mitigated by a compelling justification), but excused (where no crime is deemed to have been committed at all).