His cause was always just.
His judgement was finely tuned.
And damn, could he orate.
Ignoring, down-playing or criticising the armed struggle against apartheid seems absurd.
In many ways one could argue that the extreme violence of the 1980s drew the apartheid government to Mandela as 'someone we can do business with'.
Of course, speculation is easy but many journalists, historians and peers of Mandela have suggested that without protests and problems Mandela May have languished in a prison cell to the end of his days.
There is a time for armed struggle.
My opinion that his accomplishments, and what the world should remember him for, are the things he accomplished after he was released from prison was somehow distasteful. You want to bring up his less idealistic past save it for history class. You can also talk about the good points about Stalin and Pol Pot there as well. This was a thread for remembrance and I think some folks forgot that.
My opinion is that to call his accomplishments in setting up the heroic MK "his less than idealistic past" is disgusting and can only be uttered by some First World liberal who has no idea what he is talking about.
Because the man must be remembered for what got him sent to prison, as that's somehow equally as important as what he accomplished after he got out.
Spend 23 years preaching forgiveness,
before that Spend 27 years in prison
before that Spend 18 years as an activist trying non-violent protest
But somewhere in between all that: 1.4 years as head of a sabotage resistance group.
Total sum of his life = Marxist terrorist. We must never forget the criminal actions of Nelson Mandela. Got ya.
Personally I think you're giving way too much importance to this MK group. Maybe because initially the leadership were mostly white and communist?
Maybe I should end with the words of Mandela: "It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice."
Personally I see the history of a man desperately trying peace, losing heart, turning to violence, and then languishing in prison before finally rediscovering the strength in peace and forgiveness, and then emerging to help shape the future of South Africa.
What seems to be distasteful to Anklebiter is me calling Mandela a man of peace. Don't know why. But then I guess I'm a first world liberal who has no idea what I'm talking about.
What seems to be distasteful to Anklebiter is me calling Mandela a man of peace. Don't know why. But then I guess I'm a first world liberal who has no idea what I'm talking about.
Personally I see the history of a man desperately trying peace, losing heart, turning to violence, and then languishing in prison before finally rediscovering the strength in peace and forgiveness, and then emerging to help shape the future of South Africa.
I think its a lot easier to try not blowing people up when your choice about it has been removed.
I think losing the lesson that someone who's a saint figure could use violence against a state thats using violence against him and still be a great and moral man is losing an incredibly large part of the story. Its the part that makes people consider that people using violence against authority don't automatically have to be the bad guys, they may have valid reasons for what they're doing.
The problem with that is you're also given the message that it works. If you're worried about simplistic messages I think the "Nelson Mandela used violence, helped dismantle apartheid, and then became president of South Africa" is far worse then "Mandela helped heal South Africa with his message of peace and forgiveness"
Beside we here in North America have a long running tradition of freedom fighters in popular culture. You think anyone in today's society would call Robin Hood a terrorist? Well maybe the folks over at faux news. But I don't think anyone here is going to believe that violence against the state is never justified. You have whole groups of folks just planning for the day the government comes after them. The problem is that very few folks see non violent methods as being useful. Our culture might venerate MLK, but we celebrate characters like V from V for Vendetta.
Mandela may have resorted to violence in a very dark point in his life, and these choices did help to shape him into the great man he became, but violence didn't help his cause, and in fact may have helped the repressive regime gain support from others.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think its a lot easier to try not blowing people up when your choice about it has been removed.
At no point was Nelson Mandela accused of blowing people up. If the South African government could have made that case he would have been sentenced to death. While he was working for MK they did blow up power stations and the like, but only at night or when there was low chance of people being hurt. MK did become far more violent and deadly after Mandela was sent to prison however.
The problem with that is you're also given the message that it works.
Which is only a problem if its false. It doesn't seem like most peaceful protests get anywhere without the stick of violent retaliation somewhere in the mix, but its hard to pull causation out of something with universal correlation.
If its true then showing that violence works, and is necessary, isn't a bug its a feature because half the point of history is to learn from it.
If its not true, then it prompts people to understand the use of violence by non governmental entities as something more complex than 'they're blowing stuff up and they're not soldiers so they're the bad guys, shoot them'.
Quote:
If you're worried about simplistic messages I think the "Nelson Mandela used violence, helped dismantle apartheid, and then became president of South Africa" is far worse then "Mandela helped heal South Africa with his message of peace and forgiveness"
Why not ' Nelson Mandela tried to peacefully protest apartheid, it didn't work, he tried violent retaliation to the excessive use of government force and they locked him in jail. Rather than giving the cycle of violence one more turn he said enough is enough and forgave his oppressors;
Don't become what you hate and know when to stop because you've won is the most important message I can think of for anyone in a cycle of violence.
Quote:
You think anyone in today's society would call Robin Hood a terrorist? Well maybe the folks over at faux news. But I don't think anyone here is going to believe that violence against the state is never justified.
In a heartbeat. Look at the flack the occupy wallstreet protestors get for just sitting there. Vietnam protestors were called terrorists for property damage.
People believe in violence against the state in hindsight but far fewer believe that the government is NOW the bad guy in the story. (mostly because its the bad guy to someone else). We all recognize that the US was the bad guy in the story of the
Native Americans.
Slaves
Island areas where we wanted navel bases
The Philippines
Counties that wanted to break the monopoly on dole fruit
south american countries with democratically elected less than laisez faire governments.
Because history has given us the distance to make an objective opinion over the US's actions, which were spun to seem reasonable at the time. How many people take the same position over our casual middle east invasions, handing out chemical weapons to dictators, and horrific civilian casualties with the predator drones?
We WERE the bad guys can be hard to accept. We ARE the bad guys is almost impossible. No one wants to look in the mirror one morning and find the darth vader helmet looking back.
Quote:
You have whole groups of folks just planning for the day the government comes after them. The problem is that very few folks see non violent methods as being useful. Our culture might venerate MLK, but we celebrate characters like V from V for Vendetta.
Can you show me an instance of change through non violence? Women's suffrage is the only thing coming to mind.
Quote:
Mandela may have resorted to violence in a very dark point in his life, and these choices did help to shape him into the great man he became, but violence didn't help his cause, and in fact may have helped the repressive regime gain support from others.
The problem with that is you're also given the message that it works.
Which is only a problem if its false. It doesn't seem like most peaceful protests get anywhere without the stick of violent retaliation somewhere in the mix, but its hard to pull causation out of something with universal correlation.
If its true then showing that violence works, and is necessary, isn't a bug its a feature because half the point of history is to learn from it.
If its not true, then it prompts people to understand the use of violence by non governmental entities as something more complex than 'they're blowing stuff up and they're not soldiers so they're the bad guys, shoot them'.
Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison, I think it's safe to say that violence didn't work, but rather his years of suffering combined with increased international pressure helped move the government far more persuasively then internal terrorism and violence ever did. The writing was on the wall, for sure, what would happen if they tried to hold on and they had full scale civil war, but if a viable black leader like Nelson Mandela, who had been speaking about ways to end the violence for a while now, it's conceivable that the white South African minority might have tried to hold onto power for a little longer.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
If you're worried about simplistic messages I think the "Nelson Mandela used violence, helped dismantle apartheid, and then became president of South Africa" is far worse then "Mandela helped heal South Africa with his message of peace and forgiveness"
Why not ' Nelson Mandela tried to peacefully protest apartheid, it didn't work, he tried violent retaliation to the excessive use of government force and they locked him in jail. Rather than giving the cycle of violence one more turn he said enough is enough and forgave his oppressors;
Don't become what you hate and know when to stop because you've won is the most important message I can think of for anyone in a cycle of violence.
Which is what I would like him to be remembered for, as a man of peace that turned his back on violence and retaliation, but what he was is not as important as what he became.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You think anyone in today's society would call Robin Hood a terrorist? Well maybe the folks over at faux news. But I don't think anyone here is going to believe that violence against the state is never justified.
In a heartbeat. <snip>
I was speaking of the actual character from the books and movies, not people that have self styled themselves after the fictional character. But I do agree that Canada and the US have both been villains at times, and people that try to stand up to them have been rolled over or branded as communists or worse, but I'm not sure as to what extent people swallowed government propaganda . . . even going back as far as the 1950s. Today we're far more cynical, to a fault I'd say, and that's the real problem we have. Most folks probably do realize that calling someone like Snowden a traitor is ridiculous, but folks that are reasonable don't get on TV and most people figure it's pointless arguing in the static.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You have whole groups of folks just planning for the day the government comes after them. The problem is that very few folks see non violent methods as being useful. Our culture might venerate MLK, but we celebrate characters like V from V for Vendetta.
Can you show me an instance of change through non violence? Women's suffrage is the only thing coming to mind.
Well I'm not sure how you're qualifying your criteria for non violence, because both MLK and Gandhi are pretty much prime examples of how these movements can work, sure there was violence on the sidelines (heck some there was even some of that in the suffrage moments) but it was the central message of non-violence that caught peoples attentions and swayed their hearts. Yes there were arsonist window smashing suffragettes that tried to go toe to toe with the police, but the central message of non violence was what swayed the public. The were lots of militant blacks but MLK brought people of all ethnic backgrounds together.
Can you show me an instance of change through non violence? Women's suffrage is the only thing coming to mind.
US Presidential Election of 1800. Most US Presidential Elections actually.
Putting a new name on the desk isn't always a change.
That's why I specifically chose the Election of 1800 as an example. Jefferson was radically different than Adams and it was quite shocking to the rest of the world that such a major transfer of power took place with no violence.
So, questions for Guy Humual: do you view Mandela's time of violent resistance as a flaw?
I doubt Nelson Mandela would see it that way, I'm sure he'd have felt that the government forced his hand, and it's likely that his conviction helped win him even more credibility amongst his fellow freedom fighters, but I don't think his brief foray into violent resistance helped his cause any. His group was called a terrorist organization by many of the western governments he was courting, the fact that the cold war was in full swing and it had strong ties to communist origination probably hurt his case in the US alone. It really wasn't till after the USSR collapsed that his plight was brought back to the forefront.
Do I blame him for wavering, not in the least, but I suspect that it was a mistake. Had there been any justice in this world his first 18 years of non resistance would have bore more fruit.
As to if I think his resistance against a brutal oppressive regime was actually a crime, of course not, but this is what has been said of the man while he was alive, and my insistence that he be remembered in death as a man of peace has been dismissed as ignorance. What I've been arguing is that his 17 months with MK amounted to nothing, something that scores as a footnote of history at best, but nothing that the man should be remembered for. Certainly nothing that should appear in a two line eulogy. But my lack of mentioning the thing that got him thrown into prison is what was imidately questioned. Apparently I can't have respect for the man if I don't mention his 17 months as saboteur.
Can you show me an instance of change through non violence? Women's suffrage is the only thing coming to mind.
US Presidential Election of 1800. Most US Presidential Elections actually.
Putting a new name on the desk isn't always a change.
What about the old gay marriage debate? Went through up here in Canada with almost no violence, it's slowly making it's way thought the US as well. Seems like that's a good example don't you think?
So, questions for Guy Humual: do you view Mandela's time of violent resistance as a flaw?
I doubt Nelson Mandela would see it that way, I'm sure he'd have felt that the government forced his hand, and it's likely that his conviction helped win him even more credibility amongst his fellow freedom fighters, but I don't think his brief foray into violent resistance helped his cause any. His group was called a terrorist organization by many of the western governments he was courting, the fact that the cold war was in full swing and it had strong ties to communist origination probably hurt his case in the US alone. It really wasn't till after the USSR collapsed that his plight was brought back to the forefront.
Of course much of the reason for those strong ties to communist organizations were as much the lack of support from Western Free world types as ideological conviction.
Not uncommon among mid-century anti-colonial nationalist type movements.
Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison, I think it's safe to say that violence didn't work
Absolutely not. No. Hell no. Full stop.
This is not Nelson Mandela, alone, vs the evil apartheid governments. Just because Mandela got arrested doesn't mean that the movement ended. History is not made by one great man alone. It may be easier to conceptualize it that way, but thats not what happens.
Quote:
but rather his years of suffering combined with increased international pressure helped move the government far more persuasively then internal terrorism and violence ever did.
And why did he suffer for years?
Because of the violence. The protests force a crack down, which forces violent resistance, which fosters a bigger crackdown, which finally gets international attention.
Quote:
The writing was on the wall, for sure, what would happen if they tried to hold on and they had full scale civil war
And how do you let people know thats even an option?
By blowing stuff up.
Quote:
Which is what I would like him to be remembered for, as a man of peace that turned his back on violence and retaliation, but what he was is not as important as what he became.
Which sends the message that violence is always wrong.
Quote:
I was speaking of the actual character from the books and movies, not people that have self styled themselves after the fictional character.
Thats the problem. A freedom fighter is someone that fights against someone else. When they fight against YOU they're a terrorist.
Quote:
Well I'm not sure how you're qualifying your criteria for non violence, because both MLK and Gandhi are pretty much prime examples of how these movements can work
Ghandi was called a terrorist. There was an incredibly violent Free India movement that had at least as much to do with the independence as Ghandi did. The thing is people tend to overlook that in the rush to say that violence is never justified.
Quote:
The were lots of militant blacks but MLK brought people of all ethnic backgrounds together.
I think that has more to do with who the people in power would rather surrender to when it turns out their power isn't enough.
This is not Nelson Mandela, alone, vs the evil apartheid governments. Just because Mandela got arrested doesn't mean that the movement ended. History is not made by one great man alone. It may be easier to conceptualize it that way, but thats not what happens.
I think you missed the point of my "he spent 27 years in jail" remark. I'm well aware that there were other people fighting, the group he founded continued to fight eventually resorting to torture and execution, but my point was that if violence worked why didn't it work sooner? That's over a quarter century of failure for violence.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which sends the message that violence is always wrong.
I wasn't aware that people needed convincing that violence is an option. It might not always be wrong but it should be a last resort. Problem is most folks are happy to consider it too soon.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ghandi was called a terrorist. There was an incredibly violent Free India movement that had at least as much to do with the independence as Ghandi did. The thing is people tend to overlook that in the rush to say that violence is never justified.
India has had infighting, social class injustice, inequality for women, and religious strife for some time. The big difference is that Gandhi was able to organize two major groups, the Muslims and Hindus, and his dedication to non violent resistance allowed him to negotiate as both a voice of reason as well as a voice of the people. Perhaps the British were tired of violence and wanted out (I mean it's not like the ever stubbornly held onto territories before <cough> Ireland <cough>) but in order to negotiate peace you need someone at the table. If Gandhi hadn't been around I'd imagine the British crown might have tried holding onto the territory or at least sections of it, for much longer and the violence between the Muslim and Hindu probably would have been far more pronounced then it already was.
I'm well aware that there were other people fighting, the group he founded continued to fight eventually resorting to torture and execution, but my point was that if violence worked why didn't it work sooner?
If people had the decency not to rape murder and steal from others why would the violence have to be used to stop people from doing that in the first place?
They made peace with native Americans multiple times, and kept killing because that was an expedient and profitable option.
Quote:
If Gandhi hadn't been around I'd imagine the British crown might have tried holding onto the territory or at least sections of it, for much longer and the violence between the Muslim and Hindu probably would have been far more pronounced then it already was.
Which is a bit circular.
Do you think Ghandi's carrot could have succeeded without the stick?
Personally I think you're giving way too much importance to this MK group. Maybe because initially the leadership were mostly white and communist?
Maybe I should end with the words of Mandela: "It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice."
I think Mandela would've disagreed with your assessment of the importance of "this MK group."
Personally I think you're giving way too much importance to this MK group. Maybe because initially the leadership were mostly white and communist?
Maybe I should end with the words of Mandela: "It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice."
I think Mandela would've disagreed with your assessment of the importance of "this MK group."
Look, I'm sorry for the "Marxist terrorist" remark, but I really don't like being accused of being ignorant or disrespectful. You and I apparently see Mandela's legacy as being different. I read the linked speech by Mandela and I get the impression that he saw MK as a means to an end, I do get the impression that he didn't want to resort to that, but the government forced his hand. The thing to keep in mind though, regardless of his personal beliefs, is that he was giving a speech about the dismantling of MK. There were most certainly folks that didn't want to see that happen. Mandela needed to appease folks on both sides. I think it's safe to say that even if he regretted his early involvement with the group (or likely he regretted his need to co-found the group) he wasn't going to give a speech about how armed struggle was futile.
Now while I'm not entirely as familiar with MLK as I should, Gandhi never claimed armed struggle wasn't necessary, the man said "where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence", but he clearly believed that the path of non-violence was the hardest road to walk, and it was this path that he insisted that he and his followers take. Keep in mind that Gandhi has a British War Metal for his service in the Boer war, he'd spent two months leading a group of stretcher-bearer corps when the British went to war with the Zulu, and he actively recruited Indians for WWI. These experiences are what helped convince him of the futility of armed resistance (the war did not go well for the Zulu) and convinced him that non-violent resistance was the best course of action.
I think it's safe to say that neither Mandela nor King had come to the path of non-violence the same way Gandhi had. Both lived in oppressive societies, mind you the US was supposed to be an equal society at this point, but neither had likely seen the brutality and futility of war up close. Not to discredit King, but I don't think King suffered the same resistance, nor the same lack of support. Racism was bad all over but there was a split in support, people in the north were very supportive and liked to think themselves morally superior, and the real fighting King had was in the south where folks were stubborn. As bad as the Klan and other racists were, and they were bombing, kidnapping, and murdering people, it was nowhere on the same scale as what Mandela and the other non-whites in South Africa would face.
I'm not going to say that King would have gone done the same path as Mandela if things had gotten worse, but I will say very few people on this earth (if any) have ever had the conviction that Gandhi had. He believed in non-violence to pretty insane levels. I mean just read about some of his opinions about how the Jews should have resisted the Holocaust for example, but in my opinion the legacies of all three, Gandhi, King, and Mandela should be about what they accomplished through non-violence.
It wasn't violence that got Mandela out of prison, it talk and negotiation, and it wasn't violence that helped mend a country and stave off a civil war, again it talk and negotiation. Mandela's greatest accomplishments happened after he was released from prison.
To use Wolf's comment about the stick and the carrot, without a carrot both sides often keep using the stick, and it takes a special sort of individual to try offering a carrot after years of being beaten with a stick.
No worries. I trolled you, you trolled me. Just another politroll day in the OTD.
(I guess the closest I can come to a reciprocal apology is that it's a pet peeve of mine, this comparison with Gandhi and MLK when, imho, he's more akin to an Arafat or one of the less bloody Irish nationalists.)
[Hugs Guy]
Now back to the politrolling.
Listen, you stooge of the plutocracy, the speech was from 1993, that is, after the ANC had been legalized again and just scant months before the ANC won the election. I don't see any "regret" and I don't think he would have ever said the armed struggle was futile, because, um, it wasn't.
What caused the crisis that ousted Botha and brought de Klerk to the negotiation table? South Africa getting their asses kicked in Angola and the Township Rebellions (btw, if you think that I'm overstressing the role of the MK because of my fondness for communists [white, black or "coloured"] you should read up on the role the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions played in bringing about the fall of apartheid)that the Nationalists couldn't suppress even after five years of State-of-Emergency martial law. (I'd even go so far as to say that the international divestment movement was pretty much a sideshow, but I suppose that is debatable.)
That's why I specifically chose the Election of 1800 as an example. Jefferson was radically different than Adams and it was quite shocking to the rest of the world that such a major transfer of power took place with no violence.
We still had slavery and we were still using 90% of the federal budget to massacre Indians. I understand that, politically, they're radically different but in terms of what the government does they more or less keep doing the same thing.
What caused the crisis that ousted Botha and brought de Klerk to the negotiation table? South Africa getting their asses kicked in Angola and the Township Rebellions (btw, if you think that I'm overstressing the role of the MK because of my fondness for communists [white, black or "coloured"] you should read up on the role the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions played in bringing about the fall of apartheid)that the Nationalists couldn't suppress even after five years of State-of-Emergency martial law. (I'd even go so far as to say that the international divestment movement was pretty much a sideshow, but I suppose that is debatable.)
Not that there are many winners in Africa, but it doesn't seem like Angola has done particularly well after ending their civil war. It's a pretty harsh place to live. If I were to wager an opinion I'd say MK and their communist allies might have won, but Angola as a whole, lost. It's why I'd classify the struggle as futile.
Honestly I wouldn't call anything I'd read about MK under Nelson Mandela terrorism. Bombing things and not people is sabotage, heck even if you chose military targets it probably shouldn't be called terrorism, but once you target civilians . . . kill innocent bystanders, heck I don't care who you are, that's terrorism. Course it's lucky for the US that all the adult males killed in drone strikes are terrorist and thus viable targets. What are the chances?
1) Whether Angola is a fun place to live or not is immaterial. The military defeat of South Africa there was a huge contributing factor to the Nationalists deciding to look for another way to protect the Randlords' property other than brutal repression.
2) I would tend to agree with the sabotage vs. terrorism thing, but alas, The Man usually does not. See, for example: the ELF, the Weather Underground, I'm sure there are others.
So here's the point I'm trying to make, MK, or another group like them, probably would have overthrew the government eventually, I coincide the point that the fight in Angola probably sent the message to the South African government that they couldn't hold on forever, but without someone like Nelson Mandela the government of South Africa probably would have tried to hold onto power till the bitter end. Mandela offered a peaceful resolution.
Seems to me that in this talk about stick and carrot you guys want to put too much importance on the stick. MK, or another group like them, would probably eventually have over thrown the South African government, but that would likely have devastated the country and likely would have created a vacuum of power which likely would have set up a violent civil war and devastated the country for decades. I know that's a lot of speculation, but history isn't exactly littered with violent struggle ending with long lasting stability. The US is probably the closest example I can think of, and even that wasn't really a peaceful resolution as the US was an expansionist government that afterwards waged war on the natives, their neighbors, and even amongst themselves. South Africa today isn't a particularity nice place to live, there's still a monster divide between rich and poor, educated and non educated, but it's very hard to imagine things being better without a peaceful resolution.
Honestly violence isn't that hard to come by, if MK hadn't been around some other group would have risen in prominence, but the fact that MK listened to Mandela is probably their most significant attribute. It allowed Mandela the ability to negotiate. By the time the South African government was willing to negotiate Nelson Mandela was seen as the black majority's leader, people from all groups were willing to listen to him, and it wasn't threat of violence that gave him that authority.
Which I don't entirely disagree with. But the struggle was both inevitable and constant. There would have been a struggle without Nelson Mandela, but I think it's pretty safe to say that there wouldn't have been a peaceful outcome without him though.
In contrast to other African nations I suspect that South Africa is doing pretty well . . . which as I pointed out before is a bit like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Things are still pretty bad in South Africa but compared to other countries in Africa they're doing okay. The thing to remember is that it's only been one generation since the fall of apartheid, the simple fact that there hasn't be a brutal round of reprisals is pretty incredible in of itself, but the imbalance that existed before wasn't going to right itself overnight. You need multiple generations of children given the same opportunities before you see change. I mean how long did it take in the US before blacks had full equality? Most would suggest that even with a black president that still isn't something that's been achieved.
What Mandela's deal did was give people a chance that they wouldn't have had before.
Seems to me that in this talk about stick and carrot you guys want to put too much importance on the stick
And you're trying to completely overlook the stick, dismissing it as either unimportant or morally wrong. It is neither. It is both necessary and right.
That's why I specifically chose the Election of 1800 as an example. Jefferson was radically different than Adams and it was quite shocking to the rest of the world that such a major transfer of power took place with no violence.
We still had slavery and we were still using 90% of the federal budget to massacre Indians. I understand that, politically, they're radically different but in terms of what the government does they more or less keep doing the same thing.
You're moving goal posts here. By and large modern Western Democracies operate with little to no violent intervention. Power is transferred and political landscapes change all without resorting to the use of violence. You're position has shifted from "violence is the only force of change" to "discourse doesn't fix everything in the snap of a finger"
These are wholly different assertions. Perhaps you should be more clear about what you actually want to say before telling other people they are wrong by disagreeing with you. If you don't even know what you are saying it makes it very difficult for others to know what you are saying.
Seems to me that in this talk about stick and carrot you guys want to put too much importance on the stick
And you're trying to completely overlook the stick, dismissing it as either unimportant or morally wrong. It is neither. It is both necessary and right.
No, I'm saying that the stick is pretty prevalent. There's nothing special about the stick. The stick is the default in most cases.
No, I'm saying that the stick is pretty prevalent. There's nothing special about the stick. The stick is the default in most cases.
So is the carrot. Has there ever been a revolution somewhere that didn't at least TRY "hey, stop that" first?
Germany invades Poland, 1939.
His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin and the French Ambassador have been instructed to hand to the German Government the following document:
"Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated that he was about to attack Poland. Information which has reached His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government indicates that attacks upon Polish towns are proceeding. In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of the United Kingdom and France that by their action the German Government have created conditions, namely, an aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland, which call for the implementation by the Government of the United Kingdom and France of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance. I am accordingly to inform your Excellency that unless the German Government are prepared to give His Majesty's Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland."
You misunderstand, I wasn't talking about the response to that act. I was talking about the act itself. Germany did not ask Poland to stop being a sovereign state before they enacted their revolution of the Polish political system. Germany's first action was violence, they did not not ask first.
Just so I'm clear: Life still sucks in Angola, therefore armed struggle is futile; life still sucks for the black masses in South Africa, yay Mandela?
But, Doodles (and yes, I'm speaking in the voice of Lord Dice) however badly life may suck for the black masses in South Africa at present, you aren't honestly trying to say that we shouldn't appreciate Nelson Mandala as a political figure on the occasion of his death, right? 'Cause that's exactly the sort of the that black masses in South Africa totally appreciate.
Just so I'm clear: Life still sucks in Angola, therefore armed struggle is futile; life still sucks for the black masses in South Africa, yay Mandela?
Life in Africa sucks in general. Angola is one of the world's leaders in infant mortality, and should they survive into adulthood, people living there also have one of lowest standards of living and life expectancies in the world. Compared to the rest of the world South Africa is doing poorly, compared to Angola (or most of the other countries in Africa) they're doing quite well.
Also the infighting in Angola didn't end with South African troops leaving, the civil war continued well into 21st century. That's something South Africa avoided, so yes, Yay Mandela.
No, I'm saying that the stick is pretty prevalent. There's nothing special about the stick. The stick is the default in most cases.
So is the carrot. Has there ever been a revolution somewhere that didn't at least TRY "hey, stop that" first?
Again I'm not sure how you're qualifying negotiations. There's lots of cases where you don't have negotiations in good faith, or where one side enters negotiates simply as a stalling tactic, or where unreasonable demands are made so that they can later accuse the other side of not talking, or when insufficient time is given for the response. I wouldn't qualify that as a carrot.
You misunderstand, I wasn't talking about the response to that act. I was talking about the act itself. Germany did not ask Poland to stop being a sovereign state before they enacted their revolution of the Polish political system. Germany's first action was violence, they did not not ask first.
In what way, shape, form, or possible misinterpretation was that a revolution?
Again I'm not sure how you're qualifying negotiations. There's lots of cases where you don't have negotiations in good faith, or where one side enters negotiates simply as a stalling tactic, or where unreasonable demands are made so that they can later accuse the other side of not talking, or when insufficient time is given for the response. I wouldn't qualify that as a carrot.
Or one side has no need to negotiate because they have everything already.
Negotiations are useless without each side having something the other side wants. When one side has already taken everything your only option is to start hitting them in the face so "Stop hitting me in the face" becomes something they want.
Quote:
I wouldn't qualify that as a carrot.
Hey, its a peaceful solution, which you seem to insist is better than violence, no matter what.
The violence was not a minor point in his life, it was the entire point of his life. It was not an indiscretion, it was not a one time thing, it is not a "distasteful" act. It was not a mistake he made, it was not an action he repudiated. It needed to be done and he did it, and he would have done it again if he hadn't been physically prevented from doing so.
You are trying to present the peace as his "real" work. The fact is that that violence, mayhem, and actions that would get him labeled a terrorist were a very real part of his work and a very NECESSARY part of his work and that doesn't detract from him being a good person in the least.
Good people will break laws.
Good people use violence.
Good people will hurt people, including innocents, to stop a greater harm.
But that's not the image of history people want to present. They want to make it seem like signing a petition, holding a peace rally, and singing kumbaya is going to change things because they don't want you doing anything effective instead.
You misunderstand, I wasn't talking about the response to that act. I was talking about the act itself. Germany did not ask Poland to stop being a sovereign state before they enacted their revolution of the Polish political system. Germany's first action was violence, they did not not ask first.
In what way, shape, form, or possible misinterpretation was that a revolution?
Is your position that
Quote:
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
You misunderstand, I wasn't talking about the response to that act. I was talking about the act itself. Germany did not ask Poland to stop being a sovereign state before they enacted their revolution of the Polish political system. Germany's first action was violence, they did not not ask first.
In what way, shape, form, or possible misinterpretation was that a revolution?
Is your position that
Quote:
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
Just so I'm clear: Life still sucks in Angola, therefore armed struggle is futile; life still sucks for the black masses in South Africa, yay Mandela?
But, Doodles (and yes, I'm speaking in the voice of Lord Dice) however badly life may suck for the black masses in South Africa at present, you aren't honestly trying to say that we shouldn't appreciate Nelson Mandala as a political figure on the occasion of his death, right? 'Cause that's exactly the sort of the that black masses in South Africa totally appreciate.
No, plutocrat, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just trying to make some sense of Citizen Humual's thought processes.
Again I'm not sure how you're qualifying negotiations. There's lots of cases where you don't have negotiations in good faith, or where one side enters negotiates simply as a stalling tactic, or where unreasonable demands are made so that they can later accuse the other side of not talking, or when insufficient time is given for the response. I wouldn't qualify that as a carrot.
Or one side has no need to negotiate because they have everything already.
Negotiations are useless without each side having something the other side wants. When one side has already taken everything your only option is to start hitting them in the face so "Stop hitting me in the face" becomes something they want.
Quote:
I wouldn't qualify that as a carrot.
Hey, its a peaceful solution, which you seem to insist is better than violence, no matter what.
Huh? I prefer peaceful solutions but not at any cost. Also the paths that Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela took weren't peaceful, they protested, they boycotted, and the refused to participate, but they were non-violent. Peaceful =/= non-violent.
Living under a brutal dictatorship and doing nothing would qualify as a peaceful solution.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The violence was not a minor point in his life, it was the entire point of his life. It was not an indiscretion, it was not a one time thing, it is not a "distasteful" act. It was not a mistake he made, it was not an action he repudiated. It needed to be done and he did it, and he would have done it again if he hadn't been physically prevented from doing so.
The entire point of his life? Forgetting the 18 years or so he unsuccessfully tried non-violent protest before the year or so he was with a sabotage group, if he was so committed to violence, why didn't he call for violence from prison? Why didn't he continue once he was out of prison? He had the power and support to do just about anything at that point. In fact after he got out of prison most of his speeches were about getting past the violence and revenge.
Saying violence was the entire point of Nelson Mandela's life is wrong on so many levels.
