R.I.P. Nelson Mandela


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Nelson Mandela died.

When I was watching the news me and my mother each thought that Morgan Freeman would look just right to play him in his final years.

EDIT: And now I read that Morgan Freeman already played Nelson Mandela in 2009.

Sovereign Court

One of the few peaceful protesters to get to live out a long and productive life, far too many are murdered, and while I'm sorry to see him go I'm thankful that this great man wasn't assassinated like King or Gandhi. He was an inspiration and he will be missed.


A light for dignity and freedom in our world has gone out.

What a sad day.

Liberty's Edge

This is hard news :-(

Yet I am pretty sure that he will keep on inspiring good people all around the world for a very long time.

Sovereign Court

:(

Sovereign Court

He was one awesome bloke.


A long life, well and patiently lived. May he rest peacefully.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Leaving aside for the moment my ultraleft sectarian criticisms of ANC-ruled, post-apartheid South Africa,

Guy Humual wrote:
One of the few peaceful protesters to get to live out a long and productive life

Umkhonto we Sizwe

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with armed struggle against the Randlords, but if you really respect the man, maybe you should also respect the truth about the man.


RIP Mandela

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Leaving aside for the moment my ultraleft sectarian criticisms of ANC-ruled, post-apartheid South Africa,

Guy Humual wrote:

One of the few peaceful protesters to get to live out a long and productive life

Umkhonto we Sizwe

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with armed struggle against the Randlords, but if you really respect the man, maybe you should also respect the truth about the man.

And yet he chose a path of reconciliation - and I pray that this will be his legacy and that this legacy will survive him and bloom in other, still ongoing conflicts, for revolution without reconciliation is a seed that bears no fruit.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Leaving aside for the moment my ultraleft sectarian criticisms of ANC-ruled, post-apartheid South Africa,

Guy Humual wrote:
One of the few peaceful protesters to get to live out a long and productive life

Umkhonto we Sizwe

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with armed struggle against the Randlords, but if you really respect the man, maybe you should also respect the truth about the man.

He was convicted of sabotage not murder you might remember, and while I wouldn't consider bombing inadament objects as being violent, I'd call that more defiant then anything, but I believe it was the later part of his life where he worked towards reconciliation that he is remembered.

I also believe he took part in bombings out of desperation only when peaceful methods failed. So if he was violent it was only for a very brief portion of his life, and it's not something he was known or should be remembered for.


It is so strange to know that he's not there anymore. Wherever he is, I hope we can manage to make him proud.


Guy Humual wrote:

e was convicted of sabotage not murder you might remember, and while I wouldn't consider bombing inadament objects as being violent, I'd call that more defiant then anything, but I believe it was the later part of his life where he worked towards reconciliation that he is remembered.

I also believe he took part in bombings out of desperation only when peaceful methods failed. So if he was violent it was only for a very brief portion of his life, and it's not something he was known or should be remembered for.

Yeah, because he was jail for the next 20 years.

Hagiographic, whitewashing bullshiznit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 27 years in jail is actually where he made so much positive change. He was a fine human to his fellow inmates and called up the good in them. He made good friends with members of quite different political parties and learned the languages of the factions, and learned the language of his oppressors so he could really hear their views in order to transform the situation. Sadly there is still a great deal of economic disparity there, but sadly it is also present in many other places.... I am thankful for the good moments, thoughts, and actions of Nelson Mandela. I recognize he was no perfect mistake free person, but if I handled my mistakes as well as he did, I would feel very good about how I was doing as a person.

I hope his legacy doesn't get milked by propagandists as a trick for steering public opinion to do non Mandela things.

He changed the sick filled buckets they used as toilets in prison because he was never above compassion to people denied hospital access, that help build alliances among different factions of prisoners/ dissidents.

When the chips were down he did very well.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Leaving aside for the moment my ultraleft sectarian criticisms of ANC-ruled, post-apartheid South Africa,

Guy Humual wrote:
One of the few peaceful protesters to get to live out a long and productive life

Umkhonto we Sizwe

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with armed struggle against the Randlords, but if you really respect the man, maybe you should also respect the truth about the man.

You will note that though this article keeps on mentioning Mandela, it does not even make the effort to clarify that all violent acts it specifically lists (bombings, landmine campaign and torture and executions) happened in the 80's, while Mandela was arrested in 1962.

Which could lead people to believe Mandela was involved with such murderous acts, which is in fact very far from the truth ;-)

His true legacy will be the fact that, under his rule, South Africa did NOT embark on a path of pogrom against the White community no matter how justified, and that he sought reconciliation with those who made so many people suffer terribly (himself included) because he had such great hope and conviction.

Frankly, I did not even believe it possible at the time he was freed. And I was amazed to see how he singlehandedly (with the help of like-minded people such as Desmond Tutu) dragged South Africa out of the cycle of violence and revenge that was the foretold legacy of apartheid.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

So sad that he is gone.
If he was violent earlier in his life - so what? Obviously, he swore off violence later, and this period is very important to South African history. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I guess if one looks at other important figures, one would see a lot of dark spots as well. If one believes in judgment in the afterlife, I think he would be judged favorably, taking his whole life into account.


My friend had Nelson Mandela in our death watch pool. Now I owe him a pack of cigarettes. Damn you Wilko Johnson!


Sounds like betting against that pool is a pretty bad idea.

I had been waiting for the news some time. For him, the struggle is over. Dying is not a good thing. I am glad he's no longer doing that. Rest in peace.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yeah, because he was jail for the next 20 years.

Hagiographic, whitewashing bullshiznit.

I'm not whitewashing anything. He was a peaceful protester for how many years? Vs how many did he belong to a sabotage resistance group? How violent was he when he came out of prison? What vengeance did he take? You think he needs to be remembered for something that he was for maybe two years of his life vs the seventy or eighty or so years he fought inequality? That sounds like a smear job to me.

Whitewashing is when you take a truly deplorable portion of history, like say the apartheid, and then justify a lot of the things they did because they were faced with violent terrorists like Nelson Mandela. That's whitewashing. While I suppose you could be accused of whitewashing an individual, it's usually something that's done to governments or organizations rather then individuals.

He spent the better part of 30 years in prison BTW, 1964 to 1990, and while you might like to assume I'm glazing over the reason he was in prison I can assure you that I'm remembering him for what he became when he was in prison and what he managed to do once he was out.


The deathwatch prize of cigarettes is a wonderful irony, who then is death watching you guys?

Perhaps a toast to Mandela with a nice FairTrade South African wine, they have many to choose from, that's not irony, that's appropriate.

I can only hope Canada follows South Africa and ends its apartheid soon, still working on it. Silly doctrine of discovery and all that Papal bull.

Sovereign Court

Canadian apartheid?


Nelson Mandela 1918-2013

His comrades fought, arms in hand, in Rhodesia and Angola, never mind the propaganda by the deed campaign they continued in South Africa proper until the 1980s. Mandela never renounced them or the armed struggle.

Amnesty International refused to grant Mandela "Prisoner of Conscience" status for his "advocacy of violence," to their immense discredit, imho.

Now, onwards to those ultraleft sectarian criticisms of the ANC in power.

Scarab Sages

You should probably be very careful to call anything propaganda...


Obvious Musical Interlude

Also, "Propaganda of the deed" is far from a disparaging term.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
His comrades fought, arms in hand, in Rhodesia and Angola, never mind the propaganda by the deed campaign they continued in South Africa proper until the 1980s. Mandela never renounced them or the armed struggle.

From that first article you linked:

"For the first 18 years of his imprisonment, Mandela was held on Robben Island off Cape Town, cut off from all that he had known. His first cell was a dank 2.4m by 2.1 m with only a straw mat to sleep on.

He was prevented from attending the funerals of his mother and first son, permitted only rare and brief visits by his daughters and wife Winnie, herself frequently jailed, beaten and banished for political activism. For the first decade he was allowed only one letter every six months. Newspapers were banned and prisoners were forbidden from talking to each other while eating or undertaking prison labour."

Some quick math for you 64+18=82

So you want to hold Mandela responsible for a group that he likely couldn't have even contacted never mind controlled? He's living in a prison under brutal conditions, minimal contact with the outside world, and you expect him to renounce a group that he likely had no knowledge of? A group that was probably fighting for his freedom? He was a great man but I never called him a saint, and while I still think of him as a peaceful man, I can't blame him for faltering. The apartheid was a pretty brutal system and when Mandela first tried peaceful resistance they were the ones that lashed out first . . . and repeatedly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Blaming"? "Holding responsible"? I solidarized with the armed struggle against apartheid and am objecting to your namby-pamby equation of the anti-apartheid movement's militance with Gandhi and MLK-style "peaceful protest."

If you can't figure that out, well, then I'm done.

[Gives clenched fist salute]

Scarab Sages

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Obvious Musical Interlude

Also, "Propaganda of the deed" is far from a disparaging term.

Sorry for that - blame the fact that I didn't have too much sleep lately for not making the pretty obvious babystep from propaganda by the deed to propaganda of the deed...

Again, sorry for misunderstanding you :-(

Sovereign Court

So what you're saying is everything the man did before and after his involvement with Umkhonto we Sizwe is tainted, and a man who is once forced to fight can never be called a pacifist. I disagree. He was a man of peace that sought forgiveness rather then revenge. Not only did he help reconcile white and black but he also helped prevent a civil war between blacks. If you don't want to consider those accomplishments on the same level as King or Gandhi you're welcome to your opinion but please don't accuse me of not respecting the man because I'm willing to forgive past sins.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Blaming"? "Holding responsible"? I solidarized with the armed struggle against apartheid and am objecting to your namby-pamby equation of the anti-apartheid movement's militance with Gandhi and MLK-style "peaceful protest."

If you can't figure that out, well, then I'm done.

[Gives clenched fist salute]

How was apartheid not an innevitable response? Companies bringing in cheap non citizen workers, putting them in worker camps because the locals are hostile toward migrant workers taking their jobs on poor wages. Non citizens pour in to the camps in huge numbers and the companies benifit from more cheap labor. The population swells and children born in camps are not given citizenship. Protests turn violent because some see it as quicker. There are bombings, murders, home invasions, and other acts of terrorism and the outraged public demand the terrorists are pursued back into the camps and brought to justice. The most accessible ringleaders are rounded up.

As US citizens you may not see this as a valid response but imagine if these had been mexican citizens pouring across the border in their millions looking for work in industry and farming resorting to terrorism to get citizenship rights.


yellowdingo wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Blaming"? "Holding responsible"? I solidarized with the armed struggle against apartheid and am objecting to your namby-pamby equation of the anti-apartheid movement's militance with Gandhi and MLK-style "peaceful protest."

If you can't figure that out, well, then I'm done.

[Gives clenched fist salute]

How was apartheid not an innevitable response? Companies bringing in cheap non citizen workers, putting them in worker camps because the locals are hostile toward migrant workers taking their jobs on poor wages. Non citizens pour in to the camps in huge numbers and the companies benifit from more cheap labor. The population swells and children born in camps are not given citizenship. Protests turn violent because some see it as quicker. There are bombings, murders, home invasions, and other acts of terrorism and the outraged public demand the terrorists are pursued back into the camps and brought to justice. The most accessible ringleaders are rounded up.

As US citizens you may not see this as a valid response but imagine if these had been mexican citizens pouring across the border in their millions looking for work in industry and farming resorting to terrorism to get citizenship rights.

What does any of that have to do with apartheid?

The people oppressed by apartheid were originally living there, not immigrants.


Let me clarify what Comrade D was trying to say Guy. It was don't ignore his past, don't gloss over the bloody struggle, he didn't just magically go into prison and magically come out and make South Africa better. While he has in prison contributing the leadership of the downfall of Apartheid people like Steve Biko were being brutally murdered by the South African security forces. There was a bloody struggle going on. He was a part of the struggle and the struggle was not unjustified. To sweep that part of his life under the Capet is to sanitise history. What is amazing and what is truly great about Mandela was he chose not to go down the path of revenge. He embraced reconciliation, when he could have made white SA pay their butchers bill.

South Africa has a long way to go and there is a class and racial divide.

TheJeff while YD is in la la land he is right about immigration to South Africa, there is a very large Indian population in Africa and it began with the Dutch bringing them in as slaves and the British using them as indentured servants. Later many immigrated seeking the opportunities that the vast South African reserves of diamonds and gold offered everybody else in the empire.

Gandhi spent many years in South Africa as a lawyer and civil rights campaigner - for Indians only at first because he shared the same Victorian views of Africans as the Europeans, later he became more aware and while primarily focusing on the plight of the Indian people in South Africa, he did change his ideas about race and became more sympathetic to the plight of the native Africans.

Indian South Africans were subject to the same laws as native Africans when they were implemented in 49. Many SA Indians were a vital part of resistance to Apartheid.

When Apartheid ended there was a second wave of immigration from India, and this has caused some friction as the better educated and financed Indians are very successful.

So the Jeff before you dismiss people out of hand it is best you do some research.

Sovereign Court

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Let me clarify what Comrade D was trying to say Guy. It was don't ignore his past, don't gloss over the bloody struggle, he didn't just magically go into prison and magically come out and make South Africa better. While he has in prison contributing the leadership of the downfall of Apartheid people like Steve Biko were being brutally murdered by the South African security forces. There was a bloody struggle going on. He was a part of the struggle and the struggle was not unjustified. To sweep that part of his life under the Capet is to sanitise history. What is amazing and what is truly great about Mandela was he chose not to go down the path of revenge. He embraced reconciliation, when he could have made white SA pay their butchers bill.

Let me clarify my point again: I still view him as a man of peace and what he did for South Africa is as great an accomplishment as what Gandhi did for India or Martian Luther King did for race relations in the States.

What "Comrade D" said was, and I quote: "if you really respect the man, maybe you should also respect the truth about the man"

Suggesting that I can't think of him as a man of peace because of the things that got him sent to prison. He was head of Umkhonto we Sizwe for 17 months. The worst of the violence committed by that organization happened while he was in prison with little to no contact with the outside world. I never claimed that the man was a saint, or that he hadn't made mistakes in his past, but apparently my two lines of admiration for the man stuck in someone's craw. 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.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

What does any of that have to do with apartheid?

The people oppressed by apartheid were originally living there, not immigrants.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

TheJeff while YD is in la la land he is right about immigration to South Africa, there is a very large Indian population in Africa and it began with the Dutch bringing them in as slaves and the British using them as indentured servants. Later many immigrated seeking the opportunities that the vast South African reserves of diamonds and gold offered everybody else in the empire.

Gandhi spent many years in South Africa as a lawyer and civil rights campaigner - for Indians only at first because he shared the same Victorian views of Africans as the Europeans, later he became more aware and while primarily focusing on the plight of the Indian people in South Africa, he did change his ideas about race and became more sympathetic to the plight of the native Africans.

Indian South Africans were subject to the same laws as native Africans when they were implemented in 49. Many SA Indians were a vital part of resistance to Apartheid.

When Apartheid ended there was a second wave of immigration from India, and this has caused some friction as the better educated and financed Indians are very successful.

So the Jeff before you dismiss people out of hand it is best you do some research.

So at what point do the slaves brought over from India stop becoming immigrants? Seems to me that if you're already in the country when the apartheid was introduced that makes me think that they were already living there . . .

Was there a large influx of immigrants from India between 1949 and 1994?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Hagiographic, whitewashing bullshiznit.

Lawful good is the only good!


Guy they stop being slaves when they continue to immigrate to Africa from India to take advantage of the opportunities that South Africa offered Right up to 49. Indians were cheap skilled labour and we're considered to be a large immigrant population. Their position was defined by apartheid


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Let me clarify what Comrade D was trying to say Guy. It was don't ignore his past, don't gloss over the bloody struggle, he didn't just magically go into prison and magically come out and make South Africa better. While he has in prison contributing the leadership of the downfall of Apartheid people like Steve Biko were being brutally murdered by the South African security forces. There was a bloody struggle going on. He was a part of the struggle and the struggle was not unjustified. To sweep that part of his life under the Capet is to sanitise history. What is amazing and what is truly great about Mandela was he chose not to go down the path of revenge. He embraced reconciliation, when he could have made white SA pay their butchers bill.

South Africa has a long way to go and there is a class and racial divide.

TheJeff while YD is in la la land he is right about immigration to South Africa, there is a very large Indian population in Africa and it began with the Dutch bringing them in as slaves and the British using them as indentured servants. Later many immigrated seeking the opportunities that the vast South African reserves of diamonds and gold offered everybody else in the empire.

Gandhi spent many years in South Africa as a lawyer and civil rights campaigner - for Indians only at first because he shared the same Victorian views of Africans as the Europeans, later he became more aware and while primarily focusing on the plight of the Indian people in South Africa, he did change his ideas about race and became more sympathetic to the plight of the native Africans.

Indian South Africans were subject to the same laws as native Africans when they were implemented in 49. Many SA Indians were a vital part of resistance to Apartheid.

When Apartheid ended there was a second wave of immigration from India, and this has caused some friction as the better educated and financed Indians are very successful.

So the Jeff before you dismiss people out of hand it is best you do some research.

I'm at least somewhat aware of the Indian situation in SA, though less of their part in the resistance to apartheid, but yd's post really stressed the "illegal immigrant" issue above anything else. No mention of the local black population (assuming he actually was talking about Indian immigrants) other than possibly "locals are hostile toward migrant workers taking their jobs on poor wages", which makes little sense in that context.

Would you argue that the apartheid regime was primarily aimed at controlling immigrants, Indian or otherwise? Or was it primarily about the vast majority of Black African natives?
Near as I can tell the Indian population was never larger than a few percent. You hardly need to structure your entire society around dealing with that.

Again, I'm not saying they weren't oppressed or weren't involved in the struggle. But read yd's post again and tell me it makes any sense as the background for apartheid.


Nothing YD writes makes any sense... From what I understand he is talking "guest worker" / imported labour. Which is what Indian immigrant ion to SA was (Gandhi being one of them).

Indians fell under the "Coloured" or Asian subgroups depending on various criteria making up 2-8% if the population.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Nothing YD writes makes any sense... From what I understand he is talking "guest worker" / imported labour. Which is what Indian immigrant ion to SA was (Gandhi being one of them).

Indians fell under the "Coloured" or Asian subgroups depending on various criteria making up 2-8% if the population.

I'll certainly agree with the first part, but every once in awhile I feel the need to point at a particular bit of nonsense.

As near as I can tell he was actually making an analogy to current immigration policies elsewhere in the world, with little concern for the actual historical origins of apartheid.

Which his post clearly blames on immigration. Which in its origins not driven by problems with Indian guest workers, even if they were oppressed by it. It was about keeping the majority black population under control. That's where it started and that was always the main focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Should perhaps add that Nelson Mandela was himself pretty clear on the issue. There were suggestions about removing violent events done by ANC from various archives, and he apparently gave the people suggesting this pretty harsh words.

He was a complex figure. Today, we don't like complex figures, because we can't easily relate to them. Still, perhaps letting him be one is the best sign of respect we can give today, hmm?

Sovereign Court

People have always been complex figures. Our desires to remember what was good about people isn't new either. If you want to see what didn't work and the mistakes that helped build the man, by all means study history, but maybe we could wait till he's been buried before we start looking at his "complexity"?


thejeff wrote:


The people oppressed by apartheid were originally living there, not immigrants.

According to wikipedia, the Dutch were the original settlers in South Africa at Cape Town. African blacks had not yet migrated that far south and west. The Dutch slowly expanded east until they encountered the Xhosa people, which are Nelson Mandela's people.

This was around the Fish River, so looking at a map of South Africa(and note I am not an expert) it looks like the Dutch are the original inhabitants of Western Cape and much of Northern Cape as well as that part of the Eastern Cape west of Great Fish.

Nelson Mandela's people would be immigrants to those areas, while they are the original inhabitants to the eastern part of Eastern Cape as well as the provinces/states north of that area, with the Dutch being the immigrants to those areas.

Of course the British conquered the colony and oppressed both Dutch and Xhosa but that was prior to the more recent apartheid.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
NPC Dave wrote:


According to wikipedia, the Dutch were the original settlers in South Africa at Cape Town. African blacks had not yet migrated that far south and west. The Dutch slowly expanded east until they encountered the Xhosa people, which are Nelson Mandela's people.

This was around the Fish River, so looking at a map of South Africa(and note I am not an expert) it looks like the Dutch are the original inhabitants of Western Cape and much of Northern Cape as well as that part of the Eastern Cape west of Great Fish.

That kind of ignores the presence of the Khoikhoi people and the ancient artifact finds along the cape.

Besides, it still wouldn't excuse the policies imposed on the Bantu peoples who were subject to them in the areas they could be found in before European colonization.


Bill Dunn wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:


According to wikipedia, the Dutch were the original settlers in South Africa at Cape Town. African blacks had not yet migrated that far south and west. The Dutch slowly expanded east until they encountered the Xhosa people, which are Nelson Mandela's people.

This was around the Fish River, so looking at a map of South Africa(and note I am not an expert) it looks like the Dutch are the original inhabitants of Western Cape and much of Northern Cape as well as that part of the Eastern Cape west of Great Fish.

That kind of ignores the presence of the Khoikhoi people and the ancient artifact finds along the cape.

Besides, it still wouldn't excuse the policies imposed on the Bantu peoples who were subject to them in the areas they could be found in before European colonization.

Yeah. Pretty much "No" to the Dutch were the original settlers.

Even every wiki entry I looked talks about the Dutch settling in Capetown and trading with the pastoral natives. No idea what NPC Dave is talking about or where he got his information from.


Bill Dunn wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:


According to wikipedia, the Dutch were the original settlers in South Africa at Cape Town. African blacks had not yet migrated that far south and west. The Dutch slowly expanded east until they encountered the Xhosa people, which are Nelson Mandela's people.

This was around the Fish River, so looking at a map of South Africa(and note I am not an expert) it looks like the Dutch are the original inhabitants of Western Cape and much of Northern Cape as well as that part of the Eastern Cape west of Great Fish.

That kind of ignores the presence of the Khoikhoi people and the ancient artifact finds along the cape.

Besides, it still wouldn't excuse the policies imposed on the Bantu peoples who were subject to them in the areas they could be found in before European colonization.

Ah, you are right, the Khoikhoi were already in the area nearby when the Dutch settled Cape Town.

I am not excusing any type of oppression or apartheid, but people just assume that the Bantu(specifically the Xhosa) were already there when the Dutch first settled. That wasn't the case for western South Africa, only the eastern parts of South Africa.

The Exchange

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Let me clarify what Comrade D was trying to say Guy. It was don't ignore his past, don't gloss over the bloody struggle, he didn't just magically go into prison and magically come out and make South Africa better. While he has in prison contributing the leadership of the downfall of Apartheid people like Steve Biko were being brutally murdered by the South African security forces. There was a bloody struggle going on. He was a part of the struggle and the struggle was not unjustified. To sweep that part of his life under the Capet is to sanitise history. What is amazing and what is truly great about Mandela was he chose not to go down the path of revenge. He embraced reconciliation, when he could have made white SA pay their butchers bill.

South Africa has a long way to go and there is a class and racial divide.

TheJeff while YD is in la la land he is right about immigration to South Africa, there is a very large Indian population in Africa and it began with the Dutch bringing them in as slaves and the British using them as indentured servants. Later many immigrated seeking the opportunities that the vast South African reserves of diamonds and gold offered everybody else in the empire.

Gandhi spent many years in South Africa as a lawyer and civil rights campaigner - for Indians only at first because he shared the same Victorian views of Africans as the Europeans, later he became more aware and while primarily focusing on the plight of the Indian people in South Africa, he did change his ideas about race and became more sympathetic to the plight of the native Africans.

Indian South Africans were subject to the same laws as native Africans when they were implemented in 49. Many SA Indians were a vital part of resistance to Apartheid.

When Apartheid ended there was a second wave of immigration from India, and this has caused some friction as the better educated and financed Indians are very successful.

So the Jeff before you dismiss people out of hand it is best you do some research.

I think you are struggling to distinguish between segregation and the apartheid which built on it.

First off South Africa was Zulu Land. So the other Africans who are there were migrants from the rest of Africa even after segregation was legalized in 1948. Work was work even when it involved crossing over a border illegally to live under corporate slavery. Segregation was racism. Apartheid was the period of exploitation of that segregated populace. I separate one from the other because apartheid can happen without segregation. Thats why the US can still go down the apartheit road with a hispanic population pouring over its borders illegally to be exploited by farmers and industry as cheap Labour.

Secondly, terrorism is an act of treason. Your suggestion it is aceptable is like saying alquaeda had ever right to wage a terrorist war.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yellow Dingo wrote:
Secondly, terrorism is an act of treason.

Only if you lose.

If you win, kids will have off from school on your birthday.


Apartheid MEANS segregation. The whole idea was "we live here, they live there". It was enforced by various bad laws. Dicrimination in its original form means separation, specifically, separation of one from soemthing else. In medicine, there is a test called "two point discrimination", which deals with how far apart you can tell that there are two different points of pressure against your skin.

Terrorism it may have been, but seriously, everyone fighting a government gets called a terrorist, and yet many governments are well worth taking down.

Please don't dumb things down.

Sovereign Court

Governments are more then capable of acts of terrorism as well.


"One of Our Greatest Coups": The CIA & the Capture of Nelson Mandela


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
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.

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / R.I.P. Nelson Mandela All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.