Nelson Mandela RIP

[William the White]

The ANC on its foundation had a position of non-violent rsistance to Apartheid. Mandela supported this position. This changed because of the terror activities of the racist state. The ANC's campaign against the notorious pass laws saw a demonstration (actually organised by the Pan African congress, not the ANC) at Sharpeville in 1961 that was fired on by the police, killing - officially - 69 people, including 8 women and 10 children. Ove 180 were wounded, including many more women and children. In the months following the ANC and PAC were banned and 18000 members of these organisations, rounded up, and imprisoned.

It was in these circumstances that Mandela founded the MK as an armed wing - not for the killing of people but for sabotage, the bombing of economic targets. There is a short, but, I think, fair article about this, in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The estimate of people killed by MK in the whole campaign until its ceasefire in 1990 is 63, with 418 injured. (These figures may be imprecise - but they indicate the scale of killings). During that time thousands were killed by the terror state - including those killed by traditional terrorist methods, such as the letter bomb that killed Ruth First, an ANC leader). Throughout pretty much the entire campaign Mandela was imprisoned and only the titular head of MK.

All bloodshed is dreadful, of course. But when you crush a people, murder them when they demonstrate, refuse them all democratic rights, force them into bantustan phoney nations, arrest their leaders or torture them to death (Steve Biko, for instance), assault them in townships, forbid them to marry outside their racial confines, subdue them with a vast machinery of state violence, deprive their children of education, I think I recognise a terror state.

And am on the side of those resisting it.

[Hoboh]

I’ll admit to probably being in a small minority here and I realise to many he was some sort of folk hero, but I cannot stop asking myself with all the world seemingly lining up to sing his praise, just what sort of impact did he actually have on the world? South Africa, yes, the world not too sure, there are large chunks of the African continent in particular some of his near neighbours, he seems to have had no influence on what so ever, so I question his position on a world stage.
Having said all that he turned out a decent bloke so RIP.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I’ll admit to probably being in a small minority here and I realise to many he was some sort of folk hero, but I cannot stop asking myself with all the world seemingly lining up to sing his praise, just what sort of impact did he actually have on the world? South Africa, yes, the world not too sure, there are large chunks of the African continent in particular some of his near neighbours, he seems to have had no influence on what so ever, so I question his position on a world stage.
Having said all that he turned out a decent bloke so RIP.

I don't understand measuring someone by how people in neighbouring countries might be influenced. That would be like blaming Edvard Benes for Adolf Hitler.

[Prufrock]

The ANC on its foundation had a position of non-violent rsistance to Apartheid. Mandela supported this position. This changed because of the terror activities of the racist state. The ANC's campaign against the notorious pass laws saw a demonstration (actually organised by the Pan African congress, not the ANC) at Sharpeville in 1961 that was fired on by the police, killing - officially - 69 people, including 8 women and 10 children. Ove 180 were wounded, including many more women and children. In the months following the ANC and PAC were banned and 18000 members of these organisations, rounded up, and imprisoned.

It was in these circumstances that Mandela founded the MK as an armed wing - not for the killing of people but for sabotage, the bombing of economic targets. There is a short, but, I think, fair article about this, in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The estimate of people killed by MK in the whole campaign until its ceasefire in 1990 is 63, with 418 injured. (These figures may be imprecise - but they indicate the scale of killings). During that time thousands were killed by the terror state - including those killed by traditional terrorist methods, such as the letter bomb that killed Ruth First, an ANC leader). Throughout pretty much the entire campaign Mandela was imprisoned and only the titular head of MK.

All bloodshed is dreadful, of course. But when you crush a people, murder them when they demonstrate, refuse them all democratic rights, force them into bantustan phoney nations, arrest their leaders or torture them to death (Steve Biko, for instance), assault them in townships, forbid them to marry outside their racial confines, subdue them with a vast machinery of state violence, deprive their children of education, I think I recognise a terror state.

And am on the side of those resisting it.

I think your description of the state is spot on, but that doesn't necessarily justify everything the MK or Mandela did. There are plenty of causes out there I think are justified, but if somebody told me that I would be killed in a bomb tomorrow that would lead to justice for that cause, would I be OK with it? It's easy to say so from a distance, but hell no! Once you are OK with killing one innocent citizen for your cause you are in, at best, a moral grey area for me. I don't think you have to be a devout Kantian to think like that. Indiscriminate killing may not have been the goal as with today's terrorists, but there was still a calculated gamble weighing up the fear and lives of innocents vs the righteousness of the cause.

I used to think it could never be justified, but having read a collection of letters from Mandela over his lifetime, some of them are very powerful, particularly when you see him wrestling with that moral dilemma, how he felt there was no other way to achieve justice for his cause and how bad it really was. Nevertheless, I can still certainly understand the unease people feel at that part of his life.

He had 27 years to think, and his achievements since leaving prison suggest he spent it wisely. The post-prison stuff really is inspiring in a way you really don't see very often, but I think that's made more powerful, not less, by recognising that he was a flawed human, not a perfect saint. That last sentence sounds pretentious as feck, but screw it.

RIP Madiba.

[William the White]

I think your description of the state is spot on, but that doesn't necessarily justify everything the MK or Mandela did. There are plenty of causes out there I think are justified, but if somebody told me that I would be killed in a bomb tomorrow that would lead to justice for that cause, would I be OK with it? It's easy to say so from a distance, but hell no! Once you are OK with killing one innocent citizen for your cause you are in, at best, a moral grey area for me. I don't think you have to be a devout Kantian to think like that. Indiscriminate killing may not have been the goal as with today's terrorists, but there was still a calculated gamble weighing up the fear and lives of innocents vs the righteousness of the cause.

I think this is a strange formulation. The fear and lives of innocents, glaringly demonstrated at Sharpeville, was what led to Mandela seeking to counter the racist state by founding an armed wing. There was one organisation - the racist state - that as a matter of policy oppressed killed and murdered and tortured. There was another seeking - at minimum cost in human life - to oppose and counter this force.

I think the violence of the oppressed in self defence or in opposition to violent oppression lies in a different moral universe from the violence of the oppressors. The violence of the Nazis in Warsaw seeking to liquidate the ghetto is in a different moral place from the violence of the Jewish resistance movement in the ghetto. You might be uneasy about this, i guess. Are you?

[Prufrock]

I think your description of the state is spot on, but that doesn't necessarily justify everything the MK or Mandela did. There are plenty of causes out there I think are justified, but if somebody told me that I would be killed in a bomb tomorrow that would lead to justice for that cause, would I be OK with it? It's easy to say so from a distance, but hell no! Once you are OK with killing one innocent citizen for your cause you are in, at best, a moral grey area for me. I don't think you have to be a devout Kantian to think like that. Indiscriminate killing may not have been the goal as with today's terrorists, but there was still a calculated gamble weighing up the fear and lives of innocents vs the righteousness of the cause.

I think this is a strange formulation. The fear and lives of innocents, glaringly demonstrated at Sharpeville, was what led to Mandela seeking to counter the racist state by founding an armed wing. There was one organisation - the racist state - that as a matter of policy oppressed killed and murdered and tortured. There was another seeking - at minimum cost in human life - to oppose and counter this force.

I think the violence of the oppressed in self defence or in opposition to violent oppression lies in a different moral universe from the violence of the oppressors. The violence of the Nazis in Warsaw seeking to liquidate the ghetto is in a different moral place from the violence of the Jewish resistance movement in the ghetto. You might be uneasy about this, i guess. Are you?

I just don't think the morality of an act is defined by its relation to other good or bad acts. I think Britain was right to defend the Falklands and fight the Nazis, that doesn't mean I think sinking the Belgrano or bombing Dresden were justified. I'm not saying the MK were as bad as the state, but they still killed innocent people. People who had nothing to do with Sharpville. You might be comfortable with a black and white (figuratively) bad racist state vs good freedom fighting Mandela but it's never that simple. I'm not saying I think it was definitely wrong, I remember having my previous beliefs (that no killing of innocents was ever justified, whatever the cause) challenged, if not changed, by reading his letters. I'm not even saying that I think they were wrong, just that you cannot be surprised that some people take that view. It's a very uneasy moral minefield once you start balancing your cause, however just, against the lives of people who have nothing to do with it. That your opponents have also killed other innocent people is really neither here nor there.

[Dujon]

I have been, and still am, ambivalent when it comes to Mandela's achievements. Was it worth the grief? Was there another, better, path? Mandela's wife ran a veritable army under the name of a 'football club'. Apartheid in any community is an awful consequence of perceived superiority by one party over another. In Africa this seems to be a double edged sword. What happened to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe? Is Mugabe a pseudo god? Given that he's pretty much ruined his country's economy without improving the lot of his people I think not.

I have worked with and for South African immigrants in this country. All of them left their country of birth for fear of their lives - just because they were non-African in colour or appearance. How the world turns. This, to me anyway, highlights the double standards of some of our "human rights" organisations. Are the Kenyan Mau Mau now to be forgiven their sins? At what stage does the world accept the internecine Islamic wars?

Over the last few months I've been wondering how many wars that are being waged around the world do not involve Islam versus everyone else. One of these days I shall do some research on the subject.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I have been, and still am, ambivalent when it comes to Mandela's achievements. Was it worth the grief? Was there another, better, path? Mandela's wife ran a veritable army under the name of a 'football club'. Apartheid in any community is an awful consequence of perceived superiority by one party over another. In Africa this seems to be a double edged sword. What happened to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe? Is Mugabe a pseudo god? Given that he's pretty much ruined his country's economy without improving the lot of his people I think not.

I have worked with and for South African immigrants in this country. All of them left their country of birth for fear of their lives - just because they were non-African in colour or appearance. How the world turns. This, to me anyway, highlights the double standards of some of our "human rights" organisations. Are the Kenyan Mau Mau now to be forgiven their sins? At what stage does the world accept the internecine Islamic wars?

Over the last few months I've been wondering how many wars that are being waged around the world do not involve Islam versus everyone else. One of these days I shall do some research on the subject.

You'll find some conflicts are essentially Islam versus Islam, with everyone else having an opinion.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I think this is a strange formulation. The fear and lives of innocents, glaringly demonstrated at Sharpeville, was what led to Mandela seeking to counter the racist state by founding an armed wing. There was one organisation - the racist state - that as a matter of policy oppressed killed and murdered and tortured. There was another seeking - at minimum cost in human life - to oppose and counter this force.

The thing is, this 'armed wing' did a little more than seek to counter the racist state through targeting strategic government institutions/buildings. This same 'armed wing' did things like blow up supermarkets. One particular supermarket happened to have friends of my wife in them. Friends that did not survive. Mandela may not have been directly responsible for their deaths, but he bears some responsibility in my eyes. Supermarkets are not key government installations and the bombing of them is amongst the most terrible violence there is.

I know Mandela did a lot of good in his post prison years. I'm happy to acknowledge that and give the credit he clearly deserves. I'm not ready to sweep the darker past under the carpet though. The SA state did terrible things, but nothing justifies targeting ordinary people going about their daily lives. So lets celebrate the great things he did, but at the same time acknowledge (as he has done) that he did some bad things earlier in his life.

[Hoboh]

I’ll admit to probably being in a small minority here and I realise to many he was some sort of folk hero, but I cannot stop asking myself with all the world seemingly lining up to sing his praise, just what sort of impact did he actually have on the world? South Africa, yes, the world not too sure, there are large chunks of the African continent in particular some of his near neighbours, he seems to have had no influence on what so ever, so I question his position on a world stage.
Having said all that he turned out a decent bloke so RIP.

I don't understand measuring someone by how people in neighbouring countries might be influenced. That would be like blaming Edvard Benes for Adolf Hitler.

Err I was merely questioning why he was being hailed as a world statesman when he had little effect outside of his own country he had no effect on his neighbours never mind the world at large. Maybe some of the platitudes are a little misplaced.

[thebish]

I'm not ready to sweep the darker past under the carpet though.

Winnie was often accused of promoting extreme violence..

The first victim of necklacing, according to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was a young girl, Maki Skosana, in July 1985.

Moloko said her sister was burned to death with a tire around her neck while attending the funeral of one of the youths. Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee. Moloko added that a big rock had been thrown on her face after she had been killed.

Photojournalist Kevin Carter was the first to photograph a public execution by necklacing in South Africa in the mid-1980s. He later spoke of the images

I was appalled at what they were doing. I was appalled at what I was doing. But then people started talking about those pictures... then I felt that maybe my actions hadn't been at all bad. Being a witness to something this horrible wasn't necessarily such a bad thing to do.

He went on to say:

After having seen so many necklacings on the news, it occurs to me that either many others were being performed (off camera as it were) and this was just the tip of the iceberg, or that the presence of the camera completed the last requirement, and acted as a catalyst in this terrible reaction. The strong message that was being sent, was only meaningful if it were carried by the media. It was not more about the warning (others) than about causing one person pain. The question that haunts me is 'would those people have been necklaced, if there was no media coverage?'

Author Lynda Schuster writes,

'Necklacing' represented the worst of the excesses committed in the name of the uprising. This was a particularly gruesome form of mob justice, reserved for those thought to be government collaborators, informers and black policemen. The executioners would force a car tire over the head and around the arms of the suspect, drench it in petrol, and set it alight. Immobilized, the victim burned to death.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu once famously saved a near victim of necklacing when he rushed into a large gathered crowd and threw his arms around a man accused of being a police informant, who was about to be killed. Tutu's actions, which were caught on film, caused the crowd to release the man.

I'm not really one for saying I have "heroes" in my life - but if I did - Tutu would certainly be one...

[Dujon]

Thank the heavens that I'm not alone. The way the media are carrying on at the moment you'd think that he was Gabriel incarnate. I decline to forget the price the ANC and its associates charged for their services. Nor am I absolving the South African state of blame in the treatment of its citizens. I was reading (before Mandela's death) comments made about the current South Africa. These were written by recent visitors to the country who were basically non-political (it was a motoring enthusiast site). The consensus seemed to be 'don't go there unless you have to'.

Should those comments be true or, at least, unbiased it begs the question as to what Mandela has achieved. I have never set foot on South African soil so my comments could be misplaced.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Dujon, SA is in a mess at the moment. There are people that have done very well since apartheid ended, but large swathes of the black population are no better off and in some cases worse off. At least economically, health wise etc. Zuma spending vast sums on a palace for himself rather than the people he is supposed to represent. This happens everywhere I suppose, but it seems governments since Mandela have made a mess of it.

Mrs AT is currently on a plane to South Africa. She is nervous as it could very easily kick off there. She lived in various parts of Africa for much of her childhood, including SA. Reports from her family and friends there are that the level of violence is very high, but unchanged so far. Their feeling is that it could kick off quite quickly, but probably not until after the funeral if at all).

[Dujon]

I hope it doesn't 'kick off', AT. Zuma has to face an election in the near future I believe, so with a bit of luck that might concentrate the hot-headed among the population on more sober matters. I trust Mrs AT's visit is uneventful and that she returns safely home.

[bobo the clown]

I hope it doesn't 'kick off', AT. Zuma has to face an election in the near future I believe, so with a bit of luck that might concentrate the hot-headed among the population on more sober matters. I trust Mrs AT's visit is uneventful and that she returns safely home.

I guess it will take some time, but my long-time fear will be that Zuma, and possibly some real not-right from the 'Youth League' after him will take SA into the footsteps of Zimbabwe.

But not yetawhile.

[Dujon]

I sincerely hope not, bobo. We've had too many of the likes of Mugabe, Idi Amin and Pol Pot. With a bit of luck 'donations' from people such as Gadaffi, Castro and Arafat have now dried up and will at least reduce the corruption side of things. Perhaps. Surely there is a sufficient number of South Africans who care about their country and who understand that some form of controlled anarchy would ruin it? Unfortunately my knowledge of the country and its politics is limited. Any further comment from me would be puerile coffee house philosophy.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I hope it doesn't 'kick off', AT. Zuma has to face an election in the near future I believe, so with a bit of luck that might concentrate the hot-headed among the population on more sober matters. I trust Mrs AT's visit is uneventful and that she returns safely home.

Thanks Dujon. All well on the trip so far. She's a couple of days in Jo'burg/Pretoria before heading down to Durban, then Cape Town. Less chance of problems in Durban and CT, so I'll feel more settled then. I'm almost certainly worrying about nothing, but knowing how violet it can be there I can't help it

[Lord Kangana]

Point of order here, I think its fairly easy to balance out the atrocities and injustices of the Apartheid State vs the actions of The ANC.

If the state is sending letter bombs to kill human rights activists for simply publicly asking for equality of race, I find it incredibly difficult to get judgemental over any response. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and treason is merely a matter of dates. But I'm not going to judge the two the same, lest we start, for example, to judge The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as an act of mass terrorism.

[Lord Kangana]

Ooh, William put that too. How bizarre.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

It isn't about balancing atrocities or who did worse to whom, whether in reply or not. There are 2 sides to the man and both should be acknowledged at the very least.