I won a grant to build, donate, and maintain Raspberry Pi computers to rural schools in South Africa (about 7). It was a large project. Absolute nightmare. In the end I just started buying second hand computers and installing XUbuntu (much higher performance, much lower cost). I donated the Raspberry Pis to a university engineering department and managed to buy double the expected number in second hand computers for rural schools, feel much better about it. Raspberry Pi is simply a gimmick for those that love that kind of thing (which is fine), but it should NOT be marketed as a way to get kids to learn programming, or as a replacement for a computer. It's simply too expensive, and does not cater to the educational needs of those struggling to learn programming/IT.
I'm interested to hear in the problems you had and how getting 2nd hand computers turn out to be lower cost than the Pi. Do you have a write-up of your experience somewhere? Couldn't find anything on your HN profile.
Shocked by how misinformed people are about Mandela/Apartheid, or by the amount of trolling going on here.
Thousands of white people have not died in SA thanks to Mandela. Mandela was not a 'terrorist'. Apartheid was BAD, and still affects the country significantly today. Here's some context for you. This all applied pre 1994/2:
I am a non white South African. The only reason I got a good education was because with the release of Nelson Mandela, my parents were one of few to study at a previously white only university, and qualify for positions previously reserved for whites only. They went on to run companies that they COULD NOT have run during Apartheid, have offices in places they could not have had before, have clients they could not have before etc. I live in a neighbourhood my parents could not have lived in prior to 1994, and study at a university my parents were not allowed to. These were white only areas only, because they are good.
My father was a lawyer during Apartheid. Black people were only allowed to represent black people. Almost all of the people he defended in court were put to death, in many cases before their trials were even heard by courts! Post apartheid, the death penalty was dropped.
My family had family friends that were white. They were never allowed to mix. My aunt wanted to marry a white (American) man but was forbidden to. They got married illegally. She was not entitled to live in the property he owned, as black people could not legally own property. She came close to being arrested many times.
Post apartheid my aunt and her white husband were married. She was allowed to legally own the property after he died.
My birth certificate does not have my parents names on it, due to Apartheid. Families were not formally recognised. I need to get an amended birth certificate to prove who my parents are, and I can now do this post apartheid.
My parents were also forcefully removed from their legally owned properties that were taken from them during Apartheid. Their property was seized by the government and never returned. My parents could barely even travel out of South Africa as flying over/travelling other African countries were restricted. They were even not allowed to enter many countries abroad.
And I'm not even 'Black'. My ethnicity is Indian. I am an Indian South Africa (of which there are millions). Everyone who wasn't white was counted as 'Black'. This accounts for over 85% of South Africa's population.
It is well known in SA that the US government actively supported Apartheid, and many people have a poor opinion of the US because of this.
If it wasn't for Nelson Mandela, I probably wouldn't even be able to post this. My family, and millions others, now live lives they simply could not have lived before.
As a non-white South African myself (Cape Malay - a descendant of Malaysian political activists exiled to Cape Town), I can confirm the legitimacy of this post. I have several family members who have strange names because the South African government officials at the time couldn't understand them so they just made up names for them.
My dad had a dead end job because even though he was more qualified than his boss, a non-white could not be promoted to a position held by a white person. Neither my dad nor any of my uncles were allowed to participate in National Cricket, Rugby or Football teams. This led to the very interesting problem where a large portion of the population even today refuse to support any of the National sports teams. You're more likely for example to find a New Zealand Rugby supporter among the older "coloured" (the official term) community, than one who supports the National team. Even today my parents do not support South African sports teams (football was always the exception, because it was regarded as a "black" sport).
I was part of the first group of non-white people allowed to attend a "white" high school. The racism was terrible at times, and it filled me with resentment for the first few years. Afterwards though, I started noticing how my peers were becoming more open to other cultures and ethnicities, and with that the resentment faded.
Ironically, I too for many years believed Mandela was a terrorist who killed civilians, partly because the zeitgeist of my teen years was rebelliousness, and partly because I highly skeptic of anyone held in such high regard. Thankfully, my adult years proved that I was just being naive and willfully ignorant. Mandela was certainly no terrorist.
Even today, South Africa is introducing quota systems into their rugby organisations to try and correct some of the imbalances in sport caused by apartheid:
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I too am shocked. That the United States actively supported the Apartheid regime is a great national shame. I'm friends with a woman who grew up in South Africa. She is white. The stories she tells about the attitudes and what happened there during the Apartheid regime are revolting. She thinks Mandela is a saint and is very grateful for his leadership.
Mandela was not a terrorist. He did not deserve jail. That he came out of that experience and did not engage in a campaign of retribution is a testament to the man's greatness. Those that denigrate him do so from ignorance or lack of empathy.
> That the United States actively supported the Apartheid regime is a great national shame.
The real shame is that The Afrikaner nationlist party that instituted apartheid ran on the platform in 1948, the same year that the Dixiecrats in America ran on a segregationist platform. Apartheid started to crumble in 1990, less than 30 years after George Wallace, as Governor of Alabama, declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!", less than 25 years after he ran for President, and just over 20 years after MLK was assassinated.
Of course, by 1970 the situation in the U.S. was far better than it was in South Africa. But apartheid in South Africa was less far-removed, temporally, from segregation in America than most Americans appreciate. Ronald Reagan, who opposed Mandela as President, spent more of his life living in a legally segregated America than he did living in a legally integrated America.
I don't know why so many Americans think Ronald Reagan was so great. The more I learn about his policies, the more I think he was the lackwit actor playing politician that his critics say he was. His trickle-down economics BS is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing but a golden shower.
I don't think Reagan supported segregation. I do think he was willing to support segregation in South Africa to achieve American geopolitical goals. Many people would argue that this is proper and the American President has no obligation to anyone but Americans.
My point was more that we consider segregation to be long-past history, while we consider Reagan to be a President of the modern era. In fact, Reagan was eight years older than George Wallace, and was in his 50's by the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I don't think Reagan opposed Mandela because he loved the apartheid - but because Mandela was outspoken Marxist with communist leanings (and ANC was allied with communists), spoke many times in support of Castro and was in general complete political opposite of what Reagan stood for.
Mandela was more than happy to use violence against the government as a tool in his cause for equality (although later he seemed to regret the need for it). Using violence, he broke reasonable and justified laws. Laws such as planting bombs, destroying property, and physically harming others.
Just because we can all agree that his cause was just, doesn't mean he should necessarily get a free pass from criticism or judgement.
I don't think there is much dispute over what Mandela did or did not do, but rather over what we call it and if we should approve of it.
Whether you call somebody a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" in response to these sort of actions is a matter of perspective. Movements don't get called "terrorists" by people who side with them.
We know this because, in other times in history against other wildly racist and tyrannical regimes, resistance movements have carried out similar violent attacks, but rarely do we hear those groups described as "terrorists". I have never heard somebody describe the French or Polish Resistance as terrorists; they receive the terminology "freedom fighters" because damn near everybody agrees that they were on the correct side of that fight.
So what is the deal with people who chose the "terrorist" terminology, rather than "freedom fighter", for the ANC and Mandela? Do they merely lack perspective, or are there actually still a significant number of people who side with the Apartheid government?
I think it's just an attitude of people that see all of the praise for a public figure as ignoring the possibly not so 'saintly' things that they have done[1]. I would be willing to bet the a majority of people only know all of positive things about Mandela, and few of the negative/questionable things.
I'm not in the camp of calling him a terrorist, but I do get a bit annoyed (sometimes) when the hero-worship seems to present a skewed perspective on reality. For example, I'm annoyed that many US politicians will dote over how awesome Mandela was in expressing their sympathies over his passing, but there is no talk of how we sided against him.
[1] For example, Mother Theresa explicitly withheld pain-killers from the people that she treated because she felt that the pain brought them closer to God. It's unquestionable (to me at least) that treating those people (even with this attitude) was a good thing because they would get no care otherwise. On the other hand, I don't put her up on a pedestal as a perfect human being like others do.
The logic here escapes me. The purpose of the laws he broke was to support the unreasonable and unjust ones from being challenged. Right? The difference between something like apartheid (or the 3rd reich) and something like a dysfunctional democracy (which will have some bad laws) is the centrality of evil in the core of the system of idendity of the state. Clearly, in SA the apartheid regime was central to the concept of the citizens of SA. Similarly, was the situation under the Nazis.
That being said, the country of SA has not integrated gracefully by any means. The crime and apalling violence has led to many of the best and brightest fleeing the country for the UK and other anglophile countries. One of my classmates from Uni had his wife mudered in a most horriffic manner. The sad realizaton is that there are not really any good success stories in sub-saharan africa, in terms of ethical governance, economic prosperity, and the rule of Law. It boggles the mind that the only way to make things work is (apparently) political strongmen and what are in essence forms of exploitative labour arrangements under one guise or another.
This is at best anecdotal evidence for a mass exodus of the 'best and brightest' fleeing SA. The only time I have been mugged, attacked, or stalked was during my time as a student in the UK (have had all three happen). Ironically I suffered a serious racist attack in the UK, where someone tried to stab me because I wasn't the right colour. The only time I have serious feared for my life. I have never had any such problems in SA. I have never been robbed, threatened, or put in a bad racist situation - this has only happened to me abroad.
For many of the millions oppressed during Apartheid, SA is far, far better now. Don't forget crime was rampant during Apartheid, and police protection was not afforded equally to those of difference races. My family, living in non-white areas, had a total of 9 cars stolen during Apartheid. This doesn't happen anymore. Crime statistics are far more accurate now, and show a decreasing trend since Apartheid, though of course it is still high. This crime remains mainly in township areas of SA - set up during Apartheid.
I'm not sure what you mean by success stories. There are numerous successful companies in SA, especially tech companies in the Cape Town. My family have risen from rags through businesses and professional work, and my father was able to rise to a judge where people are now fairly tried regardless of race. I'd say that is a success in the rule of law. Our government is not perfect (which is?), but it sure has come a long way. Just while growing up in SA, malls have risen, houses built for millions who lived in shacks, universities opened up to reflect the demographics of the population - the country has prospered even during the rescission, and property value and sky rocketed in some areas. I have numerous opportunities in SA, and run a startup there.
I carried out research both at Oxford, in the US, and in South Africa. The researchers I worked with in SA are as highly regarded as their peers in their field abroad (bioinformatics), as highly cited, and are happy in South Africa. I know of people going abroad to do PhD's, then returning to lecture here. I only know 1 other person who has moved to the UK permanently, and this is because they have no family in SA and no higher education.
The private security industry in South Africa is the largest in the world,[2] with nearly 9,000 registered companies and 400,000 registered active private security guards, more than the South African police and army combined
According to the 2001 UK Census, 140,201 South African born people were calling the UK, although most recent estimates put the population (including those of South African descent) at over half a million. Unlike South Africa itself...The 2001 census showed that 90% of South Africans in the UK are White
(3) Objective measures of Violent Crime:
UNODC murder rates most recent year
South Africa 31.8 / 15,940
UK 1.2 / 722
But to the broader point also for context:
Subregion Rate Count Region
Southern Africa 30.5 17,484 Africa
Central America 28.5 44,997 Americas
Eastern Africa 21.9 69,344 Africa
Middle Africa 20.8 25,330 Africa
South America 20 79,039 Americas
Northern Africa 5.9 12,276 Africa
Northern America 3.9 13,558 Americas
Western Europe 1 1,852 Europe
Australasia 1 268 Oceania
SA is basically an ~order of magnitude more violent that north america or western europe base on these data. Furthermore, the variation withing the African data from the sub-saharan regions to the north african ones is quite discernable.
To be fair, this data is old. I personally know quite a few SA expats who've gone back in the last few years, pushed by UK recession and a realisation that things are not that bad back home after all. Mbeki is gone, Zuma should go next year, the sort of feared Mugabe-like regime hasn't materialised.
Yes, there has been a (white) exodus in the late 90s, but it looks like the correction might have been a one-off.
Definitely, it's a dangerous country. If you read my response again, I did not disagree with this. I just don't agree that there is a mass exodus of people. The wikipedia article you cite about this doesn't cite any hard data sources, and there are more relevant and recent measures like the most recent SA census.
The UK census is one. For each 100k white people in london that is 1% of the white population of SA. So, ~500k is ~5% of the white SA population of ~10 million. Given the dis-proportionate wealth and education (as you illustrate in your earlier posts) of the white SA population, I would call this number "material" if not "mass exodus", because the social (and networking) impact is likely dis-proportionate to the headcount alone. For these reasons, it seems presumptive to keep denying this has ever occurred. But YMMV.
Not that I disagree with much of what you say, (Mandela was no terrorist) but your first paragraph starts out by pointing out someone citing anecdotal evidence, and then ends with you citing your own anecdotal evidence of racial violence in the UK vs. SA. As if your experience walking around in London vs. whatever part of SA (as you know a huge country) you live in is solid data.
I have white friends from college who were from South Africa, and returned there (Cape Town). They are glad Apartheid is gone, but are unhappy that they have had to watch senior politicians in the ANC sing "Kill the Boers" at rallies in 2013. They also complain of the effects of the BEE. As with other affirmative action programs, it has the effect of fueling racism and resentment while simultaneously (on the positive side) correcting past inequities. Also tying in with other affirmative action weaknesses, it disproportionately benefits the most advantaged members of the favored group(s) while leaving behind the least advantaged from both the favored group and being punishingly unfair to the poor members of the non-favored group. (an Afrikaner boy from a poor home will hurt a company's BEE scorecard, while a black boy whose father is a lawyer will help it)
The person who sang that song was convicted of a hate crime, and is now facing criminal charges, so I don't see this as a legitimate reason to run away.
I would like to see some evidence for a mass exodus from South Africa, specifically would be interested to see if large amounts of money have been taken out of the country to fuel this. I don't think any data exists for this. I was pointing out that what was said was anecdotal, and am obviously aware that what I said is too. The issue is that this complaint about SA is simply not a realistic reflection of what is happening in the country.
BEE is necessary in SA. The extent of racial inequality even today is exceedingly obvious to anyone who lives in the country. It definitely isn't perfect, but any census data will still reflect that levels of unemployment among Black South Africans is higher than those of White South Africans (don't have time to look for the source now, but I read a paper on this). I don't see how there is an easy fix for Apartheid, and this is fine. I'm sure if we went and counted the assets of race groups we would find that White South Africans still have a much larger share, and a large majority of white people are employed in family businesses/practices established during Apartheid. Growing up in SA, this is just blatantly obvious to me. The job situation in SA is such that if you are qualified with a technical degree, you shouldn't have a problem getting a job regardless of race.
The "person" who sang that song was doing so in a huge group of people, and I seriously doubt most of them were prosecuted.
BEE, like any other race-based affirmative action program, is obtuse and unjust. The much more just (and effective) tool for achieving the outcome desired by race-based affirmative action is income-based affirmative action, where income is derived from the person's familial income while growing up. This would effectively cover every person of color in SA anyway, but wouldn't persist for those raised without disadvantages in the new post-apartheid gov't. (in other words its a sliding scale)
Here in the US, race-based affirmative action punishes Asians more than any others. Studies show that they effectively have 50 points plus removed from their SAT scores for college admissions. (There is no allowance made for the fact that they may speak English as a second language and have grown up a laborer's child in a poor urban neighborhood)
On the other hand, a black American whose parents are professionals making 6 figures will be treated as if he has the disadvantages of an inner city child or a boy raised by sharecroppers. The net effect is 200 + points added to SAT score (for a male, the effect is dampened for a female). Make it based on income, and the inner-city child gets the advantage he/she needs, and doesn't have his/her spot taken by the child of professionals who went to private schools.
FYI: I witnessed this scenario first hand in high school. A classmate whose father forced him to work on their fishing boat (his family was dirt poor, and his illiterate father cared nothing for education) had higher SAT scores and grades than our mutual friend (mother a lawyer, father an accountant). Fisherman's son was refused admission to the same schools that professional's son was accepted into. Fisherman came from a poor white family AND he suffered from bouts of severe rheumatoid arthritis. The son of professionals from a privileged background got a welcome mat rolled out for him. If this was an income based system it wouldn't have happened that way.
You're really thinking on the wrong level here. You're talking about SAT scores and affirmative action in the US. In South Africa, we're talking on a totally different level. I advise you do some reading on the extent on racial inequality in SA before trying to draw comparisons. You can start here: http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qVocM3...
You're talking about getting into universities, the gap between black and white primary and high school education is massive, just to get the basic requirements for university entrance is a struggle if you come from a rural town and do not speak first language English.
Do not compare the US and South Africa. There is no comparison. BEE may be unjust (I don't think it is), but the scale of inequality in South Africa is overwhelming. Remember that over 85% of the population is non-white. I'm not sure how exactly what you say applies in a SA context, but income-based affirmative action sounds no different from race-based affirmative action in SA. I can put forward more relevant scenarios than the one you mention, I know numerous white people, both from poor and rich backgrounds, who have successfully gotten jobs. They are qualified. The same applies to black people. The unemployed people I know are simply not qualified, regardless of their race.
Weren't those laws only really enforced when non-white people broke them, though?
After all, the apartheid state was more than happy to bulldoze thousands of people's homes and not pay restitution; it was more than happy to shoot hundreds or thousands of peaceful protestors and not prosecute anyone for it; it was more than happy to take political prisoners, break their limbs, and throw them out of airplanes a hundred miles from the coast; it was more than happy to plant biological bombs of yellow fever and cholera in refugee camps to lower the number of undesirables.
If a law is observed more in the breach than in the general, is it really a law?
Can you elaborate? When I visited South Africa, a few white people used it to refer to the non-whites. I do not know if they were just trying to be descriptive or discriminatory. Perhaps it didn't mean what I thought it meant.
"Coloured" refers to (and is used self-descriptively by) a subset of people of mixed race of generally one or more of usually British and Dutch ancestry on the "White" side, and generally one or more of various Bantu groups (mostly Xhosa, Zulu, some Ndebele, &c.) or Khoisan ancestry, and sometimes also of Malaysian or other South-East Asian ancestry (from ex-Dutch colonies).
I don't know anything about the laws being enforced. My point was, it's hard to argue that "the moral thing to do" is to harm others or destroy property.
I actually think apartheid is a good example of why the moral thing to do sometimes is to harm others and/or destroy property. It's not hard to argue at all. Preventing the suffering of the many by harming a relatively small number of people (or destroying practically any amount of property, really) is a clear win from a utilitarian perspective.
Except that the overwhelming majority of the violence of apartheid was against Black people. You have to completely ignore context to think that there's a reasonable comparison between an oppressed people - a people that suffered both imprisonment and slaughter - attacking their oppressor and the US dropping an atomic bomb on a city.
All of the posts here decrying the violence of the ANC are ignorant at best. The violence of the ANC was nothing next to the violence of apartheid. The violence of the ANC was far more selective than the violence of apartheid, which was indiscriminate.
I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2.
A false analogy, since the US was in a position of overwhelming strategic superiority when it dropped A=bombs on Japan. It could easily have set up a naval blockade and waited the Japanese out, or continued it's highly effective conventional bombing campaign, or demonstrated the devastating power of the A-bomb in a thinly populated area - by dropping it on Mt. Fuji, for example, which would certainly have garnered a similar level of attention within Japan.
>I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2.
Only that use was totally unjustified, as Japan was surrendering anyway, a military defeat was already 100% feasible, and the bomb was used needlessy to send a message to the USSR.
Read your history. Japan wasn't "surrendering anyway" at the time - not even after the destruction of Tokyo (which btw resulted in more casualties than the nuclear attack). In fact, six Japan's largest cities were destroyed and they weren't "surrendering anyway". They rejected the Potsdam declaration as late as end of July. Even after Hiroshima they were only ready to surrender if the whole power structure and the government were preserved and granted the authority to deal with the aftermath of the war (that's like Hitler demanding Nazi party would stay in power and be responsible for investigating Nazi war crimes). In fact, the Japanese military was completely convinced they can and should go on with the war even after Hiroshima.
Harming others may be morally ambiguous (or clearly just wrong) for some people, but I don't think anybody honestly believes that destruction of property should always be off the table. Industrial sabotage targeting the infrastructure of the tyrannical is a time honored tradition.
"We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence."
Civil disobedience was outlawed and then the government used violence against peaceful demonstrators. Only after that did they fight fire with fire, and history tells us it's possible that that may be the only language that governments understand.
What legitimacy do laws have, when opposed by a majority of the population and imposed on them by a minority?
Calling the ANC "terrorist" turns the term on its head. "Terrorism" is when a minority group uses violence to achieve goals it cannot achieve politically. When the majority uses violence to safeguard its own well-being, that's not terrorism. That's exercising an ability possessed by people in the state of nature, one not superseded by any legitimate law or social contract. In the terminology of American criminal law, the violence is not only justified (where a crime is deemed to have been committed but the actions mitigated by a compelling justification), but excused (where no crime is deemed to have been committed at all).
By the same argument we should criticize and negatively judge the American Revolution as well.
This path of argument seems unable to acknowledge that there are times where "the law" is so unjust that you are left with no non-violent actions whatsoever. I think it's fine if you believe this, but you should be able to clearly say that you believe in nonviolence in all situations and that any deviation from that path is immoral.
The laws Mandela broke were not the same ones he thought were unjust, at least, it seems he broke a superset of the laws he thought were unjust. He did this as a means to an end.
I'd like to say I believe in non-violence, but it's one thing to say it, it's another thing not to punch you after you've just pushed my wife.
Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations.
Mandela was a terrorist. You're just having cognitive dissonance because you agree with him (as all right-thinking people should have.)
To the extent that "terrorist" has any meaning, it is when a less powerful actor attempts to advance an agenda through creating an unmanageable situation for a more powerful institution by causing an increased sense of risk within individuals who are part of the support structure of that institution, thereby making it too expensive for the institution to continue preventing that agenda from being advanced.
Where conventional war wins by killing enough people on the other side that they can't stop you from doing what you want, instead terrorism makes people so expensive (in lost government support from a targeted public, increased salaries and heightened security, and/or lost inflows of money from targeted clients and customers) that allowing the terrorist agenda to advance turns out to be cheaper for the institution being attacked than continuing to fight.
That's a bit condescending. Terrorism doesn't have an accepted definition, and that definitely isn't my definition of terrorism, nor many others. Perhaps people living in America are more inclined to your definition.
I believe that terrorism is defined by the desire to cause mass fear in the general populace by intentionally targeting innocent people, to send across some political message in whichever guise. 9/11 was a terrorist attack.
The Spear of the Nation targeted infrastructure of the Apartheid regime, and the policies of equality upheld by the ANC and Nelson Mandela were widely supported by both white and non-white people in South Africa. I do not think these actions were aimed at provoking mass fear or lobbying an ideal not commonly accepted in South Africa.
This period is often referred to as a revolution, and successful revolutionaries are not historically known as 'terrorists'. In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism. They fought against an act of war initiated by the British, the same way that the ANC fought against acts of violence by the ruling regime, except the ANC were severely under resourced.
Again, the spear of the nation may have done this. This doesn't make Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If he armed a bomb, killed someone, held someone hostage for international attention, I would be far more inclined to accept your definition, as with others.
Given that even the Iron Lady apologised for calling Mandela a terrorist, I'd say the commonly accepted belief is that he is and was not a terrorist.
Then it's going to be very difficult to make an argument that Mandela was not a terrorist.
>In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism.
Sorry about going on about this, but I think that saying people are not terrorists because we agree with them is closely related to saying that people are terrorists because we don't agree with them. If "terrorism" has a meaning, the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist should be answered based on that meaning. If what we really mean to say is that we think Mandela was a great man who improved the lives of millions, we can just say that instead of arguing or insulting each other over semantics.
The connotations associated with terrorism are simply too strong to associate with Mandela. People will take great offence at this, no matter what pedantic definition you want to use for it. Regardless, your definition still doesn't account for the fact that Nelson Mandela did not personally do any of these things, or intentionally target innocents.
Its clear to me at least that any definition of "terrorism" must include the concept of inducing fear in the general populace by means of acts of violence on that population. That's also clearly NOT what Mandela did.
> This period is often referred to as a revolution, and successful revolutionaries are not historically known as 'terrorists'.
Well, except that the term "Terror" as a political act and "Terrorists" for those who practiced it -- well, except in French, not English -- was coined to refer to a particular set of successful (to that point) revolutionaries and their actions (and embraced by them.)
You're displacing and blurring both contexts and words to your advantage.
> having cognitive dissonance
I know what most people think is not always right, but read yourself, and try to add water to your wine a little.
The context of apartheid was really bleak. Colonization by whites on african land can only generate relevant tensions from black people toward whites. Most people are black in SA and in all africa around it. You can't have a ruling minority which is not like and expect nice things. Nelson Mandela was much more peaceful (and smart) than most others.
> Mandela was a terrorist.
First, people use terrorism when they're losing a war, not an political argument. Secondly, activists have been called terrorists because the cause they defend have been discredited after other activists used violence for the same cause. It's the media and newspaper inflating images which doesn't reflect the thought of the majority.
You can't mix and match opinions and definitions used by the media to discredit Mandela, and at the same time forget how the situation was in SA, and on top of it, talk about cognitive dissonance. If most view it as a hero, maybe he just it. Nobody sees Ben Laden as a hero. Bush actually invited Mandela and apologized after he was considered a terrorist.
No it not. History is written by historians, who are constantly reevaluating primary documentation and the conclusions that were drawn from them by previous generations of historians.
I also see many people nitpicking minor details to show that Mandela was not 100% peaceful and he talked about struggle. When you have nothing to complain to those aggressor and their violence, why complain that oppressed victim who has no power, is not perfectly peaceful, law-abiding and fair?
The history of South Africa is unique, and you will learn something. These events are strongly connected to the discovery of gold and diamonds. Perhaps you've heard of the Rhodes scholarship? Cecil John Rhodes was a key player in these trades, and the Rhodes scholarship has a special status in SA.
To be fair, he did found the armed wing of the ANC, was offered a release from prison conditional on renouncing violence which he refused to do, and afterward his group went on to carry out a number of IRA-style bombings.
The apartheid regime might have justified extreme measures that killed civilians, but his hands are not as clean as you would imagine from the hagiography.
We don't glorify Gerry Adams in this way and give him Nobel prizes, although he did contribute a lot to the peace process in Ireland.
Apartheid was a unique situation. Comparing it to Ireland is ridiculous, especially when you lack the perspective of what South Africa is actually like. Mandela averted a civil war - a real fear for many that were preparing to flee from the country. You make it seem like Mandela was ordering bombings from his cell.
The analogy between Adams and the IRA and Mandela and the ANC is seriously inapt. To begin with, the IRA's objective was not civil rights for Northern Ireland's Catholic/Nationalist minority. The Provisional Sinn Féin/Provisional IRA hydra always made it absolutely clear that their goal was the establishment of "a thirty-two county socialist republic". That means that they were seeking to impose, by force, a single all-Ireland state on the Protestant/Unionist majority of Northern Ireland against its wishes. This is a straightforward small-n nationalist objective, not a democratic or ("clasically") liberal or humanitarian one. Secondly, and secondarily, even at their worst the civil disabilities imposed on Northern Ireland's Catholic/Nationalist minority (though real and serious) were not really comparable with what South Africa's black majority was made to suffer. And when those disabilities were corrected (and when the UK government began massively and even-handedly subsidising the whole Northern Ireland economy, to keep both Catholics and Protestants in jobs and forestall a collapse of the NI economy brought on by the IRA's campaign) it made not a blind bit of difference to the IRA, because, once again, Northern Ireland Catholics/Nationalists enjoying political and personal freedom within the UK was contrary to their objective. Finally, when the population of Northern Ireland participated in largely free and fair elections to the UK parliament, not only most Northern Ireland voters overall, but most voters from the Catholic/Nationalist community in Northern Ireland consistently rejected the IRA's campaign by voting for politicians who opposed it and rejecting the IRA's candidates (running under its Sinn Féin political wing). They had no mandate from anyone.
The "peace process" basically consisted of SF/IRA giving up and accepting the political arrangement which they had been violently opposing for decades, in exchange for goodies for themselves. As such it's a bit much to laud Adams for his role in it, beyond noting his success in persuading his fellow desperadoes to accept the goodies instead of continuing their deeply beloved war. (Though it turns out his success at this was pretty partial too.) Nonetheless if you don't think Adams has been glorified you're quite mistaken. As soon as the "peace process" began Adams (and Martin McGuinness, the Tweedledum to his Tweedledee) were the beneficiaries of an almost full-spectrum political and media bulldozing campaign in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide in support of the peace process and its heroes and against any hard questions. You wouldn't believe some of the soft-focused fawning and cooing Adams has received from mainstream sources, if you somehow haven't seen it yourself already.
> To be fair, he did found the armed wing of the ANC, was offered a release from prison conditional on renouncing violence which he refused to do, and afterward his group went on to carry out a number of IRA-style bombings.
So he didn't turn out to be a meek cow...that is your complaint?
While Ghandi lived in South Africa, he wrote racist slander towards black (African) people, referring to them as 'kaffirs' (the N word equivalent in SA). Here's a quote:
"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."
Ghandi too was not perfect, and also experienced Apartheid (most notably when he was kicked off a train in Pietermaritzburg), and demonstrated against it in SA. Though I do not think he believed in equality for Indians with Blacks.
I will have to check (I think it is found in "Village Swaraj" but it may be "All Men are Brothers" which would make more sense thematically) but Ghandi specifically talks about his experiences in South Africa and how it finally opened his eyes towards his own prejudices.
He writes about the experience in Pietermaritzburg and how it took this experience to realize that all men are brothers and deserving of equality. This is not to say the guy was a saint, but to mention that I believe he came around.
The problem is that in the age of TL;DR, nobody here is going to take the time to read "A Long Walk to Freedom". So they will listen to snippets of info, mostly taken out of context. Yes Mandela did create the "spear of the nation" but most people do not understand the background of this or the reason, instead they resort to reading a few snippets and posting here.
You get two types of people here, one group is liberal and support alomost anything against racism, women abuse, welfare reform, you name it, if it promotes freedom they are for it.These are called the Democrats. On the other side of it the people who love racism but deny it exists, they donated to george zimmerman, they hold onto their guns at all cost, believe all minorites are on welfare etc. These are the Republicans. A lot of people who are posting negative things come from this group and they are no different than Apartheid type whites, they even be worst, but this style of thinking has been passed down from their parents and they will pass it down to their kids, thats life. Don't let their lack of evolution sway your understanding of what Mandela stood for as most of them have not taken the time to educate themselves, but just read snippets and focus on something slighlty negative.
If Mandela had ceated a civil war, this country would not have been blessed with "Elon Musk", "Emmanue Dherman" and people Like "Roelof Botha" would not be living the cozy VC life even though his family were high ranking members in the apartheid government.
The above is an example of exactly what's wrong with politics: A person who defines his side as "anything good" and the opposing side as "anything bad". Obliviously, he insists that the millions on the other side believe things that they do not believe, and gets angry with them for denying it.
Now imagine that you are on the opposite side of this person. How do you feel? Would you even remotely consider switching to his side, when his argument for doing so starts with the presumption that people on your side cannot possibly have any good intentions at all, even though you know that you yourself do?
Thanks for your post in a world where it seems horrible things were ever done only by one side in second world war. The fact that white homo-sapiens aren't extinct in SA is good enough to convince me that not just Mandela, but many other people in that country are better human beings than I am. The words of a dutch friend keep ringing in my ears where he suggested that the aggressive group will always be better off regardless of morality, I wish he was wrong but I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary....
