pcstru Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 @creese is probably more knowledgeable on this subject but I thought his crime was not condemning violence, did he have any real clout when it came to saying yes or no? He admitted in his biography to signing off on bombings. He was offered early release on condition that he renounced violence, which he refused to do. In his time in the ANC leadership, the ANC tortured and killed large numbers of mostly black people, a favoured method was the famous tyre necklace (Necklacing was a term coined by Winnie Mandela). As president he welcomed President Suharto of Indonesia to SA, giving the murdering scumbag a 21 gun salute. I think his stand on "truth and reconciliation" in later life was commendable and he did renounce violence in later life. He probably saved SA from the fate of a bitter civil war and a genocide of the white population. I just find the picture being pained by the media to be as 'photoshopped' as a Vogue magazine cover. I don't think that's helpful, if we are to learn from history then we must deal with the truth as clearly as possible, not some sugar coated version of it. The man was a catalyst for change, but the means he employed left many dead. He was no Gandhi. 1
creese Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Very commendable @creese. When I travelled there regularly on business I used to fill a bag with stationery (paper, pencils, rulers etc.) and just pop in to a small school in the bush. The look on the faces of the staff when I'd breeze in, open the bag as say "can you use these?" The kids would all be immaculate in crisp, white shirts all the more amazing when they live in one room rondavels. Thank you. The reason I keep doing what I do, apart from believing every child deserves an education, is that they are so grateful and humble. On the day I left a class I worked closely with lined up and each one thanked me, formally. I then got a message to be outside at the close of school, they all rushed up and hugged me and thanked me 'properly'. If I didn't have grandchildren I would be out there permanently. I went from people who had reason to complain and don't to people who have all they need and more and do nothing but complain.
creese Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) He admitted in his biography to signing off on bombings. He was offered early release on condition that he renounced violence, which he refused to do. In his time in the ANC leadership, the ANC tortured and killed large numbers of mostly black people, a favoured method was the famous tyre necklace (Necklacing was a term coined by Winnie Mandela). As president he welcomed President Suharto of Indonesia to SA, giving the murdering scumbag a 21 gun salute. I think his stand on "truth and reconciliation" in later life was commendable and he did renounce violence in later life. He probably saved SA from the fate of a bitter civil war and a genocide of the white population. I just find the picture being pained by the media to be as 'photoshopped' as a Vogue magazine cover. I don't think that's helpful, if we are to learn from history then we must deal with the truth as clearly as possible, not some sugar coated version of it. The man was a catalyst for change, but the means he employed left many dead. He was no Gandhi. Geographically S A is very different to India. It would not be possible to lead a revolution in a similar way to Gandhi. Blacks were moved into areas, some large some small. One, QwaQwa was the Black Capital and is very much still predominately black. A large force of people could have easily been stopped from marching or protesting there and the world would have known nothing of how that was done. EDIT: In the 70s I worked on the Moehne Dam Yacht Club. We thought is fun to sing the Dam Busters March on the way to work. Many years later I found out how many thousands died in that raid. Not so funny now, but it could be argued it was for a good reason. Edited December 6, 2013 by creese
localzuk Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 He admitted in his biography to signing off on bombings. He was offered early release on condition that he renounced violence, which he refused to do. In his time in the ANC leadership, the ANC tortured and killed large numbers of mostly black people, a favoured method was the famous tyre necklace (Necklacing was a term coined by Winnie Mandela). As president he welcomed President Suharto of Indonesia to SA, giving the murdering scumbag a 21 gun salute. I think his stand on "truth and reconciliation" in later life was commendable and he did renounce violence in later life. He probably saved SA from the fate of a bitter civil war and a genocide of the white population. I just find the picture being pained by the media to be as 'photoshopped' as a Vogue magazine cover. I don't think that's helpful, if we are to learn from history then we must deal with the truth as clearly as possible, not some sugar coated version of it. The man was a catalyst for change, but the means he employed left many dead. He was no Gandhi. True. However, the methods used varied according to the time. It'd be akin to saying Churchill was a saint or not. There is no monochromatic description for any person on this planet, every life is filled with varying actions, changing views etc... 1
creese Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 BBC News - Nelson Mandela death: Somerset's part in South African history 'It was not South Africa that hosted these private peace talks but Mells Park House, some 9,000 miles (14,484 km) away.' Best I can get from Mells to the southern coast is 'some' 6,000 miles.
pcstru Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) True. However, the methods used varied according to the time. It'd be akin to saying Churchill was a saint or not. There is no monochromatic description for any person on this planet, every life is filled with varying actions, changing views etc... Right. And Churchill's views on Eugenics were IMO quite vile. (ETA and Ghandi's views on Blacks weren't exactly in line with the image we have of him now!). Today we have designated people terrorists and we are going after them, sanctioning extra judicial murder by remote control in foreign countries without the permission of those countries. Perhaps if we remember Mandela's roots clearly then we might more carefully reflect on what we are doing today to people we casually label 'terrorists'. Edited December 6, 2013 by pcstru
creese Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Right. And Churchill's views on Eugenics were IMO quite vile. (ETA and Ghandi's views on Blacks weren't exactly in line with the image we have of him now!). Today we have designated people terrorists and we are going after them, sanctioning extra judicial murder by remote control in foreign countries without the permission of those countries. Perhaps if we remember Mandela's roots clearly then we might more carefully reflect on what we are doing today to people we casually label 'terrorists'. One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
cpjitservices Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 RIP Nelson, 95 is a good old age and he lived one heck of a life!!! Gone and never to be forgotton.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now