So at work I have to sit through lots of 'high energy we can change the world' presentations. Every time Nelson Mandela is flashed on a powerpoint and eulogised in the highest possible terms.
I keep my mouth firmly shut, but am I the only one who thinks that he is far from an uncomplicated figure. His heroism for me is tainted by the fact that he engaged in a terrorist campaign which did entail the death of innocent civilians.
My question is: am I alone in this?

am I alone in this?

No.

And as for Winnie….

When I was younger, I wondered why Mandela was revered, yet Adams and McGuiness were reviled, when they had all been involved in terrorism for what they (apparently) saw as a freedom struggle. I assumed then that the reason was that Mandela et al hadn't set out to kill people, but had rather set out to destroy government infrastructure, and maybe also because of the length of time that had passed. As it happens, I'm reading his book at the moment, but haven't got far enough to have read about his involvement in terrorism.

His heroism for me is tainted by the fact that he engaged in a terrorist campaign which did entail the death of innocent civilians.

What the racist regime in south africa that did not give him or the indegenous majority population access to the ballot box — what should he have done – tutted loudly and shook his head?

Do you dislike the resistance in Nazi France for similiar reasons?
I thought the ANC tried non violent measures first and then tried to not kill anyone and did not exactly bomb innocent people – targetted the agencies of Government /the oppressive state.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Junkyard the same issue existed in northern Ireland in the 1960s. The government set the rules insuch a way as to deliberately deny the vast majority of Catholics the vote. For example you couldn't vote if you were a lodger in someone else's property. At that time the vast majority of lodgers were catholic men. Also if you look at arrest records for the years leading up to the civil rights marches/riots in the late 60s early 70s you see that the numbers equal every catholic man aged between 18 and 35 was arrested and held without charge for seven days once every year.

Indeed so punitive were the segregative powers in northern Ireland that the aparthid government in s. Africa once commented they wished they could implement some of the measures to help them manage their aparthid regieme.

Junkyard, I dislike political oppression with a passion. I am no expert on the ANC story, but what I find odd is how uncomplicated Mandela is portrayed in the West – no mention is made of terrorism, but it did happen, and innocent civilians did die. I think questioning the Mandela consensus is not the same thing as endorsing Aparthied.

Forgetting how he ended up leader of SA, he achieved nothing. His legacy is SA of today, just another African shit-hole. He could have achieved so much but he didn't. He's just another useless politician.

In the face of their non-violent efforts to achieve equality in their own land during the 50s and 60s, and when many other countries in Africa were moving towards majority rule and independence, the blacks in SA were actually met with a massive increase in intolerance, repression and violence, to the point of being forcibly repatriated from their homes into barren "homelands" in the bush, and stripped of their citizenship. All of this was aimed at eliminating blacks from SA.

the ANC resorted to a campaign of sabotage against military and government targets. Probably not an uncomplicated figure, but don't you think that in the face of a military machine bent on the destruction of his poeple, he did the right thing? Wouldn't you like to think you'd do the same?

"he achieved nothing. His legacy is SA of today, just another African shit-hole. He could have achieved so much but he didn't. He's just another useless politician. "

what a load of bullshit. have you been to SA? Have you been anywhere else in Africa?

Edit, I should qualify that; one legacy of his calm and reconcilliatory leadership is that SA didn't immediately explode into anti-white violence that would have absolutely torn the country apart.

is nelson mandela dead?

what a load of bullshit. have you been to SA? Have you been anywhere else in Africa?

I've been to Africa, not SA.

Have a look at the crime statistics. Have a look at the poverty. Have a look at the rapist in charge.

He had the political capital to make SA something special. He failed. Utterly.

The country was bankrupt so he had very little chance to do anything, political capital or not. Have you ever visited sub-saharan Africa? Pretty much every other country there is much worse off than SA. Many are still riven by war, corruption, repression and abject poverty. Some European countries have more dubious leaders than Jacob Zuma.

No, but he's 91…can't be long now

When I was younger, I wondered why Mandela was revered, yet Adams and McGuiness were reviled, when they had all been involved in terrorism

So why was Adams never convicted of terrorist acts then ? As far as I am aware, Adams was only ever convicted for attempting to escape when he was being held illegally, without charge, in a British concentration camp. Even Thatcher couldn't have him arrested – she only managed to have his voice banned – so the evidence of 'terrorist involvement' is hardly overwhelming then. His commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process however, is.

Mandela has never been "involved in terrorism" either. His first conviction by the Racist State was for "leaving the country illegally". And the attempt to violently overthrow the regime which was responsible for horrors such as the Sharpeville Massacre, was perfectly justified. Would you accuse a Jew who had killed a SS guard at Auschwitz of being a "terrorist" ?

Umkhonto we Sizwe's targets were military and sabotage. Yes some collateral damage did occur, but as far as I am aware, we are talking about a few dozen – far less than the Racist regime killed.

To use some of the words of a great man, "when a dictatorship violates human rights and attacks the common good of the nation, when it becomes unbearable and closes all channels of dialogue, of understanding, of rationality, when this happens we speak of the legitimate right of insurrectional violence"

As far as remaining "silent" about the violence and killing is concerned, do you think that every time a dead soldier is returned from Afghanistan, or their death is announced on the news, we should be reminded of the killings in which they took part in ? Or would you rather that this "silence" over the violent past of our heroes was maintained ?

Who said that? Romero?

Who said that? Romero?

Yes Oscar Romero – who died a martyr's death at the hands of the Salvadoran Death Squads for speaking out for the poor and the oppressed. Only he said, "the Church speaks of the legitimate right of insurrectional violence"

I believe that his criteria for the justification of insurrectional violence is an excellent one. I agree that violence should only ever be a last resort, however, as he rightly says, "where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable."

Ernie, the problem becomes, just what criminal acts you can condone in the cause of emancipation/freedom?

murder?
bombing?
Bank robbery? (actually, on that point, has anyone got Peter Hain's DNA on record? might me interesting to test a couple of balaclavas that are still in the police evidence lockup for any evidence)

the problem becomes, just what criminal acts you can condone in the cause of emancipation/freedom?

And yet British forces in Afghanistan don't appear have a simular problem when fighting in the cause of emancipation/freedom …….

If a British soldier thousands of miles from his own home, is justified in killing of a member of the Taliban, then I'm sure that the ANC were fully justified in killing of a member of the racist state in their own country.

It is a very difficult moral question as to when violence is justified and ( IMO only in immediate self defence – but others would disagree)

If you want to think about the complexities of "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter" Israel has some good examples – Moshe Dayan – or Menachem Begin.

Only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams' or Mandelas' involvement with terrorism ( although I personally would call both instances anti colonial warfare not terrorism ). Both were fully aware of and in a position to affect the actions of the IRA/ANC. Their hands were on the guns and detonators in exactly the same way that Blairs'/Bushs' hands were on the triggers of coalitiuon rifles in Iraq. Of course I would argue that there was inarguable justification for armed struggle in apartheid South Africa but at the same time there's no way that you can remove Mandela from it. It's just a case of wether you can morally legitimize it.

Only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams' or Mandelas' involvement with terrorism

I accept you think I am a fool trailmonkey …… but if "only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams involvement with terrorism" then why was he never taken to court ?

Are you suggesting that the judges in the Diplock courts were all "fools" ?

If so, how did they manage to convict so many ?

Go on ……… hit me with it 😕

whatever ernie, i've got an essay to write and that supercedes my need to interogate the internet to a level whereby I can find a quote of Gerry Adams justifying armed struggle. As leader of the political arm of the Republican struggle, I'd say that involves him in anti colonial warfare ( please feel free to continue to misrepresent my point of view by calling it terrorism, regardless of what I've stated ).

Oh go on then, just the one.

"In the past I have defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle. I did so because there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic." Gerry Adams

But, whatever, you win, well done.

i've got an essay to write and that supercedes my need to ….

So why are you posting on a forum then ? And did you think that challenging me and indirectly calling me a "fool" would generate no response from me ?
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of Adams involvement in terrorism – whatever he has said in the past. Thatcher became totally obsessed with silencing Adams to the point of even passing a law which banned his voice from being broadcast (she was unable to get his image banned) By far the most effective way to silence Adams would have been to lock him up. If there had been a shred of evidence that he had been involved in terrorism, they would have done exactly that. After all, hundreds of terrorists were, and the Diplock courts and the emergency powers granted under temporary anti-terrorism legislation, meant everything was stacked in the British state's favour. The evidence of Adams commitment to the peace process, as I said earlier, is in contrast, overwhelming.

I assume you apply a criteria to what constitutes an 'involvement in terrorism' which would also damn the majority of the nationalist community – specially all those who voted and got elected, Bobby Sands to Westminster ?

For the record, I always opposed the "armed struggle" in NI. However, I knew many members of the Labour Party who did support it. There isn't anyway however, that could be accused of 'terrorist involvement'.

Good luck with your essay btw.

'Terrorism' is war by the poor
'War' is terrorism by the rich
I think thats a quote by Peter Ustinov, and expresses nicely the grey areas between the two- war sometimes being illegitimate, terrorism ( as in SA) sometimes being utterly justified.
You could even make a( weak) case for terrorism being the more humane of the two since its aim is to disrupt and scare out of all proportion to the people it kills.
On the subject of Mandela, I think one of the reasons that he is so rightly lauded, is because of his conduct during and especially after his imprisonment. If he had decided on a Mugabe- style vindictive retaliation against white South Africa, lets be honest, the whole world would have looked the other way. He didn't, he tried his best to unite the country and while maybe its not yet enough, its better than most of us expected.
For that I think his respected position( and lets not forget Walter Sisulu) is well justified .

So why are you posting on a forum then ?

Because I can only write for 45 mins at a time.

did you think that challenging me and indirectly calling me a "fool" would generate no response from me ?

I could hardly bait you and agree with you at the same time 😉

I assume you apply a criteria to what constitutes an 'involvement in terrorism' which would also damn the majority of the nationalist community – specially all those who voted and got elected, Bobby Sands to Westminster ?

Hello, earth to ernie, that's almost exactly what I'm saying, except that I'm not calling it terrorism, you are ( just go back a little )and I'm not damning it, I'm just recognising the connection between supporting the political and armed factions of a conflict and trying to suggest that you're foolish if you think that one is not a constituent part of the other.

But anyway, like i said, you're right, you win.

except that I'm not calling it terrorism, you are ( just go back a little )

OK I 'went back a little' and found that you wrote, "Only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams' or Mandelas' involvement with terrorism". Now I know that I might not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can't help thinking that you are calling it "terrorism". If you are arguing that their involvement did not constitute terrorism, then why are you calling it terrorism ? Although I would still not accept that Adams unlike Mandela, was in involved in any armed struggle – it is inconceivable imo that with all the intelligence, informers, etc, minimal evidence would not have come to light and Adams would not have been prosecuted. Look how little "evidence" was needed convict the Birmingham pub bombers of being Provisional IRA terrorists and keep them behind bars for 16 years. If they could convict innocent people, then I'm sure they could have convicted guilty ones.

BTW, thanks for pointing out, quote : "you're right, you win", as I wasn't entirely sure whether or not I had, on account that my simple and uncomplicated mind, couldn't quite grasp the subtle and sophisticated point you were making……..so that's cool 8)

.

On the subject of Mandela……

Whilst I dearly love "Grandpa Madiba", and his role as a voice of reason and reconciliation is indisputable, I believe it is a mistake to think that South Africa's stability is solely down to him. IMO the struggle was not one of black against white, but of non-racists against racists. Unlike neighbouring Zimbabwe, whites were involved at every level of the struggle. Many in the very highest positions within the ANC and SACP were white – and often Jewish, such as Joe Slovo and Ruth First. Also the SA Liberal Party which represented wealthy
English-speaking white South Africans, was amongst the most vocal opponent of the Racist State.

It was only a section of the white population which supported Apartheid – and it's no mistake that it is an Afrikaan word. Sadly the the descendants of the Boers who were imprisoned in the world's first concentration camps by the British, were the most enthusiastic supporters of Apartheid – the oppressed became the new oppressors – the parallels with the Jews in Israel is not lost on me. Although ironically, I believe that in 2005 what was left of the SA National Party which established Apartheid, actually merged with the ANC.
imho.

OK I 'went back a little' and found that you wrote, "Only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams' or Mandelas' involvement with terrorism"

What I actually wrote was – "Only a fool would argue a case against Gerry Adams' or Mandelas' involvement with terrorism ( although I personally would call both instances anti colonial warfare not terrorism ). "

Now I know that I might not be the sharpest pencil in the box

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there but you are obviously one of those people who choose to hear half a sentence in order to hear the words that you want and for someone who likes to portray an image of socialist brotherhood, you do seem, to have a lofty condascending attitude to those who dare to disagree or may not meet your intellectual expectations.

ernie lynch ? benito more like.

you are obviously one of those people who choose to hear half a sentence in order to hear the words that you want …..

Clearly you read me like a book mate.

But you still haven't explained why Adams hasn't been convicted for his involvement in "anti colonial warfare" as you like to call it. According to you, "only a fool would argue" against his involvement in terrorism/anti colonial warfare.

Well ? Were all the judges in the Diplock courts "fools" then ? And how did the hundreds of Provisional IRA terrorist manage to get convicted but not Adams ?

Are you one of those people who choose to hear half a question in order to hear the words that you want hear ?

And thanks for explaining to me what I believe. But contrary to your claim, I have no wish to "portray an image of socialist brotherhood". If I feel any sense of "brotherhood", then it's to people in general – irrespective of their race or creed. To automatically embrace people simply on the basis that they claim to be "socialist" is a dangerous philosophy, and one which can lead to serious errors of judgement. Consequently, I can be very quick to condemn Trots, Maoists, and trendy Guardian reading pseudo-lefties, despite any claim they might make of being "socialist".

And it's not a position which I am likely to change, motivated as I am, by the belief that the aim is to satisfy the needs of people, not the needs of an ideology – socialism should exist to serve the people, not the people existing to serve socialism.

And as far as my "lofty condescending attitude" is concerned trailmonkey, I tend to reserve it for the likes of you…..eg Guardian readers who feel nothing but utter contempt for the 'great unwashed' and who denounce those are less well-informed with contemptuous and arrogant comments such as :

trailmonkey – Member

Absolute tosh. The BNP are gaining ground because a bunch of gormless idiots are voting for them. You can apportion blame all you want but when it comes to voting, there's only one person who makes the descision. If you lot really think that some working class bloke in Burnley is going to vote BNP because he disagrees with LibDem economic policy then you're even more of a bunch of idiots than I ever imagined, People vote BNP because they are thick, racist, biggoted morons, end of.

Muppets.

Posted 1 month ago

Some breathtaking contempt and arrogance there mate – not only against people who vote 'incorrectly',
but also against STW users who don't agree with you.

Muppet …….. to use a word you like to use.

How's the essay going btw ?

essay written, thanks for asking. as for the rest, don't really care one way or the other, just bored with it. i'm sure you'll bookmark it and repeat it like you've done with other stuff that i've written though.

bit creepy really. 😯

essay written

Well that's nice 8)

And no, there's no need to bookmark – I find that the search function whilst very simple and quick to use, works really rather well. Useful too, when the pot wants to make accusations and call the kettle black……