Media hype regarding Nelson Mandela

“One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”
Anyway, think this is bad, wait until queeny dies. And she’s done sod all.

teamhurtmore – Member

Core, not sure what you are trying to get at, but Mandela was “convicted” of sabotage and attempts to violently overthrow the government. No question of murder, ordering murder or manslaughter as far as I recall.

All former colonies would have some sort of struggles and the leaders that led the struggle would become the head of state once the “new” nation was legitimised. They would then become the father/mother of the independent state so given the title of heroes / heroines. The loser would then try to mend their defeat by “getting on the bandwagon” to “cherish” the new leader / nation in order to maintain “good” relationship with the new nation. That is the old skool …

The new skool is to hype it up via media etc to let the world see that they (former oppressors) are there to help build a new nation. Doing this is merely to hype up individual political profile and to reduce guilt.

I doubt many followed the footsteps of Ghandi to have non-violent struggle but others may think differently.

🙄

according to 4 seperate neighbours who have all moved from south africa in the last 2 years, theres going to be one hell of a fight for power and mineral resourses there in the next few years,they got out while they could,some of the stories they have about killings and muggins make london town look like a playschool.

Sorry chewkw, I do not recognise SA in either of your stylised models.

I do, however, have sympathy with some criticism of the coverage and the sanctification of Mandela. Simon Jenkins expresses this much better than me:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/10/mandela-coverage-banality-of-goodness

The world may crave a “Mandela-like icon”, but to what end? For serious media outlets to discuss him alongside Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Jesus of Nazareth is barking mad. He was Nelson Mandela. After seeing their former president doused in virtue and squeezed dry of glory by an assembly of world celebrities, South Africans should repatriate his reputation. Mandela gave them signal service for a brief few years in the 1990s, and if it suits them to revere him as a symbol of unity, goodness and peace, so be it. That is their business.

But the South African quality I recall Mandela possessing to the full was not saintliness, it was a hardened sense of irony. I doubt if he is wearing the BBC’s tin halo right now. I would bet he is laughing his head off.

Quite!

teamhurtmore – Member

Sorry chewkw, I do not recognise SA in either of your stylised models.

Just a generalisation not particularly aiming at SA.

However, there are some similarities though.

I’m pretty sure this is along the lines of how that Jesus story started. Thoroughly decent bloke I’m sure, but not the son of god.

You don’t have to look that far (geographically) to see an example of what could have happened if Mandella wasn’t there to guide the nation through the transfer of power.

The chances of it NOT kicking-off spectacularly were so remote – the fact that it went as well as it did (albeit far from perfectly, and with a long way to go) almost meets the definition of miracle as far as I’m concerned.

I’d like to know more about de Klerk.

I’m not sure how I feel about the current positive discrimination in RSA – Part of me sees it as a necessary evil to redress the huge inequality within the country, but another part of me feels like they should be adopting a more principled approach. I guess one needs to be pragmatic, “just wait another 30 years” isn’t gonna cut it when the vast majority of the population are on the receiving end.

Hands up here who remembers Apartheid-era SA?

I spent a bit of time there in the 1980s, whites only schools, trains, beaches…27 million people without representation, that kind of thing.

It took a while for me to fully understand the implications of it, in no small part thanks to a great man who refused to turn the tables on his former captors and instead set them on a better path.

Things aren’t perfect, indeed Mandela himself would be first to admit so, but it’s a heck of a lot better than either Apartheid or the aftermath of a bloodbath. I challenge any other politician of our age to do better.

Not directly in the same way as you, but I think plenty of us were well aware by the late 80s, at which point all boycotts were in full swing (I tend to think that cases like Zola Budd only helped to raise awareness).

As batfink puts it so well, it’s quite incredible how smooth the transition has been. Sure it might still be a bit of a mess, but it’s a hell of a lot less of a mess than it could be.

The leadership of Saffer SINCE Mandela shows how good he was for the country. I do find it rather ironic that now the whites are out of the way the ANC gets on with the important business of descriminating along sectarian/tribal lines. I wonder if they see the irony…
Still;this is about Mandela,so worth the hype? All things being relative in today’s society with our expectations of our leaders and for his attempts to put aside his bitterness for the opp to try and reshape SA? Probably.( despite my natural Scottish adversion to public displays of emotion) A whiter than white example to all humankind? God no.

Fairly interesting….
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

I’m not sure about it’s truth/bias though.

I’ve seen some links on social media to articles about Nelson Mandela alleging that in his younger days he was involved in, or sanctioned acts of violence & terrorism through his involvement in various anti establishment movements.
Difficult to tell if any of them have any truth in them, if there is any evidence on which to base the allegations, whether they are true but simply ignored, or are complete fallacies.

Mandela was a terrorist. The MK (armed wing) was a terrorist organization. Mandela discussed this extensively in “Long Walk to Freedom”. The MK aimed to demoralize the farmers that were facilitating the border squads and cross-border military units, and to demoralize white workers at strategic industries. It was not a terribly successful undertaking I’m military terms.

“”One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”

People who say this are lazy, ignorant bellends. Lazy because they haven’t thought about what they are saying. Ignorant because they don’t know what terrorism is. Bellends because it’s a cliche.

But its true though. Just depends which side your on. The victor writes history.
I might be a “lazy ignorant bellend” but I try to have a civilized discusian before hurling random insults.