Nelson Mandela ,freedom fighter or terrorist

[peanut]

Originally Posted by progers

I can recommend the film "Mandela, the long walk to freedom" it's brilliant, then you can make your own minds up.

It's released on January 3 2014

The only problem I have with these kind of biopics is that they tend to gloss over certain aspects to suit the agenda. Though I will be giving it a watch.

I guess the SA underclasses realised that with things like the Sharpeville Massacre, and being imprisoned for 3 years for organising strikes and another two years for leaving the country illegally(?), reasoned discussions with the ruling party were not going to make much progress.

Originally Posted by alferret

Considering I started the negativity in the RIP thread guess I may as well post here too. Wouldn't want to upset the party line again by posting in the other thread!
My opinion.....
Nelson Mandela was the head of a terrorist organization before he was incarcerated, he may have never actually pulled the trigger but he ordered someone else to do the deed.
I neither like or dislike the man, I don't know him nor would I want to. But to honour someone who did what he did would and is in my opinion hypocritical.
As kymmy has said in the other post things are worse now for the poor, De Klerk started it the change, Mandela gets the praise.

It's ok just saying he was the head of a terrorist group but black people where not allowed to protest even by peaceful means ,so violent measures where inevitable ,much the same as places like Syria .The big difference is that Mandela managed to keep the more violent protesters in check avoiding an all out civil war

I will also point out that he had spent 27 years in prison for his crimes...So he didn't get off scot free.Surely anyone having served their time is allowed to change the direction of their life and beliefs?

[Stephen]

The man was a freedom fighter, he fought to end apartheid. The way black people were treated in SA was shocking and thats why he fought to get things changed.

In 1962 he was arrested, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government.

After his release he eventually became SAs FIRST black president. He spent his whole life trying to get the country to allow equal voting for black and white people.

That to me is a man who tried for years to change things and ultimatly acheived it.

[spreadsheet]

Gerry Adams was all about overthrowing state power

but you don't hear them banging on about him


albeit he is still alive

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

Gerry Adams was all about overthrowing state power

but you don't hear them banging on about him


albeit he is still alive

Generally speaking the difference is that the likes of Gerry Adams want a democratic decision taken by the majority overturned to benefit a minority

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Generally speaking the difference is that the likes of Gerry Adams want a democratic decision taken by the majority overturned to benefit a minority

Point of fact martyh, the partition of Ireland (which is what I assume you are referencing above) was not something that was a "democratic decision taken by the majority". It was, in fact, imposed via the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Under the terms of the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement, which Adams is a signatory to, any achievement of his stated objective of a united Ireland can only be brought about by peaceful / democratic means in line with the wishes of the majority.

That is a good thing.

Some context, from Stanford University

With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ``white-only'' jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed decent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as ``in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person.'' A person could not be considered white if one of his or her parents were non-white. The determination that a person was ``obviously white'' would take into account ``his habits, education, and speech and deportment and demeanour.'' A black person would be of or accepted as a member of an African tribe or race, and a coloured person is one that is not black or white. The Department of Home Affairs (a government bureau) was responsible for the classification of the citizenry. Non-compliance with the race laws were dealt with harshly. All blacks were required to carry ``pass books'' containing fingerprints, photo and information on access to non-black areas.

In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as ``homelands.'' These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalizing nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country.
In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. In 1960, a large group of blacks in Sharpeville refused to carry their passes; the government declared a state of emergency. The emergency lasted for 156 days, leaving 69 people dead and 187 people wounded. Wielding the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the white regime had no intention of changing the unjust laws of apartheid.

The penalties imposed on political protest, even non-violent protest, were severe. During the states of emergency which continued intermittently until 1989, anyone could be detained without a hearing by a low-level police official for up to six months. Thousands of individuals died in custody, frequently after gruesome acts of torture. Those who were tried were sentenced to death, banished, or imprisoned for life, like Nelson Mandela.

The apartheid policy was highly effective of achieving its goal of preferential treatment for whites, as is demonstrated by the statistics in Figure 1.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Stephen

After his release he eventually became SAs FIRST black president. He spent his whole life trying to get the country to allow equal voting for black and white people.

That to me is a man who tried for years to change things and ultimatly acheived it.

He though did not achieve it but instead was used to achieve it...

De Klerk was the one who changed the views of the nationalist party, he was the one who instigated the referendum (though whites only) that took the country into the post apartheid era and he was the one who thrust Mandela into the role as peace negotiator..

I agree greatly that no-one else could have done what Mandela achieved and that was to act as a buffer between the black majority and the white minority (shame the colored class (not the blacks as they were counted as a seperate class) at the time just sat on their backsides and waited until a victor emerged which turned out to be the people and not an individual group)

As for Mandela being a terrorist I wonder how many people involved in for example Manchester/docklands/Harrods and many other IRA bombings would still classify Gerry Adams and others as a terrorist. You had to live there in the late 70's/80's to realise the state of fear that gripped the public at that time.

Finally though I have to say that without Mandela there may have been bloodshed and a lot of violence in the early 90's and for that he has found his place in history and a lot of peoples hearts but what the news keeps hammering on about how he brought about the end of the apartheid era is just wrong..

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Maggy J:35653030

I will also point out that he had spent 27 years in prison for his crimes...So he didn't get off scot free.Surely anyone having served their time is allowed to change the direction of their life and beliefs?

Your still misunderstanding what I said, that is if your comments are aimed at me.
All I was doing was pointing out that his pre prison life wasn't all for the good of others and that part of his life was not lawful. Big at any point have I said otherwise, I just pointed out a fact and you jumped on that, maybe going back to bed and getting up again on the right side would benefit my statement that you took umbridge too.

Originally Posted by alferret

Your still misunderstanding what I said, that is if your comments are aimed at me.
All I was doing was pointing out that his pre prison life wasn't all for the good of others and that part of his life was not lawful. Big at any point have I said otherwise, I just pointed out a fact and you jumped on that, maybe going back to bed and getting up again on the right side would benefit my statement that you took umbridge too.

Err I was just making an observation to all those posting in the thread.If I was to refer to what you said I would quote you.

[SMG]

Terrorist.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Point of fact martyh, the partition of Ireland (which is what I assume you are referencing above) was not something that was a "democratic decision taken by the majority". It was, in fact, imposed via the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Under the terms of the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement, which Adams is a signatory to, any achievement of his stated objective of a united Ireland can only be brought about by peaceful / democratic means in line with the wishes of the majority.

That is a good thing.

I don't want to get into the ins and outs of NI but at the time the majority of the inhabitants of what would become NI where protestants and wanted to remain part of GB ,and the Government of Ireland act passed through Parliament in the democratic process of the time so it was generally speaking a democratic process and i suspect that the troubles where largely created by the differences in perception which you have just highlighted ,Gerry Adams and yourself being on the side that see the separation as being "imposed" by the government and the other side seeing the separation as the wishes of the majority

[spreadsheet]

you've got to admit that they are going on at length about it!!!

only this morning


I waded through supplements in the hallway this morning