Nelson Mandela

[Amsterhammer]

I am going to comment on several points here…

Let’s make the squarely on-topic point first. I do believe (based on my own impartial assessment though admittedly incomplete) that NM was an outstanding man. Whatever the controversial emotion and opinions regarding the rebellious PAST , his conciliatory actions as the head of the new post- Apartheid state are the hard fact. Specifically, it is an inarguable fact that he had presided over the unprecedented peaceful evolution whence the oppressed did not exact the revenge they (by all historical precedents) were entitled to. Thus, I do bow my head to the great man Mandela was.

That said, I do find the several posts criticizing Alp as the mod who ‘interfered’ , to put it mildly, misplaced . Or at the least off topic. An off topic post that went un-moderated in another thread is a silly, if not a downright stupid, reason to justify any long-winded however considered or thoughtful off-topic posts in this thread. You want to disagree with the moderation, fair enough, go ahead. But do it in the proper place. Doing it here was and is off-topic whatever the contribution .. That alp has given up so easily, is hardly going to contribute to the great man’s memory…Thatcher or not, NM terrorist pas t or not.

Thank you for this far more sensible response than the rather typically slimy Hitch response, full of underhand digs at me, that Netserk seemed to like so much. The posts referred to happened at a time when Alpe was still trying, as a good mod should, to uphold my specific request in the OP, to have an 'In memoriam' topic. As Alpe suggested, there was nothing to stop anyone opening a separate topic to discuss people's possibly diverging views of Mandela the politician/ statesman or whatever - or of starting a discussion about him in the World politics topic. For the record, I had nothing to do with any actions taken by Alpe. I did not report a single post or ask for any action.

Exactly this happened on another forum that I frequent, except that I did not start the topic there. Someone else started a Mandela 'In memoriam' topic, a few people came in and called him a 'terrorist' and 'murderer' and 'communist'. Those posts were removed by an admin, and a warning posted that any further 'off topic' posts would be removed, and the poster would receive an immediate sanction. Posters there were also invited to start a separate topic to 'discuss' Mandela in any way they chose, and where they could express themselves any way they wanted to, in ways that were unsuitable and unacceptable in a specific 'In memoriam' topic.

I didn't really want to write this response, but felt that I had to in view of subsequent posts here. I am not entering into any debate.

 

[Merckx index]

Seems to me there’s a simpler response to the question of what is allowed in this thread. Since Mandela was through and through a political figure, how can a thread about his passing not discuss politics? If a famous actor dies, does a thread in his memory not discuss any of his films? When Brando died, was there any in memoriam post by anyone that didn’t mention The Godfather? If a well-known singer dies, is a separate thread necessary to discuss her songs?

If, as Amster clearly believes, Mandela was an “utterly remarkable and unique human being”, it must be because of the nature of his political beliefs and actions. And how can anyone remember him without reference to these?

I have to agree with Hitch here. With respect to Amster, whose opinion of Mandela I share to a large extent (but not completely), his OP, where he says this thread is for “expressions of admiration and respect”, suggests that what he really objects to is not discussions of Mandela’s politics per se, but criticisms of his politics. No speaking ill of the dead.

Because otherwise, there is almost nothing to say. Just short sentences about what a great man he was, without expressing any reason for the opinion. And frankly, I think that demeans him. That kind of insipid praise may be fine for a newspaper obit of someone unknown to the vast majority of readers. For someone who was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century—I think we can all at least agree on that—Mandela deserves more. If some want to trash him, bring it on. I believe he was an extraordinary enough figure that his legacy can tolerate it, and eventually grow from it.

As for his being a terrorist, I’m reminded of that old Judy Collins song about America’s own version of apartheid:

They killed our boys in Mississippi,
They shot Medgar in the back
Did you say it wasn’t proper?
Did you lie down on the track?

You were quiet, just like mice
And now you say that we aren’t nice!
Well, thank you, buddy, for your advice
But if that’s freedom’s price…

This is not a very flattering commentary on our species. But Mandela was a member of our species, dealing with other members of our species. There seems to be a close relationship between the level of oppression of a regime, and the amount of violence necessary to overthrow it. Mandela didn’t create that relationship; he had to deal with it. That’s not to dismiss some of the decisions he made, only to say that I don’t think anyone else could have done better.

And as a reminder that SA’s continuing problems are hardly unique, let alone easily solved, I will remind everyone that even today, a century and a half after the Civil War, there are still many African-Americans in inner cities who are worse off, in many respects, than their ancestors were on the plantations. Obviously, that is no case against all the struggles for equality that went on during that period.

 

[Netserk]

That said, I do find the several posts criticizing Alp as the mod who ‘interfered’ , to put it mildly, misplaced . Or at the least off topic. An off topic post that went un-moderated in another thread is a silly, if not a downright stupid, reason to justify any long-winded however considered or thoughtful off-topic posts in this thread. You want to disagree with the moderation, fair enough, go ahead. But do it in the proper place. Doing it here was and is off-topic whatever the contribution .. That alp has given up so easily, is hardly going to contribute to the great man’s memory…Thatcher or not, NM terrorist pas t or not.

1) I think you mean on-topic post.

2) It appears that you haven't read the Thatcher thread.

3) Can you explain to me why different standards should apply to a NM and a MT thread?

 

[The Hitch]

Thank you for this far more sensible response than the rather typically slimy Hitch response, full of underhand digs at me, that Netserk seemed to like so much. The posts referred to happened at a time when Alpe was still trying, as a good mod should, to uphold my specific request in the OP, to have an 'In memoriam' topic. As Alpe suggested, there was nothing to stop anyone opening a separate topic to discuss people's possibly diverging views of Mandela the politician/ statesman or whatever - or of starting a discussion about him in the World politics topic. For the record, I had nothing to do with any actions taken by Alpe. I did not report a single post or ask for any action.

Exactly this happened on another forum that I frequent, except that I did not start the topic there. Someone else started a Mandela 'In memoriam' topic, a few people came in and called him a 'terrorist' and 'murderer' and 'communist'. Those posts were removed by an admin, and a warning posted that any further 'off topic' posts would be removed, and the poster would receive an immediate sanction. Posters there were also invited to start a separate topic to 'discuss' Mandela in any way they chose, and where they could express themselves any way they wanted to, in ways that were unsuitable and unacceptable in a specific 'In memoriam' topic.

I didn't really want to write this response, but felt that I had to in view of subsequent posts here. I am not entering into any debate.

You have not adressed any of the arguments against you here, just attacked me as "slimy" (ironically in a thread you asked remain civil and in which no one has insulted you)

Acf started a thread to pay respects for a person he liked. You posted in a rather taunting manner directly to him that this was a joyous occasion for yourself and that you hope his hero "enjoys the fires of hell".

You did not start another thread to do this, you chose to do this in the existing rip thread, and directly taunt the op.

Move forward 8 months.
You start a thread to pay respects for a person you like. Big Mac posted that he saw this person as a terrorist but did not gloat about their death. You react with one of the most vile.comments in the history of this forum, demand the posts be banned and demand that anyone who disagrees should have to do so in another thread.

The question I think you should adress is why do you think it is ok for you to hijack other peoples rip threads but not for other people to do the same to yours?

I don't really know what your experience with another forum has to do with this thread on this forum. You told a young poster who expressed an opinion contrary to yours (that iirc did not break the rules in any way), that you hope they die(+some more unpleasant stuff) and this poster took this very seriously (as I would have when I was 16) and doesn't want to post here anymore.

Do you think that can be excused by some alleged things that happened on some other forum? If so, how? And what do you think you achieve by meeting any post that disagrees with you with insults or death threats.

To revisit my defense of arguments, so brilliantly expanded on by Merckx Index, your wish to purge the thread of any arguments you disagree with seems to.me to.be motivated by a - if you close your eyes you can pretend it isn't happening, approach to the issue designed to make you feel better by not having to contemplate the fact that there are many who hated him. As someone who also liked Mandela, though I will aknowledge more through the study of history than through human experience memory and passion such as with yourself, since I wasn't yet born when the fight was taking place, I feel for reasons i explained before that it hurts the case for Mandela to allow only positive comments, because those who don't like him or don't know about him can only become more hostile by not being allowed to express their opinions. You will find far more people believing he was a terrorist 5 years from now if you don't allow them to express their opinions than if you confront them.

I think that's more important than allowing a few people the right to live in a temporary delusion that no one on earth disliked Mandela.

 

[Le breton]

Colonialism

A couple of years ago, at a quite old British friend's place, I expressed my admiration for Nelson Mandela.
However in the room were a couple of his British buddies (possibly with a past in the military, not sure) who obviously had a different view.
Only then did I realize that I had in front of me people who grew up when Britain ruled the world, still nostalgic for a time when black people knew their place in society.
Do I need to say more?
I also wonder about how many people among those who call Mandela a terrorist would never resort to violence if confronted with a murderous agression.

 

[BigMac]

I think everything is okay. I left this thread so the discussion can flow the way Amster wants to. I just don't want anyone to feel attacked, nor annoyed. This is a cycling forum afterall and it would be quite a shame if people got irritated at each other because of Cafe discussions.

Fortunately, I am not the kind of person to make up things, nor to believe anything I see and read on the internet, so my accusations are very well documented. Again, I am not against civil disobedience, I am against the murder of innocent people in a conscious and deliberate way. Had he turn the spear of the Umkhonto we Sizwe against the South African government and military, I wouldn't be calling him a terrorist today. On an overwhelming ratio of black people to white people, with weaponry support from the communist party, you would expect more bombings and shooting attempts against the government than women and children. You see, my point is, even though his objective was to kill whites only, some of them did not agree with the segregation of races, therefore they were innocent.

Weeks after he came out of prison, Mandela was already singing songs on how he pledged to the MK to kill THE whites.

My grandfather lived in Angola during the colonial time and never did harm to anyone. He was, in fact, a respected man in Longonjo, and almost everyone in that town was friendly to him. He was perhaps one of the few Portuguese to have an opposed view on colonialism, slavery and racism, at that time, in Angola. Despite all that, he was killed by the town people, because the MPLA was making propaganda that all whites were vile. As much as i agree that Angola should have been given independence a.s.a.p, I am against retaliations 'outside' the battlefield.

I will let the discord to the upcoming cycling season, for i am sure there will be plenty. Cheers everyone!

 

[rhubroma]

A couple of years ago, at a quite old British friend's place, I expressed my admiration for Nelson Mandela.
However in the room were a couple of his British buddies (possibly with a past in the military, not sure) who obviously had a different view.
Only then did I realize that I had in front of me people who grew up when Britain ruled the world, still nostalgic for a time when black people knew their place in society.
Do I need to say more?
I also wonder about how many people among those who call Mandela a terrorist would never resort to violence if confronted with a murderous agression.

It just belongs to a spurious revisionism that doesn't take into account the gravity of the historical dilemma, but only the response to it. That is who among us would not resort to extream measures given those circumstances?

It's like the fascists condemning the partisans for the means by which they combated fascism, only much, much worse. The hypocrisy has not limits. We don’t have to necessarily relish in certain measures, mind you, but those were the ones required at the time. Anything else is just making pretend that we live in *** dory world, only in fairytales though. And this becomes the true difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. If only that were clear.

 

[rhubroma]

I think everything is okay. I left this thread so the discussion can flow the way Amster wants to. I just don't want anyone to feel attacked, nor annoyed. This is a cycling forum afterall and it would be quite a shame if people got irritated at each other because of Cafe discussions.

Fortunately, I am not the kind of person to make up things, nor to believe anything I see and read on the internet, so my accusations are very well documented. Again, I am not against civil disobedience, I am against the murder of innocent people in a conscious and deliberate way. Had he turn the spear of the Umkhonto we Sizwe against the South African government and military, I wouldn't be calling him a terrorist today. On an overwhelming ratio of black people to white people, with weaponry support from the communist party, you would expect more bombings and shooting attempts against the government than women and children. You see, my point is, even though his objective was to kill whites only, some of them did not agree with the segregation of races, therefore they were innocent.

Weeks after he came out of prison, Mandela was already singing songs on how he pledged to the MK to kill THE whites.

My grandfather lived in Angola during the colonial time and never did harm to anyone. He was, in fact, a respected man in Longonjo, and almost everyone in that town was friendly to him. He was perhaps one of the few Portuguese to have an opposed view on colonialism, slavery and racism, at that time, in Angola. Despite all that, he was killed by the town people, because the MPLA was making propaganda that all whites were vile. As much as i agree that Angola should have been given independence a.s.a.p, I am against retaliations 'outside' the battlefield.

I will let the discord to the upcoming cycling season, for i am sure there will be plenty. Cheers everyone!

I have a friend who does humanitarian work in Angola, consequently I'm well versed in the continued backlash of the colonial enterprise.

I'm obviously sorry about your grandfather, however, given the harm the colonialists barbarously inflicted upon the natives (in their home, mind you), it's at least ironic that you should consider more grave their actions over those who inflicted the repression. In a segregated and disadvantaged environment, as it was till then a perpetual status, to distinguish between innocence and guilty becomes a relative affair based upon who is oppressed and who is not.

In short the whites can't have expected a "humane" response, given the century of tyranny they enforced upon the blacks. Had Mandela and his forces been capable of directly attacking the establishment, it would have been much easier, though this wasn't the case, for which the conscious world has redeemed him. Those that didn’t participate in the revolution, can’t expect to reap its rewards.

 

[BigMac]

I have a friend who does humanitarian work in Angola, consequently I'm well versed in the continued backlash of the colonial enterprise.

I'm obviously sorry about your grandfather, however, given the harm the colonialists barbarously inflicted upon the natives (in their home, mind you), it's at least ironic that you should consider more grave their actions over those who inflicted the repression. In a segregated and disadvantaged environment, as it was till then a perpetual status, to distinguish between innocence and guilty becomes a relative affair based upon who is oppressed and who is not.

In short the whites can't have expected a "humane" response, given the century of tyranny they enforced upon the blacks. Had Mandela and his forces been capable of directly attacking the establishment, it would have been much easier, though this wasn't the case, for which the conscious world has redeemed him. Those that didn’t participate in the revolution, can’t expect to reap its rewards.

Precisely, but I do not consider their actions more grave than those of the Portuguese. I may have expressed myself wrong, but what I am trying to say is that my grandfather had nothing to do with the war (never showed hostility and treated everyone nicely (he was against colonialism and considered himself a simple citizen of Angola)) just like numerous people killed by the MK in SA. In my previous post I said he was friendly with the town folk, the same ones that killed him. They knew he was on their 'side'.

I do not agree with colonialism and condemn all the barbaric things that came with it, but obviously, I also do not agree with the killing of innocents. That would be incoherent and somewhat hypocrite. The reasons, I have writen in the previous posts. These people's deaths are not collateral damage, but deliberate murders.

I wrote before that I would not post in here again, but there is always something to reply. It is somewhat pointless, because clearly, this are opinions and views that can't be changed over arguments, but time and life.

Thanks for your posts.

 

[rhubroma]

Precisely, but I do not consider their actions more grave than those of the Portuguese. I may have expressed myself wrong, but what I am trying to say is that my grandfather had nothing to do with the war (never showed hostility and treated everyone nicely (he was against colonialism and considered himself a simple citizen of Angola)) just like numerous people killed by the MK in SA. In my previous post I said he was friendly with the town folk, the same ones that killed him. They knew he was on their 'side'.

I do not agree with colonialism and condemn all the barbaric things that came with it, but obviously, I also do not agree with the killing of innocents. That would be incoherent and somewhat hypocrite. The reasons, I have writen in the previous posts. These people's deaths are not collateral damage, but deliberate murders.

I wrote before that I would not post in here again, but there is always something to reply. It is somewhat pointless, because clearly, this are opinions and views that can't be changed over arguments, but time and life.

Thanks for your posts.

I can't, nor would I, justify the death of your grandfather. I can only, as a detached observer, consider those consequences that led to his death, however terrible.

One, therefore, doesn't need to agree with the killing of innocents, but realize the circumstances that led to their deaths and the reasons for which the oppressed resorted to such fatal outcomes. Given the tyranny in which they lived, perhaps, and this with all due respect, the murder of innocents was actually caused by the same establishment you indict Mandela for not having attacked directly, when this wasn't possible.

 

[Echoes]

Very nice post Hitch.

*Okay I'll stop the circle-jerk now* :O

Yeah very nice propaganda machine, disqualifying your opponents with anathemas such as "extremists". Typical leftist methods...

"We believe in freedom of speech as long as we can judge you". That's of course not the way I see freedom of speech...

There's no arguments in his micmac... No critical thinking, just bashing.

Just like the post above his. Even more vicious. Stating I'm obsessed with WWII just because for once I'm referring to it. One utterance is already a sign of obsession for some leftists. Because there's a subliminal message behind this, okay? You are obsessed with WWII because you are a Neonazi, that's what it means. Disgusting methods !!

And then what? I'm quoting my source. Oh well, I thought it was a matter of intellectual honesty. Apparently not for everybody. No, we should all have rocket science. Unbelievable.

All this to pave the way the good ole stupid left/right debate on whether or not Mandela was a terrorist - which I've tried to anticipate -, and with a 16 y.o. kid, furthermore !, while there's so much to debate on Mandela's failure to eradicate poverty and his involvment in the Congo Wars ...

Poor forum...

 

[aphronesis]

Yeah very nice propaganda machine, disqualifying your opponents with anathemas such as "extremists". Typical leftist methods...

"We believe in freedom of speech as long as we can judge you". That's of course not the way I see freedom of speech...

There's no arguments in his micmac... No critical thinking, just bashing.

Just like the post above his. Even more vicious. Stating I'm obsessed with WWII just because for once I'm referring to it. One utterance is already a sign of obsession for some leftists. Because there's a subliminal message behind this, okay? You are obsessed with WWII because you are a Neonazi, that's what it means. Disgusting methods !!

And then what? I'm quoting my source. Oh well, I thought it was a matter of intellectual honesty. Apparently not for everybody. No, we should all have rocket science. Unbelievable.

All this to pave the way the good ole stupid left/right debate on whether or not Mandela was a terrorist - which I've tried to anticipate -, and with a 16 y.o. kid, furthermore !, while there's so much to debate on Mandela's failure to eradicate poverty and his involvment in the Congo Wars ...

Poor forum...

Sorry brother, my formation is American and I don't really get caught up in the bone-dry pedantics of Euro sectarian politics. I'm surrounded by neo-fascists on a daily basis (in the psychological sense) and have no need to go sniffing them out on the internet from 3000 miles away.

My challenge was to your historiographic formation not your politics--not that the two are completely separate in the French system.

Call it Kantian: can you be big enough to mount a cogent argument without referring to others? Can you in your own terms frame a historical argument around the present and the twentieth century without making reference to what for many remains the last major historical horizon in the West--e.g. the war? Call it the little boys/big names/institutions model of history. Can you, for example, discuss Mandela without having recourse to either?

 

[roundabout]

I can't, nor would I, justify the death of your grandfather. I can only, as a detached observer, consider those consequences that led to his death, however terrible.

One, therefore, doesn't need to agree with the killing of innocents, but realize the circumstances that led to their deaths and the reasons for which the oppressed resorted to such fatal outcomes. Given the tyranny in which they lived, perhaps, and this with all due respect, the murder of innocents was actually caused by the same establishment you indict Mandela for not having attacked directly, when this wasn't possible.

Never figured you for a follower of Leviticus.

 

[sittingbison]

I think the issue being discussed here (not about Mandela per se) is that even if you disagree diametrically with another viewpoint, keep it civil. Personal attacks on another poster are simply not acceptable. Ball not man etc.

If you think the other poster is inappropriate, baiting, trolling, off topic etc, report it and let a mod deal with it.

cheers
bison

 

[mikeNphilly]

Thank you for this far more sensible response than the rather typically slimy Hitch response, full of underhand digs at me, that Netserk seemed to like so much. The posts referred to happened at a time when Alpe was still trying, as a good mod should, to uphold my specific request in the OP, to have an 'In memoriam' topic. As Alpe suggested, there was nothing to stop anyone opening a separate topic to discuss people's possibly diverging views of Mandela the politician/ statesman or whatever - or of starting a discussion about him in the World politics topic. For the record, I had nothing to do with any actions taken by Alpe. I did not report a single post or ask for any action.

Exactly this happened on another forum that I frequent, except that I did not start the topic there. Someone else started a Mandela 'In memoriam' topic, a few people came in and called him a 'terrorist' and 'murderer' and 'communist'. Those posts were removed by an admin, and a warning posted that any further 'off topic' posts would be removed, and the poster would receive an immediate sanction. Posters there were also invited to start a separate topic to 'discuss' Mandela in any way they chose, and where they could express themselves any way they wanted to, in ways that were unsuitable and unacceptable in a specific 'In memoriam' topic.

I didn't really want to write this response, but felt that I had to in view of subsequent posts here. I am not entering into any debate.

Wow...You f-bombed the first person(except you typed it out) who disagreed with you.

Mandela was a great guy, he led his country to a place where at least on the surface everyone is equal. Did he kick some **** on the way in doing it, sure...who hasn't.

NOTE: personal attack redacted by sittingbsion

 

[sittingbison]

mikeNphilly...and everyone else...I suggest you read my post directly above yours. Enough of the personal attacks please. The topic is Mandela, not amsterhammer or any other poster.

Given the divisive nature (for many) of said topic, please do your best to keep it relatively civil

cheers
bison

EDIT:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1374738&postcount=1096