nelson mandela has died.

[Burnt State]

Why we will never agree Pygar2 is that we have contradictory views over the history of oppression, morality and power. Our conflicting views on racism, how it works and what 'equity' means would only spark further pointless debate, taking us further away from the anti-racist positions of Biko and Mandela who claim the right to black thought & to write what they like. The place I come from embraces Mandela's proposal and dream of a unified, multicultural South Africa, hence the new flag.

Regarding America's post-slave history: the endless riots would not have taken place if it wasn't for slavery, the KKK, lynchings, Jim Crow laws, segregation, church bombings killing young black children, the assassinations of black leaders, a lack of integration, of representation, of judgments against them in the persistent legalizing of the murder of back people in the justice system across decades.

Those things, like apartheid, are wrought upon this modern era by white people, those who do racism best. They/We are the ones who have much to answer for, esecually the legacy of violence and inequity left in their wake. The disasters that continue to percolate and rise with claws out of the pits of white colonialsm & imperialism includes the many prolonged African wars and genocides and the racialized disarray of America. So, no, I don't place much blame on black people at all, certainly not on Mandela.

 

[Pygar2]

If you want to fight a government, put on a uniform, use legitimate weapons of war, and stay away from civilians- don't target them, and don't make it necessary to endanger them to get at *you*. One is war; the other, terrorism.

And murdering people for having the same skin color as people you don't like? Outrageous! And just as wrong, whichever "Bele" and "Loki" do it. It's either right for both sides, or wrong for both sides.

The weird thing is, I don't think you and I are all that far apart. I wouldn't doubt you find *me* a racist for saying both races are wrong to act in a racist fashion- and I am not entirely sure that "they should be excused, after all, they're black!" isn't far more racist than that... But aside from that, I just don't see either of us *really* thinking that crime and terrorism is a good thing, even if the side we like wins.

 

[Jimi H.]

So you do think the existence of crime means the existence of even more crime is justified? ..

Institutionalized racism means that systematic oppression takes place on all levels of society. The desperation felt by the oppressed in such a system must me extremely high. If you can't get help from 'the law', the law has already made you a person 'outside the law'.

Does this justify violence? No, I think violence against civilizans can never really be justified, in principle, but that's exactly what the state of S.A. did, it committed systematic and institutionalized violence against the civillian native population. So, with that in mind, the outlines of civil war should be plain. And in a war, violence happens. The war shouldn't have been started to begin with, and that's the feeling that I'm left with, when I consider the tragic reality of Apartheid.

I won't justify violence against civilizans, in principle, but I understand that the native population of S.A. was a desperate, oppressed population, and when people are desperate, they are prone to reacting in ways that they may come to regret later. In that light, I think it is not so hard to forgive Mandela for his violent youth, and move on. The violence was brought to him, and he reacted by becoming violent too. It's tragic, but he managed to move on, and become a leader who forgave his former oppressors.
Likewise, the South African population, as a whole, also managed, it seems, to forgive Mandela's violent youth. Because they understand what he and his people went through, and why they acted like they did, at the time.

 

[Pygar2]

You folks keep saying that violence *against* civilians is bad- what I am not hearing is "violence *from* civilians is bad, especially if it involves cowardly attacks on random innocent bystanders". If civilians want to take violence in their hands, they can form an army, provide themselves with some form of uniform so they can be told from innocents, take steps to avoid endangering innocents on either side, and abide by the laws of war. Violence (as such) from a janitor is no more moral than violence from a chief of police. An innocent bystander is no better off if his corpse was blown up in a cowardly attack, by either.

 

[Jimi H.]

You folks keep saying that violence *against* civilians is bad- what I am not hearing is "violence *from* civilians is bad, especially if it involves cowardly attacks on random innocent bystanders". If civilians want to take violence in their hands, they can form an army, provide themselves with some form of uniform so they can be told from innocents, take steps to avoid endangering innocents on either side, and abide by the laws of war. Violence (as such) from a janitor is no more moral than violence from a chief of police. An innocent bystander is no better off if his corpse was blown up in a cowardly attack, by either.

I think you must be very naive about Apartheid, or strangely indifferent to its consequences, if you think that organized resistance would be accepted by the racist government, whether the resistance donned a militia pretend-uniform, or not. It wasn't exactly Disneyland.

 

[Pygar2]

Where did I say it would be "accepted"? What makes it a "pretend" uniform? It doesn't have to be clothing; for all I care they could wear an arm band or for that matter clown noses- as long as they remain distinguishable from *non* resistance, at all times, so the government can tell "who needs shooting and who needs leaving alone", so to speak. If you don't want random reprisals against uninvolved persons, be distinguishable from them. Have the intestinal fortitude to stand out and take the consequences. And don't do the "random reprisals" bit yourself, if you want any sympathy from me.

 

[Burnt State]

Ok, so you would have wanted the French Resistance to wear armbands to make it easier for the Nazis occupying their country to shoot them? I think you're belaboring a sore point from the wrong side of the fence. Nothing you are saying is making any sense whatsoever. When you live in a country, say Syria for example, and the state starts killing civilians indiscriminately, like in S.A. Apartheid era, then the resistance is not going to go around and start identifying themselves. To do that would be plain stupid.

The resistance does not have the same set of resources as the state enemy, so you do what you have to in order to survive. And yes, you will be killing innocents along the way - that's called collatoral damage in some parts of the world and you don't see the US military making too many apologies for excessive drone killings of families do you, when there's no foreign force even occupying the US. Let's be a little more practical about how you get your people free from the butchers' hands.

Are you telling me that if you suddenly found yourself living in a dictatorship that is randomly killing civilian outposts your best, most honorable position is to put a target on your back that says, "shoot me first, I'm the resistance"? How's that supposed to help your family?

Best to end this whole debacle and go back to celebrating an African leader that brought hope and change to an entire continent, not just his own nation. It's either that or we have to explore why we would want to speak ill of a man whose net effect was an end to Apartheid. Should we also start knocking MLK as well for his approach to the civil rights movement? What's this all about really?

 

[manxman]

that's called collatoral damage in some parts of the world and you don't see the US military making too many apologies for excessive drone killings of families do you, when there's no foreign force even occupying the US. Let's be a little more practical about how you get your people free from the butchers' hands.

you ban them from your airspace, shootdown their drones, and tell obama to go f*** himself,

 

[Burnt State]

that's called collatoral damage in some parts of the world and you don't see the US military making too many apologies for excessive drone killings of families do you, when there's no foreign force even occupying the US. Let's be a little more practical about how you get your people free from the butchers' hands.

you ban them from your airspace, shootdown their drones, and tell obama to go f*** himself,

While this is a sidenote to the conversation, drone attacks began in the previous Bush era and ramped up significantly in the current administration. I don't see these as individual choices so much as the choices that technology provides and drives. We increasingly use tech to distance ourselves from the messiness of life. We're just watching the future of 'war as video game' unfold.

In Mandela's time and the ANC's resistance things were much messier and up close. Informants were killed brutally and locations that supported or propped up white dominance were secondary and tertiary targets. Mandela's struggle was fought on many fronts. But, great leader that he was, he was able to reason out in his mind, while busting chalk for 27 years during his incarceration, the best way to move forward with the least amount of bloodshed. But in this time Winnie was running the ANC and getting nasty with her own delusions of power. She made some frightful decisions. In the transition there was a lot to be settled and carved out across S.A. with both bitterness and vengeance driving many oppressed people. Truly, it could have been an explosive bloodbath. Mandela tempered that along with Tutu by choosing truth and reconciliation instead.

There will never be truth nor reconciliation from the drone.

 

[manxman]

it's a crying shame he didnt live longer really, i would of loved seeing him in ' im a celebrity get me out of here '.

 

[Bob Watson]

Today he was buried. If he was a terrorist he gave it up. He embraced a better peaceful way to change a represive goverment.he took those means only because he had no choice. He fought an evil of a system...and won...was he a saint..no...but Abraham lincoln was no saint...mandela was flawed but in the end..he proved like lincoln..but one done not need to be perfect to be great...and his flaws makes him shine so much brighter...