Pages

Friday, December 6, 2013

RIP to a Terrorist

So Nelson Mandela's dead.  Big whoop. The liberalist media is positively orgasmic about it, which should tell everyone what they need to know.

As for me, I mourn his passing about as much as I do Arafat's, another terrorist turned statesman despite the big heaping piles of dead bodies behind him.  Here's a good write-up on the delta between the Nelson Mandela the man and Nelson Mandela the second-coming-of-Abraham-Lincoln the myth.

Oh, and necklacing.

17 comments:

Carnivore said...

Man, you be a raciss crack-uh.

Have you seen some of the before/after Johannesburg pictures? Almost like Detroit.

http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/

Elusive Wapiti said...

Holy crap, it looks like Port au Prince.

ClarenceComments said...

I wasn't aware that Mandela was ever on trial or in jail for murder and I refuse to consider armed resistance against an oppressive and murderous government (reading the history of apartheid again today , the stupidity of it was breathtaking and the point of it was lacking)to be the mark of a terrorist whatever some few right wing (Thatcher, Reagan) governments might have said.

What is more important is what Mandela did when he was given power. The measure of the man is what he did when his enemies were in his power - and he fully measured up.

And if you think Arafat would have behaved the same way rather then I would say you are a rather poor judge of character.

Mandela was no saint, but he was no Arafat either.


Clarence

Gerry T. Neal said...

One of the consequences of World War II was a realignment of geopolitical power into two large spheres of influence centred around the United States of America and the Soviet Union. While these two represented diametrically opposed ideologies, both ideologies were modern and progressive, and if the two superpowers agreed on anything it was that the time had come for the end of the imperialism of the "reactionary" European regimes, particularly Britain and France. Thus the era of anti-colonialism began. In this era, the imperial powers withdrew and handed over the governing infrastructure they had established in their colonies to newly established governments, creating new countries. The boundaries of the new countries did not coincide with the boundaries of tribal territories and so as a result in each of these new countries one ethnic group came to power and passed laws controlling all the others. Apartheid was not a policy unique to South Africa. It was and is practiced by all other African states. Western liberals only ever raised a stink about its practice in South Africa because in South Africa the ruling ethnic group was white.

There are many differences between South Africa and other African states, other than the one pointed out in the last sentence. It became an independent country earlier than the others. One of the reasons for this, of course, was that the ruling white minority that built the country of South Africa, the Afrikaner people, were not ethnic extensions of the imperial power Great Britain, but had themselves been conquered by the British like their black compatriots. One of the reasons for apartheid was that the Afrikaners, having freed themselves from British rule, did not wish to be permanently subjected to black rule, as would be the case if they adopted one-person, one-vote, liberal democracy. Apartheid was an attempt on the part of the Afrikaners, albeit one that proved a failure, to do right by all the various groups in South Africa, while preserving the self-determination for themselves that they had won from Britain.

The other major difference between South Africa and the other African countries, with the limited exception of Rhodesia, was that it was a successful state rather than a failed state. In most other African states, the average income of their black populations dropped after the European powers withdrew, in a handful it stayed the same, but in South Africa it rose. Under apartheid, blacks in South Africa did not have the same economic opportunities, the same education opportunities, the same access to health care, and the same access to the protection of the rule of law and justice, that whites had. However, under apartheid they had better access to all of these things in South Africa than they had anywhere else in Africa. Basically, South African apartheid looks very bad if you compare the conditions of blacks in South Africa at the time to the conditions of whites in South Africa at the time, but it looks extremely different when you compare the conditions of blacks in South Africa under apartheid to blacks in other African countries.

Some of these conditions have improved for some South African blacks since the end of apartheid. Others have not, and the ANC, never really represented all South African blacks, its support base being largely Xhosa, which is not even the largest black people group in South Africa. Hence its resorting to techniques like "necklacing" to impose its will upon other blacks. Meanwhile, despite the propaganda about the "Rainbow Nation", the conditions of Zimbabwe are slowly being recreated in South Africa. Over three thousand white farmers have been brutally massacred.

All of that needs to be taken into consideration in measuring the man as well.

Unknown said...

Gerry - what is your source?

Not sure how much I want to respond to others, but "unbiased" sources of information would be helpful =/

-C

ClarenceComments said...

I see Gary T Neal is an apologist for involuntary (for that was really what the multiple forced relocations and the anti- race-mixing laws really boiled down to) racial separatism.

" Apartheid was an attempt on the part of the Afrikaners, albeit one that proved a failure, to do right by all the various groups in South Africa, while preserving the self-determination for themselves that they had won from Britain."

Please. So no racism whatsoever involved then, hmm? Just thinking of 'fairness' and 'peace'?
That's why the erstwhile black homelands -homelands (created by force I must again remind you) that the black majority was supposed to live in and on - contained a mere fraction of the land and resources controlled by the white minority. Lack of racism explains the various segregations enforced at sporting events, schools, etc. between whites, blacks, 'coulered's, and asians.
Yep, it was all perfectly rational and fair. One wonders what all the fuss was about.

Then I like how you try to smear Mandela with the tire fires. Pretty cute, considering the guy was sitting in jails for pretty much all that time.

Your history if the ANC would be more complete if you would mention that it started out non-violent and didn't get its militant branch until the early 1960's when it reacted to a few government massacres. You might also mention that the Zulus (infamous peace loving tribe of course since they fit your narrative)were the single largest black ethnic group in South Africa and it's known that the South African security forces helped arm and fund branches of the Zulu groups that fought the ANC.

I'm not claiming that any groups in South Africa were entirely good or bad guys. The history of this shows there is plenty of shizznit to go around. Some whites were against apartheid. A few even fought with the ANC militant wing. There was dissension about the policies from the very beginning among whites and of course tensions between the Afrikaners and the British extraction whites. Blacks sometimes collaborated, sometimes tried to get more goodies for their particular tribe or homeland, sometimes peacefully or violently resisted. Some of the South African leaders seem to me to be downright racists (Botha) and some don't. Some of the black leaders were personally downright terrorists (I'm thinking Biko *though that does NOT excuse what the police did to him* and Winnie Mandela among many others)others were not.

Nelson Mandela was not Saint Nelson Mandela, but unless you can prove that he knew about and controlled things in his various prison cells, he seems like a fairly decent chap to me. His hands blood-free, his intentions rather pure. Maybe stupid. Maybe naive. Maybe impatient - he didn't commit forever and always to non-violent resistance. But he was certainly no Arafat. Arafat probably would have started a near-holocaust if he ever got in power vis-a-vis Israel's jews.

Unknown said...

Clarence,
Your comment was full of hyperbole, racial invective, and emotional conjecture.

Gerry's was informative, factual, and passion-less, presenting the facts in a cool manner.

I don't know much about any of this. But I'm certainly not about to jump on the "Praise the almighty Mandela" bandwagon just because a bunch of black people and some white liberals claim he was AWESOME.

I want facts. Not your emotional reactionism to someone claiming Mandela was a terrorist.

-C

ClarenceComments said...

C:

I notice you demand links from me and not from Gary T. Neal.
Hmm...wonder why is that saying someone is neither a saint nor a devil is considered to be less reasonable than someone claiming (without proof ) that someone is a terrorist.

I don't think you have an open mind. I think you have a preferred narrative and you want to hold anyone who deviates from it in the slightest way to a different standard of proof.

Sorry, I'm not playing your silly game. If one is going to attack someone's character it falls on the person doing the attacking (saying NM is a terrorist) to provide proof. Neither the author of this blog nor GTN has done that. What they have done is attempted to infer "guilt by association" in various ways. That's no better than the people who seem to think this man should have been the Black Jesus or the next Pope.

By the way, here is what I got on my Facebook (which I will NOT link to)for daring to question the sainthood of this man -

"Mandela WAS a saint. If he did nothing for white people, it was because THEY WERE THE ENEMY, imprisoned him for 27 years, and did their level best to prevent he & his people from controlling their own destinies. Your response to my post was chronically IGNORANT, racist and pure EVIL, and essentially turned my post into a landmine. I don't use Facebook like that. Sorry that you DO."

Yes, this is what I got from one of my friends on Facebook simply for stating Mandela was no saint.Then I get you pretending I was butthurt because I dared to state I :
A. Thought you can't separate forced racial segregation from racism
B. Didn't think Mandela was the equivalent of a terrorist or , more specifically, Arafat.

I give TEW a pass because I know he's seen lots of shenanigans from the mainstream press. I give Mr. Neal a pass because while he seems to be whitewashing apartheid at least he seems smart enough to argue his point if he chooses to. Then there's you, snarking along the sidelines and contributing nothing.



Unknown said...

Clarence,

I asked nothing from you. I asked Gerry... because I knew you weren't talking with facts... just emotions.

Learn to Read.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Gerry,

I like the post (Mandela: Man and Myth) you had up at your place that preceded mine by about a day.

A couple thoughts occurred to me upon reading it:

1) As you mention, it is usually poor decorum form to speak ill of the recently departed. However, I think it equally bad form to more or less force everyone to sing hosannas to Mr. Mandela and ignore his decidedly mixed record just because he just died.

2) The lack of legal private ownership of firearms guarantees that only the government and the thugs have a duopoly on the use of force. If you happen to be in SA and a member of a demonized racial minority, sucks to be you.

3) "...the anti-apartheid movement [was] correct to think that they were opposing an injustice, for apartheid was, undoubtedly, an injustice in many ways to the blacks of South Africa. It does not follow from this that the anti-apartheid movement was on the side of justice."

This.

4) "Raised in the church, Mandela long ago abandoned the Christian faith when he embraced the atheistic doctrines of Marxist-Leninism. Let us pray that in his last hours he repented of his sins, turned back to the faith of his childhood, and experienced the grace and forgiveness of God in Jesus Christ."

And this.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Clarence,

From my cheap seat, the evidence is plentiful enough to bin Mr. Mandela with terrorists on the order of Guevara or Arafat.

Mandela founded the militant wing of the ANC in the 60s. He himself had uttered words exhorting his followers to violence, and remained in jail (not as a political prisoner, but for a terror bombing plot) far longer than necessary because he refused to renounce it.

Mr. Mandela's longtime association with murderers and thugs, in the ANC and without, his own exhortation to ANC members to violence, to kill whites, to physically maiming the ANC's opponents (cutting off their noses--Rivonia trial), his refusal to repudiate his wife's words exhorting ANC members to commit political murder via necklacing, and his apparently refusal to publicly repudiate those who committed political murder in the ANC's name...for these reasons I brand him a terrorist.

As for impugning Mr. Mandela's character by virture of his position as leader of the ANC...guilty as charged I suppose. I haven't come across any documentation where he personally said "go necklace so-and-so race traitor", but I think it's naive to expect that no one would die from his calls for political violence.

Elusive Wapiti said...

BTW President Obama directed the nation's flag at half-mast for this former Commie terrorist turned Commie statesman.

Far greater ally Margaret Thatcher didn't even earn those honors.

Gerry T. Neal said...

C,

There are no unbiased sources, least of all when it comes to a subject like South Africa and apartheid. Of the sources that would back up what I said in my previous comment, the least biased would probably be British historian Paul Johnson, whose Modern Times: The History of The World From the 1920s to the 1990s (New York: Perennial, 2001) tells the sorry history of post-colonial Africa and whose article "The Race for South Africa", which appeared in the April, 1985 issue of Commentary Magazine focuses on the South African situation, contrasting and comparing it with other African nations, showing various ways in which it is like all other African countries, and various ways in which it is different.

Clarence,

Yes, apartheid was involuntary racial segegregation. That is hardly an eye-opening revelation. Was it a just policy? No, and I did not say there or anywhere else that it was. Frankly, there was no just policy option available to South Africa. If the Afrikaners, having obtained the freedom to govern themselves and to build a country and civilization for themselves were to do so, they could not allow either racial integration or liberal, one-person, one-vote, democracy. Such policies would mean the end of their self-determination and their perpetual subjugation to black rule. Apartheid as practiced was an injustice to black South Africans. The demand that apartheid be abolished and liberalism established was an injustice to the Afrikaners.

Your argument that Mandela's activities as founder and head of the Umkhonto we Sizwe was not engaged in terrorism rests on your characterization of the Nationalist government of South Africa. While that was by no means an ideal government, it was far superior to either a) any other government in South Africa other than Ian Smith's government in Rhodesia and b) the ANC regime that replaced it. Therefore, unless one wishes to argue that taking up arms against the government is universally justified in Africa, the case for the legitimacy of Mandela's doing so is extremely weak.

EW,

Thank you. Your point about the legal private ownership of firearms is an important one as both South African regimes, pre- and post-1994, restricted firearms ownerships, the difference, of course, being who the restrictions applied to. Restrictions on firearm ownership are restrictions on the right of self-defence. The ANC regime has been systematically removing the rights of the Boer farmers to protect themselves thus demonstrating their own complicity in the genocide.

alcestiseshtemoa said...

Indeed, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Not to mention he supported the ANC, supported communism and other fishy business he was up to.

He seemed like a fake figure, and after he's dead the song "Kill the Boer" (the White Afrikaner farmer) will be cheered even more so among most black South Africans.

Eric said...

Wapiti:
I heard some dunce on the Clarence level on the radio recently bashing Reagan for putting Mandela & the ANC on a terrorist watch list. While Mandela was in jail, Robert Mugabwe (his good friend and confederate) was heading the ANC.

They were both backed financially by Soviet and Red Chinese money and trained by North Korean and Cuban mercenaries. The Chinese presence in South Africa (and the former Rhodesia) today would be still be a national security issue, if they weren't headed by Communist black guys who kicked Whitey out of power (the fantasy of liberals everywhere).

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Eric,

Hey bud, please keep this discussion ad argumentum, not ad hominem.

" if they weren't headed by Communist black guys who kicked Whitey out of power (the fantasy of liberals everywhere)."

Agreed, but it's hard to tell if the media blackout (no pun intended) on this topic is due to the lefty fetish with race--Commie blacks sticking it to Whitey--or their ideological congruence with Communism.

Eric said...

Wapiti:
Good point---I'd say it was the latter; i.e. ideological congruence. After all, it was mostly white Communists (i.e. the Soviet government) who were backing these guys: and the media carefully kept that out of sight.