An alternate view of Nelson Mandela

[Mac-7]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The point is what DIDN'T happen after Apartheid fell. They didn't slaughter all the whites, which is the excuse the Whites gave about why they couldn't give up Apartheid.

Instead, they had Truth and Reconciliation Committees, everyone apologized for the bad stuff they did, and life went on in a more equitable South Africa.

You dont know what you are talking about

Hundreds if not thousands of white farmers have been murdered and agricultural production has declined under ANC control

 

[Mac-7]

If the one wrong is what is neccessary to ensure a bigger wrong goes away, yes. In fact history is full of examples.

The US put a nuclear bomb on 2 Japanese cities. Killing nearly 100000 people and ending WW2. Without it the alternative would have been an invasion of the mainland. Certainly causing many more casualties on both sides.

Come to think of it. Aren't you defending the US bombing Iran causing death and destruction of both civilians and military personel. Are you saying now that is wrong?

It seems to me that we both are perfectly aware that sometimes the use of violence is both neccesary and justified. Were we disagree is when.

In this case your argument seems to be that ending apartheid did not justify the use of violence.

If the one wrong is what is neccessary to ensure a bigger wrong goes away, yes. In fact history is full of examples.

Thats the point

It wasnt necessary

International sanctions forced the end of apartheid, not necklessing

We should honor the example of Mahatma Gandhi while condemning Nelson and Winnie Mandela

 

[JoeB131]

You dont know what you are talking about

Hundreds if not thousands of white farmers have been murdered and agricultural production has declined under ANC control

Actually, the number is closer to 70 over decades... just not a big deal. (Unless you were one of those racist farmers, but honestly, scew those guys.)

 

[Mac-7]

Actually, the number is closer to 70 over decades... just not a big deal. (Unless you were one of those racist farmers, but honestly, scew those guys.)

You mean 58-74 white farmers murdered annually

And that's just what is admitted to by the guilt-ridden lib AI and the ANC government running SA

The actual number could be much higher

how many white farmers have been murdered in south africa at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[forkup]

Probably not a good example. The Japanese were already ready to surrender, and the Soviet entry into the war was a bigger factor in their decision.

The sticking point was the status of the Emperor, which we conceded because we didn't want the Soviets to have half of Japan and China, which is what would have happened if the war had continued on for another six months.

That's highly debatable. And even if true a judgement levied with hindsight and without the context of what was known at the time.

The facts were that Japan had fought like fanatics throughout the war, not balking at nearly 100 percent casualty rates on a routine basis.

In fact, it took a direct intervention from the Emperor himself, something unheard of in Japanese culture to get them to surrender.

The fact that surrender required unprecedented imperial intervention suggests there was no clear internal consensus to surrender beforehand.

 

[forkup]

If the one wrong is what is neccessary to ensure a bigger wrong goes away, yes. In fact history is full of examples.

Thats the point

It wasnt necessary

International sanctions forced the end of apartheid, not necklessing

We should honor the example of Mahatma Gandhi while condemning Nelson and Winnie Mandela

I don't think most historians would agree with you here either. In fact, without Mandela and the international exposure he provided to his struggles it is doubtful that sanctions would have even be levied.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't think most historians would agree with you here either. In fact, without Mandela and the international exposure he provided to his struggles it is doubtful that sanctions would have even be levied.

How did Gandhi accomplish much more without violence?

The world was united that apartheid had to go

Otherwise the ANC might still be fighting for liberation

 

[JoeB131]

You mean 58-74 white farmers murdered annually

And that's just what is admitted to by the guilt-ridden lib AI and the ANC government running SA

The actual number could be much higher

One can only hope.

Can't get worked up about a handful of racist farmers who exploit the native population.

 

[Mac-7]

One can only hope.

Can't get worked up about a handful of racist farmers who exploit the native population.

Whites murdered by racist blacks

 

[JoeB131]

Whites murdered by racist blacks

Whites murdered because they stole someone else's land and subjected people to oppression.

Can't feel bad about it.

 

[Mac-7]

Whites murdered because they stole someone else's land and subjected people to oppression.

Can't feel bad about it.

Thats not true

Whites settled unoccupied and unproductive land

 

[JoeB131]

Thats not true

Whites settled unoccupied and unproductive land

No, they stole land from the people who were living there already.

 

[BackAgain]

You dont have to disavow everything you believe about Mandela based on this video

South Africa was a a apartheid state that invited reform

And Mandela assisted that process

But he may not be the african Mahatma Gandhi either

Gandhi refused to take issue with Hitler.

Gandhi wasn’t even a Gandhi.

 

[JoeB131]

Gandhi refused to take issue with Hitler.

Gandhi wasn’t even a Gandhi.

Not really true.

Ghandi encouraged his fellow Indians to take up arms against the Axis with the understanding that the UK would finally grant independence.

And the minute the war was over, the first thing Churchill tried to do was renege on the promises he made to get Indian support.

Fortunately, the British people threw him out on his ass in the middle of Potsdam.

Here's the untold story of the Second World War. Various colonies did not take the opportunity to throw off the shackles of colonialism. The price for winning the war was ending the Empire.

 

[BackAgain]

Not really true.

Yes. Really. “Passive resistance” as against the Nazis and their Wehrmacht?

 

[Mac-7]

No, they stole land from the people who were living there already.

There was a clash of cultures between primitive hunter gathers with no concept of modern europeans with ideas about individual ownership of land

The white farmers knew how make the land productive

Blacks did not

And for the most part still dont understand modern farming

 

[Mac-7]

Gandhi refused to take issue with Hitler.

Gandhi wasn’t even a Gandhi.

You mean he didnt approve of terrorism against the British that might have benefited the German war effort

What did he have to gain by helping the nazi’s?

 

[forkup]

How did Gandhi accomplish much more without violence?

The world was united that apartheid had to go

Otherwise the ANC might still be fighting for liberation

Because Gandhi was up against a bankrupt ex-superpower who had not a chance in hell to hold on to a colony the size of a small continent that was also one.of the most densily populated regions in the world, without spending recources and manpower they didn't have.

In contrast Mandela was up against the regime of an independent nation that had all power. Political, economical and militarily. Britian could leave India and still have a country the white South Africaners could not.

Different incentive structures for the oppressors altogheter.

And again the world was united against apartheid because people lile Mandela made the system impossible to ignore.

More specifically the Sharpeville massacre. A protest organized by the PAC was brutally repressed killing over 60 people. Causing the world to first take notice. It also resulted in the PAC and ANC to be banned resulting in the imprisonment of Mandela.

 

[Mac-7]

Because Gandhi was up against a bankrupt ex-superpower who had not a chance in hell to hold on to a colony the size of a small continent that was also one.of the most densily populated regions in the world, without spending recources and manpower they didn't have.

In contrast Mandela was up against the regime of an independent nation that had all power. Political, economical and militarily. Britian could leave India and still have a country the white South Africaners could not.

Different incentive structures for the oppressors altogheter.

And again the world was united against apartheid because people lile Mandela made the system impossible to ignore.

More specifically the Sharpeville massacre. A protest organized by the PAC was brutally repressed killing over 60 people. Causing the world to first take notice. It also resulted in the PAC and ANC to be banned resulting in the imprisonment of Mandela.

More specifically the Sharpeville massacre.

What you are describing was violence against the protest movement

Which was true in India also

The ANC adopted the radical and murderous PLO terrorist approach that Gandhi never lowered himself to

They are not the same at all

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. Really. “Passive resistance” as against the Nazis and their Wehrmacht?

I think you are confused about the argument.

Ghandi used passive resistance to protest British exploitation of India.

But when the War came, he encouraged Indians to take up arms against the Axis, because as bad as the British were, the Axis would have been so much worse.

However, it was with the understanding that the British would leave India after the war. Which Churchill tried to renege on, but FDR and Truman made sure they did. (It didn't help that the UK was a basket case after the war and couldn't hold on to her Empire, which was mostly gone by 1965.