MovieChat Forums > Catch a Fire (2006) Discussion > Americans, wake up and see the similarit...

Americans, wake up and see the similarities


What I loved about Catch A Fire is it did not shy away from the fact that the ANC used terrorist tactics to achieve it's objective. While no rational thinking human being could actually defend apartheid, the methods used by the ANC are often glossed over by a more romantic version of history.

The statement that Catch A Fire was making was that the Botha government's policies towards, and treatment of, suspected ANC operatives actually created MORE "terrorists". Regardless of whether Patrick Chamusso wished for a free South Africa, he was willing to keep his head down and go along with the program in order to keep his family fed and safe. But when the brutal tactics of the Botha security forces hit him too close to home, rather than caving in to the overwhelming force of his oppressors he instead rose up against them. In other words, Nic Vos caused Patrick Chamusso to become a terrorist.

Sound familiar? Did anybody else notice the similarities between the "security" strategies of the pro-apartheid government of South Africa and the current regime in the USA?

Secret prisons, infinite detention of suspects without charges, brutal treatment of detainees, etc. It didn't work in South Africa and it's not going to work in the middle east. If you treat someone like a terrorist long enough, chances are they will eventually become one. Exhibit A: I give you Al Queda in Iraq.

reply


yes it should ring bells for the US govt...

reply

Reminds me more of Israel.

reply

wow

reply

Right on. Made me think of the US in the Middle East and Israelis in Palestine. When will we learn?

reply

"While no rational thinking human being could actually defend apartheid, the methods used by the ANC are often glossed over by a more romantic version of history."

How so? Of course to romanticize about the ANC today is nothing less than irrational. However, they were heroic in their struggle; particularly killing Boer soldiers and police.

reply

Wake up man. They were no better than Castro and Guevara and their scum.

reply

"methods used by the ANC are often glossed over by a more romantic version of history".

Perhaps the ANC and other organisations fighting for freedom would have had more success had they sent glasses of fine Scottish malt whiskey to the South African government of that time?

reply

no but they didn't have use barbaric tactics like 'necklacing' either. ever heard of that? anyway ANC is a corrupt government right now, just like the rest of africa...w

reply

I'm unsure if you can call it 'terrorist tacticts'. I saw that more as rhetoric used by the apartheid government to smear the ANC.

From what I saw in the movie, the ANC were very adamant about not killing any civilians. They made sure to evacuate Secunda before setting off the explosives.
Don't recall Al-Quaida evacuating the World Trade Center or any other facility they bombed.

ANC fought for a real a noble cause. Sure they killed soldiers and police, but sometimes peaceful revolutions are impossible. The apartheid government were the real terrorists. Shooting up suspected ANC headquarters without giving any of the suspects a chance to go to a fair trial, torturing and beating suspects even in front of their own children, capturing, beating and raping someone's wife to pressure him into confessing.
I don't think the ANC was unfair to use the tactics they used against the apartheid regim.

reply

IRA tried to avoid killing civilians as well, their causes were also noble, but they're regarded as terrorists..

ps ANC isn't that 'noble' ever heard of 'necklacing'? look it up. they are a corrupt government now, just like the rest of Africa..

reply

Can you tell me what the difference is between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

reply

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. it depends on the cause

reply

no, it only depends on who wins

reply

No, it does depend on the cause. Ask a random person about Che Guevara - they will answer only in regards to their own political ideology. Those who lean left think he was a hero, a freedom fighter. We see that famous picture of him on flags and t-shirts (ironic considering how anti-capitalist he was) worn by left-wingers. But ask someone who leans right and they will tell you he was a terrorist scumbag who got what he deserved in Bolivia. So windowlicker's point is correct - it all depends on the cause, and the individual you are talking to about that cause.

reply

[deleted]

Patrick Chamusso was not a terrorist. He did not target civilian noncombatants for injury/death, as a terrorist does. His targets were tactical and legitimate, e.g. trained agents of the state with which he was at war, as well as its infrastructure which allowed his enemy to continue carrying out its policies to wage war.

Patrick was a soldier, NOT a terrorist. The operations he volunteered for were missions of sabotage, not terrorism.

The difference is HUGE...

reply