Necklacing? - Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013) Discussion

Give a standing ovation to the apologist for Apartheid!

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

Does that mean you are an apologist for the hundreds of Black Africans tortured or murdered by necklacing because they refused to take up arms and fight the government?

Do you also assume, because I don't agree with drone strikes on Yemeni children, that I'm pro-terrorism and anti-American?

transongeist.com

reply

[–] Evcannon123 10 years ago

Racist much? Why not go watch the movie instead of spewing your ignorance you bigot?

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

What did I say to make you think I'm bigoted or racist?

transongeist.com

reply

[–] latez1 10 years ago

And I take it your the apologist for Black Anger?

Then again savages don't apologize.

reply

[–] umme4uke 10 years ago

Yes but not in detail.

It's a PG film, you see Winnie and her mob round some black Africans up and put tires over one. The tire get's lit and the camera cuts away before it get'[s gruesome.

I found this film to be a reasonable fair look at things.

It didn't shy away from the fact that Mandela was involved with terrorist activity. It also showed some of the brutality of the white regime. But it didn't show anything in any kind of detail, to keep it's rating.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

Awesome, thanks for the info!

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Mandela wasn't involved in terrorist activity. Thats a blatant lie and you shouldn't repeat it.

Mandela engaged in military sabotage and non-civilian attacks on facilities, where he showed great dedication in avoiding loss of human life. It should be noted that Mandela was not convicted of murder. Had he been directly or indirectly responsible for murder I'm pretty sure the apartheid government would have made that stick.

reply

[–] umme4uke 10 years ago

He was a rebel and one of the co-founders of a militant group of the ANC. Mandela may not have killed anyone directly, though, as an organisational leader, he was in part responsible for the organisation's activities.

I don't blame Mandela for these choices - as a young father under the oppression of apartheid he had a right to be angry and make angry choices. *beep* I would have been angry if I was in his situation.

Incarceration changed Mandela into more of a pacifist - his ideals grew and matured. Long Walk to Freedom is as much about Mandela's personal mental journey to freedom, as it it about the freedom he attained for black South Africans.

The fact that he did grow, that he overcame his own anger and oppression (that his ideal for freedom reached a more pure form in his lifetime) is what really makes him a hero. I believe Mandela's faults as a younger man add to and amplify the power of the man that he was on release.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

He was a rebel and one of the co-founders of a militant group of the ANC. Mandela may not have killed anyone directly, though, as an organisational leader, he was in part responsible for the organisation's activities.

He was an organisational leader before he was incarcerated. He can only be held accountable for what he did prior to going to prison. And the armed wing of ANC did not kill a single person while he was head of the group - that is a historically verifiable fact, despite what the Thatcher's and Reagan's of this world would have liked you to believe.

Incarceration changed Mandela into more of a pacifist - his ideals grew and matured.

Not true. He was always more of a pacifist than a militant (highly influenced by Gandhi). Thats why he agreed to become the leader of the Umkhonto we Sizwe - so that someone who believes in dialogue takes hold of the less restrained youth that were demanding open warfare at the time. The leaders like Sisulu and Mandela were afraid that the struggle would spiral out of control, so decided to initiate arm struggle their way, before groups like PAC gained traction.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

It is a great insult to Gandhi to compare Mandela to him. Ghandi was a man of peace. Absolutely not a terrorist. Gandhi has no blood, bombs, sabotage on his hands. What an insane comparison.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Well... Mandela likewise has no blood on his hands. He has acts of sabotage and accepted use of violence, but he was never a terrorist. And your best manipulation tactics won't change that.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

@ UMME4UKE I'm glad you posted your comments. I never looked at him through those eyes. What I'm having difficulty with is, why did he never denounce violence? Why did he not stay another term to really lead the country. Why did he opening sing racial songs instead of denouncing it or creating new songs for the future? Surely any or all of the above would have served the country in a far more last way than to just gain freedom to vote. After all we all know how the voting happenings. ANC thugs beat, torture those they can who will not vote ANC...

There are many blacks in SA who don't want violence, they want ANC either, but are afraid to speak out because of ANC thugs and violence. By GOD, I'd be no different to them if it was a necklace I was facing!

Problem is how does the country become well again? How does the country get on the track Mandela dreamed of. Peacefull..Rainbow Nation ?????

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

What I'm having difficulty with is, why did he never denounce violence?

He denounced terrorism, but - rightly so - said that the apartheid government should denounce violence first. None of the violence perpetrated by the ANC was as heinous as the violence and acts of terrorism carried out by South Africa’s apartheid government.

Mandela was of the view that non-violence has its limits and stated that "Nonviolence is a good policy when the conditions permit". Mandela wasn't a pacifist, even though he believed in peace. He accepted the need for armed struggle. That doesn't make him a terrorist, just like it doesn't make millions of freedom fighters over the decades terrorists. You may choose to believe that Gandhi's route was possible (even though the apartheid regime was far more brutal and uncompromising - there was no Sharpeville massacre in India), but I personally see Mandela as a pragmatist, that didn't allow ideology to cloud his better judgement.

Claiming that Mandela is a man of violence is like claiming the same about George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, you name it... anyone who decided to take up arms to fight an injustice.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

I don't know where the dickens you are getting your facts from. You might want to take a look at these documented facts and then start posting truths. He absolutely committed violent acts. To say that someone who kills innocent people, in not a murderer is utter nonsense! He killed, he maimed, 1000's of blacks killed 1000's when he was released from prison and his party was unbanned. If had of denounced violence, his sheeple would have listened. He could have save hundreds of lives but he didn't did he?

The movie also doesn't show anything from 1989 to year of making the movie. We all know why, because the crime, violence, reverse of Apartheid in a far more heinous way took place. 70,000 whites, butchered. 4327 Farmers and their families, slaughter in the most horrific brutal ways, not to mention their hours of torture first!WHite babies burned alive, woman raped with broken beerbottles, sons drowned in bath of scaulding water. WHY WHY WHY?? Because of the racial hatred songs and the fact that MANDELA NEVER DENOUNCED VIOLENCE! PERIOD! ALL THE FACTS CAN BE VIEWED AT WEBITES BELOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GhPmys_QFw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7GhPmys_QFw&has_verified=1 GRAFFIC video of bombings

http://pvj-roodepoortbom.blogspot.com/ STANDARD BANK

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2013/07/when-mandela-dies.html#!/2013/07/when-mandeladies.html FUTURE OF WHITES IN SA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKgntJcP4s DR. STANTON CEO - WORLD WIDE GENOCIDE WATCH

http://www.southafricaproject.info/remembering_the_church_street_bombing.html

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn Mandela took full responsibility for the ANC attacks done in the 80's and that he signed off on them. Something around a thousand citizens (mostly Black Africans) died in the attacks.

And wasn't he going to plant a bomb in a mall back in the 60's a couple of years before he got arrested?

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn Mandela took full responsibility for the ANC attacks done in the 80's and that he signed off on them. Something around a thousand citizens (mostly Black Africans) died in the attacks.

And wasn't he going to plant a bomb in a mall back in the 60's a couple of years before he got arrested?

Firstly - the total civilian casualties attributed to ANC is ca 100, not 1000.

Secondly - don't know anything about some mall in the 60s, but given his track record it seems unlikely.

Thirdly - this is a myth which is highly popular amongst right wing groups and supposedly taken from two separate parts of his book.

a) In "A Long Walk to Freedom" Mandela wrote that he signed off on the creation of a militant wing of ANC - by association rightwingers decided to hold him culpable for the action of the group when he was imprisoned.

b) During the 80s Mandela was approached by the Pretoria government to renounce violence perpetrated by ANC militants in return for his freedom. Mandela refused this obvious ploy by the apartheid regime to cause internal friction in ANC. Mandela said he would not criticize any actions made by current ANC leaders as they are best equipped to know what has to be done (since he is imprisoned and has no contact with the outside world). So basically Mandela remained faithful to the leadership of ANC, even if this probably wasn't the route he would have prefered to take himself. From a political and strategic standpoint Mandela had no choice, but rightwing manipulators sold it as proof that Mandela condones violence.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

the total civilian casualties attributed to ANC is ca 100, not 1000.

Yeah, I was remembering numbers of wounded victims. 217 wounded during the Church Street Bombing of 1983.
But over 125 people died because of the landmines put on farm roads between the time of 1985 to 1987.

Secondly - don't know anything about some mall in the 60s, but given his track record it seems unlikely.

Track record? This was during the time when ANC adopted terrorist tactics and Mandela was a member of ANC's terrorist wing.

Mandela said he would not criticize any actions made by current ANC leaders as they are best equipped to know what has to be done

And what had to be done was the murder of civilians, mostly Black Africans...? Sure, Mandela was locked up and didn't have contact with the opposition force but if he doesn't criticize the terrorist attacks, you can consider it evidence that he condones the attacks.
That's obviously not as bad as taking full responsibility for the attacks, but I don't consider it something positive either.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

But over 125 people died because of the landmines put on farm roads between the time of 1985 to 1987.

25 people according to the apartheid government.

Track record? This was during the time when ANC adopted terrorist tactics and Mandela was a member of ANC's terrorist wing.

Manipulation. They adopted sabotage tactics such as bombing railtracks or empty administrative buildings. It takes an enormous leap of ill will to call anything that ANC did during that period 'terrorist'. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'terrorism'. As far as I'm concerned terrorism involves the attempt to instill terror. But Mandela's bombings were obviously aimed at disrupting the government, not instilling fear.

It must also be underlined that Mandela deliberately avoided any attacks on civilian targets. If there ever was anyone that entirely fit the bill of unlawful combatant its Mandela.

Fact it that Mandela went to great lengths during that period to avoid loss of human life and bloodshed, so bombing a mall is not consistent with his track record. He bombed 65 targets, causing a grand total of - I believe - one injury (civilian or military).

I find it funny that anti-Mandela illusionists always use the bombings of the 1980s to claim that Mandela was a terrorist. You know -

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

I was only asking questions. I even started my post with "I could be wrong". I don't see anything I've said to be on the level of "anti-Mandela illusion".

However, the actual definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

So, Mandela trying to disrupt the government, even without murder, would still be considered terrorism. It might not have been violence (except it was, with that one person getting injured), it was still unauthorized use of intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

I wasn't talking about you per se, but my general experience with right wing internet commentaries.

There is no 'actual definition of terrorism'. There are various definitions and I'm pretty sure you could find definitions that would constitute the actions of Mandela as terrorism.

But then again - that means that every freedom fighter (Rob Roy, Washington, Walesa, you name it... hell... even Martin Luther King) in the history of the world is a terrorist... Basically anyone who iniatiates any form of activity aimed at toppling the powers that be. Such a broad ranging term starkly contrasts the negative connotation associated to the word 'terrorist'.

I for one feel this definition best incorporates the public idea of what terrorism is: "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)." (Bockstette 2008)

Mandela:
a) directed his attacks solely against property;
b) aimed the attacks at government and army;
c) did not intend to invoke fear in the general populace.

Basically he totally fails to fall into the above definition.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

I feel like you are entering dangerous apologist levels now.

First of all, every freedom fighter can be considered a terrorist. The old saying goes, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". Just because you agree with the terrorist, doesn't make him any less of a terrorist.

Martin Luther King, obviously is not a terrorist. He was a preacher that made speeches. He never rallied people to take down the government.

Terrorism is defined as political violence

Blowing up property belonging to the state is not political violence? Violence has also been described as "destructive natural force." which I would place "bombing" under.

induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets

While this this might not describe Mandela personally, it describes the ANC in the 80's perfectly.

Mandela:
a) directed his attacks solely against property;

But he still directed attacks. That is a form of terrorism. Blowing up buildings is not a peaceful protest, my good sir.

b) aimed the attacks at government and army;

Trying to dismantle a government is 100% terrorism. Most Revolutions and Revolutionaries would be defined as terrorism if they would happen in modern time.

c) did not intend to invoke fear in the general populace.

No, just with the Whites. and the Blacks that sided with the Whites. Which at one point, was a majority.

Basically he totally fails to fall into the above definition.

Because you changed the definition. The definition I found was in a dictionary. Not a quote from 2008. We are also not talking about your personal definition of terrorism or the public idea of what terrorism is.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

First of all, every freedom fighter can be considered a terrorist. The old saying goes, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". Just because you agree with the terrorist, doesn't make him any less of a terrorist.

Lets for a second look at the etymology of the term 'terrorism' - as in an act that instills terror. How does attacking empty buildings instill terror?

Martin Luther King, obviously is not a terrorist. He was a preacher that made speeches. He never rallied people to take down the government.

Martin Luther King is a stretch. I agree. But basically the moment you as much as throw a rock at a government building - according to your broad term - you can be deemed a terrorist.

Terrorism is defined as political violence

That is just the beginning of the quote. Political violence in itself is not terrorism, it is a necessary, but not satisfactory condition.

While this this might not describe Mandela personally, it describes the ANC in the 80's perfectly.

a) If it doesn't describe Mandela personally, then you can not hold him guilty by association.
b) Actually it does not describe ANC perfectly. For the most part ANC was still focused on attacks on military and state targets, not civilians. It partly describes some part of ANC activity, but not the entire activity.

Trying to dismantle a government is 100% terrorism. Most Revolutions and Revolutionaries would be defined as terrorism if they would happen in modern time.

ROTFL. Sure. Governments in general like to use the broadest possible term of terrorist, because it suits them.

But actually NO! Most non-governmental definitions of terrorism underline that it requires focused attacks on civilian population. Whether or not any form of attack on governmental structure is terrorism is very heatedly debated in political studies and international law, as it basically mean that, for example, members of underground cells fighting against Hitler were terrorists.

No, just with the Whites. and the Blacks that sided with the Whites. Which at one point, was a majority.

Are you mad? I can see it now: "Fear us, you filthy whites! For we will go out into the night, make sure you're not there and then blow up an empty facility!" I'm sure whites were quaking in their boots...

Because you changed the definition. The definition I found was in a dictionary. Not a quote from 2008. We are also not talking about your personal definition of terrorism or the public idea of what terrorism is.

OMG! I gather you never studied. A dictionary definition is not an official definition. Definitions of various words are debated at academic level (where it is defined contextuatlly) or in international law (where it is politically defined). Using a dictionary defition is lazy and would be laughed at by any political scientist.

The 2008 'quote' is actually a scientific defintion taken from a scientific paper written by someone from the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies.

Here are some other politoligical definitions:
UN DEFINTION: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Laqueur has this nice concise defintion: ""Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."

And so on...

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

How does attacking empty buildings instill terror?

Are you serious? the whole point in blowing up the building is to instill terror. It's like a message.

But basically the moment you as much as throw a rock at a government building - according to your broad term - you can be deemed a terrorist.

It's not my broad term. It's America's term. After all, Mandela was considered a terrorist by the United States until 2008. It's not my opinion, but the government's.

a) If it doesn't describe Mandela personally, then you can not hold him guilty by association.

I wasn't holding him guilty by association.

Most non-governmental definitions of terrorism underline that it requires focused attacks on civilian population

Sure, tell that to Anwar al-Awlaki.

for example, members of underground cells fighting against Hitler were terrorists.

Yep. After tall, they were fighting against the state and trying to overthrow the Government. Considered terrorists by the German state and resistance fighters by the Allied forces (or Germany's enemies). That's how the world is. The people you fight against will call you a terrorist while the people that oppose the regime you are fighting against call you a freedom fighter. Bringing me back to the quote, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I'm sure whites were quaking in their boots...

A bunch of angry second class citizens blow up a building in a protest against the government. Why would that not frighten the white upper class that were pro-apartheid? It was a scare tactic.

"Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."

Necklacing would certainly fall under that category.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Are you serious? the whole point in blowing up the building is to instill terror. It's like a message.

Are you serious? The whole point of blowing up the building is to disrupt government. Not instill fear. Make South Africa ungovernable. If you want to instill fear you need to show disregard for human safety or life.

I guess we have to disagree here.

It's not my broad term. It's America's term. After all, Mandela was considered a terrorist by the United States until 2008. It's not my opinion, but the government's.

Agreed. 100%. But like I said: Government's are inherently interested in the broadest possible use of the term 'terrorist', so that any anti-governmental actions are deemed as such.

But that's why they shouldn't be taken seriously - they are biased and untrustworthy. The best definitions of terrorism take into account:
a) etymology of the word;
b) the connotations of the word in spoken language.

In essence most such academic definitions undrline that it has to be attacks on civilian targets. Any form of attacks on government, especially on military targets, should not be deemed terrorism. Attacks on public officials is more grey area, but I guess it depends on the level of involvement (for example bombing a police station could be deemed as a non-terrorist attack, if we had a police state like in South Africa).

"Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."

Necklacing would certainly fall under that category.

Well... this is a totally different discussions, but necklacing was essentially performed on people deemed traitors. So it wasn't aimed at civilians per se and it was obviously a brutal way to die. Still... necklacing has nothing to do with Mandela.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

necklacing has nothing to do with Mandela.

No, but it has everything to do with my original post.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] theresabfree 10 years ago

The point of blowing up an empty building is not to instill terror. In many cases such as this it is an attempt to destroy the infrastructure that the opposing side needs to maintain its power, by choosing what the type of building - government offices, police stations, etc.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

Are you honestly suggesting that blowing up police stations (even empty police stations for corrupt cops) is not a form to instill terror? For one, you are at least instilling terror to the police and the entire establishment.

There's a reason why Gandhi didn't go around blowing up buildings (even empty ones), because it's illegal, immoral, unethical and a form of violent behavior.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Even if we agree with your logic (and i for one don't) police in a police state like apartheid South Africa are part of forcible upkeep of an immoral law and culpable for violent acts against civilian black population basically constituting a paramilitary force. As such they logical targets of any armed struggle.

Second: lets distinguish non-violence, armed struggle and terrorism as three distinctly separate methods of fighting oppression. Terrorism is all four. Armed struggle (vide Mandela) is violent and illegal, but it not immoral or unethical. Nonviolence can be illegal btw (and most nonviolent protests were in apartheid South Africa).

Claiming that fighting against apartheid by means of force is immoral is very shady logic. Its like claiming that underground militants fighting Hitler were immoral. Or any person joining any armed struggle against an oppressive regime is immoral or unethic. Bollocks!!!

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

So, by your logic, breaking the law is not unethical if you feel that the regime is bad. Based simply on your opinions (flawed individualistic opinions) you can throw out thousand years old laws and destroy the government because you don't agree with it...

Fair enough. But to the majority that still follow law and order, you will come out looking as either a criminal, a revolutionary or a terrorist. Those are the definitions to those that fight the government with that in mind to take down said government.

The underground movement in Germany is of course a force of terrorism, especially to those living in Nazi Germany. That's the definition. We are back in the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." just like with South Africa.

Mandela was viewed a terrorist by the USA until 2008 because he was on the side of the "Communists". So of course the German resistance fighters were considered freedom fighters by the Allies, because they were the enemies of Germany, so anyone wiling to destabilize Germany on the inside becomes an ally. But of course the German government would consider them vandals and terrorists for trying to destabilize their government.

By all definition and logic, to the people trying to uphold law and order in South Africa, even if Mandela's ideas would bring more stability and peace to the region, he would still be considered a terrorist by those in power because he is trying to change the country. So everyone that benefited of the apartheid government (those in power) would not want to see him blow up buildings and get people to protest. Because they are protesting the government. So they become enemies of the state.

You can hate on the state of course. And suggest that Mandela was right to do what he did. But that doesn't change the fact that he was looking to destabilize the government. And even if you agree with his reason and his actions, you can't discard that he was trying to overthrow the apartheid regime (even if he did so peacefully - and I say again, I don't see anything peaceful in the method of blowing up buildings - even empty ones). It's a good sign of protest, but it doesn't mean that I have to automatically agree with everything he did. And not agreeing with everything Mandela did does not make me pro-apartheid either.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

So, by your logic, breaking the law is not unethical if you feel that the regime is bad. Based simply on your opinions (flawed individualistic opinions) you can throw out thousand years old laws and destroy the government because you don't agree with it...

If the regime is unethical, it should be argued that most actions aimed at overthrowing this regime and targeted at this regime, are no unethical or at worst as more ethical than the regime.

We have thousand of years of humanist debates and philosophy on which to assess what is ethical and what is not. Apartheid is unethical. This is not opinion. Of course someone can play devil's advocate and debate otherwise, but suggestions that this is 'my opinion' is wide of the mark.

The underground movement in Germany is of course a force of terrorism, especially to those living in Nazi Germany. That's the definition. We are back in the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." just like with South Africa.

No. Terrorism by academic and etymological definition requires at minimum the following: attacks to be targeted at civilians or conducted with disregard to civilian life. If they are additionally aimed at instilling fear (terror) this makes it suit the definition much better.

Any attack (ANY!) on government / military forces by armed forces is NEVER terrorism. Armed resistance is therefore not terrorism. Let's be clear on this. That doesn't mean that guerilla forces can be guilty of acts of terrorism, but that isn't their modus operandi.

Mandela was viewed a terrorist by the USA until 2008 because he was on the side of the "Communists".

True. Partly. Also because apartheid South Africa was America's ally and because governments like to use the most blanket version of the definition terrorism to use it for its political goals. Naming Mandela a terrorist was a political decisions based on misinformed data (the representatives were led to believe that Mandela committed acts of terrorism, when in fact he never did).

And even if you agree with his reason and his actions, you can't discard that he was trying to overthrow the apartheid regime (even if he did so peacefully - and I say again, I don't see anything peaceful in the method of blowing up buildings - even empty ones).

No, never said he wanted to overthrow government peacefully. He dropped non-violence for armed conflict. But that doesn't make him a terrorist. Pacifist and terrorist are two extremes, Mandela was neither. But still much closer to a pacifist than to a terrorist.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

If the regime is unethical, it should be argued that most actions aimed at overthrowing this regime and targeted at this regime, are no unethical or at worst as more ethical than the regime.

Apartheid is bad but the South African government of the time wasn't "evil" per say.
Even if you agree with everything Mandela did, you don't have you automatically stand against everything the South African government at the time did. And the situation wasn't so black and white either (no pun intended). There were plenty of white people that were anti-apartheid and plenty of Black Nationalists that were anti-white.

No. Terrorism by academic and etymological definition requires at minimum the following: attacks to be targeted at civilians or conducted with disregard to civilian life

No, terrorism is to instill terror. You don't need to kill civilians to be a terrorist. There's no quota to be filled. You wouldn't suggest the Boston bombers aren't actual terrorist because they only killed three people, nor would you not consider stop considering them terrorists if no one died from the attack, I assume? The idea of the German underground was to instill terror and destroy the Nazi government. You can agree with their struggle and call it noble and highly ethical because of the what the government was doing, but that doesn't change the definition (except those that align ourselves with them would call them "freedom fighters").

Armed resistance is therefore not terrorism

No, but the German underground did far more than just resist. It's of course one thing to defend from an attack and a whole other thing to start an attack. Mandela blowing up that empty building isn't really any form of resistance but a form of a message via vandalization.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Apartheid is bad but the South African government of the time wasn't "evil" per say.

As much as I like our little debate on ethics, we're moving into grey areas. Apartheid as a system fits the definition of evil. But that doesn't mean that the human beings behind it were evil. Spiteful, misguided, flawed, ignorant... and so on. Nonetheless they commited evil things.

No, terrorism is to instill terror. You don't need to kill civilians to be a terrorist. There's no quota to be filled. You wouldn't suggest the Boston bombers aren't actual terrorist because they only killed three people, nor would you not consider stop considering them terrorists if no one died from the attack, I assume?

There is a question of intent. What is the purpose of the bombing? Was it to instill fear with disregard to human life (Boston bombing) or was it to make the country ungovernable (Mandela's sabotage campaign)? Who was the target - civilians (Boston bombing) or military and strategic targets (Mandela's sabotage campaign)? These two

The idea of the German underground was to instill terror and destroy the Nazi government. You can agree with their struggle and call it noble and highly ethical because of the what the government was doing, but that doesn't change the definition (except those that align ourselves with them would call them "freedom fighters").

Some of the actions perpetrated by the German underground were undoubtedly terrorist in nature. Agreed. But that doesn't mean everything they did was terrorist. If they bombed a military facility and killed even 100 soldiers, I wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack. I would call it an act of warfare.

Also there is no single thing in what Mandela did that I would remotely consider terrorism. Nor did Mandela perceive it as such (he even explicitly mentioned at the time that in the future more brutal forms of armed struggle may come into play, like terrorism).

Mandela blowing up that empty building isn't really any form of resistance but a form of a message via vandalization.

a) Partly agreed. Also a message. But also aimed at making the state ungovernable.
b) Vandalization isn't terrorism.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

Was it to instill fear with disregard to human life (Boston bombing

To be fair to history, the Boston bombing is such a recent event that none of us really have a clue what the bombers were thinking or planning with the event.
Unlike Mandela, his wife and the people in South Africa, we don't know what the bombers were "fighting" for. They could have just as easily been planning to hurt a specific individual there (maybe one of the 3 that died in the blast). But obviously the event looks like it was designed by someone who was targeting random civilians, but that's not for me to say. Hope we will learn more information about the event after the trial is over.

Some of the actions perpetrated by the German underground were undoubtedly terrorist in nature. Agreed. But that doesn't mean everything they did was terrorist.

Yeah, but you get branded as a terrorist after that one event.
The German underground movement (similar to the Danish, Nordic and French Underground movements) did various things that went on the scale from being legal to illegal. Like the Black Panthers in the 60's, that both tried to feed those less unfortunate with free breakfast every day and also discussed armed revolutions.

a) Partly agreed. Also a message. But also aimed at making the state ungovernable.

Good to see we at least partly agree.

Vandalization isn't terrorism.

It depends what kind of vandalization it is.
I'm pretty sure vandalizing a government building in the US (like a post office) is considered a form of terrorism.
Also, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon tried at one point to get Palestinian graffiti artists labeled as a terrorist group because of what they were writing. Instead he only got them labeled as an 'illegal association.' but now they can get stiffer sentencing and lengthier prison terms.

There's a civil war in Iraq brewing right now. One side is trying to take down the government via suicide bombs, car bombs and other tragic means. They are doing so because the government being installed in the new Iraqi regime does not represent them and is (according to them) a puppet regime of the US. On one hand, the new government represents a state of order but does not represent the majority of the people. On the other hand, the Iraqi car bombers represent a state of chaos, but do so because they feel the represent the majority of the people better than the new government. This is very similar to the situation with the German Underground if you ask me. Depending on who you ask, the Iraqi car bombers can be referred to as revolutionaries, freedom fighters and terrorists. But in the end, their attacks wouldn't really fall under the term "acts of terrorism" but rather "act of warfare".
It's almost impossible to pick a side in this conflict because both sides have blood on their hands.
But we can use the material given to us to try to understand the logic behind the thought and action in every given situation. Even so, understanding the reasoning behind it doesn't absolve anyone from their crimes.

It might be a lot easier to pick a side in the South African conflict on an ethical scale, but none the less it doesn't absolve the terror caused by both sides - even though, it's very easy to remove Nelson Mandela from the worst of it (the bombings in the 80s, the Necklacing) because he was locked up during that time.
But right now, I'm talking about the team as a whole (the entire German underground, the entire Iraqi civil war, the entire ANC - not just Mandela, the person).

Which is why I was asking if they included the necklacing in the movie. Not because I'm anti-Mandela and wanted the film to be defaming him. But because I think it's an important part of history, no matter what side or person or political affiliation was "right" in the end.

We should also be careful to never whitewash history because it might be easier.
As an example, we shouldn't make one side of the Iraqi civil war look worse than the other, just so we can pick a side in the conflict.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

I can't agree with your figures... on ANC own website it refers to much more! Mandela did not go to great lengths to avoid civilians from being killed either. WHere are you getting your information from? Please state links with facts that we can verify. thank you.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

I can't agree with your figures... on ANC own website it refers to much more! Mandela did not go to great lengths to avoid civilians from being killed either. WHere are you getting your information from? Please state links with facts that we can verify. thank you.

Mandela DID go to great lengths to avoid civilian harm. Else he wouldn't have managed to successfully conduct up to 190 bombings with 1 minor injury!!!

I get my facts from actually historical papers, not from online rightwingers, who aren't too friendly with facts (to put it mildly).

For example:
http://www.sadet.co.za/docs/RTD/vol1/SADET1_chap02.pdf

"Mandela and his group were given a qualified mandate to set up a military wing to engage in tightly controlled violence and avoid injury towards persons at all cost, and to keep it strictly separate and distinct from the ANC."

or

"We had to avoid human casualties at all cost. We often, but not always, put the target under surveillance for several days before we launched any strike." - Interview with Justice Mpanza.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

You are right...! If you want facts visit ANC website. Here they have great detail of every terrorist/sabotage attack.

http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=2651 (bomb records)

http://www.ycl.org.za/pubs/voice/2013/issue4.pdf (planned communist revolution)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKgntJcP4s OASE VIDEO: DR. STANTON OF GENOCIDE WATCH ON FARM MURDERS IN SA 2012.07.26 Future facing whites today!

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

ANC and MK committed acts of terrorism. No one denies that. The TRC confirmed it. Similarly as the apartheid state committed countless acts of terrorism.

But that happened when Mandela was incarcerated and had no influence on the MK line of command. Those weren't his decisions and are not his responsibility.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

You are correct. Civilians were targeted. Lets also not forget that ANC increased bombing attacks on civilians when he was imprisoned. As a matter of fact, Mandela could easily have sent word to ANC members to stop the killing and murder of innocent civilians, but he didn't. Instead he got word out to his supports to refuse white mans education. To destroy the schools, books etc that white man built for them. Hence the Sharpville massacre! Today, millions and millions of blacks are uneducated because of this. Sadly, even today, many blacks don't see the importance of education as instilled by them by their parents. Such a pity.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

You are correct. Civilians were targeted. Lets also not forget that ANC increased bombing attacks on civilians when he was imprisoned. As a matter of fact, Mandela could easily have sent word to ANC members to stop the killing and murder of innocent civilians, but he didn't. Instead he got word out to his supports to refuse white mans education. To destroy the schools, books etc that white man built for them. Hence the Sharpville massacre! Today, millions and millions of blacks are uneducated because of this. Sadly, even today, many blacks don't see the importance of education as instilled by them by their parents. Such a pity.

How did you still manage to lie, despite it being obvious that you are selling a BIG FAT LIE?

Civilians were not targeted under Mandela. Attacks on human people (civilian or military) were avoided at all cost. Nothing changed when he was imprisoned. HISTORICAL FACT!!!

Acts which could be deemed terrorist only started after the Soweto uprising, which was a traumatic event for ANC and PAC.

As for your revisionist history: You don't even differentiate the Sharpeville massacre from the Soweto uprising :D Laughable.

BTW: The reason blacks protested was because the apartheid government tried to force black students to study in afrikaans, the language of oppression. The weren't burning all books - just afrikaans language books. They only started burning schools and issue a boycott on education when apartheid police forces decided to murder kids on the streets (up to 700 people murdered by apartheid terrorist forces).

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

And what the dickens do you think he went to prison for? Are you calling Mandela himself a liar when he admitted responsibility for the 153 bombs/sabotage attacks out the 190 during 1961-1963? Oh please!!!

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

And what the dickens do you think he went to prison for? Are you calling Mandela himself a liar when he admitted responsibility for the 153 bombs/sabotage attacks out the 190 during 1961-1963? Oh please!!!

FACTS:
He went to prison for:
a) Acts of sabotage (as in attacks on buildings and structures with the specific aim to avoid human casualties);
b) Conspiracy to overthrow government;
c) Collaborating with Communist forces;
d) Promotion of Communism.

reply

[–] suemarshall7130 10 years ago

It's pity they did not show the horrors of necklacing! Nor the prebeatings or the torturous ways, ANC supporters forced none ANC supporters through. SUch as when ANC put out word for blacks to boycott all white business including grocery shopping etc. When black family did sneak out to a few things from the grocery store, they were captured on the way back, their grocery parcels were opened and they were forced to eat everything including, washing powder, bleach, any and all cleaning materials. It was terrible time for blacks who did not support ANC ideas.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

It's pity they did not show the horrors of necklacing! Nor the prebeatings or the torturous ways, ANC supporters forced none ANC supporters through. SUch as when ANC put out word for blacks to boycott all white business including grocery shopping etc. When black family did sneak out to a few things from the grocery store, they were captured on the way back, their grocery parcels were opened and they were forced to eat everything including, washing powder, bleach, any and all cleaning materials. It was terrible time for blacks who did not support ANC ideas.

ROTFL at the second part of your post.

As for necklacing (which first appeared in the mid 1980s): Brutal and terrible practice. But great people like Desmond Tutu were great enough to throw themselves in front of a crowd to save a man from being necklaced.

Also - to put it in perspective: The death penalty is a typical punishment for treason, so lets not act like governments are much better in this regard.

I am against the death penalty in general, but lets not act like it something out of the accepted norm.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

No. It shows the different paths he and his wife Winnie Mandela took. In all essence Nelson Mandela can not be held responsible for the actions of other people. His message was always very clear.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

I just don't want filmmakers to gloss over Winnie Mandela's tragic and gruesome history in order to whitewash Nelson Mandela's surroundings of crimes and prejudice from the side of the Black South Africans struggling from apartheid.

In order to fully understand the situation, everything from the time period should be explored.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

I just don't want filmmakers to gloss over Winnie Mandela's tragic and gruesome history in order to whitewash Nelson Mandela's surroundings of crimes and prejudice from the side of the Black South Africans struggling from apartheid.

In order to fully understand the situation, everything from the time period should be explored.

I understand this, but trying to forcefully bloody Mandela's hand is just historically incorrect. At worst Mandela is guilty of not being surrounded by people who lacked the moral conviction and clairvoyance that he possessed. Winnie went sour, while a non-Mandela-led ANC decided to take on more drastic methods.

He was a titan surrounded by much more flawed people and - honestly - how can you truelly fault him for not being able to surround himself by people as great as him (or Walter Sisulu for that matter)? Yes, he had to make tough decisions and he made them, but he was always focused on the betterment for all.

reply

[–] bj_arni 10 years ago

When did I try to forcefully bloody Mandela's hand? When did I fault him for the people that surrounded him?

I was simply asking if they talk about necklacing in the movie or not.

transongeist.com

reply

[–] Archeoterrex 10 years ago

Just watch the damn film you idiot. Stop asking inane questions.

reply

[–] umme4uke 10 years ago

If you are a leader- you are, in part, responsible for the actions of those you lead.

It's called accountability, something that is often neglected nowadays.

For the record, I thought Mandela was accountable for his actions. You seem to be making Mandela out to be some-one who wasn't accountable for his actions with that phrase and that lessens the man I think the film portrayed him to be.

Mandela authorized bombings and was accountable for them, with his own words, in his own book. I'm pretty sure the film showed that one of the bombings injured civilians and that is why they took him to court.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

If you are a leader- you are, in part, responsible for the actions of those you lead.

But he wasn't a leader. He was imprisoned and almost no contact with the ANC leadership of the 1980s. You're making him into some superhuman mastermind that was coordinating efforts from a lockdowned prison facility. Mandela was above all a symbol, but he was only a true leader before and after his imprisonment...

For the record, I thought Mandela was accountable for his actions. You seem to be making Mandela out to be some-one who wasn't accountable for his actions with that phrase and that lessens the man I think the film portrayed him to be.

For which actions? You can hold him accountable for actions committed under his leadership, not when he had no real influence on ANC leadership, when he was imprisoned.

The only thing that can be debated was Mandela's decision not to cooperate with the apartheid government in the mid 1980s. I think that politically he made the best decision.

Mandela authorized bombings and was accountable for them, with his own words, in his own book. I'm pretty sure the film showed that one of the bombings injured civilians and that is why they took him to court.

It should be underlined that Mandela authorised attacks on empty military and strategic facilities and explicitly excluded any attacks on human targets. One such bombing did result in a civilian injury, but that was not the aim of the attack, the injury was an unfortunate mistake (the MK people failed to notice that a guard was on watch at one bombed facility). Compared to the 'collateral damage' of US armies anywhere in the world its uncomprehensible how anyone can vilify Mandela for this.

reply

[–] umme4uke 10 years ago

I'm not vilifying him - I'm saying that before he went to prison, he was a leader of a group that carried out a bombing that resulted in injury. Because he was in a leadership position at this time, he was in part responsible for the injury.

You can call it collateral damage, terrorism, compare it to American government actions - whatever you like. None of it changes the fact that Mandela authorized violent action when in a leadership position. As noted, again, I found that it was entirely understandable.

Also, the film showed that when he was in prison, he still found ways to he political conversations with his daughter. By this time, he had diverged totally from any militant style action, such as a bombing.

Hence my reasoning for his journey and his personal walk to freedom - realizing, ultimately, that it was more about forgiveness than fighting, more about letting fear go than embracing it.

There is no doubt that Mandela's mindset changed during incarceration.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

I'm not vilifying him - I'm saying that before he went to prison, he was a leader of a group that carried out a bombing that resulted in injury. Because he was in a leadership position at this time, he was in part responsible for the injury.

Ok! I think however it is always important to note that the injury was not planned and was even regretted. Bodily harm was being avoided at all costs (although if you look into the histroical records not all MK members placed such high focus on this as Mandela stipulated). That said it is undeniable, that Mandela opted for armed struggle, while Sisulu wanted to stick with non-violent protest.

If you look at Truth and Reconciliation Commission documents this era in Umkhonto we Sizwe bombing campaigns (over 200) recorded 1 civilian injury and several self-inflicted casualties (bombs that went off in the hands of the bombers or that went off prematurely).

You can call it collateral damage, terrorism, compare it to American government actions - whatever you like. None of it changes the fact that Mandela authorized violent action when in a leadership position. As noted, again, I found that it was entirely understandable.

Sure. I just have a problem with using the word 'terrorist' anywhere near Mandela, because none of Mandela's actions targeted civilians or were aimed at invoking fear. No, just no, on the use of that word anywhere near Mandela. Especially given governments world over put avoidance of 'collateral damage' on low priority, while Mandela placed it very high. That would basically mean that every single president of the USA was essentially a glorified terrorist.

Hence my reasoning for his journey and his personal walk to freedom - realizing, ultimately, that it was more about forgiveness than fighting, more about letting fear go than embracing it.

There is no doubt that Mandela's mindset changed during incarceration.

He was definitely more militant, but never to the extent of even considering landmines on public roads.

reply

[–] p-stepien 10 years ago

Boy... you dudes are really wacko liars...

murdering terrorist who didnt think twice about ordering bomb attacks on unarmed civilians...women, children included...in packed shopping centres.

Mandela was never ever involved on any attack on any civilian target... baa... he never even attacked military personel. He bombed empty buildings, railway tracks. The total number of recorded victims of Mandela was an injured nightwatch guard.

Fact is... you really have to spin it for Mandela not to come out as a nearly saintly freedom fighter. It would require a large amount of ill-will.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LTUM 10 years ago

good question

------------------
Once there was a hushpuppy, and she lived with her Daddy in the bathtub.

reply