at the basic level terrorists = any group, not acting under the auspices of an army backed by a government, that uses weapons in pursuit of a political agenda.
yeah. mandela was implicated in this definition of 'terrorism'. big deal.
he's not a saint, but he was a central figure in winning basic human rights for millions of people, and his achievements in reconciling a conflicted nation are hard to overestimate. he also left the country a shit load of problems... but they are the problems of a democratic nation.
parts of mandela's past are extremely controversial. big deal. compared to being central to ending apartheid and restoring true democracy? big deal compared to reuniting the nation, to the truth and reconciliation commissions?
I know the 'coloureds' didn't support the ANC, but they benefited from gaining proper legal status when apartheid ended. I know the ANC's original aims were to form a communist state. but I also know MK was formed to target military and government targets in an attempt to create political change, not random civillians, in an attempt to bring about a state of anarchy. church street is noteworthy precisely because it was so rare that 'civilians' were caught up in the violence.
who is going to tell me that the government was legitimate? who is going to tell me that back then, change was going to happen through political means? they fought an illegitimate, evil government that used force just as recklessly.
who is going to tell me that mandela tried to instigate a dictatorship when he took power? who is going to tell me that south africans are less free because of his actions. who is going to tell me that he pursued his original ambitions, that he kept the conflict going, that he oppressed any of his citizens? the only reason I replied was that I find the argument that he is comparable to bin laden (deliberate, indifferent targeting, and murder of, tens of thousands of civillians in free, democratic states) laughable.
i'm no bleeding heart. it's not that colonialism is something we must atone fore. it's simply not justifiable any-more. I just believe that denial of property, proper legal status, freedom and most importantly, sustained and determined denial of democracy, are serious enough to justify the use of organised force and weapons. are you telling me the majority of right wing thinkers disagree with that?
am I wrong to think that apartheid was a dangerous, radical system of government? wrong to think that democracy is the cornerstone of modern right-wing theory? mainstream right-wing is surely not the same thing as a literal interpretation of conservatism (the right of the status quo to continue to exist). modern political conservatism is (ironically maybe) surely based on conserving liberties. right to property, right to legal status, right to democracy, freedom in the the pursuit of one's goals. surely the part of liberalism some are railing against is that which says, if someone believes in a way of life that compromises these, that is his or her right.
someone in here must have the brains to pick this fight with me. what is it to be? mandela is to be judged on the elements of his rhetoric that celebrated 'communism'? or on what he actually effected? tbh I'm really not well informed. i've read a little bit and this subject comes up so often, the arguments seem obvious to anyone who even the vaguest interest in political thought. I'd love to hear a really good argument... but I'm not interested in any argument that supposes that the apartheid government was legitimate, that's a non starter.
