Nelson Mandela

[Reddy]

First of all, blow it out your ass. Secondly, I'm only making a joke about how crappy Africa is as a whole.

I wasn't at all referring to you, but my favorite boxing partner Dookie

[Milkman delivers]

I wasn't at all referring to you, but my favorite boxing partner Dookie

 

Sorry, since my post was in the quote, I figured it was directed at me. Last thing I wanna do is get into a political argument. I just wanted to make a joke

[StrangeSox]

He was a murderer and war criminal that got a free pass.

Go back to storm front

[StrangeSox]

What next Robert E. Lee was a terrorist, too?

 

Nathan Bedford Forrest...

 

Over the last 20-30 years, you would think his military career (mostly in the cavalry) was the equal of Jeb Stuart.

 

Many of the atrocities he committed during the Civil War have been brushed away or covered over by revisionists.

 

The South lost that particular war...and NBF eventually went on to found the KKK.

 

 

So Duke, do you think Nathan Bedford Forrest is more of a hero than Mandela?

both of those men should have swung from a tree for their crimes against humanity and for leading an armed insurrection in the name of slavery. Nbf especially. Edited December 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Today's South Africa is more corrupt than Rwanda and the President is comically stupid. Hes noted numerous times his beleif that HIV doesnt lead to AIDS and when he had sex with/raped (he got acquitted IIRC) an HIV+ girl he claimed a shower protected him from the disease. Plus the country is basically a smoldering pile of s*** with a rich-poor gap that defies imagination.

 

Its a violent country, and that violence comes from a violent past. Apartheid was eventually doomed to our globalised world, the sanctions were piling up and old allies turned their back on the Apartheid Govt. The chance was there to do it without violence, and he passed it up and went out for blood.

 

Once it was inevitable the ANC was taking control of course he preached reconciliation and peace. He won, he got what he needed out of violence and its not like he was going to need to get oppressive to force the guilted and vastly outnumbered whites to fund this massive reperations and welfare scheme thats clearly sinking the country.

there is nothing wrong with violently opposing a white supremacist state who is eager to use violence to oppress you.

 

[StrangeSox]

You know I'm just shocked, shocked I tell you, that duke has a more positive view of apartheid south Africa than he does of Nelson Mandela.

[StrangeSox]

Its a violent country, and that violence comes from a violent past. Apartheid was eventually doomed to our globalised world, the sanctions were piling up and old allies turned their back on the Apartheid Govt. The chance was there to do it without violence, and he passed it up and went out for blood.

 

 

Hey, all they had to do was wait several decades, maybe a couple of generations, and it'd have been gone!

 

That argument is almost as dumb as the "slavery was on its way out anyway" argument.

 

edit: for reference, Mandela began his struggles against Apartheid in 1941. The ANC itself had been founded in 1912. Apartheid didn't end until 1994, and that international pressure came largely thanks to courageous leaders like Mandela and Tutu. He worked for two decades, 1941 until 1960, on a non-violent end to apartheid, and others had worked before him. He did not pass up any opportunity and go "out for blood."

 

edit2: guess which President wanted to veto sanctions against apartheid SA?? I'm sure everyone will be shocked at the answer!

Edited December 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Gays are discriminated against on one f***ing issue that nobody shuts up about.

wrong.

 

 

Blacks is more complicated, but eventually righting those wrongs was an ultimately bloodless affair comparatively.

 

hahaha go read a book

[StrangeSox]

Lol, "What was America doing that was so great in thr 1790's huh?" Is reinventing democratic government for the first time in a millenium not good enough?

lol good read a history book you dope

[Texsox]

Killing civilians is generally bad, particularly in domestic conflict.

 

So you would be against dropping a nuclear bomb on a city?

[Balta1701]

Gays are discriminated against on one f***ing issue that nobody shuts up about.

Yeah, that whole "you can be fired or refused housing legally in more than 1/2 the country for no reason other than being gay thing" is just a pittance.

[StrangeSox]

It's pretty weird that someone would, on one hand, point to the US and the re-establishment of democracy* as its great achievement while at the same time trying to denigrate a man who was instrumental in bringing democracy to another country.

 

*well, for white, male, land-owners anyway, at least for the first century or so.

[NorthSideSox72]

Pointing out that Mandela did some things, especially early in his life, that were not great... I get that. It is better to have a full picture of history, even if it is tougher to read.

 

But...

 

1. That does nothing to significantly tarnish Mandela's full legacy, which was astoundingly positive.

2. Duke's view of the man's history is twisted beyond recognition, and that is sad.

 

I won't flat out state the third point about some people's motivation for twisting history, but it makes me ill to think about it.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

Native Americans was a war of conquest that they lost. Back then wars for land happened, if they wanted it so bad they should have fought harder for it.

 

Did you seriously just say that? The ignorance of some people just blows my mind. You honestly think that the Native Americans "lost" because they didn't fight hard enough? It had nothing to do at all with the fact that the whites were far more advanced technologically and vastly outnumbered them in almost all instances? That's seriously like the United States overtaking a third world country and saying that they last because they didn't try hard enough. Please just go away.

[StrangeSox]

Did you seriously just say that? The ignorance of some people just blows my mind. You honestly think that the Native Americans "lost" because they didn't fight hard enough? It had nothing to do at all with the fact that the whites were far more advanced technologically and vastly outnumbered them in almost all instances? That's seriously like the United States overtaking a third world country and saying that they last because they didn't try hard enough. Please just go away.

 

Charles Mann's 1491 includes some references to research that indicates that as much as 95% of the indigenous population in the Americas was wiped out purely from first-contact diseases without even taking into account the later genocides. Imagine the shock to your society when everyone is dropping dead from strange new illnesses. It was far worse than the Black Plague. By the time white settlers really got a foothold and started expanding, much of the native society was in tatters, almost post-apocalyptic. edit: here's a google preview of the book and the section talking about it

 

None of that excuses the horrible things that were done and the marginalization that continues to this day, though. Just a few days ago, the Seminoles celebrated Polly Parker's escape from the Trail of Tears. They are one of if not the only native society to not be displaced or wiped out.

Edited December 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

The top political issue that Mandela was trying to achieve at the time he turned towards violent tactics (and the ones he was directly involved in were quite deliberately targeted to minimize the loss of human life).

 

How much blood lost to get blacks voting rights in the USA? 650,000 lives lost.

 

And, of course, let's not even get into some of the reasons the apartheid regime felt so comfortable in their position. Couldn't have had anything to do with the USA backing them because the black majority that wanted voting rights and, ultimately, full political rights also had (gasp!!!) Marxist sympathies

[Jake]

Also, serious question -- Duke's arguments sound a lot like this article from the John Birch Society. I'm curious if you have read it. I won't engage in the "fellow traveler" arguments that JBS tries to use against Mandela (if you have ever thought a positive thing about communists, you're a genocidal maniac), but I came across it and was genuinely curious.

[StrangeSox]

The top political issue that Mandela was trying to achieve at the time he turned towards violent tactics (and the ones he was directly involved in were quite deliberately targeted to minimize the loss of human life).

 

How much blood lost to get blacks voting rights in the USA? 650,000 lives lost.

 

And, of course, let's not even get into some of the reasons the apartheid regime felt so comfortable in their position. Couldn't have had anything to do with the USA backing them because the black majority that wanted voting rights and, ultimately, full political rights also had (gasp!!!) Marxist sympathies

 

And don't forget that he turned to violence only after the SA government used brutal, violent tactics to suppress non-violent protest.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre

 

There is nothing inherently morally wrong with violent resistance. It must be judged based on the cause being fought for and the realities at the time.

[NorthSideSox72]

Charles Mann's 1491 includes some references to research that indicates that as much as 95% of the indigenous population in the Americas was wiped out purely from first-contact diseases without even taking into account the later genocides. Imagine the shock to your society when everyone is dropping dead from strange new illnesses. It was far worse than the Black Plague. By the time white settlers really got a foothold and started expanding, much of the native society was in tatters, almost post-apocalyptic. edit: here's a google preview of the book and the section talking about it

 

None of that excuses the horrible things that were done and the marginalization that continues to this day, though. Just a few days ago, the Seminoles celebrated Polly Parker's escape from the Trail of Tears. They are one of if not the only native society to not be displaced or wiped out.

 

Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole.

 

[Balta1701]

Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole.

Really? I'd be interested in reading more about the distribution of impacts if you have a citation or two?

[StrangeSox]

Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole.

 

Thanks, and that's always a good point to keep in mind with pop-science books. The 95% number specifically was for tribal groups in the Massachusetts area, but there's evidence of similar depopulation in the Amazon and other areas. And we'd expect it to be a lot more pronounced in the areas of first contact versus, say, the Pacific NW. edit: and I think it's also credited with playing a large role in the Spanish conquest of the Maya and the Incas.

Edited December 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

 

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live. During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

[Jenksismyhero]

Was that the end of his 4 hour "closing argument" at his trial?

[StrangeSox]

Was that the end of his 4 hour "closing argument" at his trial?

It was the opening but yeah, here it is in its entirety:

 

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/mandela.htm

[Milkman delivers]

Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole.

 

I didn't believe the original post due entirely to that number being so staggering.