Nelson Mandela, dead at 95

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well this is very disappointing.

[Hurlshort]

Well this is very disappointing.

 

Are you referring to the death of an icon, or the classy response by Cultist?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Nelson Mandela's death. Cultist being an **** is generally a given.

[Zoraptor]

If you guys ever get a chance please read the book "Playing the Enemy" by John Carlin. It is based around the 1995 Rugby World Cup but it is really a book about Mandela and how he found sports to be a way to build bridges between two different societies.

The thing I really noticed about the rugby was how quickly the old South African flag and singing of Die Stem instead of the new anthem basically disappeared, and Mandela's attitude had a lot to do with that. I still can't watch that final though.

 

It's a shame Robert Mugabe didn't show the same attitude. He did a bit in the early days, his jailers piped cricket commentary into his cell as punishment but he ended up loving the game. Pity he went completely mental and didn't know when to give up power.

[Meshugger]

I found Mandela interesting as a person. Going from a hardline revolutionary to a sage-like old man, preaching peace, love and understanding. However, it seems like he was surrounded by incompetent yahoos most of the time after the ending of apartheid. The Zuma and his predecessor seems to have more in common with Mugabe than Mandela, judging by their comments and governance. The level of crime is still unacceptable, especially in terms of murder and rape and there's seems to be little interest to deal with it. I guess people like Mandela are far too few and inbetween. Hopefully someone will pickup the torch though after he is gone now, but i do not see any yet.

[Walsingham]

I'm not sure much can be done about the crime rate for two reasons:

 

1) Vast unemployment and no safety net. The latter is unaffordable. The former can't be tackled so long as the unions dominate unskilled labour. Although I'd concede that cracking the unions might just destroy the unskilled jobs that ARE hanging on.

 

2) The South African Police were the primary mechanism of apartheid. And they were all volunteers. It meant that on the end of apartheid most senior ranks were purged. Many of the more, shall we say 'enthusiastic' junior ranks left on their own volition. Deprived of leadership, and still deeply mistrusted, the police became a cypher. Subsequent attempts to form elite units and seed improvements have fallen foul of corruption in the political class.

 

At least, that's my outsider's view. Bruce?

[JFSOCC]

No, I am just not interested in wasting time proving some point on a forum.

No, you made the controversial claim, you better back it up.

[Rostere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMT36t6BADc&t=7m34s

 

I think it's interesting to note how much some things have changed. Yet some other things still remain the same. Remember not too long ago, the US was one of South Africa's most important allies. Above is an interview from back in 1990 when things still were not ultimately decided. Mandela is in the US and is interviewed by a very condescending talk show host, who nonetheless gets laughed at by the audience repeatedly when he's trying to teach Mandela about politics and then about the current situation in South Africa.

 

Host: [About Mandela "supporting the struggle for freedom" among Palestinians in occupied territories] "We have just heard a number of those things you said [...] this evening. Some controversial things, not necessarily things a political man says. If you were more political, you might have been more concerned about not alienating some people in this country who have it within their hands, within their power, either to continue sanctions against South Africa, or to raise those sanctions, to lift them. Why were you not a little more political? Perhaps we are too accustomed to politicians in this country..."

 

Nelson Mandela: [After a lengthy reply] "But that does not mean to say that the enemies of Israel are our enemies. We refuse to take that position. You can call it "being political", or "a moral question", but for anybody to change his principles depending on who he is dealing with - well, that is not a man who is fit to lead a nation."

[Walsingham]

 

No, I am just not interested in wasting time proving some point on a forum.

No, you made the controversial claim, you better back it up.

 

 

The point is that our cultist colleague has identified the only drawback to the banning system - that it permits those subject to bans the opportunity to adopt revolutionary chic.

 

Maybe this is the reason why Fio is so reluctant to actually ban anyone. Cultist's cries of martyred integrity become a little less heart-rending when you understand he could quite easily say what's on his mind. He just knows that ban or not he would be shredded like fresh lettuce. Not by the mods, but by the ordinary members.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

We don't have any idea if he'd be banned for saying what he meant- it doesn't have to be a spiel about how he ruined the last perfect White Paradise on earth. Plenty of western leaders- Thatcher, Reagan, others- hated Mandela without being overt racists, usually for "at least apartheid RSA aren't commies!!! or terrorists!!! and Mandela is a commie!!! and a terrorist!!!" reasons. In any case it would be a completely pointless argument because it's clear that the majority of people like Mandela, and won't be swayed.

 

Mandela certainly had flaws. Most people would probably put him in the freedom fighter camp instead of the terrorist one, but he was not Gandhi and anything that paints him as perfect has been subject to airbrushing. Of course some people blame Gandhi for all the deaths in the India/ Pakistan partition too...

[AGX-17]

No, I am just not interested in wasting time proving some point on a forum.

You said it was your opinion, there's nothing to prove.

 

I guess this is a good enough stand-in.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/59336/course-mandela-supports-saddam/dave-kopel

Edited December 7, 2013 by AGX-17

[Malcador]

 

 

No, I am just not interested in wasting time proving some point on a forum.

No, you made the controversial claim, you better back it up.

 

 

The point is that our cultist colleague has identified the only drawback to the banning system - that it permits those subject to bans the opportunity to adopt revolutionary chic.

 

Maybe this is the reason why Fio is so reluctant to actually ban anyone. Cultist's cries of martyred integrity become a little less heart-rending when you understand he could quite easily say what's on his mind. He just knows that ban or not he would be shredded like fresh lettuce. Not by the mods, but by the ordinary members.

 

 

Or maybe Fionavar is just sensible about banning people. Never know.

[obyknven]

RIP.

 

Just bit of info.

Actually some ultra-left  movements considered him as traitor. He stop possible revolution and as result Apartheid don't be overthrow and  just masked.  Black majority yet not own property ( only about 15 % of land belongs to him, all other belongs to white colonists  ), Police yet continue mass massacre of them, meanwhile media constantly brainwash them by blah-blah how happy and democratic life become in SA.

[BruceVC]

I found Mandela interesting as a person. Going from a hardline revolutionary to a sage-like old man, preaching peace, love and understanding. However, it seems like he was surrounded by incompetent yahoos most of the time after the ending of apartheid. The Zuma and his predecessor seems to have more in common with Mugabe than Mandela, judging by their comments and governance. The level of crime is still unacceptable, especially in terms of murder and rape and there's seems to be little interest to deal with it. I guess people like Mandela are far too few and inbetween. Hopefully someone will pickup the torch though after he is gone now, but i do not see any yet.

 

There is a vast difference between Mugabe and Zuma. Mugabe is a dictator who has cheated in the last 4 elections to ensure he has stayed in power. He has also eroded almost all independent institutions that can challenge him on any internal law he wants to pass and he has effectively destroyed the Zim economy. He will be remembered as one of Africa's worst leaders IMO. But the fact that he has been able to stay in power is an indictment of the AU and one of its failures

 

Zuma is democratically elected and absolutely respects the influence of systems like the Constitutional court. He believes in the principles of Capitalism and has made no real radical changes to effect the economy in a good or bad way. That can argued is a problem as tries to appeal to all groups but he is not decisive enough so he doesn't address economic hurdles, like the Trade Unions. IMO his biggest problem is he has bad advisors who keep letting him make public comments that actually embarrass his office and his presidency

 

Now as far as Cultist is concerned. He seems to be the antithesis of what I believe and stand for around social issues. I mean the guy thinks Homosexuality is a mental disorder and probably thinks gays should be rounded up and sent for electro shock therapy at some conversion hospital to fix them    But for me its important to get the opinions of all people around topics that pertain to social justice. How do you know what some of the opinions that are different to yours are if you never hear the flawed logic? So I wouldn't want him banned or not speaking his mind because I like to hear what people think. He reminds me of Oby in this way

 

But it is a pity he couldn't elaborate around his comments that Mandela destroyed the country. I think we all know the real reason for his reticence. He is aware he is wrong and won't find any evidence to support his opinion. The reality is you could argue this with Zuma or the president before him, Thabo Mbeki,( which I would dispute) but the decisions that Mandela made were necessary at the time to ensure a transition to a peaceful Democracy in South Africa

[Walsingham]

RIP.

 

Just bit of info.

Actually some ultra-left  movements considered him as traitor. He stop possible revolution and as result Apartheid don't be overthrow and  just masked.  Black majority yet not own property ( only about 15 % of land belongs to him, all other belongs to white colonists  ), Police yet continue mass massacre of them, meanwhile media constantly brainwash them by blah-blah how happy and democratic life become in SA.

 

 

You must be just itching to use LoF for this discussion.

 

The ultra left think people who wear glasses are intellectuals and intellectuals are counter-revolutionary. The ultra-left think human rights are bourgeouis sentimentality. The ultra-left are inhuman freaks.

 

I can't see how preventing a 'revolution', or as we normals think of it 'the deaths of millions in civil war' is a failure. 

[Zoraptor]

Sheesh, Wals, give it a break. Yeah, the (ultra) left are inhuman freaks, so are the (ultra) right and the various regimes the West supported as their right wing death squads wandered around liquidating their sets of inconvenient wrong headed intellectuals. I don't think we need to mention South Africa's apartheid era attitude to black intellectualism, nor good friend to Reagan and Thatcher Augusto Pinochet's, now do we?

 

You don't have to reply to oby, you know. Besides, he's right in the general sense, while the black majority's wealth has improved (by about a third, if I remember the figures correctly) it was coming off a very low base so does not represent much absolute improvement, just relative improvement over apartheid conditions. And that is causing increasing friction.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I've come to the conclusion that ultra anything is typically bad. Aside from ultra sexy or tasty, but I prefer very myself.

[Walsingham]

Sheesh, Wals, give it a break. Yeah, the (ultra) left are inhuman freaks, so are the (ultra) right and the various regimes the West supported as their right wing death squads wandered around liquidating their sets of inconvenient wrong headed intellectuals. I don't think we need to mention South Africa's apartheid era attitude to black intellectualism, nor good friend to Reagan and Thatcher Augusto Pinochet's, now do we?

 

You don't have to reply to oby, you know. Besides, he's right in the general sense, while the black majority's wealth has improved (by about a third, if I remember the figures correctly) it was coming off a very low base so does not represent much absolute improvement, just relative improvement over apartheid conditions. And that is causing increasing friction.

 

It is a problem. But the alternative the left-ideologues favour is State redistribution of wealth. And the results of that across Africa have been the flight of all talent and capital. The result is an even poorer man in the street, and The Party in control of all means of producing wealth. It's slavery by another name. And I don't think that's any better than what apartheid delivered.

[NOK222]

I've come to the conclusion that ultra anything is typically bad. Aside from ultra sexy or tasty, but I prefer very myself.

 

Ultra tasty is usually ultra diabetic

[Zoraptor]

It is a problem. But the alternative the left-ideologues favour is State redistribution of wealth. And the results of that across Africa have been the flight of all talent and capital. The result is an even poorer man in the street, and The Party in control of all means of producing wealth. It's slavery by another name. And I don't think that's any better than what apartheid delivered.

 

 

I'm not advocating a Mugabe style solution, but there does need to be a better 'peace dividend'. A large, disenfranchised, disillusioned and poor population is a recipe for radicalism and violence even if it lacks the unifying force that apartheid provided.

 

I'd tend to say that the problem in Africa has had nothing to do with left/right ideology and more to do with a series of spectacularly bad leaders, and corruption. Plus a liberal smattering of bad colonial policy, east/west cold war posturing and other factors outside their control.

[Walsingham]

 

It is a problem. But the alternative the left-ideologues favour is State redistribution of wealth. And the results of that across Africa have been the flight of all talent and capital. The result is an even poorer man in the street, and The Party in control of all means of producing wealth. It's slavery by another name. And I don't think that's any better than what apartheid delivered.

 

 

I'm not advocating a Mugabe style solution, but there does need to be a better 'peace dividend'. A large, disenfranchised, disillusioned and poor population is a recipe for radicalism and violence even if it lacks the unifying force that apartheid provided.

 

I'd tend to say that the problem in Africa has had nothing to do with left/right ideology and more to do with a series of spectacularly bad leaders, and corruption. Plus a liberal smattering of bad colonial policy, east/west cold war posturing and other factors outside their control.

 

 

I must have sounded more right wing than I intended. I do agree with you that there needed to be better dividends than were achieved.

 

But the people who would have carried out the redistribution are the same Party boys who have shown little inclination to do very much at all in service of the people, even on a limited ticket. What makes you think they'd have been less self-serving in a more left-wing atmosphere?

 

The tragedy isn't that Mandela's gone. The tragedy is that so little of what made people love him is left behind.

[Zoraptor]

It's not a question of redistribution of wealth in the classic leftist sense though. If trickle down and other right wing theories or the mishmash approach they're using at the moment actually worked to improve the general lot of blacks it would be fine, the critical aim is to improve their lot not to check boxes on an ideological purity chart.

[BruceVC]

 

It is a problem. But the alternative the left-ideologues favour is State redistribution of wealth. And the results of that across Africa have been the flight of all talent and capital. The result is an even poorer man in the street, and The Party in control of all means of producing wealth. It's slavery by another name. And I don't think that's any better than what apartheid delivered.

 

 

I'm not advocating a Mugabe style solution, but there does need to be a better 'peace dividend'. A large, disenfranchised, disillusioned and poor population is a recipe for radicalism and violence even if it lacks the unifying force that apartheid provided.

 

I'd tend to say that the problem in Africa has had nothing to do with left/right ideology and more to do with a series of spectacularly bad leaders, and corruption. Plus a liberal smattering of bad colonial policy, east/west cold war posturing and other factors outside their control.

 

 

You guys have raised some good points and the reality is the biggest problem in Africa is lack of education, corruption and leaders who are more concerned with enriching themselves than good governance

But the ideological argument about left vs right is also a problem as it slows down the necessary economic transformation. In South Africa we have this new political party that has just been formed headed up Julius Malema called the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters)

 

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

 

Anyway there manifesto is to nationalize the mines and banks and they want re-appropriation of the land with no compensation. There whole political view is steeped in anachronistic and flawed Communist ideology and it is doomed to actually improve the economy. Yet they have supporters and I predict they will get about 10 % of the vote next year. Now the only reason that people vote for them is because they are disillusioned  with the economic transformation policies of the ANC. But the reality is the ANC needs to address the issues I stated to improve the plight of indigent people living in South Africa. You cannot achieve serious financial change by thinking you can have the  state controlling key resources like the banks and the mines

 

So the political influence from left wing groups is still a problem with the steps needed to uplift certain African countries

[Walsingham]

Ultimately it's the fault of apartheid that things are as bad as they are. Inefficient and outdated industries, staffed by people raised on 'black' education. It was always going to be virtually impossible to sort out.

 

The thing which give me hope is that at least entrepreneurial spirit is delivering some success stories. And the perspective of Black South Africans seems chiefly to be one of hope in their own strengths. Although i worry that you have the usual nihilistic young men issue.

[BruceVC]

Ultimately it's the fault of apartheid that things are as bad as they are. Inefficient and outdated industries, staffed by people raised on 'black' education. It was always going to be virtually impossible to sort out.

 

The thing which give me hope is that at least entrepreneurial spirit is delivering some success stories. And the perspective of Black South Africans seems chiefly to be one of hope in their own strengths. Although i worry that you have the usual nihilistic young men issue.

 

The question is when do you stop blaming Apartheid and start ensuring prudent economic polices or rather the correct implementation of those policies?

 

I don't really prescribe to the whole " its apartheids fault our economy isn't at the level it should be"