The Two Sides of Nelson Mandela
Dec 10, 2013 15:36:13 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
Fundamentally Freund: Misrepresenting Mandela By MICHAEL FREUND, The Jerusalem Post December 10, 2013
Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.
Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property.
A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libyas Gaddafi and Cubas Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people.
A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada terrorism campaign, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.
Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela.
The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man.
Highlighting his principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new, post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin.
But such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.
Take, for example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to Moses and labeled him the conscience of the world.
And then there was Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraphs chief political commentator, who wrote a piece entitled, Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one.
Even taking into account Mandelas astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out to be.
After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents both black and white.
Indeed, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car-bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200, including many innocent civilians, asserting that, such accidents were the inevitable consequence of our decision to embark on a military struggle.
His record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the leftists at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a political prisoner because Mandela had participated in planning numerous acts of sabotage and inciting violence.
No less distasteful was Mandelas unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs and killers.
Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka, Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.
Three months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as our brother.
While there, Mandela told journalists, The ANC has, on numerous occasions, maintained that the PLO [terrorist organization] is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
The following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen.
We support the cause, Mandela said, of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades whom you refer to (New York Times, June 22, 1990).
Even in later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve their aims. This fact is in marked contrast to the false claims that he had renounced violence.
In November 2004, when the terrorist Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend, saying that Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation.
Now you might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided.
By painting Mandela solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others are falsifying history and concealing the truth.
They are putting on a pedestal a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those with blood on their hands.
By all means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country, the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is hagiography, not history.
And that is something Mandela himself would not have wanted.
In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one term in office, he said, I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.
Sure, we all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations and inspire us to strive for greatness.
But Mandela was not Superman. He was neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter S on his chest along with a red cape.
He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.
And that is how it would be best to remember him.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Fundamentally-Freund-Misrepresenting-Mandela-334487
http://www.michaelfreund.org/14121/misrepresenting-mandela
===============================
The following photo is of a "necklacing" (burning alive with a fuel-soaked tire), a practice which Nelson Mandela and his organization advocated and practiced against his political opponents. Particularly against those who advocated non-violent change.
Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.
Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property.
A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libyas Gaddafi and Cubas Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people.
A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada terrorism campaign, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.
Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela.
The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man.
Highlighting his principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new, post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin.
But such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.
Take, for example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to Moses and labeled him the conscience of the world.
And then there was Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraphs chief political commentator, who wrote a piece entitled, Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one.
Even taking into account Mandelas astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out to be.
After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents both black and white.
Indeed, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car-bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200, including many innocent civilians, asserting that, such accidents were the inevitable consequence of our decision to embark on a military struggle.
His record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the leftists at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a political prisoner because Mandela had participated in planning numerous acts of sabotage and inciting violence.
No less distasteful was Mandelas unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs and killers.
Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka, Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.
Three months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as our brother.
While there, Mandela told journalists, The ANC has, on numerous occasions, maintained that the PLO [terrorist organization] is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
The following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen.
We support the cause, Mandela said, of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades whom you refer to (New York Times, June 22, 1990).
Even in later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve their aims. This fact is in marked contrast to the false claims that he had renounced violence.
In November 2004, when the terrorist Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend, saying that Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation.
Now you might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided.
By painting Mandela solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others are falsifying history and concealing the truth.
They are putting on a pedestal a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those with blood on their hands.
By all means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country, the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is hagiography, not history.
And that is something Mandela himself would not have wanted.
In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one term in office, he said, I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.
Sure, we all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations and inspire us to strive for greatness.
But Mandela was not Superman. He was neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter S on his chest along with a red cape.
He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.
And that is how it would be best to remember him.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Fundamentally-Freund-Misrepresenting-Mandela-334487
http://www.michaelfreund.org/14121/misrepresenting-mandela
===============================
The following photo is of a "necklacing" (burning alive with a fuel-soaked tire), a practice which Nelson Mandela and his organization advocated and practiced against his political opponents. Particularly against those who advocated non-violent change.
Dec 10, 2013 15:49:54 #
I sat here watching the tributes from O'Bummer and questioned in my mind my early recollections of Mandela in South Africa and the headlines he was making.
Thanks for the reminder.
Sarge69
Thanks for the reminder.
Sarge69
Dec 10, 2013 16:18:59 #
Dec 10, 2013 19:22:38 #
Another little known fact for the white liberals out there to yell "RACISM"...all the while Mandela was in jail, all he had to do was to denounce terrorism and the South African government would have let him go but he refused to do so.
Dec 10, 2013 19:41:51 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
cjkorb wrote:
Another little known fact for the white liberals out there to yell "RACISM"...all the while Mandela was in jail, all he had to do was to denounce terrorism and the South African government would have let him go but he refused to do so.
That's correct. I believe the most public such offer was made in 1985. But he continued to advocate violence and terrorism and in particular burning alive of his political opponents. So he stayed in prison. Even Amnesty International, which looked for an excuse to portray him as a good guy, could not list him as a "prisoner of conscience" in light of his continued advocacy of violence.
Dec 10, 2013 23:25:15 #
Amazing how facts can be forgotten by a new generation.
I live in a city that was founded on racism, and it isn't in the south. In 1923, the founders of the city specified that only "church-going Christians" could own property in the city. Nobody mentions that when running historical articles in the newspaper though.
I live in a city that was founded on racism, and it isn't in the south. In 1923, the founders of the city specified that only "church-going Christians" could own property in the city. Nobody mentions that when running historical articles in the newspaper though.
Dec 11, 2013 18:28:04 #
wuzfuzzab
Loc: Red Deer, Alberta
n3eg wrote:
Amazing how facts can be forgotten by a new generation.
I live in a city that was founded on racism, and it isn't in the south. In 1923, the founders of the city specified that only "church-going Christians" could own property in the city. Nobody mentions that when running historical articles in the newspaper though.
I live in a city that was founded on racism, and it isn't in the south. In 1923, the founders of the city specified that only "church-going Christians" could own property in the city. Nobody mentions that when running historical articles in the newspaper though.
WTF does that have to do with Mandela???? You want to say something anti-Christian then start a new thread. BTW I'd be interested to know what city you're talking about.
Dec 11, 2013 18:43:19 #
Re-writing history has been elevated to an art form in the US.We have become the kind of country we feared years ago and embrace it.
Dec 19, 2013 08:36:31 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
That's correct. I believe the most public such offer was made in 1985. But he continued to advocate violence and terrorism and in particular burning alive of his political opponents. So he stayed in prison. Even Amnesty International, which looked for an excuse to portray him as a good guy, could not list him as a "prisoner of conscience" in light of his continued advocacy of violence.
and obama couldn't get on air force 1 fast enough. not one active member from his cabinet or congress attended Margaret Thatcher funeral.
Dec 19, 2013 13:49:31 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
Hawknest wrote:
and obama couldn't get on air force 1 fast enough. not one active member from his cabinet or congress attended Margaret Thatcher funeral.
One of the first acts when Obama took office was to insult Great Britain. There were several other insults to GB that followed shortly.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.