Mandela- beyond the image

Spread the love

Loading

mandela

Nelson Mandela wrote about his feelings when he left prison in 1990:

“As I walked out of the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew that if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”

Unfortunately, 1990 is where Mandela’s history begins and in 1999 is where it ends for most people. There is more.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black president, is a giant in the world of liberation heroes, up there with Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

But unlike Gandhi, who said that nonviolence and truth were inseparable, and King, who famously declared that violence was immoral, Mandela embraced armed struggle to end the racist system of apartheid.

Mandela was instrumental in the use of violence in South Africa:

An irony of Nelson Mandela’s life is that the African National Congress freedom fighter will forever be remembered as a man of peace. That could not have been envisioned in 1961, when Mandela helped persuade the ANC that violence was necessary to get whites to share power with South Africa’s black majority.

Mandela was co-founder of the MK, or “Tip of the Spear”, an organization created to conduct guerilla warfare against the South African government. Mandela is reported to have written an MK manifesto including the following:

“Our men are armed and trained freedom fighters not terrorists.

We are fighting for democracy—majority rule—the right of the Africans to rule Africa.

We are fighting for a South Africa in which there will be peace and harmony and equal rights for all people.
We are not racialists, as the white oppressors are. The African National Congress has a message of freedom for all who live in our country.”

Mandela’s MK killed many people:

Landmark events in MK’s military activity inside South Africa consisted of actions designed to intimidate the ruling power. In 1983, the Church Street bomb was detonated in Pretoria near the South African Air Force Headquarters, resulting in 19 deaths and 217 injuries. During the next 10 years, a series of bombings occurred in South Africa, conducted mainly by the military wing of the African National Congress.

In the 1985 Amanzimtoti bomb on the Natal South Coast, five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre shortly before Christmas. In a submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the ANC stated that Zondo acted on orders after a recent SADF raid in Lesotho.[9]

In the 1986 Durban beach-front bombing, a bomb was detonated in a bar, killing three civilians and injuring 69. Robert McBride received the death penalty for this bombing which became known as the “Magoo’s Bar bombing”. Although the subsequent Truth and Reconciliation Committee called the bombing a “gross violation of human rights”,[10] McBride received amnesty and became a senior police officer.

In 1987, an explosion outside a Johannesburg court killed three people and injured 10; a court in Newcastle had been attacked in a similar way the previous year, injuring 24. In 1987, a bomb exploded at a military command centre in Johannesburg, killing one person and injuring 68 personnel.

The bombing campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets, including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four civilians were killed and 18 injured. Also in 1988, in a bomb detonation outside a magistrate’s court killed three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb killed two and injured 37 civilians. A multitude[citation needed] of bombs in “Wimpy Bar” fast food outlets and supermarkets occurred during the late 1980s, killing and wounding many people. Wimpy were specifically targeted because of their perceived rigid enforcements of many Apartheid-era laws, including excluding people of colour from their restaurants. Several other bombings occurred, with smaller numbers of casualties.

Mandela’s tenure in prison softened him and he turned away from violence, but so not his wife. She continued on, seeming to endorse a particularly brutal tactic known as “necklacing.”

The following five years were increasingly controversial. In 1986 she made a speech in which she talked about achieving liberation from apartheid by using “necklaces” – a reference to the brutal murder of suspected collaborators by putting tyres round their necks and setting them alight. There was also the matter of an opulent £125,000 house built in one of the poorest areas in the country.

Winnie Mandela also maintained a gang of enforcers:

The most serious allegations, however, stemmed from the activities of her personal bodyguards, the so-called Mandela United Football Club. Reports of their brutality were commonplace in Soweto and her house was attacked in 1988 by local people who had had enough.

Mrs Mandela refused to curb the team’s activities, however, and the following year came the decisive incident. A 14-year-old activist, Stompei Seipei Moketsi, was kidnapped by her guards and later found murdered. The ANC leadership declared that she was out of control but Nelson Mandela, in jail and in ill-health, refused to repudiate her.

They divorced in 1996.

Necklacing was a punishment exacted on blacks who were believed to be collaborators with the apartheid regime:

The practice became a common method of lethal lynching during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Necklacing sentences were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by “people’s courts” established in black townships as a means of circumventing the apartheid judicial system. Necklacing was also used to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid regime. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was frequently carried out in the name of the African National Congress (ANC), and was even interpreted to have been implicitly endorsed by Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela and a senior member of the ANC, although the ANC officially condemned the practice.

The first recorded victim of necklacing was the young girl Maki Skosana in July 1985

“ Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee.

Mandela was apprehended, tried and convicted of sabotage in 1964 and sentenced to life in prison.

In 1985 Mandela was offered amnesty in return for renouncing violence but he refused, insisting that apartheid be dismantled first.

Later in 1985 South African President P.W. Botha initiated a series of meetings with Mandela, with Kobie Coetsee as his representative. The negotiations led to a meeting between Mandela and Botha in 1989, and Mandela’s release seemed certain. FW de Klerk became President in 1989, lifted the ban on the ANC and promised an end to apartheid and white rule. Mandela was then released in 1990.

There is a very interesting conversation with Coetsee here. It’s worth your time.

Mandela became President in 1994 and served until 1999. His legacy is the end of apartheid and white rule but it would be very wrong to believe South Africa’s problems are over. What came of those changes?

South Africa is a mess.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Nelson Mandela didn’t coin the term “Rainbow Nation” or the phrase “Proudly South African.” But the optimism, determination and compassion of the country at its best owed everything to him.

In recent years, however, South Africa under the leadership of the African National Congress that Mandela loved is often quite different — shoddy, corrupt and incompetent. In short, depressingly like other African countries betrayed by liberation movements.

While life has gradually improved for many, problems once attributed to apartheid stubbornly remain. Nearly two decades after the ANC took power, poor education and healthcare systems still hold back many blacks. The police, no longer dominated by whites, are still brutal. Government departments still treat people with callous disregard.

Despite the existence of a powerful black elite and the growth of a modest black middle class, 40% of the population gets by on less than $40 a month per family member. Whites still earn six times more than blacks. And some analysts say the absolute electoral dominance of the ANC weakens South Africa’s democracy.

The ANC rules, but it doesn’t seem to care.

“We’ve been betrayed by our brothers and sisters,” said Sibusiso Zikode, spokesman for a grass-roots organization of shack-dwellers. “There’s no difference from the apartheid government. It’s a question of human dignity. Treat me as a human being.

“While I’m waiting 20 years for a house, give me water,” he said. “Why would I not get water?”

Bongisisa Gwiliza, a laborer who lives in a shantytown outside Rustenburg, said South Africa’s new leaders did not keep their promises to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

“There’s no sanitation. The place is so dirty,” he said. “The shacks have got holes. When it rains, it floods. There’s a lot of rain coming in. When there’s wind, there’s a lot of wind coming in, and it’s very cold.”

Crime is rampant.

The levels of extreme violence and crime remain high, particularly crime against women. In several cases this year, teenage girls were raped, mutilated and left to die.

During the apartheid years, South Africans living in black townships feared and loathed the police force that the white minority government used as a tool of oppression. When police killed 34 protesting miners outside Johannesburg in 2012, the echo of apartheid-era police brutality shocked the nation.

In early 2013, several police were charged with murder in the death of a Mozambican taxi driver, who was handcuffed to a police car, dragged hundreds of yards along a road and beaten, in an incident caught on cellphone video. The victim died that night of horrific injuries.

Statistics from the independent police watchdog group suggest those incidents are the tip of the iceberg, with 720 deaths in police custody reported in 2011-12. Analysts are uncertain why South Africa’s police force remains so violent. Some blame the policies of former chief Bheki Cele, who sought more powers to deal with heavily armed gangs in a country with one of the globe’s highest rates of violent crime.

Anti-white violence has reached epidemic proportions:

Thousands of white people in South Africa are subjected to atrocious acts of racist violence by black population while South African authorities and media keep silent and reticent. Somehow, the same media stirs tumult over human rights when it comes to the Sahara conflict, usually accusing Morocco of human rights abuse and lobbying against its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“If your house is made of glass, don’t pelt others with stone.” It seems that South Africa doesn’t apply this golden rule when it goes blind to the increasing ‘black on white’ violence and deaf to the cries of hundreds of children, women, and men killed, tortured or raped by the black people.

It’s blatantly hypocritical of the South African government to claim it is defending the rights of the Sahroui people while human rights have been continuously abused since 1994, when the National African Congress took over government of South Africa. Maintaining the apartheid practices at home and claiming the defense of human rights abroad is simply a double standards and hypocritical approach.

Since the eve of 2013, 230 ‘black on white’ attacks were reported on the South African soil according to CNNiReport. 97 were murdered, 17 women and 2 men were raped usually by a whole gang, 3 people were left with permanent brain damage and one person paralyzed.

There were also 102 farm attacks during which 30 people were murdered. Morocco World News has obtained a detailed list of 55 white women murdered by unknown black males since 15 May 2012 to date in South Africa. This appalling genocide, white South Africans claim, has been going on for the past 20 years while the world kept quiet and enjoyed the show.

It goes largely ignored by the media. More can be seen here.

The problems in South Africa are exacerbated by the election of two successive buffoons:

Mbeki denied the link between HIV and AIDS, and was slow to distribute life-saving antiretroviral drugs. AIDS activists had to take his government to court to force the distribution of medication to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus.

And Mandela’s ringing moral authority stood in sharp contrast to Zuma, who has battled corruption charges and questions about his personal behavior. He was acquitted of rape in 2006, but was criticized for having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive family friend about half his age.

Zuma once claimed that he could reduce his chances of contracting AIDS following engaging in unprotected sex with an HIV positive woman by taking a shower.

Zuma has done well for himself as President.

A newspaper investigation found that Zuma’s family had extensive high-level corporate ties and dozens of their own businesses, many of which were established after Zuma became leader of the ANC in 2007.

Needing an enemy as a distraction from the woes he helped create (does that sound familiar?), Zuma assures South Africa that he will seize the economy away from white males:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlxsBYnJErQ[/youtube]

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe did much the same thing to disastrous results.

Here Zuma sings a song about killing Boers (white farmers)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlxsBYnJErQ[/youtube]

To his credit, Mandela dabbled in capitalism and sought foreign investment but his successors have only made things worse:

When he became South Africa’s first black president after winning the nation’s first multi-race elections in 1994, Mandela actively wooed foreign investors. Instead of nationalizing companies, he persuaded the ANC to move away from its socialist ethos and embrace a free and open economy, which fueled South Africa’s economic growth for years.

Today, however, that legacy is under fire. Unemployment remains at nearly 25 percent; whites on average earn six times more than their black counterparts. The ANC youth wing has lobbied hard for the nationalization of banks and mines; according to the Municipal IQ, a Johannesburg-based research group, last year there were a record 173 protests, many of them violent, over a lack of housing, jobs, and basic services. According to World Bank statistics, South Africa remains one of the world’s most economically unequal societies.

A couple of other observations. A man named Tony Hollingsworth claims to be the person who transformed Mandela from terrorist to beloved icon.

Hollingsworth, now 55, envisaged a star-studded concert that would transform Mandela from outlaw to icon in the public’s mind, and in turn press governments adopt a more accommodating stance.

He approached Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, president of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement, to pitch his musical strategy.

“I told Trevor that the African National Congress and the anti-apartheid movement had reached their glass ceiling; they couldn’t go further.”

“Everything you are doing is ‘anti’, you are protesting on the streets, but it will remain in that space. Many people will agree, but you will not appeal them.”

“Mandela and the movement should be seen as something positive, confident, something you would like to be in your living room with.”

While Hollingsworth dealt with artists, Mike Terry — head of the movement in London — dealt with the ANC and the sceptics in the anti-apartheid movement.

And there were many, including Mandela himself, who asked several times that the struggle not be about him.

Many others insisted the focus remain on sanctions against the apartheid regime.

“A lot of people were criticising me for sanitising it,” Hollingsworth remembered.

Eventually Terry convinced the ANC and Hollingsworth convinced Simple Minds, Dire Straits, Sting, George Michael, The Eurythmics, Eric Clapton, Whitney Houston and Stevie Wonder into the 83-artist line up.

With that musical firepower came contracts for a more than 11 hour broadcast.

“We signed with the entertainment department of television (stations). And when the head of the department got home and watched on his channel that they were calling Mandela a terrorist, they called straight to the news section to say, don’t call this man a terrorist, we just signed 11 hours of broadcasting for a tribute about him.”

“This is how we turned Mandela from a black terrorist into a black leader.”

In a mystifying act, Mandela is seen in 2006 participating in a song calling for the killing of whites:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY[/youtube]

FYI- it was George W. Bush who removed Mandela from the Terror Watch list.

Nelson Mandela lived two quite different lives. One of violence and death and one of peace. His violent past has been almost totally purged by the media. His greatest achievements came through peace. Mandela could have spent more time being as critical of his successors as he was of the United States. Who was better off being in South Africa? Know anyone who wants to live there? While Mandela is to be admired for the good he did, it is important not to sanitize his life:

From their perspective, Mandela’s critics were right to distrust him. They called him a “terrorist” because he had waged armed resistance to apartheid. They called him a “communist” because the Soviet Union was the ANC’s chief external benefactor and the South African Communist Party was among its closest domestic allies. More fundamentally, what Mandela’s American detractors understood is that he considered himself an opponent, not an ally, of American power. And that’s exactly what Mandela’s American admirers must remember now.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
260 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@PhillipMarlowe: why are you spending so much time kissing his ass?

@Redteam:

@PhillipMarlowe: why are you spending so much time kissing his ass?

So he can avoid answering my questions.

@PhillipMarlowe: Is this a list of reasons he was on the world terrorist watch list?

@retire05: Oh, now I see that Retired doesn’t mind tossing the ass word around.
Yeah, you’ll need those prayers.

@Redteam: Ask President George Bush.
Oh, but wait, ABC’s This Week had Bush speaking nicely of him.
The anger and bile is coming from those who don’t like General Sherman and call him a terrorist.
Just calling a spade a spade.

@PhillipMarlowe: I was the one that asked why you were spending so much time kissing his ass. Just for the record.

@PhillipMarlowe:

Just calling a spade a spade.

you do know what a spade is, don’t you?

@PhillipMarlowe:

General Sherman and call him a terrorist.

he wasn’t ‘called’ a terrorist, he was a terrorist.

@PhillipMarlowe:

@retire05: Oh, now I see that Retired doesn’t mind tossing the ass word around.
Yeah, you’ll need those prayers.

Really? And liars like you don’t need prayers?

So you will do all you can to avoid answering my questions. No surprise. But perhaps, the next time you darken the Church’s door, you might explain to God why you stand on the side of politicians who support sodomy and the killing of unborn children with your vote for them.

Seems you will need the prayers of others more than those who use the term “ass.”

@retire05: Retire, as I told him, he seems to have his head stuck up his butt, maybe that’s why he can’t find the answers to your questions.

@retire05:

Really? Then perhaps you should do a little more studying of the Revolutionary War. Banastre Tarleton was not called “Bloody Ban” for no reason, while his fellow Loyalist/British military comrades turned their backs toward, and gave silent approval to, what he did.

I’ve read about the Battle of Waxhaws. The reports of what happened are vague and contentious, even though Tarleton seemed to embrace the controversy.

Including his “principal” of turning his back on what was happening, the rapes, the murders, the child rapes, in his own nation where he had been elevated to status of saint?

His principles of forgiveness and seeking peace instead of destruction. The path he could have taken versus the path he took. As for Aids, Mandela brought it out of the shadows and his foundation still fights the disease and the myths that surround it. What more can one man do than lead by example?

No, now, still living in the first century, those same black people who were “second class” citizens, are committing genocide against the Afrikaners. If freeing blacks from oppression only to allow them to slaughter others is your idea of progress, well, I guess we will never agree.

Freedom isn’t free. It takes a lot of work. Giving a person freedom doesn’t end poverty or disease, or bias, or hatred.

@Aqua: Your reasoned and rational stands, against the slings of hatred and bigoty unleashed by certain “conservatives” here at F.A., do not go unnoticed. Thanks
Go NOLES.

@Aqua:

I’ve read about the Battle of Waxhaws. The reports of what happened are vague and contentious, even though Tarleton seemed to embrace the controversy.

The Waxhaws Massacre was not the only controversy surrounding Bloody Ban. And his actions were privately condoned by the British military command with their silence and refusal to contain him.

His principles of forgiveness and seeking peace instead of destruction. The path he could have taken versus the path he took. As for Aids, Mandela brought it out of the shadows and his foundation still fights the disease and the myths that surround it. What more can one man do than lead by example?

The killing of Afrikaners started under Mandela’s tenure. He did nothing to stop it. Thinking I might have judged him too harshly, I spent some time trying to find anything Mandela said about the slaughter of white farmers that were taking place while he was in office. I could find nothing. They are only empty words if you spout “freedom and justice” but then turn your back on the killing of those civilians who had nothing to do with apartheid.
You want us to think that a man who was held in such high esteem by his fellow South Africans had no power to stop the slaughter of the Afrikaners? Really? You want to ignore that there was a reason Mandela was put on the “terrorist” watch list. You want to rewrite his history, just as Che Guevera’s history seems to have been rewritten. If his leadership, which did not end with the end of his term as head of SA’s government, was so great, why is South Africa such a disaster?
As to the AIDS epidemic in SA; no one person did more to try to eradicate that epidemic than George W. Bush.

Freedom isn’t free. It takes a lot of work. Giving a person freedom doesn’t end poverty or disease, or bias, or hatred.

There is no freedom in South Africa. One race has been removed from the control of another race, but now the race that was in control is being systematically slaughtered to the point where it is being called a “genocide.” And exactly what did Mandela do to alleviate that?

Sorry, Mandela was just another Communist who cozied up with the likes of Arafat and every Communist dictator in the world, including Castro. And I am expected to sing his praises? I think not.

Now, Obama, and past presidents are all going to Mandela’s funeral while our flags fly at half-staff in his honor. Yet, when Lady Thatcher, who truly did great things to bring freedom to a large portion of the world, died Obama, nor one past president, attended her funeral. Nor did our flags fly at half-staff in her honor.

All this fawning over Nelson Mandela disgusts me.

@Richard Wheeler:

@Aqua: Your reasoned and rational stands, against the slings of hatred and bigoty unleashed by certain “conservatives” here at F.A., do not go unnoticed. Thanks

Typical leftie statement. Just because some of us are not fawning over the death of a Communist, we are accused of “hatred and bigotry” just because the Communist happened to be black. Can we assume you felt the same way when Hugo Chavez died since he was “brown?”

@retire05

All this fawning over Nelson Mandela disgusts me.

We can agree to disagree. You can read this if you so choose; it’s long, but may answer some of your questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/05/read-the-most-important-speech-nelson-mandela-ever-gave/

@Richard Wheeler:

Go NOLES.

They looked good Saturday. Gotta hand it to you, you called the BCS dead on. Michigan State pulled it out against OSU and Auburn was able to fight off Missouri. It is going to be a great championship game.

@retire05: To compare Mandela to Chavez. Absurd.
To call Tom a racist. Ridiculous
To say Republicans led the fight against slavery and were in the forefront of the civil rights movement–true.
Then to suggest, you as a Repub., would not have supported Lincoln??

btw There were probably as many Black slave owners–amend to in the South– as there are Black Conservatives—less than 1%

@Aqua: A great Championship game for sure. I have never seen a stronger ground game than Auburn unleashed against Bama and Mizzou.
Two GREAT coaches. Jimbo’s got his work cut out.
NOLES 38 AUBURN 35 Great passing attack and timely defense withstand a withering ground game.
Dead center 3 (no more wide rights) wins at the gun.

early line FSU-7.5 0/U 67

@Aqua:

Words are cheap, Aqua, as surely you have seen with Obama. And if you can provide me any later speech that Mandela gave that specifically demanded ceasing the slaughter of the Afrikaners, I am all eyes and ears. It was a message he should have been giving over and over and over. But how many Afrikaners have to be slaughtered in Nelson Mandela’s South Africa before you understand he was not the great man he is being heralded as?

Time after time, Dr. King emphasized non-retaliation. Mandela was Communist to the core, and a Communist when he died. I suspect that all this fawning over Mandela is simply due to the very comments made by RW; if you don’t hold Mandela in high esteem, you are a hater and a bigot (i.e. a racist).

I’ll not be part of the hallelujah choir over any Communist, no matter his skin tone.

I do not honor Communists.

@Richard Wheeler:

@retire05: To compare Mandela to Chavez. Absurd.

Both were Communists. I give neither any honor.

To call Tom a racist. Ridiculous

Why? You think whites cannot be racist against their own race? You’re a fool.

To say Republicans led the fight against slavery and were in the forefront of the civil rights movement–true.

Then correct the misconceptions of your own party which supported slavery and Jim Crow laws.

Then to suggest, you as a Repub., would not have supported Lincoln??

I never said that. I never said one way or another. Just another example of you trying to put words into someone’s mouth. That seems to be your forte.

btw There were probably as many Black slave owners as there are Black Conservatives—less than 1%

Oppps, history is not your forte, I see.

@retire05: Tom A Racist? You are the fool O5 .
Would you have supported Lincoln when he called for the abolishment of slavery? Even if it meant going to war with the South?
The Dem. Party was wrong in it’s support of slavery. It corrected in the 60’s and 70’s and has led the fight for civil rights ,woman’s rights and human rights ever since.

@Richard Wheeler:

@retire05: Tom A Racist? You are the fool O5 .

It is not my fault you are too stupid to understand that one can be “racist” against their own race. That’s odd since your party tends to put the label “Uncle Tom” on any black that they think doesn’t march lock step with the Democrat party.

Would you have supported Lincoln when he called for the abolishment of slavery? Even if it meant going to war with the South?

I don’t know how I would have felt in 1860. I was not alive then. Were you?

The Dem. Party was wrong in it’s support of slavery. It corrected in the 60′s and 70′s and has led the fight for civil rights ,woman’s rights and human rights ever since.

Really? Like when Al Gore’s father tried to stop the Civil Rights Act? Seems the little you know about history is all revisionist. Women’s rights? Really? The only thing Democrats think are “women’s rights” entail are their uteruses. I guess thinking that putting millions of women on the welfare rolls is empowering women?

Just because you want to rewrite history doesn’t make it fact.

@retire05:

Words are cheap, Aqua, as surely you have seen with Obama.

Well, you’ve effectively ended debate. I say he led by example, forgiving the Apartheid government, his jailors, and even working with them to form a new government. You say he never spoke out against anything. I show you that he did in fact speak out against these things and you say words are cheap. You have formed your opinion and really don’t care about any contradictory opinions. Good luck with that.

@Aqua: O5 has formed her opinions and ducks many direct queries–such as her support of Lincoln?
Calling Tom a racist ie anti white—an example of how absurd she can be.
With her side kick RT, they continue to be the elephants in the room when it comes to any hope for broad based support of “Conservatism” in America.
Fortunately for your team, the aging process is on your side.

@Aqua:

I mourned when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died.
I mourned when Lady Thatcher died.
I mourned when Dr. Ralph Abernathy died.
And although I disagreed with them politically, I mourned John and Robert Kennedy’s deaths.
I mourned Chris Kyle’s death.

I will not mourn Nelson Mandela’s death, nor will I mourn Jesse Jackson’s death, or Al Sharpton’s death, or Jeremiah Wright, Jr.’s death. Nor any of the other race baiters in our midst.

You have formed your opinion and really don’t care about any contradictory opinions. Good luck with that.

Isn’t the First Amendment wonderful? Good luck with my having a personal opinion? Why should I worry about it? Isn’t that my God given right?

If you want to pay homage to a Communist, have at it. I am not afflicted with political correctness, nor am I a believer in revisionist history.

@Aqua:Aqua, I read about half of that speech and picked out these quotes. It is interesting that this was in 1960, before all the killing started and after S. Africa had voted to become a Republic. Note the resemblance in these quotes to Fidel Castro, not a Communist, all for peaceful approach, yada, yada. Normal operating practices for violent communist takeovers. Say what my audience wants to hear, but do what it takes to kill the whites. What if Martin Luther King Jr had made this same speech and taken the same approach to getting what he wanted?

Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.

We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white.

the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization.

In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic.

We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were.

No. I see nothing heroic in his speech. Even if you were to accept that he was still young and ‘idealistic’, it certainly did not end that way, in fact it hasn’t ended. One class in S Africa still has no rights.

@Richard Wheeler:

btw There were probably as many Black slave owners as there are Black Conservatives—less than 1%

where did you pull those numbers from? Does it include the owners of the slaves that initially sold them to the colonies? It is safe to say that initially all slaves had been owned and sold by a black slave owner. (that would be before any were propagating in the colonies)

@Richard Wheeler:

I have never seen a stronger ground game than Auburn unleashed against Bama and Mizzou.

While it did look that way, all ground games can look impressive when going up against a poor defense. See how great that running attack did against LSU? And LSU is not nearly as good defensively ‘this year’ as last year.

@Richard Wheeler:

would not have supported Lincoln??

would you have? supported a Republican? Someone that ignored the constitution? There is no question that Lincoln violated the constitution and if you can support a president ignoring the constitution because ‘he’ feels like it, then I can see your admiration of Obam-me.

@Richard Wheeler:

btw There were probably as many Black slave owners–amend to in the South– as there are Black Conservatives—less than 1%

Didn’t take you long to back down on that statement, once called on it..

@Redteam: I most definitely would have supported Lincoln in his fight to abolish slavery. Makes perfect sense that you wouldn’t. You noted you weren’t much for the Civil Rights activists in the 60’s. That’s consistent.

@Redteam:

Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.

How different is that from the speeches given by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who never preached anything but non-violence? Mandela is simply justifying the violence in his speech from the court dock. And yet, there are those who sing his praises, and will also justify the violence while saying nothing about the violence against the Afrikaners since Mandela’s release from prison.

I’d like for RW and Aqua to say they would be admirers of MLK Jr had he advocated violence, overthrow of the government and communism to get what he wanted in the US? There was far too much useless violence in the US in the 60’s (in my opinion) but would have been much more had MLK Jr not called for non-violence or retaliation when they were having violence used against them. That is the manner of a person that was a true leader and he accomplished what he wanted without the blacks assuming the power of the government and starting a systematic slaughter of whites.
MLK is a person that can be admired, Mandela, I hope he enjoys his time in hell.

@Richard Wheeler:

I most definitely would have supported Lincoln

why didn’t you answer the part of the question about Lincoln violating the constitution? I would support a president doing things ‘legally’, not ala Obam-me. The constitution should be okay ‘all the time’ not just when it suits your purpose. But then I understand Libs don’t give a damn about laws, except when it restricts ‘them’.

@Redteam: Clarified that just for you RT.
Alabama has a great run defense. Shut down LSU yielding 43 yards on 31 carries. Mizzou also tough run defense prior to Auburn dismantling.
This Auburn “option from the gun” is very very tough.

@Richard Wheeler:

Clarified that just for you RT.

Clarified? more like, ‘tried to weasle out of’. So was it okay to be a black slave owner in the North, but not the South? As you well know, slavery was an invention of the North, specifically Rhode Island.

Alabama has a great run defense. Shut down LSU yielding 43 yards on 31 carries.

they certainly did that day. I have not decided which team is going to win the BCS title yet. FSU appears to have the better defense, basically totally shutting down Duke, but then Duke isn’t very good anyhow. Auburn allowed a lot of scoring against them by Missou. If they allow FSU to run through them like that, it’ll be an exciting game but they won’t like the outcome.
I’m glad that it wasn’t that same Auburn team that showed up in Baton Rouge back in September.

Saw this headline on Drudge Report and had to laugh:

PUTIN DISSOLVES STATE MEDIA

Wish we could dissolve the Obama media lovefest here in the US and get an objective press. Though in Russia, the press is completely the tool of Putin, he just wanted to dissolve the ones that are not 100% with him and make it official that they are all ‘supporting’ him alone.

RW, is there any chance I will ever get, from you, that link to the Pope calling for ‘dignified jobs’ (or however you quoted it) for everyone? I noted that you threw that out but have been reluctant to tell where you pulled that from. I still can’t find it in that ‘long’ document.

@Redteam: Slavery in the North. Prior to 1800 slaves could be counted in the hundreds. Black slave Owners?? Think again.
By 1850 total slaves in North– negligible to nil.
The South had taken the concept and run with iT.

@Richard Wheeler: Still trying to cut your losses, eh?

Slavery in the North. Prior to 1800 slaves could be counted in the hundreds.

Trying to re-write history? How about in the ‘thousands’ in Rhode Island alone. up to 90% of all slaves brought to the US came through Newport, RI. Your ivy league education didn’t cover History? added: Talking about Ivy League, want to guess what trade the Brown’s of Brown Univ made their fortune in?

@Redteam: I read the same story about the Browns. Saw nothing about your “thousands” of slaves in R.I. Did you read where there were less than 50 in 1840?
Talk about revisionist history. You are the master.
Maybe you should stick to football—–“Tide a weak defense.” Nah You got no cred there either.

@Richard Wheeler:Geez, RW, you need to demand that your ivy league school give you your money back. They skipped right over ‘reading’ also?

Saw nothing about your “thousands” of slaves in R.I.

From 5.9% in 1708, black slaves rose to account for 11.5% of the colony’s population by 1755. By 1774, Rhode Island’s 3,761 blacks were the third highest total in New England.

Note that they were only 3rd.

Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony’s leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.

As was the case throughout the North, Rhode Island, having ended slavery, also sought to make it difficult for blacks to remain in the state or move there. In the early 19th century, Rhode Island towns especially turned to the old New England custom of “warning out” strangers to purify themselves racially. The custom continued to have as a stated goal the removal of poor and undesirable strangers from a community. But blacks were increasingly its targets, out of proportion to their numbers and without regard to whether they were long-term residents or not.

all those quotes from : http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

@Richard Wheeler:RW, I don’t much like to ‘assign’ names to others, but MQ, for MisQuote, might be appropriate for you. Where did I say?

”Tide a weak defense.” Nah You got no cred there either.

And you’re not going to link me to your ‘MQ’ about what the pope said either?

@Richard Wheeler:

To call Tom a racist. Ridiculous

Rich, those Alinsky tactics never get old for Retire5, huh? 🙂

@Redteam:

where did you pull those numbers from? Does it include the owners of the slaves that initially sold them to the colonies? It is safe to say that initially all slaves had been owned and sold by a black slave owner. (that would be before any were propagating in the colonies)

Well, you’re really moving the goal post about a thousand miles since you brought up American black slave owners. Your desperation to offer ecuses for American slave holders aside, why any of this is relevant is completely beyond me. But for the record, here is some information on the number of black slave owners. http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.2.html

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, ” ‘The Known World’ of Free Black Slaveholders,” Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson’s statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

@retire05:

Then to suggest, you as a Repub., would not have supported Lincoln??

I never said that. I never said one way or another. Just another example of you trying to put words into someone’s mouth. That seems to be your forte.

What you offered was a nonsensical response to my question, because your greatest fear – far greater apparently than appearing dishonest and uninformed – is to admit you’re wrong. If you want to state that you would have been a Texas Republican in 1860 holding identical political positions to Southern Democrats, that is your prerogative. Considering Lincoln wasn’t even on the 1860 Texas ballot, you would have been spared having to vote for or against him. So no one can state such a politically confused person didn’t exist, it’s entirely possible. Your refusal to admit the Republican party of 1860 is unrecognizable from the contemporary version does nothing to take away from my larger point and just makes you look silly, two outcomes I’m fine with.

@Tom:

Well, you’re really moving the goal post about a thousand miles since you brought up American black slave owners.

Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves,

Only liberal logic could claim that it was not the same thing for a black to own a slave as it was for a white to own a slave. So, I guess that also means that since 100% of the slaves brought from Africa were owned and sold by black persons that it was ok? Since the owners and sellers were ‘black’ it didn’t count?

(319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned slaves

That indicates that 1.1% of the blacks owned slaves, do you know what percentage of whites in the states owned slaves? Want to bet on whether it was 1.1% or more, or less?

@Redteam:

Only liberal logic could claim that it was not the same thing for a black to own a slave as it was for a white to own a slave.

Considering no one argued that, you have a point. Your desperation to play this card you think has some value (that blacks owned slaves) has led you into this cul de sac imaginary argument. This is the problem with black and white thinking. You see yourself as aligned with the “white” side of an argument that’s not even taking place, and erroneously think your opponent shares your simple world view, but in reverse.

So, I guess that also means that since 100% of the slaves brought from Africa were owned and sold by black persons that it was ok?

100%, huh? I’m going to go out on a limb and say you couldn’t back that claim if you somehow were granted average research skills and a million years to ply them.

That indicates that 1.1% of the blacks owned slaves, do you know what percentage of whites in the states owned slaves? Want to bet on whether it was 1.1% or more, or less?

Would you “win” if you were right? What is the prize?

@Tom: The bottom line with 05 and RT is you’ve got two mid 70 year old Southerners who are stuck in the 1950’s with racist mind sets that refuse to adjust to the change that has come to America and The South.
They can’t help themselves. It’s ingrained. They see race baiters and Communists around every corner and behind every tree.
Younger Southerners like Aye and Aqua have moved into the 21st century. These two never will.