Patterico's Pontifications

12/6/2013

R.I.P. Nelson Mandela

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

95 years old.

On our visit to South Africa, we visited Robben Island (the Alcatraz of Cape Town) and viewed the cell where Mandela was held for part of his 27 year prison sentence.

Screen Shot 2013-12-06 at 7.27.03 AM

Our guide, like all guides on the island, had been one of the “political prisoners” on the island. Here he is, explaining about the 30-year sentence he had received as a “political prisoner”:

Screen Shot 2013-12-06 at 7.28.27 AM

You might have noticed some scare quotes around the description of this guy as a “political prisoner.” Let me explain.

One of the tourists asked him what his purported offense was. The tourist prefaced his question with a statement saying that he understood that the guide, like many people on the island, had been a political prisoner. But, what was the offense that the government had claimed he had engaged in? It took a bit of polite insistence on the part of the questioner, but the answer that emerged was that the guide had received the sentence for firing rockets at a fuel depot. Our persistent questioner asked if he had actually done that — or had the charges been entirely made up? The tourist sounded a little confused, because the guide had described himself as a political prisoner, and this didn’t sound like an accusation of WrongThink. The guide said he had done it, to fight against the racist and repressive government. He hastened to add that there had been no people at the fuel depot. It was just a strategic target.

As I walked out of the prison building, I asked my wife if she was enjoying the tour we were receiving from the terrorist. I was half-joking, but there is an aspect to history in which the winners get to write it, and the history of the struggle against apartheid is no exception.

There is an image of Mandela as the sort of South African version of Martin Luther King, Jr., but he was no such thing. He was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, which carried out violent acts in which innocent people died. Then again, much of the violence occurred while he was in prison. He also fought against a repressive and racist government and won.

If people want to hail Mandela as a hero, I won’t waste energy arguing with them. That is debatable. I just ask that people not portray him as some icon of lifelong opposition to violence. That, he most certainly was not.

368 Comments

  1. If people want to hail Mandela as a hero, I won’t waste energy arguing with them. That is debatable. I just ask that people not portray him as some icon of lifelong opposition to violence.

    I don’t like to either shoot or fete the messenger, but I notice in cases like this, my response to the opinion of a person expressing his or her sentiments about a Mandela are influenced by that person’s political background. So if a conservative praises South Africa’s former leader, I can accept that without suspicion or skepticism. But when a person of the left does the same thing, my response moves in the opposite direction.

    Generally speaking, people of the left tend to be less reliable (or totally unreliable) in judging the good and bad qualities of other people, and of various situations too.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:06 am

  2. Back in the late 80′s I worked near Tulane and Loyola in N.O. LA. We had a girl from S.A. come into the shop one day, and as she was black, one of the somewhat numerous leftish fellas commiserated about poor Nelson being held for so long etc.
    All the leftoids were rather shocked when she nearly shouted that she hoped he rotted in the cell and then in hell afterwards.
    Consternation all around (well, I was smiling at her) as their views were given another point they hadn’t considered.
    Turned out, one of those who died before he got caught was a relative of hers and she had no sympathy at all for the commie bastards.

    Comment by JP Kalishek (9b6108) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:06 am

  3. He was a hero to me growing up.

    Not so much later.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:08 am

  4. Well he didn’t let the country become Zimbabwe.
    He handled the transition better than I expected

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:22 am

  5. Now begins the re-write of Mandela. I don’t know how old Former Conservative is but Mandela was no hero to me growing up and I’m 62. To me he was a card carrying communist of the same vein as Bill Ayres. A radical, a terrorist and along with his “necklacing” wife Winnie no more than any other murdering pinko of the last century.

    Perhaps you should show a photo of his last prison “cell”. A private home with a pool. Then a flaming tire around the neck of someone who disagreed with the ANC.

    Or perhaps the statistics on rape and murder in todays SA. Or even the economic stats on where SA is compared to where it could have been had Mandela been shot rather than jailed.

    Comment by Hoagie (5c4f98) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:29 am

  6. BTW, the current president, Zuma?, of SA stands accused of rape himself. It’s an alterative lifestyle there I suppose.

    Comment by Hoagie (5c4f98) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:31 am

  7. The White House of course honored Mandela’s life by tweeting out a picture of Obama in Mandela’s prison cell.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:35 am

  8. Heroes do not need to be nice like sugar and spice. They need to do greatly beneficial things, beyond the ordinary, beyond the achievements of normal humans. “Beneficial things” being the operative phrase — that’s what “hera”, the root of hero, means. Mandela did that.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:36 am

  9. Nk is on point. I can’t believe I just said that.

    Comment by The Emperor (cbe4e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:40 am

  10. Comment by Hoagie (5c4f98) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:29 am

    At least he had the good grace to dump Winnie when he was at last free.
    That woman was a piece of work.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:42 am

  11. Of course he was violent. Making him out to be nonviolent is silly.

    He lived in a violent country, where race was a proxy for power. Get beaten enough times, you fight back. He won – living to 95 looks liike winning, to me.

    He was surrounded by thugs, fighting against institutionalized evil, and still won. Seems like a decent, if not great, life to me.

    If Rick Santorum, lube be upon him, wants to spew about the politics of the day, it is only fitting. Form-fitting and comfortable, with good heat transmission, in fact. Be safe!

    I saw him speak, shortly after he was released, in Germany. I was an exchange student, and didn’t really grasp everything that was going on. It was a heady time. He walked the crowd after the speech – I think that was the only time I ever saw an international figure shake hands with the masses unscripted.

    Comment by Snip (031824) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:43 am

  12. Bloodless revolutions are few and far between. You might want to remember that.

    Comment by glenn (647d76) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:43 am

  13. Nice try nk, but “look a squirrel” won’t work. Mandela was a thug, a commie and his wife a murderer and the ANC a communist front. Now you can twist and turn all you want about the meaning of “hero” but that don’t change what the creep was. He idolized Castro, loved communism and moved to secure power for himself and his commie friends. Right up to his long overdue end.

    Comment by Hoagie (5c4f98) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:43 am

  14. @hoagie.
    And what pray tell, do you have to say about the apartheid regime he fought? If he is the terrorist what does it make the people who actually killed so many south Africans?

    Comment by The Emperor (7dd451) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:49 am

  15. Mandela’s achievements are anything but “squirrel”. They are material and substantial. “In your face” material and substantial. As to his character, his friends, and what he believed — Little Bo Peep was busy somewhere else.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:02 am

  16. If I had been Nelson Mandela as a young man growing up racially segregated, having seen and endured everything he did, there is a good chance I would have joined an armed rebellion against the apartheid-era government. However, his still singing about killing whites as an old man troubles me if for no other reason than the stunning insensitivity to the victims of the armed struggle.

    People should at least know the full story.

    But I certainly don’t buy the idea that fighting, in the literal since, against apartheid after Europeans and others essentially took over his ancestors’ country was immoral … any more than North American natives fighting against their invaders and occupiers was immoral, or slaves fighting against their masters during the antebellum period … or, for that matter, during American apartheid. People resisting forceful tyranny and injustice with force is understandable.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:03 am

  17. Emperor–Do you feel you have a broad and full understanding of Mandela’s life and times–pre-incarceration, while imprisoned, and post release? What books and other media have informed your views?

    Comment by elissa (ffe70e) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:08 am

  18. Bruce Herschensohn used to be a regular guest on the morning radio show I listened to in the 70s. One day, he commented about Nelson Mandela and his prison term.

    It seems Nelson Mandela pretty much had the key to the jail cell in his pocket. The South African government was entirely ready to release him, if he would renounce violence. That he remained in prison is a hint to how willing he was to do so.

    Now, it’s possible that somewhere between the South African government’s lips and my ears, the story mutated, so take that for whatever you may think it’s worth.

    Comment by Karl_L (e37f42) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:09 am

  19. Karl, that is my understanding as well; however, why should he have renounced violence when his people suffered violence and racial apartheid?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:11 am

  20. Apartheid was front and center, but South Africa was a police state in every other sense of the word too. Its white citizens were privileged but they were not free as Americans understand freedom. They could not be. White dissidents were as dangerous to the system as black dissidents, and they were repressed too.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:11 am

  21. US Founders were terrorists too. So …..

    Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:21 am

  22. Greetings:

    I have two failure to connect dots items to report.

    1) No one seems willing to give the repressive apartheid South African prison system any credit for helping Mr. Mandela to turn his life and thinking around.

    2) In announcing Mr. Mandela death, South African President Zuma made reference to Mr. Mandela’s goal of a non-racist, non-sexist South Africa. At last count, President Zuma had four (count’em four) wives.

    Comment by 11B40 (88d7c4) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:21 am

  23. … but he was not Ghandi either.

    Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (5c6cbf) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:23 am

  24. Emperor – Why do people like you and your ilk always find it so easy to worship antisemitic, anti-U.S., Marxist, adulterous, violent terrorists as heroes?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:23 am

  25. President Zuma had four (count’em four) wives.

    So? What’s wrong with that?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:24 am

  26. At last count, President Zuma had four (count’em four) wives.

    Aw, that poor man!

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:25 am

  27. There’s going to be both white-washing and mud-smearing, just condemnation and righteous praise, over Nelson Mandela’s history. Like many real figures in history, he played both villain and hero in his life, sometimes at the same time with the same acts.

    He changed the world he lived in. In the long term, it has a chance to be a change for the better.

    Rest in Peace, Sir.

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:29 am

  28. It is easy to know where all those apartheid descendants disappeared to. Some of them are here trying to make Mandela the bad guy for resisting oppression and inhumane treatment against his own people in a land that was rightfully theirs. To them the apartheid regime are the victims here. Red is blue and the sun rises from the west.

    Comment by The Emperor (fc6588) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:33 am

  29. Emperor – Do you support violent domestic terrorism to get what you want politically?

    Do you support demonstrably failed communism as a political and economic model for managing a country?

    Are you also an anti-semite?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:37 am

  30. The Emperor, Mandela did not “resist oppression”, he returned violence with violence.

    There is a difference. Your response to people truthfully pointing out that difference is to call them names.

    Typical of you, really.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:37 am

  31. Discussions of Mandela and similar people invariably wind up involving multiple logical and moral fallacies.

    First let us understand that just because Apartheid was indefensibly immoral in no way means that any method of fighting it was absolutely and definably moral.

    Then let us note that neither “everyone does it” or “they did it first” qualifies as either a legitimate justification or proof of the inherent morality of the retaliatory action.

    We must also note that fighting to overthrow an immoral government and being an immoral terrorist are not mutually exclusive.

    From there we can start dealing with the more direct and individual fallacies, such as an individual who pets a kitten not being evil when they kick a puppy, or even terrorists have standards (Why did Nelson divorce Winnie once he got out of prison? Oh yeah, she was too corrupt and murderous even for him.), or good intentions and acts being universal and absolute (yes, Mandela went with “truth and reconciliation”; and after he left office South Africa has been stumbling towards becoming South Zimbabwe), or the company you keep being irrelevant (like Qadaffy, Suharto, Arafat, and Carter).

    Ultimately it all comes down to a very simple equation:
    Apartheid was evil;
    Mandela was the communist terrorist who contributed to ending it.

    Comment by Sam (9bf4c3) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:39 am

  32. Replacing a small ruling class with your own small ruling class is not a greatly beneficial thing. If all you do is depose the current oppressive regime of people of the worng color only to install your own oppressive regime with people of the right color, no matter how warm and fuzzy that makes you feel, is not heroic. It seems all a thug like Mandela or Che has to do is claim they are fighting oppression and some people will just swoon all over them. If a Palestinian smashes a Jewish infant’s head against a brick wall after murdering it’s parents and siblings that is understandable because “he is fighting oppression”.

    Heroic is what Truman, Marshal, Eisenhower and MacAurther did regarding how Germany and Japan were treated in the aftermath of WWII. Mandela, Che and Arafat are not even close to being their league.

    Comment by Thresherman (8ec7ac) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:44 am

  33. Daley. Do/did you support the apartheid regime?

    Comment by The Emperor (f9a2f8) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:47 am

  34. Some of them are here

    BTW, what do you call a Native-Born White Immigrant from South Africa, and his American-born offspring?

    Is he an African-American, and are they?

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:53 am

  35. “Daley. Do/did you support the apartheid regime?”

    Emperor – No, why would think that I or anyone else here would?

    Now answer my questions.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:05 am

  36. Thresherman covered some of my thoughts. We all need to grow up and stop fantasizing about “heroes” as being binary personalities.

    The left is most guilty of doing this by casually finding excuses for the most treacherous and vile behaviors of its heroes such as Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che, Desmond TuTu, and Mandela – even Pol Pot has his admirers on the left for God’s sake. In the mind of a leftist, the ends justifies the means as long as it advances toward a socialist nirvana.

    The right needs to acknowledge that some of our heroes (and allies)also have less than clean hands.

    Disturbing to me is the historical revisionism that the left is pursuing politically and in our schools – where Lincoln is transformed into a Democrat and Klansmen are transformed into Republicans and Che is a George Washington figure.

    Conservatives must take action now to review the new common core history texts for such abominations before yet another generation is indoctrinated and the hope for freedom and truth is further diminished.

    Comment by in_awe (7c859a) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:08 am

  37. Replacing a small ruling class with your own small ruling class is not a greatly beneficial thing. If all you do is depose the current oppressive regime of people of the worng color only to install your own oppressive regime with people of the right color, no matter how warm and fuzzy that makes you feel, is not heroic. It seems all a thug like Mandela or Che has to do is claim they are fighting oppression and some people will just swoon all over them. If a Palestinian smashes a Jewish infant’s head against a brick wall after murdering it’s parents and siblings that is understandable because “he is fighting oppression”.

    Heroic is what Truman, Marshal, Eisenhower and MacAurther did regarding how Germany and Japan were treated in the aftermath of WWII. Mandela, Che and Arafat are not even close to being their league.

    Che died with a bullet. Arafat was likely killed by Russia.

    That out of the way, the first use of nuclear bombs, the firebombing of Dresden, the (lesser, and lesser known) travesties should be forgotten?

    We won. Mandela won. Remember that Reagan signed off on raping nuns and arming drug dealing nationalists.

    If you want to support what you want, accept the costs.

    Mandela did.

    Comment by Snip (031824) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:13 am

  38. “Remember that Reagan signed off on raping nuns”

    Snip – You have a link for that claim?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:15 am

  39. Yes, Nelson Mandela was too willing to play footsie with communist totalitarians. Yes, Winnie Mandela was a horrible thuggish murderer. Yes, the ANC were not angels.

    That being said, apartheid was an evil system and the white South African government that implemented it was socialist and repressive. When the government finally fell, Mandela helped to integrate the black and white societies with minimal recrimination, a remarkable accomplishment when contrasted with Zimbabwe, as steveg rightly pointed out. Though it is worth mentioning that Nelson Mandela dropped the ball when he failed to criticize Robert Mugabe in the 1990s, which was pretty much the last opportunity to prevent the downward spiral of that country.

    No leader leaves a perfectly unstained legacy, but on the whole Nelson Mandela improved the situation for everyone in South Africa.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:18 am

  40. “Che died with a bullet. Arafat was likely killed by Russia.”

    Snip – JFK was killed by a commie, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian, Matthew Shepherd was killed over a drug deal, libs frothed over the mouth over agrarian reformers (read violent communist dictator wannabes) during the 1980s and John Kerry secretly negotiated with the North Vietnamese during the war.

    Do you have a point you are trying to make?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:20 am

  41. “No leader leaves a perfectly unstained legacy, but on the whole Nelson Mandela improved the situation for everyone in South Africa.”

    JVW – A lot of folks want to sweep the stained part of his legacy under the rug, just like the stained blue dress Bent Dick Bill Clinton left behind after degrading the presidency, perjuring himself, getting impeached and getting disbarred.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:24 am

  42. “in a land that was rightfully theirs.”

    Why was it rightfully theirs?

    You’re in possession of evidence that they negotiated for the land with other tribal groups instead of, say, doing the usual thing and conquering them?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:34 am

  43. Nelson Mandela improved the situation for everyone in South Africa.

    Why do you say untruths like this?

    It may be a better situation overall, but “everyone”? That is nonsense.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:37 am

  44. Shorter Chimperor – if you don’t uncritically worship someone, you support apartheid.

    Comment by JD (3a4df6) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:43 am

  45. “No leader leaves a perfectly unstained legacy, but on the whole Nelson Mandela improved the situation for everyone in South Africa.”

    He avoided making things a lot worse, except for the spread of AIDS.

    International sanctions and F. W. De Klerk (who after all, has to make a decision to surrender power) made things better. De Klerk picked Mandela as the best person he could choose to (in effect) turn power over to.

    All the benefits were already in place at the time of the first universal suffrage election.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:44 am

  46. Worth pointing out in light of recent news:

    Mandela got rid of the atomic bomb project which he had inherited from the apartheid regime. This is so matter of course people hardly noticed it.

    What’s worth noticing is that there were not complex negotiations. If a country wants to get rid of it, it can reassure the world easily.

    Kazakhstan also got rid of it, and so did Quaddafi aftere the ionvasion of Iraq in 2003.

    If negotiations take time it’s because the country involved hasn’t made a decision to get rid of it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:44 am

  47. A person who uses force against a legitimate regime target (as opposed to blowing up people in pizza parlors) is not a terrorist. It would not be terrorism if government employees had died.

    Rebel, soldier, even extremist are descriptive, but to call such people terrorists debases the word.

    The ANC was fairly clear on this point and did not engage in random terror campaigns against the regime.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:46 am

  48. If negotiations take time it’s because the [whatever] involved hasn’t made a decision

    Well duh Sammy.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:47 am

  49. Good point, Kevin M.

    However, that’s why I posted a link to a video of Mandela singing about killing whites.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:49 am

  50. Patterico–

    What did Mandela do that George Washington did not?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:51 am

  51. Do you support violent domestic terrorism to get what you want politically?

    Do you support demonstrably failed communism as a political and economic model for managing a country?

    Are you also an anti-semite?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013

    I was not there in their shoes to know exactly what it was like to be subjected to the inhumane treatment meted on them by the white regime. I don’t know what if feels like to watch your people slaughtered everyday like chicken and watch your children abused and killed and maimed. I was not there to experience it first hand and cannot tell you what I would have done if I was in their shoes. So who am I or you to judge them?

    Comment by The Emperor (ef6506) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:52 am

  52. 37. Comment by Snip (031824) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:13 am

    Arafat was likely killed by Russia.

    That would be the case if you believe he was killed by polonium. But his symptoms didn’t match that kind of thing in the slightest. Arafat did not exhibit any symptoms of radiation poisoning but he did have a a hemorrhagic cerebrovascular failure after becoming violently ill a month before.

    His effects might have been slightly contaminated by polonium, according to Edward Jay Epstein. Two ways this might have hapepned is from visits to North Korea, where maybe somehow he got contaminated, or polonium being used a power source for an eavesdropping device and then leaking. But both are unlikely. That test reslt has to be phony.

    Remember that Reagan signed off on raping nuns and arming drug dealing nationalists.

    Really? Reagan signed off on raping nuns?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:52 am

  53. Mandela did well with what events thrust on him. It is not a knock against the man to say he accomplished little.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:53 am

  54. “So who am I or you to judge them?”

    Emperor – Nonresponsive, which is typical cowardly crap from you. Here you demand answers from others but are afraid to give them yourself. You are worthless as usual.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:59 am

  55. teh Chimperor and snip would never decry any rape, murder, or maiming that happened under leftist rule. There is consistency in their inconsistence.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:01 am

  56. “A person who uses force against a legitimate regime target (as opposed to blowing up people in pizza parlors) is not a terrorist.”

    Kevin M – Can you define legitimate regime target or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:02 am

  57. Kevin M – Can you define legitimate regime target or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

    Kevin M was clear in saying all government employees are legitimate targets, and I’m sure he would also include all combatant forces including volunteers.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:05 am

  58. Che Guevara got a dose of what he handed out. The clown was a walking vampire and anyone foolish enough to tout him as some kind of hero to an American of Cuban ancestry would be quickly disabused of that notion and would be suddenly in need of ice packs and some bridge work.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:06 am

  59. It may be a better situation overall, but “everyone”? That is nonsense.

    Well, forgive my flight of rhetorical fancy then. In some respects, the situation is better for everyone: blacks are no longer legally second-class citizens, and whites no longer have the moral stain of supporting that system. Yeah, the day-to-day situation in South Africa is no picnic, but it is better there than in other parts of the continent like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Mali, and — dare I say — Egypt & Libya.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:09 am

  60. At Daley first I would support violent domestic terrorism to get what I want if it is legitimate and righteous. This is how revolutions are born. We have them right now in Syria where American money is going to support the opposition against the Syrian despot. So yes I would. On the communist charge I don’t know that Mandela supported a communist agenda while as president of SA. And on the 3rd point on Israel, I am not anti-semite so I don’t understand where that question is coming from but I would be if Israel was supporting the regime oppressing my land and killing my people. So there.

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:10 am

  61. “Well, forgive my flight of rhetorical fancy then. In some respects, the situation is better for everyone”

    No, it is not better for those who get murdered or seriously assaulted by blacks who would otherwise have been protected by the (tyrannical) appartheid regime.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:12 am

  62. Yeah, the day-to-day situation in South Africa is no picnic, but it is better there than in other parts of the continent like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Mali, and — dare I say — Egypt & Libya.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:09 am

    Ccouldnt have said it better. SA may not be where they wanna be but they sure aint where they used to be. Nelson Mandela!

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:13 am

  63. Isn’t it morally better for South Africa that apartheid has ended?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:13 am

  64. Yeah, the day-to-day situation in South Africa is no picnic, but it is better there than in other parts of the continent like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Mali, and — dare I say — Egypt & Libya.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:09 am

    Ccouldnt have said it better. SA may not be where they wanna be but they sure aint where they used to be. Nelson Mandela!

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:13 am

    That’s probably in large part due to the different demographic makeup.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:15 am

  65. Isn’t it morally better for South Africa that apartheid has ended?

    Yes.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:16 am

  66. Do you support violent domestic terrorism to get what you want politically?

    Daley,

    In what circumstances? Suppose somehow Obama made it so white people could not vote. What then?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:17 am

  67. Kevin M was clear in saying all government employees are legitimate targets, and I’m sure he would also include all combatant forces including volunteers.

    Some more than others. Clearly combatants are. Government employees are acceptable at least in the sense of collateral damage casualties. I will point out that the US was less discriminating in the air war on Iraq. Putting limpet mines on fuel tanks is quite different than putting C4 in a crowded discotheque, which would be impermissible even if some of the customers were soldiers.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:22 am

  68. Max Boot goes into greater detail than I did about why Mandela is admirable and why South Africa’s current troubles are more properly attributed to the mediocrity of Mandela’s successors. Feel free to dismiss Boot as a neocon warmonger if you wish. For the record, I agree with Patterico that we should never forget that the ANC used violence as a means of fighting oppression.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:24 am

  69. What do you think of the casualty mix of the Church street bombing, Kevin?

    I say that, while awful as wars are, it was a legitimate target to hit (but I hold to my original point that decades later singing about killing all the whites was dickish).

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:26 am

  70. Do you support violent domestic terrorism to get what you want politically?

    And there’s that terrorism word again. In some hypothetical case where most Americans could not vote or participate in politics, and the anointed ran everything to their own benefit? No I would not advocate bombing kindergartens. But government targets? You betcha.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:26 am

  71. Further to my point: Fighting the Taliban back for their support of Bin Laden is one thing. Subsequently singing about killing all the Pashtuns is quite another.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:33 am

  72. Thank you for this post. I was talking to my wife about this this morning and mentioned that Mandela was no saint, but didn’t have a lot in my brain about what he did.

    This sheds some light on it, so I had her read it.

    Comment by © Sponge (8110ec) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:37 am

  73. Church Street

    This was an exceptional event and controversial even within the ANC. They should have done more to prevent random casualties. It is good that the bombers died, too.

    Singing about it afterward? Did you translate that yourself? But if that was the anthem of the military wing at some remembrance, is it surprising that it talked about their struggle? Is it surprising that they viewed their war as black against white? The Boers certainly did.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:41 am

  74. It’s not in dispute. Read, Kevin.

    Here is the full version of the 12 minute documentary, “The Songs they Sing”. I strongly recommend the viewing of this because it contains much historical footage along with translations.

    Some songs have english words in them, and you will hear exactly what they are singing about. There is the “axe song” where they talk about chopping down the whites. They also sing about killing their black political opponents. However the songs generally are about killing whites.

    You will also hear the original version of the “Kill the Boers” song. Interestingly, when Afrikaners tried to have the words “Kill the Boers” stopped because it is racist (not to mention it incites hatred), it was defended (successfully) in court by saying that it is part of ANC “tradition!”. So the words “Kill the Boers” is NOT considered RACIST!

    Our aspirant President-to-be, Jacob Zuma personally leads sing songs at every political rally in 2006, with his favourite song “My Machinegun”.

    I don’t think there is a country in the world where this type of singing is done by Presidents, Members of Parliament, etc out in the open… and where it passes by as “normal behaviour”.

    This is the incitement of racial hatred. Yet, it goes on in S.Africa to this day! You will see men and women, the young and the old, singing these songs.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:57 am

  75. 70. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:26 am

    No I would not advocate bombing kindergartens. But government targets? You betcha.

    That’s not how they got rid of Communism, nor does anybody propose this in Iran. Or in China.
    Or Ukraine.

    Of course this was a slightly more entrenched (in its own way) system. Violence like that tends toward chaos and bad people assuming control, and it was in fact bad poeople most in favor of that.

    In Syria they may be fighting the government but it doesn’t replace it with anything. This is just to stop the government from kiling people.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:01 pm

  76. 68. Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:24 am

    South Africa’s current troubles are more properly attributed to the mediocrity of Mandela’s successors.

    But it’s Mandela’s fault that those were his successors.

    The violence of the ANC didn’t leads to anything. What mattered in the end was the sanctions and the removal of fear.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:05 pm

  77. Of course I think that Fiorello LaGuardia and Ed Koch were actually terrible mayors of New York City.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:10 pm

  78. Surprising no one, Obama will go to SA for Mandela’s funeral. Take that, Thatcher!

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:11 pm

  79. Of course I think that Fiorello LaGuardia and Ed Koch were actually terrible mayors of New York City.

    On what curve?

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:11 pm

  80. “Kevin M was clear in saying all government employees are legitimate targets, and I’m sure he would also include all combatant forces including volunteers.”

    Former Conservative – I think you need to learn to read a little better for content. Nowhere in Kevin M’s comments does he mention “all government employees” which you intuit him to mean. He says it it would not have been terrorism if government employees had died.

    Does that mean police and military? Does it include garbage men and street sweepers? Does it include lowly office worker drones?

    I have no idea but somehow you have been able to suss it out.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:12 pm

  81. nor does anybody propose this in Iran

    Oh, balls. We have funded that in Iran over the years. In the Ukraine there is a legal opposition that may yet prevail, so it would be inappropriate. China has hydrogen bombs and ICBMs, so we treat them differently.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:14 pm

  82. daley–

    yes. you read it correctly, as I said myself in #67.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:15 pm

  83. In what circumstances? Suppose somehow Obama m”ade it so white people could not vote. What then?”

    Kevin M – I did not know we were discussing specific situations. I thought we were discussing principles, of which Emperor has none except having none.

    Personally I believe terrorism includes crimes against property not just people and the property can include private property.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:17 pm

  84. “A person who uses force against a legitimate regime target (as opposed to blowing up people in pizza parlors) is not a terrorist. It would not be terrorism if government employees had died.”

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:17 pm

  85. i can’t believe he’s really gone

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:19 pm

  86. oh wait i thought this was the paul walker thread sorry

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:19 pm

  87. It’s no accident that the end of apartheid followed closely after the end of the Cold War–once the prospect of the major source of many strategic materials other than the Soviet Union (soon to fission into Russia and various nearby nations) becoming a Soviet satellite state vanished, the reasons for caring overmuch if Mandela and the ANC failed to assemble a state that was an improvement over apartheid greatly diminished, and Mandela did indeed turn out to be a far wiser leader than listening to his murderous crazy wife would have led one to believe (and indeed one of his wiser moves was to part ways with her). Having de Klerk in charge of the government at the time serious negotiations began certainly helped with the transformation process as well–maybe there is something to that “great man” idea of history after all, snide left of center historian commentary be damned.

    Comment by M. Scott Eiland (c249e1) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:21 pm

  88. Surprising no one, Obama will go to SA for Mandela’s funeral. Take that, Thatcher!

    Why deny Dear Leader the chance to preen? If, Heaven forbid, he is asked to deliver a eulogy, I’ll bet anything he says something along the lines of “when I was elected as the first African-American President of the United States. . .”

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:22 pm

  89. Emperor – How do you feel about President Gump’s personal kill list?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:23 pm

  90. I did not know we were discussing specific situations

    Extreme measures cannot be justified in a vacuum, unless one is a psychopath. Only in extreme situations can such measures be justified, and even then there are limits. Terrorism, which in my definition is the use of terror to get people to submit, is almost always beyond the pale.

    And yet, some of the things the Allies did to Germany (e.g. the second bombing wave at Dresden) and possibly Nagasaki could well qualify as terror attacks. I think Dresden was a war crime, and Nagasaki justified. Others disagree.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:35 pm

  91. Question: Was the ANC’s war on the apartheid regime more or less justified than the Continental Congress’s war against King George’s rule?

    I don’t have an easy answer, just sayin’

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:39 pm

  92. along the lines of “when I was elected as the first African-American President of the United States. . .”

    “…I reflected on Nelson Mandela’s legacy and said to myself: ‘O great self, I hope that when his time comes he will be worthy of Our attention’ and so it has come to pass. I am here!”

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:42 pm

  93. I would say the ANC was even more justified.

    British Colonists come over and wrest a new land from its occupants, and their descendents don’t lie the British tax regime. So they revolt and set up a nation that goes on to become a hypersurveillance police state full of militarized police forces and more people in prison per capita than any place on Earth, most of whom are there for buying and selling voluntarily.

    In the ANC’s case, their ancestors have their land wrested from them and they are forced to live as second class citizens. So they fight a war to rid themselves of that, and their leader leads them to a peaceful reconciliation.

    Modern South Africa has major problems, but at least the ANC fought its way to giving their ethnic group political equality.

    And that’s quite putting aside the matter of American slavery.

    So, Kevin M, I don’t think it’s even a close call.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:45 pm

  94. *like

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:46 pm

  95. This is a fascinating thread. Well done to Patterico for posting it.

    Comment by Leviticus (f09168) — 12/6/2013 @ 1:03 pm

  96. HF

    Nicely done

    Comment by Steveg (af062e) — 12/6/2013 @ 1:04 pm

  97. 79. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 12:11 pm

    Of course I think that Fiorello LaGuardia and Ed Koch were actually terrible mayors of New York City.

    On what curve? </i.

    They'd be somewhere in the middle. LaGuardis saw the beginning of a rise in crime – although at that time localized to by then segregated ,mostly black areas – it got so bad he had to move but he disguised that by having the city buy Gracie Mansion as a mayoral residence.

    Koch ignored anyone who tried to tell him of a problem he didn't know, and he concentrated on saving money and not sevices. Crime rose to new heights while he was mayor, but the budget was balanced.

    Wagner and Giuliani and Bloomberg were better. O'Dwyer was probably just about as bad as Laguardia, Lindsey was worse. Beame about the same. Dinkins slightly worse.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/6/2013 @ 1:11 pm

  98. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/as-world-mourns-buzzfeed-totally-destroys-nelson-mandela/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 1:17 pm

  99. Obama pivots to Mandela… Ought to be an Elton John song in there somewhere…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 1:52 pm

  100. Richard Stengel who worked with Nelson Mandela on his autobiography says that the late South African president wasn’t always saintly and possessed a very human capacity for anger and grudge-holding.

    “He was a pragmatic politician,” he told “Morning Joe” co-hosts Willie Geist and Mika Brzezinski. “He wasn’t a visionary necessarily, he wasn’t a philosopher, he wasn’t a saint. But he never deviated from [seeking democracy for black South Africans]. But anything that would get him there, he embraced, including violence.”

    “He created the violent wing of the ANC,” he continued. “And people don’t realize that and don’t remember that. We’ve kind of made him into a Santa Claus. He wasn’t. He was a revolutionary.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/richard-stengel-mandela-no-santa-claus-video/

    Comment by elissa (ffe70e) — 12/6/2013 @ 2:12 pm

  101. Here’s an interesting tidbit from the lefties over at Thinkprogress:

    [Mandela] warned against rushing to label terrorists without due process. While calling for Osama bin Laden to be brought to justice, Mandela said, “The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law.”

    So by that logic, Obama sending in the SEAL team to kill bin Laden is an extrajudicial killing and Obama has violated international law. Wonder if any of the media jock-sniffers will ask Dear Leader about it, or if they will even note it in passing.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/6/2013 @ 2:29 pm

  102. There is a sizable Islamist contingent in South Africa, one outfit is called Quibla.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 2:34 pm

  103. Reagan described him as a terrorist. He was right.

    Comment by CrustyB (5a646c) — 12/6/2013 @ 2:48 pm

  104. Oh, don’t be cruel
    To the sjamboks who rule.
    Don’t you want no more litupa?
    Your neck’s for them to step on.

    Right? Mandela should have seen those thousand points of light and fought a kinder, gentler war? The big meanie!

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 3:20 pm

  105. White farmers are on the South African’s endandgered specis list. Who should they thank?

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/6/2013 @ 3:31 pm

  106. I find some of the comments here as besides-the-point as “George Washington held slaves.”

    No one is a saint. Everyone who has enough fire in the belly to lead a revolution is going to have some hard positions against the other side and those that stood with them.

    But unlike most revolutionaries, Mandela was wise enough (and able) to reconcile with the old regime, and to lead a largely peaceful transfer of power. He may have supported Castro, but he was not Castro. Or Mao, Pol Pot or Khomeini. He wasn’t even Mugabe, holding onto power until death and beyond.

    There is some hope for South Africa and if it succeeds it will be largely due to the leadership and example of Nelson Mandela.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 3:33 pm

  107. Regardless of what level of violence he may have advocated when he was the underdog, I think it should count for something that he was publicly and persistently against violence when he was on top.

    Granted, there were political considerations. He still managed the transfer of power several orders of magnitude better than anyone but starry eyed Liberals expected.

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 12/6/2013 @ 3:39 pm

  108. 51. Most of the abusing, killing and maiming of children is black on black quasi-tribal bestiality.

    Case in point–necklacing.

    That reality has not changed.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 3:55 pm

  109. Maybe it’s sympathy with other ‘revolutionary’ regimes;

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/mandela-a-friend-of-arafat-an-enemy-of-the-jewish-state/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:07 pm

  110. 109. I can see Mandela as a singular individual, emerging from a degenerate culture which ostracizes non-conformity and achievement. But his best effort as a peacemaker didn’t even leave a patina.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:13 pm

  111. Well the lesson here is we’re supposed to ‘understand’ Khamenei who spent 10 years at Evin,
    Morsy, Zawahiri, et al in Egypt, just because,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:20 pm

  112. Completely off-topic:

    I just used CoveredCA.com to set up my wife’s individual health plan for next year. Disregarding the added cost, reduced benefits and some truly stupid pages (5 mandatory security questions), it actually worked. Or at least they said that she’s signed up to the plan I selected. More2come.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:30 pm

  113. Kevin M has more integrity in his tiny finger than most of folks here put together. Excluding of course DRJ, SPQR and some others.

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:47 pm

  114. Teh Chimperor…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:49 pm

  115. Also OT: Japan’s government bonds are again in trouble, as is the yen.

    Note the change versus the rapidly depreciating dollar:

    http://money.cnn.com/data/currencies/

    Our 10-year yield now at 2.88%. Japan owes 3X GDP and 1%. Look for last night’s bloodbath to continue Mon.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:50 pm

  116. Colonel Haiku. What to your mind, was Nelson mandela’s greatest and most enduring legacy? Did he do anything good or was he a vilian like most folks here are making him out to be? What is your take?

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 12/6/2013 @ 4:57 pm

  117. I read an excellent book several years ago that I’ve been thinking about all day today. It’s called Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight: An African Childhood by Alexandra Fuller. She describes life as a British small farmer’s daughter in Rhodesia and the confusion before and while it was going to hell. She tells an engrossing and personal and sometimes even amusing story with uncanny awareness in which pretty much nobody comes out looking good and everybody loses in the end.

    South Africa now is spiraling out of control. One can only hope it will not end up tragically like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe did for the vast majority of people there. “Like Anne Frank’s diary, this work captures the tone of a very young person caught up in her own small world as she witnesses a far larger historical event.” (last quote from Amazon website.)

    I highly recommend this book.

    Comment by elissa (ffe70e) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:01 pm

  118. “Did he do anything good or was he a vilian -sic] like most folks here are making him out to be?”

    This question is a false dichotomy.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:05 pm

  119. He was better then his successors like Zuma, who is a nasty piece of work, the devastation wrought by Mugabe, in no small measure, by the pressure that blocked Muzorewa’s accession to power, by Callaghan and Carter’s government is over the top.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:08 pm

  120. Correction at *vilian. Villain. I am terrible with names. :)

    Comment by The Emperor (03864d) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:18 pm

  121. Chimperor… Mandela chose a path to reconciliation when he could have stood by while things went in the other direction, which was praiseworthy. He had enuf sense to shed his bloodthirsty wife Winnie, which was good, he was a Commie, which is bad… virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American, also bad. He was no saint, though lefties did their best to cast him that way. He leaves a nation with many, many troubles, though certainly in better shape than most of the rest of the continent. But give them time and they’ll be plundered and robbed blind by their “leaders” just like the rest.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:21 pm

  122. @cololess haiku..
    In other words, blacks are incapable of self government. Things will go to hell once they gain control, like it did in zimbabwe. Got it.

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:24 pm

  123. Thanks for reminding me about “Don’t Let’s Go To The Dogs Tonight”.
    I started it years ago and then my wife was looking for something to read and I decided I’d let her have it and come back to it…
    The dog on the cover reminds her of the Rhodesian Ridgeback she used to have.

    There are several ex-pats from Rhodesia here as well as a contingent of famous South African surfers. Neither group is in any hurry to return to their respective homelands. Although to be fair some of the former Rhodesians do have relatives who moved next door to Namibia.

    A friend of mine was travelling in SA this year and what stood out to him was not the extremes of poverty vs wealth, but all of the fences and armed guards out in the rural areas.

    Me?
    I will never forgive black South Africans for inventing those damned vuvuzelas that bleated and screeched through every world cup game’s broadcast in 2010.

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:40 pm

  124. Don’t project your racism on me, Chimperor… who knows, they may buck the trend. If they can disavow tribalism, which is a sacred principle to you leftwingers, stop raping and infecting schoolgirls (27% of SA girls are HIV positive), and turn the corner on their stratospheric crime rate they may have a fighting chance.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (429964) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:59 pm

  125. Emperor…
    Self government has failed throughout sub saharan Africa and the even more stable countries seem constantly on the brink of failure. Rhodesia was a glaring example of what bad things can happen to an otherwise prosperous country when tribalist thug/idiots take over.
    Blacks are not incapable of self government, but the tribal cultures, religions and systems of Africans have a tough time with each other and that leads to national failures.
    I think if you google the “20 most dangerous countries in the world” you’ll probably find that a disproportionate number of those places are inhabited by Africans who are not self governing well.

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/6/2013 @ 6:08 pm

  126. In other words, blacks are incapable of self government.

    Yes, if they’re leftwing blacks, or people who share your ideology.

    BTW, one reason why I find the story of a country far removed from Africa, referring to Argentina, so fascinating is that it’s a generally mono-racial society of the Americas, more predominantly white/European in racial extraction than perhaps any other nation in this part of the world. Yet because the people of that society think and act like liberal US urbanites — or many people in various sections of Africa, for that matter — the economy and social characteristics such as crime rates in that part of South America have a tradition of going off the deep end.

    If any nation of Africa, or anywhere else, is dominated by both a populace and government that are predominantly of normative conservative, right-leaning orientation, yet is still full of socio-economic dysfunction, I’ll change my tune.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/6/2013 @ 6:30 pm

  127. Some of that first generation of post independence leader, Nkrumah, Senghor et al were not at their best, neither were the likes of Rawlings, or Doe, this was true in LAtin America, to a certain degree, but a destructive force like marxism wasn’t in vogue in that period,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 7:21 pm

  128. “I’ll change my tune.”

    - Mark

    No you won’t, dude.

    Comment by Leviticus (6a67b8) — 12/6/2013 @ 7:26 pm

  129. OT Evening of 12/6/13 central MN will see -15. Yesterday 6 inches of the finest powder late January often produces.

    Cold weather began 10 days before Thanksgiving and this snap normally happens no earlier than Xmas.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/12/06/about-that-global-warming/

    Might be a winter for Superior to freeze solid. How do a half-million put up with this in Winnipeg every year?

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  130. On a more philosophical note, why did France vacilate between revolutionary slaughterhouse and reactionary monarchy, for much of the 19th Century,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/6/2013 @ 7:50 pm

  131. Narciso, gold from Perfidious Albion

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:00 pm

  132. In other words, blacks are incapable of self government. Things will go to hell once they gain control, like it did in zimbabwe. Got it.

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 12/6/2013 @ 5:24 pm

    Stable subSahara African nation, Emperor, name two. Its difficult. The two most likely, South Africa and Kenya are on the edge and don’t have real stable political systems. That is why the deification of Mandela is dangerous – it covers up the fact that ANC rule has been bad.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:06 pm

  133. Some compared Mandela to Ghandi and I found that repellant.

    Don’t forget that Mohandas K. Ghandi came of age in South Africa. He began his civil rights movement there. Mandela was no Ghandi.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:20 pm

  134. while the world may be better off with one less racist tribalistic Communist thug in hell, Failifornia continues heading in the same direction.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272

    Obamacare Baby… “am speechless”!

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/6/2013 @ 8:27 pm

  135. FC @ 42, 93: The majority black ethnic group in S. Africa actually invaded at the same time that the Boers started the various Free States.

    As far as him refusing to renounce violence, see Wikipedia on why Botha didn’t release him when the banks stoppedd investing.

    Now, as far as “legitimate targets” goes:
    In my view, a target must play an active role in upholding the regime. So a fuel depot…depends on the owner and the potential users. Government employees not directly upholding the regime, such as Public Works, never. Policemen, soldiers, militia? Absolutely.
    But targets cannot be legitimate if you are not engaged in an armed conflict, and the legitimacy of targetting them is strictly moral; don’t expect legal support. (In short: Mandela’s imprisonment was just, regardless of his cause. Not that the government was right.)

    Comment by Ibidem (61f5a9) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:03 pm

  136. “In other words, blacks are incapable of self government.”

    Of course they’re capable of it. But they will govern differently as a rule.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:05 pm

  137. Gary Galrud @ 129:
    One inch of snow here.
    It’s been maybe 3-5 years since the last snow, and an inch is incredible.
    Northern Sacramento Vally, in California.

    Comment by Ibidem (61f5a9) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:07 pm

  138. “I think if you google the “20 most dangerous countries in the world” you’ll probably find that a disproportionate number of those places are inhabited by Africans who are not self governing well.”

    Do you believe this is cultural, ideological, biological, or what? If mixed, which do you think is primary?

    “Yes, if they’re leftwing blacks, or people who share your ideology.”

    Mark believes it is ideological. This is a popular view.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:23 pm

  139. The majority black ethnic group in S. Africa actually invaded at the same time that the Boers started the various Free States.

    As far as him refusing to renounce violence, see Wikipedia on why Botha didn’t release him when the banks stoppedd investing.

    Now, as far as “legitimate targets” goes:
    In my view, a target must play an active role in upholding the regime. So a fuel depot…depends on the owner and the potential users. Government employees not directly upholding the regime, such as Public Works, never. Policemen, soldiers, militia? Absolutely.
    But targets cannot be legitimate if you are not engaged in an armed conflict, and the legitimacy of targetting them is strictly moral; don’t expect legal support. (In short: Mandela’s imprisonment was just, regardless of his cause. Not that the government was right.)

    Comment by Ibidem (61f5a9) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:03 pm

    Well-thought out comment. I appreciated it.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 9:26 pm

  140. History records the dead. Legacy remembers the dead. We can not know who has a legacy and who has a history. That depends on people.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:00 pm

  141. No you won’t, dude.

    Actually, I will, Leviticus. But I know of so few (or, actually, no) communities or societies that are really screwed up even though they’re managed and dominated by sensible, decent, right-leaning people and politicians. So the idea of my revising my outlook remains a hypothetical.

    I continue to believe that it’s unhealthy for any group of people, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc, to be overwhelming of the left or the right. For example, surveys indicate that over 90-plus percent of black America is staunchly liberal and pro-Democrat-Party. Of course, if push comes to shove, I’d prefer people being mostly of the right instead of the left. But when a populace or place is reeling from lots of socio-economic problems, tossing clueless liberalism into the mix is like throwing gasoline into a fire.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:04 pm

  142. Mark believes it is ideological. This is a popular view.

    It would be fascinating to see what would happen to this nation if the outlook and demeanor of a Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, etc, etc, were — as if by a magic wand — suddenly reflected in the prevailing ethos and attitude of 90-plus percent of black America. Or, for that matter, all Americans in general. Or South Africans too. Or the French, or the Mexicans, or the Argentinians.

    That transformation would be analogous to witnessing a phoenix rising from the ashes.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:12 pm

  143. I think people overlook (or avoid) the degree to which intelligence and other biologically-mediated variables influence adoption of political/philosophical ideology and the development of cultures.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:15 pm

  144. I’d say diet is the most important. Predominantly vegetarian populations tend to be more docile. The Eastern societies are good examples, and the Kshatriyas of India a perfect one — they are traditionally the ruling caste and the only one allowed to eat meat (although not cow). But then, how do you explain the Eskimos, almost purely meat eaters and also pure wusses forced out of the good land to places nobody else wanted? Stupid too, they never invented alcohol or gunpowder.

    Yes, I am being tongue in cheek. Success is what succeeds. Humans are diverse, explorative, and adaptable, and different societies find different ways to survive and perpetuate. And have a little fun, too.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:44 pm

  145. Diet is important, I’m sure.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/6/2013 @ 10:59 pm

  146. former conservative.
    whoever drew up the borders of the African nations had a hard job.
    I’d say cultural
    I think religious differences exacerbate tribal problems.

    Also better organized, militaristic tribal states like Asante fought the European colonialists and were weakened, which swung the balance of tribal power into the hands of those less gifted in self rule.

    The proxy wars during the cold war were also unhelpful to the development of good government.

    Biological? Sure. Humans compete for resources… all species do. Are you asking me if Africans have some unique biological construct that self defeats fair and peaceful governance? God only knows.

    They are points in African history where aggressive warlike peoples of lesser culture and intelligence have gained power and governed poorly.
    That isn’t unique to Africa, but there are some people running around in Benin, the Congo, Ivory Coast who are uneducated, mean, aggressive and just smart enough to know how they can hurt you and then take all your stuff. You could take most of them through 4 years at the old Patrice Lumumba University and get educated thugs but why?

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:24 pm

  147. 133. Now that gives one pause.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/6/2013 @ 11:52 pm

  148. So reading most of your comments you seem to be saying that America could end up like any African failed state because it is now being governed by a black man, right? Is it the race that makes a nation work or is it the systems in place that determine their outcome? If an African black nation has the same system of government as in America and the laws and level of reasoning, will they not succeed? Some of you seem to be saying it has to do with the race. Unless I am reading you wrong. (cos it pretty much sounds racist to me..)

    Comment by The Emperor (890cff) — 12/7/2013 @ 12:59 am

  149. I think it is also important to note that the British colonial system — while racist and oppressive to the point of fascism — is the only one that seems to leave behind anything like self-governing peoples.

    Lots of imperfection (Kenya, South Africa) and certainly disasters (Zimbabwe), but also some successes (India) Compared to what the Spanish, French, Germans and Belgians left behind, worlds apart.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:00 am

  150. In short, there was a basic underlying decency, despite apartheid, that allowed Mandela not only to survive, but to build upon.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:03 am

  151. So reading most of your comments you seem to be saying that America could end up like any African failed state because it is now being governed by a black man, right?

    No. (Although he does seem to be doing his bit in that regard.) Demographics matter, and it’s far more than one man (who is half Caucasian, as it happens; but that isn’t important in a sample size of one — I have no doubt Obama is more intelligent than average).

    “Some of you seem to be saying it has to do with the race.”

    It’s a factor.

    Are you asking me if Africans have some unique biological construct that self defeats fair and peaceful governance? God only knows.

    Sub-Saharan Africans are capable of self-government and have been so for over hundreds of thousands of years in one form or another. However, expecting them to govern themselves as those with European or far-east-Asian ancestry would do under the same circumstances is . And even if the political system itself is similar, expecting the society to be essentially the same is again unlikely.

    “If an African black nation has the same system of government as in America and the laws and level of reasoning, will they not succeed?”

    Well, I don’t know how much America is “succeeding” right now. But you are making an assumption around the same level of reasoning.

    Demographics matter to a society’s success at least as much as laws on paper. Pat Buchanan is right here. That’s not my preference by any stretch of the imagination, but it is reality.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:08 am

  152. *is improbable

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:09 am

  153. In short, there was a basic underlying decency, despite apartheid, that allowed Mandela not only to survive, but to build upon.

    Yes, there seems to be something to the traditions that came out of the Magna Carta, etc., that have benefited their descendents and those they came in contact with, including us.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:11 am

  154. I’ll credit the Boers, not the British. As bad as South Africa was, Rhodesia was much worse. The blacks there were essentially serfs to white plantation owners. There was not even a pretense of, or lip service to, “separate development”. It may be only because the Boers were committed to their country while the Rhodesians still saw their cold little island as their real homeland and Rhodesia was only a colony to be harvested. But the difference was there.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:17 am

  155. Lots of imperfection (Kenya, South Africa) ….

    By coincidence I’m flirting with a woman from Kenya on FB right now (a relative of an old friend, also originally from Kenya). But if I was living in Africa for some reason, I’d probably look at Kenya first. Seems to have a good vibe overall.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:20 am

  156. Former conservative.
    This I believe is at the root of most white people’s aversion towards a black presidency in this country or any white dominated nation. They look at black African countries and cannot find one that is doing well under a black leader. But they forget that their democracy is much older and evolved and these black nations sometimes came into existence under some very unusual circumstances. We also forget that the first real civilizations began in Africa, Egypt is an example, so also is Ethiopia. Africans can self govern themselves if given the right kind of circumstances and leaders.

    Comment by The Emperor (92db31) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:25 am

  157. We also forget that the first real civilizations began in Africa, Egypt is an example, so also is Ethiopia.

    Well Egypt is not sub-Saharan Africa and is a different genetic population, so it isn’t a valid comparison. Ethiopia was indeed a more advanced than usual sub-Saharan African civlization. Althoiugh Ethiopia does seem to have had a higher Caucasian and Asian gene backflow than other parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:33 am

  158. So in summary, blacks cannot self rule cos what it takes to rule successfully can only be found in true blooded Caucasians. So all this talk about black independence from white colonial rule is nonsense. They should go back to their white masters and let them keep ruling them because blacks were not born to rule. Wonderful!

    Comment by The Emperor (6685ec) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:49 am

  159. “So in summary, blacks cannot self rule cos what it takes to rule successfully can only be found in true blooded Caucasians.”

    Nope. But there will be persistent difference in societies depending on demographics.

    “They should go back to their white masters and let them keep ruling them because blacks were not born to rule.”

    Not at all. It’s completely immoral.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:53 am

  160. My position is better summed here:

    If I had been Nelson Mandela as a young man growing up racially segregated, having seen and endured everything he did, there is a good chance I would have joined an armed rebellion against the apartheid-era government. However, his still singing about killing whites as an old man troubles me if for no other reason than the stunning insensitivity to the victims of the armed struggle.

    People should at least know the full story.

    But I certainly don’t buy the idea that fighting, in the literal since, against apartheid after Europeans and others essentially took over his ancestors’ country was immoral … any more than North American natives fighting against their invaders and occupiers was immoral, or slaves fighting against their masters during the antebellum period … or, for that matter, during American apartheid. People resisting forceful tyranny and injustice with force is understandable.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:59 am

  161. Ibidem #35 – it is refreshing to see someone over here who actually realises that neither the Europeans migrating from the Cape northwards in Southern Africa, nor the various black tribes migrating back southwards as part of their multi-century migratory rounds, were indigenous to the area … if I recall correctly, the pygmy/bushmen were the indigenes, but not strong enough to fight off either set of invaders …

    The Emperor – you might consider reading some of the old histories of the area, rather than blithely and uncritically accepting what Wikipedia or the so-called ThinkProgress tells you … the reality is that, while european colonialism was not necessarily the most generous to the various colonies round the world, the Protestant nations’ colonies were generally safer to live in than the catholic nations’ colonies, especially for the local indigenes … and even the more extreme catholic nations’ colonies were generally safer to live in for the local indigenes than than when neighbouring indigenes could just freely maraud their way through … tribal interactions in sub-Saharan Africa prior to the european influx tended towards the savagely brutal … and sadly, in areas like the former Rhodesia, they have reverted to that pre-European tribalism, with examples like Darfur, the Hutus vs the Tutsis, the Ebo vs the Yoruba, etc …

    Comment by Alastor (2e7f9f) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:17 am

  162. Former C
    Well I will say you are brave and honest to be able to say exactly what you believe not minding how it may be read. For that I applaud you. But I don’t agree with you that whites are inherently more intelligent and wiser in the area of governance than blacks. I believe all men were created equal by their Maker and given the same circumstances and history blacks would do just as well as whites. The difference in the races is just skin deep, they are basically the same on the inside. Yes the whites saw the light much earlier than blacks but if they had the same beginning as their black counterparts I don’t think they would have faired any better. I believe black Africa’s biggest problem is leadership; they have always had the misfortune of having corrupt and unprincipled men in power. This is why someone like Mandela is celebrated as one of Africa’s rarest in the leadership department. If this continent will be blessed with more men like him I believe black African countries will have a fighting chance. Everything rises and falls on leadership and not race or skin colour.

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:18 am

  163. But I don’t agree with you that whites are inherently more intelligent and wiser in the area of governance than blacks.

    I definitely agree with you that whites certainly aren’t across the board.

    I believe all men were created equal by their Maker

    Ah. I am an atheist and I believe in natural selection including applied to our own species. Indeed, if there were no differences between human populations at all that would be a refutation of the theory of evolution.

    The difference in the races is just skin deep

    Alas, no — although we have far more in common than we do differences.

    Everything rises and falls on leadership

    No. The nature of the people make a huge difference. To start with, it’s from them that the leadership is drawn. But more importantly, the dozens of important decisions each person makes each day has a greater effect on the society than does a leader.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:23 am

  164. So, if a man is held as a political prisoner, winds up being released, and then leads a government resistance organization which uses violence as its tactic, is called a terrorist, and then winds up as his country’s leader, signing a peace accord with his enemies, our friends on the left will all honor him, right?

    Of course, I was talking about Menachem Begin. Oddly enough, I don’t remember all of the effusive praise when former Prime Minister Begin went to his eternal reward, but, then again, it’s probably just Old Timer’s Disease setting in.

    Comment by The snarky Dana (af9ec3) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:26 am

  165. Former C
    How are you different from a racist with this your claims? I mean this without offense.

    Comment by The Emperor (cd1ca5) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:30 am

  166. Well, I’m discussing a possible loving relationship with a woman from Kenya now (as in a minute ago), to start with.

    Recogizing reality, including human diversity, doesn’t mean disliking other people.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:31 am

  167. Also, if you assume that Asians and Caucasians are “better” than blacks, I think you miss the point entirely. In many individual ways, the advantage runs the other way around.

    But even if you just look at IQ and brain size (which are the things that people get must upset about), orientals are higher. I’m mixed race as it happens (Caucasian and native North American). The woman I loved most in my life thus far was mixed race (British, east Indian, African). And Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent, on average, than any other ethnic group — and I’m not one (they also have more of certain genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs).

    There are other differences. Various athletic differences, height differences, differences in affect (sub-Saharan Africans tend to be less neurotic, anxious, depressed, and/or suicidal), etc. It doesn’t all break one way.

    But nature created variety. Isn’t my fault.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:37 am

  168. The racist colonial masters of old also loved secret dalliances with their black maids and some of these affairs produced offsprings. This did not make them think less of blacks as inferior to them. I don’t think the penis is racist. :)

    Comment by The Emperor (3c91e7) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:37 am

  169. *most

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:40 am

  170. lol The Emperor, nor the heart.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:41 am

  171. Lol

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:45 am

  172. Can black south Africans be in possession of diamonds?

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:26 am

  173. Why not?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:28 am

  174. This I believe is at the root of most white people’s aversion towards a black presidency in this country or any white dominated nation

    Yea, white liberals would pine for the days of separate but equal if a black guy (or woman) who also happened to be a staunch conservative/Republican were elected to the presidency. The racism of white liberals is truly sickening.

    Actually, it truly isn’t just sarcasm to make that comment since the reported bigotry or certainly racist flippancy of the big figureheads of the Democrat Party of the 20th century — Bill Clinton, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — is astonishing.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:12 am

  175. I’m surprised no one is giving credit where credit is due for the break up of Apartheid.
    Bono did the heavy lifting… if Mandela would have just let him continue touring it would have been bloodless and democratic/sarc

    Comment by vor2 (aad62f) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:18 am

  176. Bono did something. He didn’t do the heavy lifting, but he was on the right side of history.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:19 am

  177. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find lovie/Chimperor conflating valid criticism for racisms, being disingenuous, grosy mischaracterizing other people’s positions, and calling people racists. It is what sycophantic d-bags do.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:34 am

  178. Since it is Dec 7th not sure how many people picked up on this (they were lowering the colors as I left work yesterday)

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/06/249247973/u-s-flags-lowered-for-mandela-a-rare-honor-for-foreign-leaders

    Comment by vor2 (aad62f) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:44 am

  179. @Mark. Didn’t know former conservative is a liberal. Except one decides to take his moniker seriously. :)

    Comment by The Emperor (03864d) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:46 am

  180. @jd. Do u believe that whites are genetically favoured to be better at governing than blacks?

    Comment by The Emperor (09061e) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:55 am

  181. Apartheid was a horrid system, as was Czarism in it’s final stages, the character of the regime that followed it, determined the country’s ultimate development, Mandela, in part because of the lack of Soviet sponsorship, and the reflection he did at Robben, was not as bad, whereas other figures like Mbeki and Zuma, who were out in the field, in that era, were not as wide,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:29 am

  182. This I believe is at the root of most white people’s aversion towards a black presidency in this country or any white dominated nation. Comment by The Emperor (92db31) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:25 am

    Categories of dishonesty: lies, damned lies, statistics, and willful omissions that mislead.
    For the record, this comment falls into the damned lies group.
    All of the white people I know who are in disagreement with the Obama presidency would be just as opposed to Bill Ayers being president. The political mindset and positions are the problem.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:38 am

  183. All of the white people I know who are in disagreement with the Obama presidency would be just as opposed to Bill Ayers being president.

    More so I would say.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:40 am

  184. I don’t think a Ayers could get elected, so he has followed the Gramsci route through the institutions,
    and seeded his proteges.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:51 am

  185. Kind of makes you wonder what this troll was doing before it returned to post furiously. Look at its history.

    Comment by Simon Jester (808c40) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:55 am

  186. The Emperor, for the record, my opinions on human biological diversity are a minority viewpoint. I think there is a very strong scientific case for it, but that doesn’t mean it is widely accepted. So you can’t ascribe my opinions to everybody on the right (not that I’m really on the right; more like libertarianish).

    But at the same time, I reiterate that believing there are some differences doesn’t mean that there aren’t more similarities, nor does it mean we shouldn’t care about our fellow man and woma.

    Are two siblings identical? Probably not. Can they still love and support each other? Why the hell not?

    Same principle.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:56 am

  187. Oh, I agree that Ayers would never get elected, I was just trying to make the point that race was not the factor in people opposing Obama. In fact, by using Ayers as the example, I think it is clear that being Black was an asset for Obama getting elected.
    Electing the first Weather Underground leader to the presidency doesn’t have the attraction as electing the first Black president.
    But if anything, whatever executive experience Obama had was at the tutelage of Ayers in that education foundation.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:57 am

  188. @MD. Former Conservative begs to differ. He has propounded the theory that genetics has a lot to do with governing performance of blacks versus whites. Read his wise words.

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:57 am

  189. Chimperor – your question is stupid. Typical of your nonsense. No, I do not believe that.

    Comment by JD (4694ea) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:02 am

  190. The Emperor, why do you keep talking about “governing”? I’ve made it very clear that I think that is only a small part of what makes up a society.

    At any rate, study link 1 and ponder link 2, or not, but does reality not matter at all?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:03 am

  191. He’s gone all Otto, right down to Belgian Aristotle.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:07 am

  192. You mischaracterize what FC said when you phrase it as “a lot”.
    Besides, it is not at all readily apparent that any racial difference, if it exists, is not more closely linked to cultural history than biological/genetics. Judeo-Christian belief and culture clearly was more dominant in the last 2000 years, overall, in the European/white part of the world.
    One could argue that among the most barbaric political systems the world has ever produced were by whites who opposed Christian belief, such as Hitler and Stalin, so at a glance culture is what is important, not genetics.

    It should be obvious that I am not arguing that white Europe has been a perfect illustration of Christian belief and behavior, and that as European explorers travelled the world what they took with them was always motivated by primarily Christian sentiment.
    But the Declaration of Independence did refer to Nature and Nature’s God, and Washington said it was impossible to rightly govern without the Bible.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:10 am

  193. The Emperor, why do you keep talking about “governing”? I’ve made it very clear that I think that is only a small part of what makes up a society. Former C

    Maybe because our conversation has largely been about African leadership and why they supposedly don’t do as well as the whites. Maybe you should our chat history again.

    Comment by The Emperor (98014f) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:12 am

  194. As with Khomeini, the Ortega bros, the Castros, Mugabe, Pol Pot the left pushes to drive out one regime, without any do consideration for what comes after,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:19 am

  195. To whatever degree Kevin M’s observation is correct, that British colonial rule generally left populations better able to govern themselves, I think in general there was a greater effort of British missionaries in preaching and ministering where it was possible than others,
    the great exception being early Spanish exploration that had heavy involvement of the Catholic Church.
    FWIW, again, Catholic involvement under Spain I believe was more an official government sanctioned enterprise, where much missionary work under British rule was done by private individuals and groups, at times at odds with official British policy.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:20 am

  196. @MD
    I agree with you that British colonies tend to do better than the catholic ones. Their’s were more humane and did not really oppress their subordinates. But can someone tell me if these African colonies and nations had successful kingdoms and kings before the whites conquered them?

    Comment by The Emperor (d356d4) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:31 am

  197. Chimperor is invested in calling people racists.

    Comment by JD (4694ea) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:34 am

  198. But can someone tell me if these African colonies and nations had successful kingdoms and kings before the whites conquered them?

    Of course they did, The Emperor, at least to a point. There was a lot variability in leadership and population there as elsewhere. In fact, sub-Saharan African is the most genetically diverse region on the planet.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:35 am

  199. 197. Chimperor is invested in calling people racists.

    Comment by JD (4694ea) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:34 am

    Where do I sign up?

    Comment by Steve57 (0ffd93) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:40 am

  200. Where was he on the Bashir brouhaha, squirrel:

    http://twitchy.com/2013/12/06/katie-pavlich-to-tommy-christopher-yes-conservatives-understand-misogyny/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:48 am

  201. Thanks FC for the links.

    Comment by The Emperor (08c3d2) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:16 am

  202. I denounce Chimperorism! Down with Chimperorism!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (99cfab) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:20 am

  203. my opinions on human biological diversity are a minority viewpoint. I think there is a very strong scientific case for it, but that doesn’t mean it is widely accepted. So you can’t ascribe my opinions to everybody on the right

    Years ago, before I started to really notice the power and effect of politics or ideology on people and places, I might have wandered over to other aspects of humans in order to understand why they did or didn’t do well. But at this moment in life I have greater respect for sensible, practical-minded people than ever before. In turn, I have less (or no) patience for so-called brilliant humans (eg, those with great retention skills, such as reports that Bill Clinton can remember the names and faces of average-Joe people he met decades ago) but who are ideologically foolish.

    There are plenty of very bright people out there who are nonetheless so politically ridiculous and dishonest, that they’re analogous to “idiot savants,” and their influence on society may (regrettably) very well reflect that. Many of them are whiling away the hours like happy clueless clams for the mainstream media or in universities throughout America.

    Or, again, look at the example of Evita-Peron-ized Argentina with its predominantly white-European racial demographics.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:22 am

  204. From this point forward, (12/7/13 at 8:29AM Pacific) I declare this a Chimperor-free Saturday!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (e0bf0c) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:29 am

  205. and Bill Clinton says that Mandela helped forgive Republicans for their impeachment of him.

    What couldn’t this man do?!?!?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (e0bf0c) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:46 am

  206. On a similar note, just because Assad is a punk;

    http://defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/saudi-clerics-endorse-jihadists-in-syria/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:18 am

  207. @colorless haiku
    Amen to that. Chimpero has to leave you alone. I cast it out of u in Jesus name! :)

    Comment by The Emperor (a70425) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:30 am

  208. Words fail, Colonel,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:40 am

  209. Sure, there was a major empire centered in Mali/Timbuktu for a period of time. Trade intersected from Europe to Central Africa to Baghdad, for one. At one time there actually was an impressive Christian empire of sorts in Ethiopia- they built cathedrals down into the stone for coolness, rather than building them above the ground like Europe.
    see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalibela

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:41 am

  210. also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:47 am

  211. http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-terrorism-and-reality.html

    Comment by SPQR (9c5bd8) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:34 am

  212. This I believe is at the root of most white people’s aversion towards a black presidency

    Are you people still flogging this crap? Most whites who oppose Obama do so for the same reasons they opposed any number of white liberal presidents. It wasn’t racism then, and it isn’t racism now.

    The only racists in the equation are the race-focused blacks in the administration, starting with Mr Holder. Nobody else cares much any more.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:52 am

  213. Menachem Begin

    Dana — Irgun was far more likely to use violence as a straight terror tactic, engaging in ethnic cleansing as well as attacking legitimate political & military targets. It was branded as a terrorist organization by Zionists and other Jewish groups, not just by their opponents.

    Begin made peace with Egypt to secure his western border against the only real opposition power, but not so much with the Palestinians. If he had had his way, “Judea and Samaria” would have been cleansed of Arabs and incorporated into Israel proper.

    Not quite the same thing.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 11:03 am

  214. I’m white and I have an aversion to an incompetent presidency. Of any “color”.

    Comment by SPQR (9c5bd8) — 12/7/2013 @ 11:03 am

  215. thanks for the link, SPQR

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/7/2013 @ 11:32 am

  216. Peter is an interesting guy, MD.

    Comment by SPQR (9c5bd8) — 12/7/2013 @ 11:40 am

  217. Realistically, Nelson Mandela was leading an insurrection against a tyrannical government. I consider that fully justified, as the government was evil. If an American patriot in the Revolution had blown up the powder magazine of a British army fort, we would be cheering them on, and I don’t think Patterico’s tour guide was much different. South Africa treated blacks far worse than the British treated the colonies.

    http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2013/12/what-would-you-have-done-nelson-mandela-and-american-conservatives/
    Gingrich had a very good point when he asked what conservatives would do in Mandela’s shoes. For all of the talk about the second amendment being a guard against tyranny, I’d expect more conservatives to be supportive.

    Comment by OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 12/7/2013 @ 12:24 pm

  218. It is the ties to the Comintern within the ANC that caused many American “conservatives” to hesitate to support Mandela.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 12/7/2013 @ 12:40 pm

  219. So were the Black Panthers justified because of the conditions in Oakland and Lowndes County, do we really want go there.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:30 pm

  220. The only racists in the equation are the race-focused blacks in the administration, starting with Mr Holder the SCOAMF hisownself, and the nasty racist cow he married.

    FTFY!

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:35 pm

  221. thanks for the link, SPQR

    Yes. It adds a new argument: that the ANC only resorted to violence after political participation was closed to non-whites, and after non-violent protest was crushed by a violent police response, if not state-based terrorism.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:56 pm

  222. So were the Black Panthers justified because of the conditions in Oakland and Lowndes County, do we really want go there.

    Were they deprived of the vote, forced to live in shanytowns and shot down in the streets when they objected?

    A better question would be: would blacks in the south in, say, 1930 been justified lynching anyone found in KKK Hoods? I’d say yes.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 1:58 pm

  223. the November 17th, Brigatte Rossi, would agree, we still consider them terrorists,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:00 pm

  224. I’m not for reviling the ANC simply because they fought a racist government.

    I espouse doing the same with these c*cks*ckers.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/7/2013 @ 2:54 pm

  225. Do we need to revisit the DHS memo, and the West Point CTC report, to realize this is how they already see us?

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:06 pm

  226. Another good link, The Emperor.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:17 pm

  227. after Europeans and others essentially took over his ancestors’ country

    Nobody took over his ancestors’ country. When the Boers arrived in South Africa there was nobody there but the Hottentots. The Boer and Bantu were both moving in at approximately the same time, from opposite directions, and it took a while for them to meet.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:32 pm

  228. resisting oppression and inhumane treatment against his own people in a land that was rightfully theirs.

    What made it rightfully theirs?

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:36 pm

  229. Apartheid was front and center, but South Africa was a police state in every other sense of the word too.

    Yeah, right. It was such a terrible place that people were sneaking over the border…to get in. It was remarkable that the USSR and every other communist country had to have border guards to keep people in, while South Africa had to guard its borders to keep people out. That alone is enough to debunk all this talk about how bad it was. Paradise it was not, but it was a basically free country, where anyone who was not trying to overthrow the government could live a better life than was available to them anywhere else.

    Apartheid was a failure, but until the USSR fell it was impossible to allow its proxy in South Africa to take power. That would have endangered the entire free world. And Mandela refused to dump the commies and make a separate peace. So the Nats had no choice but to keep control. The end of the Soviet threat is what made it possible to make peace with Mandela even with his commie connections.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:47 pm

  230. I don’t know what if feels like to watch your people slaughtered everyday like chicken and watch your children abused and killed and maimed.

    Nor did Mandela. This did not happen in South Africa.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:54 pm

  231. It may be a better situation overall, but “everyone”? That is nonsense.

    Well, forgive my flight of rhetorical fancy then. In some respects, the situation is better for everyone: blacks are no longer legally second-class citizens, and whites no longer have the moral stain of supporting that system.

    I’m sure the vast majority of them would be happy to put up with that so-called “moral stain” in exchange for a return to the pre-Mandela crime rate.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 3:58 pm

  232. Isn’t it morally better for South Africa that apartheid has ended?

    Not when it was replaced by so many murders, robberies, and rapes.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:00 pm

  233. more people in prison per capita than any place on Earth, most of whom are there for buying and selling voluntarily.

    I don’t believe that is even close to being true.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:09 pm

  234. I hear conservatives talking about fighting against a repressive government that is destroying citizens’ rights all the time. So, it would be okay if YOU did it, but it wasn’t okay for South African blacks to do it when their government was brutally repressing them for decades????

    What f-ing hypocrisy.

    Comment by JEA (fb1111) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:29 pm

  235. In other words, blacks are incapable of self government. Things will go to hell once they gain control, like it did in zimbabwe. Got it.

    Botswana is the exception that refutes this. Which leaves the question why, since blacks are capable of self government, has every other example failed so badly. I think the true answer is in the accident of history that the black African countries all gained independence at a time when the international consensus was that socialism and central planning were the best way to run a country, and that was the model they started out with. In addition, there was the malign influence of the KGB active throughout Africa, making it difficult to keep a free country going. Had Africa been civilized early enough for decolonization to happen before WW1, or had decolonization not taken hold until the ’80s or ’90s, things might have turned out very differently.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  236. Self government has failed throughout sub saharan Africa

    Again, except in Botswana. One example is enough to prove that something is possible.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:32 pm

  237. JEA, its not like you are the first to drive-by with a snarky comment that shows you didn’t read the thread.

    Far from it.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:39 pm

  238. Don’t forget that Mohandas K. Ghandi came of age in South Africa. He began his civil rights movement there. Mandela was no Ghandi.

    Wasn’t his South African campaign aimed at improving the status of Indians at the expense of blacks? He was all for keeping blacks at the bottom of the pile, he just didn’t like Indians being there as well.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:42 pm

  239. We also forget that the first real civilizations began in Africa, Egypt is an example, so also is Ethiopia.

    Egypt has never been black. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their art as white, as opposed to their black slaves. And of course the Ptolemids (such as Cleopatra) were Greek.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:48 pm

  240. All of the white people I know who are in disagreement with the Obama presidency would be just as opposed to Bill Ayers being president.

    Or more. Ayers would be more competent at ruining America, and would be more ideologically committed to it.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:09 pm

  241. What would Jefferson say?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I think it’s pretty clear.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:52 pm

  242. 235. Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    Botswana is the exception that refutes this. Which leaves the question why, since blacks are capable of self government, has every other example failed so badly.

    Because it’s hard to get a democracy going.

    I think every newly established democracy in Europe after 1918 – and there were a lot of them – failed by the end of the 1930s and had become dictatorships. Even some that were previously demoracies, like Italy, or Greece, I think. became dictatorships.

    And the worst dictatorship of all, or the most dangerous one, was Germany, which actually had had some democratic aspects to it before 1914, and Japan had had as well.

    I think in 1919 there wasn’t any government in the world that didn’t try to call itself a democracy, but things got bad pretty soon.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:53 pm

  243. Had Africa been civilized early enough for decolonization to happen before WW1,

    That’s probably right, because democracies established before World War I, especially before 1870, did tend to stick. And India had had a long experience of elections before too.

    It took France though, a lot oof upheavals after 1789 to more or settle permamnently on a democracy in 1871 – and even then we had the Vichy Regime, which maybe shouldn’t count, but also a coup in 1958, although a Fifth Republic (with a very powerrful president named Charkes de Gaulle) was established soon after that.

    South Africa became independent in 1911 and lost of the form or habits of democracy – which the Boers had had too as well. The problem was the restricted franchise, which got more restricted after 1948, and also more bad laws passed after then.

    It still had the tradition which helped, so what counts is elections more than who can vote.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:57 pm

  244. Soviet Union = Fake Mexican democracy of Porfirio Diaz + Czarits regime + killing lots of people, anybody that could tell a tale if tehy could get them.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:59 pm

  245. * 243 South Africa became independent in 1911 and lost lots of the form or habits of democracy…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/7/2013 @ 6:03 pm

  246. Dana — Irgun was far more likely to use violence as a straight terror tactic, engaging in ethnic cleansing as well as attacking legitimate political & military targets. It was branded as a terrorist organization by Zionists and other Jewish groups, not just by their opponents.

    It was branded as a terrorist organization by its political opponents, who tortured and murdered its members. That didn’t make the charge true. Etzel engaged in retaliation against the enemy, instead of the policy of “havlagah”, i.e. being a passive punching bag, that the socialists running the Jewish Agency advocated. Etzel’s policy was to let the Nazis know that terror had a price, that it was no longer safe to kill Jews. Had the Haganah adopted this policy the Arab terror of the mid-’30s would have stopped much earlier.

    Begin made peace with Egypt to secure his western border against the only real opposition power, but not so much with the Palestinians. If he had had his way, “Judea and Samaria” would have been cleansed of Arabs and incorporated into Israel proper.

    They certainly should have been incorporated into the rest of Israel as soon as the Jordanian occupation ended in 1967; but Begin made no attempt to do so, or to encourage their Arab residents to leave. I fault him for not doing so, but the fact is that he didn’t.

    And why the scare quotes? That is what those two regions have always been called. “West Bank” is a term invented by the Transjordanian occupiers in 1949, when they annexed it and changed their country’s name to just “Jordan” because it was now on both sides of the river.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 7:55 pm

  247. Yes. It adds a new argument: that the ANC only resorted to violence after political participation was closed to non-whites, and after non-violent protest was crushed by a violent police response, if not state-based terrorism.

    Except that this wasn’t true. For instance, so long as the Sharpeville protest stayed peaceful there was no attempt to suppress it; once the mob turned ugly, the policemen decided they were not going to let themselves be butchered and mutilated like the police at Cato Manor.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:02 pm

  248. Would the suffragettes have been justified in launching a violent campaign to overthrow the government which was elected on a restricted franchise?

    How about 18-21-year-olds, before they were given the vote? Would they have been justified in waging war to get their way? And would 15-18-year-olds be justified in doing so now?

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:13 pm

  249. Well defending Sharpesville, would be a fools errand, as would Amritsar or the Boston Massacre,

    it seems Irgun, arose as a counterforce to the Arab Revolt of 1936, the third such since 1920, and was accelerated by the illconsidered Peel Commission recommendations of 1939, which is not to much of an exaggeration to say were a death sentence,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:32 pm

  250. Apartheid was front and center, but South Africa was a police state in every other sense of the word too.

    Yeah, right. It was such a terrible place that people were sneaking over the border…to get in.

    Puh-lease. Diamond thieves; ivory, rhinoceros horn, and fur poachers. Displaced Europeans fleeing the Holocaust and the aftermath. African migrants who are not quite clear on the concept of borders as opposed to ancestral lands. Miscellaneous ortune hunters and opportunists looking to loot a land rich in natural resources. Later, “terrorists”.

    Anyway, I know exactly where you’re personally coming from, and why you feel you need to justify apartheid and to condemn its violent opposition. I don’t particularly want to go there, partly because it’s an entirely different subject and, although it is analogous, there are substantial differences between what the Boers and British did and what another people did and are doing in another place.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:37 pm

  251. ** face palm **

    Milhouse, I must say that you have long struck me as someone who has great points … but always takes them a mile too far until they snap.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/7/2013 @ 8:50 pm

  252. He was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, which carried out violent acts in which innocent people died.

    Dude, Winnie Mandela was present at multiple instances of “necklacing”. Anyone who doesn’t know what that is needs to look it up.

    It’s essentially a deadly version of The Knockout Game, in that you pretty much have to be a sociopathic piece of ambulatory humaniform fecal matter to engage in it. If you read it, and you aren’t repelled by the very idea of doing that to someone, I have but seven words for you:
    “What the F*** is WRONG with you?”

    I don’t give a damned if you’re Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or freaking Hitler, Goebbels, and/or Goering. You’re a mad dog, and you should be put down unhesitantly. But “necklacing” requires the PERPETRATOR to be just as unfeeling and merciless as any of the above, and therefore no better and without the right to stand in judgment of them and their ilk.

    Mandela was scum, he associated with scum, and at no point in his life, long after he could readily have done so at little cost, did he express any remorse or contrition over what was done “in his name”, and with his clear and explicit permission.

    I do not claim God’s prerogative, but, based on my far less than omniscient knowledge, I suspect that, where Mandela is right now, it’s not a pleasant place. >:-/

    Comment by Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d) — 12/7/2013 @ 9:49 pm

  253. The problem was the restricted franchise, which got more restricted after 1948, and also more bad laws passed after then.

    … and despite that, it was the ONLY nation south of the Sahara which practiced ANY degree of democracy. But whites are eeeevil because they didn’t give it to everyone.

    Not arguing it’s without fault or flaw for that — but it’s always interesting how the end result seems to always be “Bash Whitey. For not doing enough, even though those around them are clearly and blatantly doing far , far worse. >:-/

    The fact is, that, by the 80s, the white South Africans WERE moving towards universal franchise. Slowly, gradually, and with an attempt to do so with a measure of order and sense. Instead it was rammed through by force, and what exists in SA *now* is essentially mildly organized chaos. There’s a reason car owners actually have the sides of their cars rigged with FLAMETHROWERS (seriously… there are vids) to deal with carjackers and attempted kidnappers.

    You know what the blacks of SA still don’t have?

    A vote that’s worth a rodent’s patootie.

    Comment by Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:00 pm

  254. wowsers someone bring me an enchilada

    lookit here

    National Soros Radio pimps Mendela’s still-fresh corpse like it was a fresh-dead newtown baby

    and it is BEAUTIFUL to behold

    here’s the homepage promo:

    ***

    http://www.npr.org/

    it’s all politics

    Mandela, Obama And The Arc Of History

    The political triumphs, first of Nelson Mandela, then of Barack Obama, were pinch-me milestones on the long march to freedom for many members of two long-oppressed groups — black South Africans and
    African-Americans — each of which saw something of its own story in the other’s.

    ***

    say what you want about Nelson Mandela – he wasn’t a petty Soros-fellating p.o.s. fascist with no redeeming qualities

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:19 pm

  255. sorry *Mandela* I mean

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:20 pm

  256. hey obama i got your pinch-me milestone right here

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:20 pm

  257. Remind me again, was there a truth and reconciliation commission for any of the former Soviet Republics, or even in the Eastern Bloc,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:24 pm

  258. ouch not so hard dickface

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:26 pm

  259. yes, that’s what I thought;

    http://babalublog.com/2013/12/07/many-cuban-blacks-suffered-longer-and-much-more-horribly-in-castros-torture-chambers-than-mandela-suffered-in-south-africas-prisons-ever-heard-of-them/

    then again Denzel never played any of them,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/7/2013 @ 10:33 pm

  260. u gonna miss mandela by his hair u gonna miss him errywhere

    u gonna miss him by his walk u gonna miss him by his talk

    us gonna miss him now he’s gone

    …or… not

    there’s a lot of other stuff going on after all

    for example (e dot g dot) you might be dealing with a canceled health insurance policy (OMG WTF???!!?)

    or you might be a codger in the weimarican republic wondering why your savings don’t draw any interest in spite of whorenanke’s best efforts (???????)

    or you might be an olympian winterhomo training to go to the putinlympics… (u btr werk!)

    or, whatever. Sucks to be you.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/8/2013 @ 2:26 am

  261. Yeah, right. It was such a terrible place that people were sneaking over the border…to get in.

    Puh-lease. Diamond thieves; ivory, rhinoceros horn, and fur poachers. Displaced Europeans fleeing the Holocaust and the aftermath. African migrants who are not quite clear on the concept of borders as opposed to ancestral lands. Miscellaneous ortune hunters and opportunists looking to loot a land rich in natural resources. Later, “terrorists”.

    Bulldust. Why would thieves and poachers be sneaking in one direction rather than another? And Holocaust survivors sneaking over South Africa’s land borders?! In the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s?! Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that? Migrants who don’t know about borders would be going equally in both directions. And the border guards weren’t mostly occupied in stopping terrorists.

    In the ’70s it was striking that the USSR’s border guards were facing in, while RSA’s were facing out. That speaks loudly for itself.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 6:04 am

  262. Well defending Sharpesville, would be a fools errand, as would Amritsar or the Boston Massacre,

    I don’t know enough about Amritsar, but the “Boston massacre” was defended by no less a personage than John Adams, and he was right. The soldiers fired in self defense, and the victims got what they deserved. The lives of soldiers and policemen are not worth less than those of hooligans who throw potentially deadly missiles at them. They can’t be expected to stand there and let themselves be maimed or killed, just because it looks good. And the same applies in spades to Sharpeville, where they weren’t dealing with civilised Bostoners, they knew what had happened at Cato Manor, and had no duty to risk that happening to them too.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 6:08 am

  263. 250 nk “African migrants who are not quite clear on the concept of borders as opposed to ancestral lands.”

    They may or may not have been “unclear” on the concept of borders, but they certainly knew enough about the situation in their region they were going to in order to decide that it was a desirable destination to live and work in.

    Comment by pst314 (ae6bd1) — 12/8/2013 @ 7:00 am

  264. 5 Hoagie “Then a flaming tire around the neck of someone who disagreed with the ANC.”

    Indeed. The ANC waged terrorist war not just against the South African regime, but also against any blacks who chose their own different way of opposing apartheid. Merely refusing to boycott government schools, because you felt your children would have a better future if they got educated, could earn you and your children a death sentence.

    I was shocked and disgusted when, in the 70′s, I realized that my fellow liberals actually condoned and excused this terrorism. It was one small step in my gradual realization that liberalism is not liberal.

    Comment by pst314 (ae6bd1) — 12/8/2013 @ 7:04 am

  265. In their hearts, liberals are all Michelin Men… in their perfect world, they’d set tires ablaze around the head and shoulders of anyone who disagreed with them.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (43a58c) — 12/8/2013 @ 7:12 am

  266. The ANC waged terrorist war not just against the South African regime, but also against any blacks who chose their own different way of opposing apartheid.

    There’s a very, very fine line between sentiments borne out of racial conflict — and race-based controversies — and gut reactions triggered by garden-variety ultra-liberalism. The same dynamics can be seen vis-a-vie Clinton/Lewinsky and the NOW crowd, non-liberal Jews and the no-justice-no-peace Jewish crowd or non-liberal gays and the GLBT crowd.

    That’s why in more instances than not, the “race,” “gender,” “ethnicity,” “religion” “sexuality,” etc, of liberalism is the ultimate race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/8/2013 @ 7:46 am

  267. Meh. Liberal/shliberal. War is a vile, filthy thing. Civil war the filthiest. There’s no clean way to fight a war; nobody is safe when it starts. It can be explained — it’s ridiculous to ever try to justify it. It’s an atrocity to begin with and it breeds more atrocities the way a rotting corpse breeds maggots.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/8/2013 @ 7:58 am

  268. When I read the following I want to snicker and shrug it off as a legacy of the ridiculous politics of South Africa going back decades, if not generations. Then it suddenly occurs to me that variations of this can be found throughout America, from the debacle that is Detroit to any variety of true-blue, sketchy urban communities from sea to shining sea.

    bbc.co.uk, John Simpson, May 2013: Apartheid South Africa looked after white people and nobody else. Now some of its white communities face a level of deprivation, or of violence, which threatens their future in the country. Everyone here, regardless of colour, tells you that white people are still riding high.

    They run the economy. They have a disproportionate amount of influence in politics and the media. They still have the best houses and most of the best jobs. All of this is true but it is not the only picture. Look below the surface and you will find poverty and a sense of growing vulnerability.

    The question I have come to South Africa to answer is whether white people genuinely have a future here. The answer, as with so many similar existential questions, is “Yes – but…” It seems to me that only certain parts of the white community really have a genuine future here: the better-off, more adaptable parts.

    Working-class white people, most of them Afrikaans-speakers, are going through an intense crisis… According to one leading political activist, Mandla Nyaqela, this is the after-effect of the huge degree of selfishness and brutality which was shown towards the black population under apartheid. “It is having its effect on whites today, even though they still own a share of South Africa’s wealth which is entirely disproportionate,” he said.

    That may all be true. But the people who are suffering now are the weakest and most vulnerable members of the white community… According to [Ernst] Roets [a leading Afrikaans campaigner from the AfriForum organisation], there are 80 white squatter camps…in the Pretoria area alone. Across South Africa as a whole he believes there could be as many as 400,000 poor whites in conditions [of squalor].

    Semi-skilled white people have little chance of getting a job when so many black South Africans are unemployed. There is another group of white Afrikaners, far higher up the social scale, who are deeply threatened—in this case, literally. Virtually every week the press here report the murders of white farmers, though you will not hear much about it in the media outside South Africa.

    In South Africa you are twice as likely to be murdered if you are a white farmer than if you are a police officer – and the police here have a particularly dangerous life. The killings of farmers are often particularly brutal.

    I went to a little town called Geluik – happiness. A few weeks ago gunmen burst into the farm shop there and opened fire, killing one farmer outright and injuring one of his sons and a shopworker. They stole next to nothing. It seemed to be a deliberate, targeted killing. Soon afterwards the son died of his injuries.

    Belinda van Nord, the daughter and sister of the men who died, told me how dangerous the lives of white people in the countryside have become. The police, she said, had seemed to show little interest in this case.

    There used to be 60,000 white farmers in South Africa. In 20 years that number has halved.

    ^ To make the situation even more unhinged and grotesquely absurd, the farms that have been taken over apparently are mis-managed and then run into the ground by their new owners.

    A lose-lose situation.

    And don’t for the idea that these self-destructive dynamics are due primarily to factors somehow unique to Africa. Witness what’s going on in countries far removed from that part of the world, places like Argentina or Venezuela, or, hell, picture-postcard France.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/8/2013 @ 8:12 am

  269. But they suggest exactly that, that guerrill groups from the Tamil Tigers to Hamas, should be treated with kid gloves.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/8/2013 @ 8:26 am

  270. Except that this wasn’t true. For instance, so long as the Sharpeville protest stayed peaceful there was no attempt to suppress it; once the mob turned ugly, the policemen decided they were not going to let themselves be butchered and mutilated like the police at Cato Manor.

    One side says they stayed peaceful, the other side says they got violent. D’oh. The only thing that seems clear is that scores of people were shot to death by police.

    There have been lots of violent actions in other places, including here. Name the last time police shot down scores of people in the West.

    Sorry, but nearly anything done in the name of repression is suspect and they get utterly no benefit of the doubt.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/8/2013 @ 9:43 am

  271. Would the suffragettes have been justified in launching a violent campaign to overthrow the government which was elected on a restricted franchise?

    How about 18-21-year-olds, before they were given the vote?

    Are you really suggesting that these cases are similar to what was going on in South Africa? This is getting into “denier” territory.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/8/2013 @ 9:47 am

  272. “Sorry, but nearly anything done in the name of repression is suspect”

    Kevin M – Sorry, but that’s a virtually worthless, facile explanation. How often is something done “in the name of repression” as opposed to maintaining peace or law and order?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/8/2013 @ 9:55 am

  273. Since last night I’ve read a bit about Amritsar, and it can’t be compared to Boston, Sharpeville, or Kent State. While there was a background of violence over the previous days, the soldiers at that time and place were in no fear of anything happening to them.

    Dyer seems to have been under the misconception, perhaps justified, that the gathering was part of an armed rebellion. If that had been the case then his reaction could be justified as a reasonable tactic to put the rebellion down in its infancy with a show of firmness and brutality, rather than let it flare up and end up having to kill many more people later. But he was mistaken, and that’s not a mistake that can be excused; not with the consequence that it had. The victims at Amritsar were not doing anything they shouldn’t have. Dyer wasn’t a monster, but he made a terrible decision recklessly, and thus deserved the blame for the result.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:08 am

  274. One side says they stayed peaceful, the other side says they got violent. D’oh. The only thing that seems clear is that scores of people were shot to death by police.

    That’s idiotic.

    There have been lots of violent actions in other places, including here. Name the last time police shot down scores of people in the West.

    There have been many occasions on which they should have, and police have been killed or injured as a result of their foolish restraint. There have been many more occasions on which they would have, but they had less lethal options available to them, so they used them. At Sharpeville they didn’t have any options but shooting. But a mob intent on murder is not entitled to be treated with kid gloves. The Koreans in LA were right to shoot, and so were the National Guardsmen at Kent State.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:13 am

  275. Would the suffragettes have been justified in launching a violent campaign to overthrow the government which was elected on a restricted franchise?

    How about 18-21-year-olds, before they were given the vote?

    Are you really suggesting that these cases are similar to what was going on in South Africa? This is getting into “denier” territory.

    In what significant way was it different? South Africa was a democracy with a limited franchise; so was everywhere before women could vote, and so we are today with regard to under-18s and aliens.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:14 am

  276. I used Amritsar and Boston, as examples of catalyzing events, one could add the shooting outside the Czar’s palace in 1905,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:17 am

  277. How often is something done “in the name of repression” as opposed to maintaining peace or law and order?

    So, you are going to defend Sharpville? Sorry won’t debate that. Won;t debate Tienanmen Square either, although that was also “maintaining peace and order.”

    You beg the question: was the Nationalist government of 1960 a legitimate government? THey claimed to be so by legislating away the bulk of the people, defining them as non-citizens of the land they were born in.

    But it was legal eyewash and Mandela was right in rejecting it. It got truly laughable when they claimed he was guilty of treason to a government that claimed he was a foreigner.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:52 am

  278. That’s idiotic.

    Good retort. Got me beat there. I bow to your logic. We’re done here.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:54 am

  279. Yea, maybe it’s a cop-out, but when I read the comments of Kevin M and Milhouse, I want to add them together and split the difference. So I can both relate to and yet also feel queasy by the perceptions of the two sides.

    If racial politics or racial identity is a subtle part of the mix — and it doesn’t have to be, or may not be a factor at all — the history of South Africa is far more black and white (figuratively, not literally) than, for example, the controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    All I know is that people of all shapes and colors who are sensible, pragmatic and decent must often feel alienated having to live and survive in a South Africa, an Argentina, a Venezuela, a Mexico, a France, a Greece, or a blue-state, blue-city America, etc.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/8/2013 @ 11:49 am

  280. @JeffreyGoldberg

    Bashar al-Assad calls Nelson Mandela “an inspiration in the values of love and human brotherhood.”

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/8/2013 @ 4:06 pm

  281. So, you are going to defend Sharpville? Sorry won’t debate that. Won;t debate Tienanmen Square either, although that was also “maintaining peace and order.”

    No comparison at all. The soldiers in Tiananmen Square were in no danger, and in no fear. Had the policemen at Sharpeville not fired, can you be sure they would have survived that day without injury?

    You beg the question: was the Nationalist government of 1960 a legitimate government?

    It was at least as legitimate as any other government in Africa and more legitimate than most. And at least as legitimate as US governments were before women could vote.

    THey claimed to be so by legislating away the bulk of the people, defining them as non-citizens of the land they were born in.

    Why should someone automatically be a citizen of a country just because they were born there? The USA has such a rule, but many countries don’t, and there’s no logical or moral principle, or any principle of international law, that makes the US rule correct. South Africa still had a far wider electorate than most countries did. It was still a functioning democracy, in which the government had to fight elections in order to retain power.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 8:54 pm

  282. That’s idiotic.

    Good retort. Got me beat there. I bow to your logic. We’re done here.

    Your claim, that the mere fact that “scores of people were shot to death by police” is enough to form any kind of judgment, is idiotic. It depends why they shot those people, and what the people were doing at the time. If those people were trying to lynch you, you’d be the first demanding that the police shoot them.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/8/2013 @ 8:57 pm

  283. 267. True enough, but the sentiment does not obviate its necessity.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/8/2013 @ 9:44 pm

  284. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=du+bist+mir+os2u+kingfisher&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

    Comment by Steve57 (20c19c) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:03 pm

  285. “So, you are going to defend Sharpville? Sorry won’t debate that. Won;t debate Tienanmen Square either, although that was also “maintaining peace and order.””

    Kevin M – Since I did not mention any of the incidents you list it seems that you are the one begging the question.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/8/2013 @ 10:45 pm

  286. The White House of course honored Mandela’s life by tweeting out a picture of Obama in Mandela’s prison cell.

    Well THAT just sucks
    They let him out?

    Comment by Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d) — 12/9/2013 @ 12:53 am

  287. Why should someone automatically be a citizen of a country just because they were born there?

    Because, to liberals, the USA’s traditional ways of doing things are sacrosanct, and should never be challenged or questioned.
    Because, to liberals, it doesn’t matter how any other nations do things, it only matters how the USA does them.
    And because I’m pulling your leg so hard, it just feel off in my hand… :-D

    Comment by Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d) — 12/9/2013 @ 12:58 am

  288. If those people were trying to lynch you, you’d be the first demanding that the police shoot them.

    Oh, come on now, Milhouse. There’s no evidence to support that claim. You should stick to the facts, just like he has…
    :o )

    Comment by Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d) — 12/9/2013 @ 1:03 am

  289. Who here thinks the apartheid system in South Africa was good and legitimate?

    Comment by The Emperor (be6d20) — 12/9/2013 @ 3:16 pm

  290. Only you, Chimperor. Only you could ask such a silly question.

    Comment by JD (176f17) — 12/9/2013 @ 3:36 pm

  291. Then why can’t you overcome your pride and accept that Nelson Mandela was indeed a great man in that he helped to dismantle that ungodly system and freeing his people? Why are you more inclined to paint him as a villain and not a hero?

    Comment by The Emperor (4dcc08) — 12/9/2013 @ 3:40 pm

  292. ==why can’t you overcome your pride and accept that Nelson Mandela was indeed a great man==

    Emporer –Once again you are focused on semantics and absolutes rather than looking at deeds and contributions. A. Some men and women do great things at certain points and with certain opportunities in their lives. B. Some men and women do terrible things at some points in time and with certain opportunities in their lives. Sometimes the very same men and women do both A and B at different times and under different circumstances.

    It’s time for you to take your own advice and overcome your own pride and accept this reality. Why are you not able to do this? Nelson Mandela was a man who was human and did both some very great things and also some very not great things. Geez Louise, Emperor.

    Comment by elissa (e410e0) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:06 pm

  293. The Emperor,

    Not only what elissa said, but the results on people’s lives in South Africa have been decidedly mixed.

    You insist on thinking and speaking in black and white ways, no pun intended, after your error in this respect has been pointed out numerous times.

    People were murdered and tortured by the organisation Mandela founded, and far more were as a result of the political changes he brought about. People are entitled to hold various opinions about the man, not just your simplistic one.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:12 pm

  294. If you don’t share Chimperor’s view, you support apartheid.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:20 pm

  295. So if he’s such a bad man why are over 91 leaders of the world traveling to South Africa to attend his funeral services? What is this bad thing about him that these people can’t see which apparently you little crowd here see? Why is the world lauding this man but you people here don’t? Are you people vested with the desire to only see the bad in people if they are not on your side of the political divide? Why is the commentary on this thread about Mandela, about one person’s trip to his prison and ignoring all the achievements he made for his people and by extention the black race?

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:33 pm

  296. If you don’t share Chimperor’s views, you are a decent, normal, human being without need of prison, thorazine, or lobotomy. I have seen it around here for a long time and I do not believe a single word it says. It may like Mandela, it may not. Do you remember the “fundamentalist Christian anti-gay” variant of it that hung around here for a while a couple of years back?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:38 pm

  297. @FC. Keep hitting that dead horse, it will never gain traction. Why are you in a hurry to point out the evils of the ANC and can’t say one condemnation against the evil apartheid system that did kill more people and destroyed generations? Do you support the apartheid system that Mandela and his group fought against? You can’t keep talking from two ends of your mouth, you know..

    Comment by The Emperor (72bb0c) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:39 pm

  298. Mandela is to be judged by what didn’t happen, and the tenure of the ANC is not considered by what they have done, in retrospect, affiliation with MK was not conducive to solid administration,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:43 pm

  299. @nk. I am still fundamentalist, Christian anti-gay marriage and proud of it. Contrary to what how many of you may believe, I believe that marriage is defined and shall always be a union between a man and a woman. Same sex folks are free to live together, don’t just call it marriage cos it aint.

    Comment by The Emperor (6685ec) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:43 pm

  300. @FC. Keep hitting that dead horse, it will never gain traction. Why are you in a hurry to point out the evils of the ANC and can’t say one condemnation against the evil apartheid system that did kill more people and destroyed generations?

    You read the thread — so I can only conclude that you’re lying. That is disappointing.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:46 pm

  301. And like many evangelical, bible-believing Christians who supported Obama I feel he betrayed us by his about-turn stance on gay marriage. Now he has evolved into gay-marriage’s greatest evangelist, almost bullying some African leaders into accepting the same or else.. He lost me there. Now I don’t really care much about Obama or the liberals he represents. The gay marriage movement is a central part of the anti-Christ agenda and Obama is pushing it hard as well as some questionable aspects of his healthcare plan.

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:52 pm

  302. FC. Your point being?

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:56 pm

  303. I asked Emperor something way back @17 which, of course, was ignored and never answered. The comments and many of the questions she’s posted between then and now pretty clearly demonstrate that she does not have more than a very shallow and simplistic view of Mandela and his complete life. If that’s the way she wants to conduct her life and manage her reputation, and use her on-line time, it matters not a whit to me. Discussing the topic further seems both unnecessary and futile.

    Comment by elissa (e410e0) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:58 pm

  304. Well that, plus The Emperor is lying, as I’ve shown.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:01 pm

  305. @ elissa what the fuq are you talking about? And why do you keep referring to me with a “she”? Is that your way of being civil? Yes you asked a question which as far as am concerned am free not to respond to. If you wanna know stuff about Mandela, go online, its everywhere. You seem to have a lot of dirt on the man and I refuse to buy it. So take a chill pill lady or whatever your gender.

    Comment by The Emperor (4dcc08) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:09 pm

  306. FC. Can you point out where I lied here? I am waiting.

    Comment by The Emperor (98014f) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:10 pm

  307. You seem to have a lot of dirt on the man and I refuse to buy it.

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:11 pm

  308. FC. Can you point out where I lied here? I am waiting.

    You’re waiting for what I already pointed out?

    Click the hyperlink, The Emperor. Also. There’s more, but that will do.

    Why are you in a hurry to point out the evils of the ANC and can’t say one condemnation against the evil apartheid system….

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:15 pm

  309. FC. Checked your links. You are right, you did condemn the apartheid system. Guess I owe you an apology. Though you owe me an apology too for calling me a liar. I didn’t see those comments of yours as of then.

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:30 pm

  310. In the spirit of “on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog”, I thought Lovie/Emperor had previously claimed to be female. If that is not the case, feel free to change any and all misused pronouns referring to Emperor from “she” to “he” and “hers” to “his” or to “it/its” if that is preferable. My deepest mea culpa for causing offense to anyone’s gender.

    *eyeroll*

    Comment by elissa (e410e0) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:32 pm

  311. elissa, absolutely. It has claimed to be a “she”. Among many, many other things it has claimed. Why for (sic) I call it “it”.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:37 pm

  312. I accept your apology. Since you and I had had pretty detailed back and forth and you had been on this thread from the beginning, I had assumed you had read one of the four or so times where I had expressly or implicitly denounced apartheid, including going so far as calling the Church Street bombing a legitimate target within the bounds of the conflict and also stated that I would have joined in an armed uprising had I been in Nelson Mandela’s shoes. Even as a white person, I would have been an opponent of the system, assuming my values were the same, although presumably I wouldn’t have joined Umkhonto we Sizwe where I would almost certainly have quickly been killed.

    For my part, I retract my claim that you were willfully lying. However, I will not apologize for it as it was an understandable inference to draw within context based on what you had done — whereas I’ve been transparent in my opinions, which unlike yours are nuanced, and it should have been easy enough for you to portray them accurately since they’re here in type.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:40 pm

  313. @elissa. You assumed wrongly. I never ever indicated Love2008 or Emperor is or was female. But that’s not important now, what’s important is you have offered your “deepest mea culpa”. That’s just fine with me. :)
    But at the risk of committing my own gender crime, is elissa male or female?

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:41 pm

  314. @nk. No one cares about you or what you think. Just go and nurse your wounds and be happy. K?

    Comment by The Emperor (7dd451) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:44 pm

  315. 301. “And like many evangelical, bible-believing Christians who supported Obama”

    You are a plumped pig-skin sh*ts*ck, sans lipstick.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:45 pm

  316. For my next trick, maybe I’ll accuse you of supporting NAMBLA, since, you know, I don’t see anything here where you’ve denounced NAMBLA.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:49 pm

  317. FC. I know I should have followed the whole thread but I was very busy during the weekend planning a dinner with my wife for our church married couples. Forgive me for not being able to follow all the apsects of this fascinating thread. :)
    My point here is and has always been, hey no one is saying Nelson Mandela was an angel but at least we should focus on the good things he did for his people and how he was able to transform from a man full of hate and violence before his incarceration into an icon of peace and reconciliation. There’s a reason the whole world is celebrating the life and times of this great African, let’s focus on the positives and not ignore them.

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:51 pm

  318. My point here is and has always been, hey no one is saying Nelson Mandela was an angel but at least we should focus on the good things he did for his people and how he was able to transform from a man full of hate and violence before his incarceration into an icon of peace and reconciliation.

    Why?

    Why should we “focus” on those as opposed to giving a more accurate picture of him? What about those whose deaths, injuries, and tortures he was responsible for (black and non-black alike)? Do their human experiences not count?

    Besides — transform in what sense? You realize white people are being murdered, tortured, and raped every day in South Africa in what are truly hate crimes. Nelson Mandela contributed to that … after being freed. He added his imprimatur to their ongoing brutal treatment.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:56 pm

  319. @Gary gulrud. We don’t eat pork too.

    Comment by The Emperor (4dcc08) — 12/9/2013 @ 5:57 pm

  320. FC
    In what way did he contribute to that? In what way did he contribute to white people being targeted for rape, murder and hate crimes there? Please share this info.

    Comment by The Emperor (72bb0c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:00 pm

  321. Are you incapable of clicking hyperlinks, The Emperor?

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:04 pm

  322. Checked your youtube link. Nice try. Surely you are capable of better reasoning than to believe that video portrays Mandela as a killer of whites after his release. really? I hope I am not giving you more mental credit than you deserve. You are gonna use a war cry song they were singing over someone’s funeral as Mandela calling for the death of white people? I also notice how you conveniently ignored the white people who were also singing that same song with him in that video, what are you gonna say about them too? Your hypocrisy in this issue is beginning to reek. And am yet to see evidence that Mandela actually supported the killing, raping and oppression of whites in south Africa after his release.

    Comment by The Emperor (03864d) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:11 pm

  323. The Emperor, you are a liar, full stop. I will not take a charitable interpretation of your posts now that you reveal your unwillingness to read others honestly.

    You say this:

    “Surely you are capable of better reasoning than to believe that video portrays Mandela as a killer of whites after his release.

    When I said this:

    You realize white people are being murdered, tortured, and raped every day in South Africa in what are truly hate crimes. Nelson Mandela contributed to that … after being freed. He added his imprimatur* to their ongoing brutal treatment.

    Intelligent people reading this thread can understand the difference.
     
     
    *However, this was given in public by him while he was a political leader. So of course it has more than just a moral effect — it has almost certainly had a real-world one.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:17 pm

  324. The Emperor, so your defense of Mandela is that “other white communists sang it too” ?

    How droll. Unconvincing as usual, but very droll.

    Mandela was not a great man. He had an opportunity to be a great man, but fell sadly short. Maybe creating a stable political foundation for South Africa isn’t possible, but Mandela did not finish the job when he had it.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:22 pm

  325. It’s a tough path, the OxWagon, the Afrikaner predecessor to MK, really did make a mess of it, for forty plus years.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:29 pm

  326. Anyway, the Truth and Reconciliation committee recognized the first necklacing victim in 1985, a young woman who also had broken glass placed in her vagina. Winnie Mandela spoke up publicly in favour of this practice. Nelson Mandela was still married to her when he assumed the presidency in 1994. He only divorced her due to her infidelity.

    There is Nelson Mandela, man of peace, for you.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:31 pm

  327. FC
    You are a hypocrite and biased. I don’t intend to discuss any further with you on this. You are free to hold your views on Mandela while I hold mine. You are trying to throw away all the great efforts this man made to bring peace and reconciliation among south Africans: black and white over a song. Well reality does not hold up to your prejudice. Today he is celebrated as a man of peace, a great leader and an African icon. Almost all the world is heading to South Africa to pay their last respect to this saviour of his nation. Your bigoted opinion of him doesn’t matter, no one really cares about your opinion. I don’t.

    Comment by The Emperor (03864d) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:32 pm

  328. @SPQR. Whatever.

    Comment by The Emperor (72bb0c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:44 pm

  329. @SPQR. Whatever.

    Comment by The Emperor

    Maybe people thought you were female because of the teenage girl schtick.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:47 pm

  330. If you don’t share Chimperor’s views, you are a decent, normal, human being without need of prison, thorazine, or lobotomy. I have seen it around here for a long time and I do not believe a single word it says. It may like Mandela, it may not. Do you remember the “fundamentalist Christian anti-gay” variant of it that hung around here for a while a couple of years back?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2013 @ 4:38 pm

    There is a strong resemblance. Emperor’s sole purpose with this discussion is to escalate and condemn and demand the discussion on any aspect be terminated.

    I found the conversation interesting once I filtered out the rude people. I don’t even know which way I feel about Mandela. What he was fighting was truly evil, but he did take a more peaceful approach and make it more violent. I have always admired Martin Luther King for the wisdom of his non-violent methods. They show a deeper understanding of human nature. Once it recognizes the good and the evil, people really do tend to lean the right way.

    That doesn’t mean Mandela was wrong to use violence to fight tyranny. Sometimes there is no way to overcome tyranny otherwise, and the world is mostly shaped by men like Mandela. But I look at South Africa’s progress and compare it to America’s and I think there’s a real lesson about how to reach a better victory.

    Hope you’re doing well, nk.

    Comment by Dustin (bfbac8) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:01 pm

  331. I don’t always agree with Dustin, but this time I do. It was a complex situation. Maybe Mandela is a great man, in the sense of advancing his people’s interests. But idea he was a man of peace is laughable.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:07 pm

  332. *the idea

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:07 pm

  333. But was it really MK or the sanctions that made the difference, or the defeats of their proxies in Angola,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:10 pm

  334. I think it was many things, including public moral shaming for apartheid.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:17 pm

  335. @SPQR. Whatever.

    Comment by The Emperor (72bb0c) — 12/9/2013 @ 6:44 pm

    Yeah, I’m not always a huge FC fan … but he definitely has your number. We could even see the flounce.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:19 pm

  336. I’m doing great, thank you, Dustin. Cold up here but even that is to the good — I don’t step outside to smoke as much.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/9/2013 @ 8:20 pm

  337. So if he’s such a bad man why are over 91 leaders of the world traveling to South Africa to attend his funeral services?

    I’d be truly impressed with such an assemblage of leaders if many of them packed their bags and moved to South Africa for the next 25 years, preferably to a township where they could live and breathe the reality on a 24/7 basis.

    Actually, Emperor, I don’t feel bothered by your take on Mandela or that of Former Conservative’s or SPQR’s either. Call me somewhat agnostic about the man, due in part to not so much the specifics of his history (pro or con), but to the way his country continues to be bogged down by never-ending socio-economic dysfunction.

    “But that’s a legacy of apartheid!,” some people will exclaim in response, and which Mandela fought against (and rightly so). “The responsibility for the ills of today’s South Africa therefore lies elsewhere!,” they’ll retort.

    Then they’ll diminish the root causes of those problems in a way that’s sort of an extension of their desire to happily gloss over Nelson Mandela’s dark side, as they willfully sound the trumpets for him, no questions asked.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/9/2013 @ 9:38 pm

  338. I haven’t listened to this yet, so I can’t endorse it. But I like 90% of what Stefan Molyneux has to say so I expect it to be thought-provoking. (Well — for those capable of thinking.)

    The Truth about Nelson Mandela

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/10/2013 @ 1:11 am

  339. Radio coverage during the night of the preliminaries to Nelson Mandela’s funeral.

    Tremendous crowds. so many people want to be there..

    This is because of the choices he made at a certain point in his life and maybe because he’s was better than so many other people in positions of power.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 12/10/2013 @ 2:50 am

  340. President Obama speaking.

    He’s most comfortable speaking about right and wrong.

    He says theer is still work to be done…hunger and rundown schoools for instance.

    And various kinds of persecution you might say.

    But there’s one kind of evil conspicuously missing from his rhetoric.

    And that is evil done by bad people in government, or small groups. (massive, diffuse, centerless hostility is OK to oppose)

    Like North Korea. Or Iran. Or Cuba.

    Because to oppose that would conflict with peace and reconciliation.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ca4c0f) — 12/10/2013 @ 3:54 am

  341. Tremendous crowds. so many people want to be there..

    This is because of the choices he made at a certain point in his life and maybe because he’s was better than so many other people in positions of power.
    Sammy Finkelman

    Enough said. If he was such a tyrant as some bigots here wanna paint him this crowd won’t be there. He was a good man who spent most of his twilight years trying to make the best of the situation he met after his release. He was not perfect but he did what he could and for that I and many truth loving people around the world are grateful to Mr Nelson Mandela. May his soul rest in peace.

    Comment by The Emperor (fc6588) — 12/10/2013 @ 4:22 am

  342. Yes, like the ones that rendered Elian to be a young pioneer, which I consider a sign of child abuse, but
    for a regime, not in favor by the glitterati, you can do anything,

    Another interesting deal I gleaned, unlike with other participants of the dirty wars, in Latin America, many of those judged culpable, either were acquitted or received suspended sentences,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/10/2013 @ 4:34 am

  343. Nelson Mandela lied about being a communist party member, he nationalized industries (which is using state power aka threat of violence to coercively steal), he flushed the South African economy into the toilet, and he fostered an environment that led to a massive brutal crime wave, even adding his impramatur to this as the most influential man in South Africa by singing about killing all the whites after his release.

    He could have been worse, but he could have been so much better.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/10/2013 @ 4:38 am

  344. Chimperor hearts calling people bigots and racists.

    Comment by JD (176f17) — 12/10/2013 @ 5:52 am

  345. 341. “So many people”

    ‘Cepting the evangelical Christians like Dalai Lama and Netanyahu.

    “Let the dead bury the dead”.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/10/2013 @ 5:56 am

  346. They just cheered Mugabe a while ago,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/10/2013 @ 6:02 am

  347. 341. “If he was such a tyrant as some bigots here wanna paint him”

    Please quote a statement or two ‘painting Mandela as a tyrant’ from the above.

    We thought so.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/10/2013 @ 6:08 am

  348. Engaging Chimperor directly is like wrestling a pig. I don’t believe it really gives a s**t about Mandela — it’s just here to troll — and it profanes Mandela that such a thing as the Chimperor should praise him.

    As far as Obama goes … can anybody really see the SCOAMF enduring and accomplishing 1/1000th of what Mandela endured and accomplished? Really? I can’t see the sissy-boy eating the skin off a baked potato let alone prison food — to say the least. Many at Mandela’s funeral are jackals at the death of a lion. Obama is a pink-nosed pet mouse.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/10/2013 @ 6:52 am

  349. @Gary. Am sorry, folks here have been effusive with glowing tributes for the man since this news broke. He has been painted as nothing but a hero and no one has said an unkind word about him or his legacy. My bad.

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 12/10/2013 @ 6:56 am

  350. Just as in “AAAAASS”, there are five “A”s in “RAAAAACIST”, Chimperor.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (066b42) — 12/10/2013 @ 6:59 am

  351. I have come to bury Chimperor, not praise him.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (066b42) — 12/10/2013 @ 7:00 am

  352. Priceless.

    Comment by The Emperor (e28272) — 12/10/2013 @ 7:51 am

  353. They just cheered Mugabe a while ago,

    That is one reason why I don’t have too much confidence in the way such crowds of people rate or judge anything. There are a lot of fools throughout the world, and most of them are guilty of delighting in strange formulas concocted by the left, if not a weird hybrid of ultra-liberals.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/10/2013 @ 8:04 am

  354. Who cheered mugabe? Democrats? :)

    Comment by The Emperor (850e76) — 12/10/2013 @ 8:17 am

  355. yup…

    after all, like attracts like.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/10/2013 @ 8:28 am

  356. A cynic will always see faults. He lives by finding faults and dies where faults are absent. Unknown author.

    Comment by The Emperor (cd1ca5) — 12/10/2013 @ 8:47 am

  357. “He lives by finding faults and dies where faults are absent.”

    You’re a heartless S.O.B., you know.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/10/2013 @ 10:50 am

  358. A realist will always see faults too. And he doesn’t depend on the faults or virtues of others to survive.

    Comment by Miss Tified (72ac6e) — 12/10/2013 @ 10:54 am

  359. Who here thinks the apartheid system in South Africa was good and legitimate?

    Only you, Chimperor. Only you could ask such a silly question.

    Then why can’t you overcome your pride and accept that Nelson Mandela was indeed a great man in that he helped to dismantle that ungodly system and freeing his people?

    Because it does not follow. Nobody thinks apartheid was a good thing. Even the Nats came to regret it. It was a thoroughly bad idea, and the 1948 election was a sad day for South Africa. But it doesn’t follow that it was worse than what replaced it, or that helping to dismantle it makes someone great. Louis 16 was no great man, but he was a hell of a lot better than the Reign of Terror that replaced him. Ditto for the Shah, Somoza, or the French rule in Haiti.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:34 pm

  360. @milhouse. You will not get one word of disagreement from me. Democracies need time to evolve and improve. Just like we have in the American history, it gets better with succeeding generations. We can only hope that future south Africans will build on the legacies and successes of their founding fathers.

    Comment by The Emperor AKA the Sizist. (d356d4) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:46 pm

  361. So if he’s such a bad man why are over 91 leaders of the world traveling to South Africa to attend his funeral services? What is this bad thing about him that these people can’t see which apparently you little crowd here see?

    Most of these “leaders of the world” are themselves thugs and villains whose death would leave the world a better place, so their endorsement ought to be reason in itself to conclude that whomever they endorse is likely to be scum. And not a single one of them gives a flying f–k about the victims of crime in South Africa. As far as they’re concerned he could have been Dessalines and they’d still go to his funeral and sing his praises. But the fact is that they’re only going because it makes them look good, and their private opinion of his character is irrelevant.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:49 pm

  362. Why are you in a hurry to point out the evils of the ANC and can’t say one condemnation against the evil apartheid system that did kill more people and destroyed generations

    What makes you think that the “evil apartheid system” killed more people than the ANC did?

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:53 pm

  363. 360. “Just like we have in the American history, it gets better with succeeding generations.”

    I’m sure there’s a facile trump card waiting to be played on this canard.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:55 pm

  364. 360. Cont. Social Darwinism, if children believe it, and it feels good, how can it be wrong?

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:56 pm

  365. What makes you think that the “evil apartheid system” killed more people than the ANC did?

    Yeah, there’s no way more people died per capita under apartheid. Not through murder nor natural causes.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/10/2013 @ 12:58 pm

  366. He had an opportunity to be a great man, but fell sadly short.

    Yes, in 1985 Botha offered him freedom, if only he would renounce violence and dump his communist comrades. If he’d taken that offer up, he could have been great.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 12/10/2013 @ 1:05 pm

  367. Correction: my source was wrong.

    Mandela did not nationalize industries, although he talked about it. So score one for Mandela.

    And this goes to my broader point. He did evolve as he got older in the right direction. Not far enough, but he deserves credit for moving in the right directions on peace and the economy.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/11/2013 @ 11:40 am

  368. Well there’s government competence for you.

    The South African government put a schizophrenic (who knew little about his alleged specialty) feet away from the US President and others, waving his arms vigorously no less.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/12/2013 @ 11:24 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7685 secs.