zippert Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 In todays show an article was cited: http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/ this article is misleading. It suggests, that Nelson Mandela had ordered the killing of innocent people, when in fact he has only ordered sabotage action, without human victims. He may have violated NAP. But not in a libertarian sense, since property rights back then in South Adrica were not established by the homesteading principle. The article states: "Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights -Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983 (...) -Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988" Nelson Mandela was head of MK until his arrest in 1962. He was then in jail, isolated from MK. Mk had new commanders. All deadly attacks were executed in the 80s by his sucessors not by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh F Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I'm most concerned about how many people suffered under his government. It mentions that he expanded the military. I don't think it is good to hold people morally accountable only for their rhetoric and not for the consequences of their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 He may have violated NAP. But not in a libertarian sense, ... I have been able to find no reliable information on the body count of his pre-arrest bombings. Was it really zero? It's buried under a mountain of propaganda thicker than the JFK assassination. (Hint: He was murdered by a pro-Cuba Communist!) But, in a sense, only one thing matters -- Mandela was the head of a State. That alone makes him a member of the criminal class. And as Head of State, he helped run the region's economy into the dirt. It was certainly no libertarian paradise before him, but he did worsen it. How many people died and suffered because of his acts as President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Operating through a cell structure, the MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties, bombing military installations, power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night, when civilians were not present. Mandela himself stated that they chose sabotage not only because it was the least harmful action, but also "because it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward." He noted that "strict instructions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life", but should these tactics fail, MK would resort to "guerilla warfare and terrorism" - Wikipedia In his own autobiography he mentioned if sabotage didn't get the change that he wanted that their actions would gravitate to "guerilla warfare and terrorism". He was imprisoned when things escalated to that level, but it's pretty hard not to hold him responsible for setting the wheels in motion. Thanks for bring this up though, it's prompted some additional research and it's important to be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Akston Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 As a South African, I have admiration for the man, although I choke at the hero worship. I was overjoyed the day I heard he was going to be set free, not because I could care a hoot about him, but because to me it meant that my two year sentence of "national service" was going to be shortened. I will always be gratefull for the fact that he did not advocate a violent course of action when he represented the powers that shouldn't be as President of South Africa. After all these years it should be clear to all South Africans that the end of Apartheid did not ring in an age of freedom for all as promised. Instead the oppresive state machinery was simply handed over to new masters (or maybe not). In the end I hope people realise, its not left vs right or black vs white. It's us against the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 If there's anything that perfectly captures the absurdity of the modern political world, it's the image of a schizophrenic fake sign language "interpreter" standing next to the imperator mundi as he gives a speech at Nelson Mandela's funeral. I think this about the funniest thing I've ever seen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts