The Truth about Nelson Mandela

[AlexB]

Hey there,

 

A friend posted a reply to the video The Truth about Nelson Mandella and I'm terrible at disecting and articulating so I was hoping to find some help. I think he's essentially arguing for the use of violence as necessity and I don't want to reply clumsily so any suggested ways to respond are welcome. He initially just commented that it was a bizzare version of truth to which I replied:

 

"I would encourage researching his individual points through one's own devices then. Most of them are relatively easy enough to confirm.He was a communist and approved of Castro and his methods. He was involved with terrorist activity, including bombings, and was imprisoned for it. His ex-wife approved of "necklacing", promoted it, and was proven responsible for such atrocities. Mendella is on camera singing a song about killing white people and you can find footage of other violent, racist songs that were cherished by the movement he was a part of. He nationalized private property.If any one of those things are true then it's enough for me to know that I shouldn't worship the man by default because other people do.Now, I don't approve of apartheid. I think legislative discrimination is appalling and can understand why people fought it. But just because he was fighting for a just cause does not excuse or justify the torture and murder of innocent people, or the use of violence."His reply is as follows:

 

"I see he has already posted a correction about his claim that Mandela nationalized everything when the ANC was elected. That did not happen. I can't find anything to support his claim that the income of all Sewff Effrikens dropped by 40% in the late 90s and he does not seem to support that with anything. South Africa's economy was already well on its way downhill in the 1980s, not just after the ANC took over. Which brings me to my biggest problem with Molyneux's "truth", and certainly the media's "truth" as well. You cannot gloss over or strip away context from Mandela, apartheid and South Africa as a whole and still claim to be having a serious discussion about any of it. You can't handwave it away with "yes apartheid was bad but let's not talk about that anymore".The armed wing of the ANC (MK) was formed as a last resort after serious repression of peaceful protests and activities. Mandela very strongly believed in non-violence and the aims of the MK were sabotaging government infrastructure. The civilian casualties that Molyneux decries were overwhelmingly in the 1980s and context again is required for this. The government started to get particularly nasty (after already not being the nicest group of white dudes) in the mid 70s and into the 80s, to which MK and other groups responded in kind, although with surprising restraint. Mandela had been in prison for 20 years at this point.Despite being imprisoned for over 27 years, Mandela did not seek violent reprisals against the former apartheid governments. When he was released from prison, and in fact while he was still in prison, he worked toward reconciliation and generally trying to recover from 50 years of 80% of the country's population being treated like subhumans.If we're supposed to be reminded that his legacy includes him being a violent communist terrorist thug, I guess we should also include that he wasn't very good at being violent, a communist, a terrorist or a thug, but did do a lot of extremely positive things for a place that sorely needed (and needs) them."Thanks for any help you can offer.PS - sorry if I posted this in an incorrect section

[Wesley]

This is common.

 

"Yes my parents beat me, but they also fed me, clothed me and gave me shelter. Thus, they are good people."

 

"Sure Mandela ordered the killings of innocent people and was a violent terrorist, but he also worked to end apartheid and worked toward reconciliation. Thus, he is a good person."

 

In my book, ordering the killing of innocent people makes you an evil person no matter how many potentially good things you may do after the fact. You commit an evil that is almost impossible to make up for, and I can guarantee that Mandela did not try to provide restitution to the victims of his crimes.

 

All of the other stuff about his government running improperly or having bad policies is just icing on the cake. We know state is violence and thus the argument from effect on this is only to attempt to convince people who are not anarchists that he was bad at managing his farm.

[Kevin Beal]

Already a thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38079-youtube-the-truth-about-nelson-mandela

 

I couldn't really parse out any argument that your friend made. He just made some completely unverifiable claims about how things would have been worse if he hadn't been an evil thug, which is a really piss poor defense.

[AlexB]

Ah thanks so much, perhaps I'll ask there!

[AlexB]

This is common.

 

"Yes my parents beat me, but they also fed me, clothed me and gave me shelter. Thus, they are good people."

 

"Sure Mandela ordered the killings of innocent people and was a violent terrorist, but he also worked to end apartheid and worked toward reconciliation. Thus, he is a good person."

 

In my book, ordering the killing of innocent people makes you an evil person no matter how many potentially good things you may do after the fact. You commit an evil that is almost impossible to make up for, and I can guarantee that Mandela did not try to provide restitution to the victims of his crimes.

 

All of the other stuff about his government running improperly or having bad policies is just icing on the cake. We know state is violence and thus the argument from effect on this is only to attempt to convince people who are not anarchists that he was bad at managing his farm.

Thanks very much, I found this really helpful.