Friday, December 06, 2013

Nelson Mandela's Violent Legacy

I have never liked Mandela's "Cosmic Vibes" and therefore classify him differently from Revolutionaries in other countries or even here at home.  But the buzz now is, as the article states "Were it not for the use of Violence, the government would never have been reformed".   It's only too bad Jesus Christ didn't get that word.  There might be a whole lot fewer dead Jews in the world today.   None of my Cosmic friends have anything good to say about Mandella.  Before we get too ga-ga over him just remember that our government has Mandella on the terrorist watch list untill 2008, and that Mandella worked with the Chinese Maoist Communists, the hard core variety.  Here is the LA Times article.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black president, is a giant in the world of liberation heroes, up there with Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
But unlike Gandhi, who said that nonviolence and truth were inseparable, and King, who famously declared that violence was immoral, Mandela embraced armed struggle to end the racist system of apartheid.
To many South Africans, particularly within the African National Congress, Mandela was a great man partly because of his willingness to use violence, not in spite of it.  Many believe apartheid would have endured much longer if he hadn’t rebelled and overturned the ANC’s long-standing nonviolence policy.  PHOTOS: Nelson Mandela through the years
As a young man, Mandela’s favorite sport wasn’t a team sport like soccer, with strict limits on contact. Boxing was what thrilled him. As a young politician, his rhetoric was angry, uncompromising and inspiring. His aim was to incite revolt.  In the early 1950s, the ANC and the South African Indian Congress launched a nonviolent operation of strikes and protests called the Defiance Campaign against the unjust laws of apartheid.  By 1953, Mandela had decided that it wasn’t working. He felt that the ANC’s leaders — old-fashioned, traditional figures such as the party’s president, Albert Luthuli — were out of touch with reality.    In September of that year, he made a speech in the Johannesburg suburb of Sophiatown that was to be later famously known as the “No Easy Walk to Freedom” address.
FULL COVERAGE: Anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela dies
In the speech, Mandela said the ANC had to come up with new plans for political struggle.
“You can see that there is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow again and again before we reach the mountaintops of our desires.  “Dangers and difficulties have not deterred us in the past. They will not frighten us now. But we must be prepared for them like men in business who do not waste energy in vain talk and idle action.”  In 1956, during a trial at which 156 ANC leaders and activists, including Mandela, were charged with treason, he told the court that he supported nonviolence as a principle — not true at the time; he supported it only as a tactic — because he knew he and others could be convicted if he said otherwise. The trial dragged on until 1961, but Mandela and the others were acquitted.   The Sharpeville massacre in 1960, when South African police killed 69 protesters, was the last straw for Mandela and other proponents of armed struggle.  Mandela carried the day at a series of all-night meetings with ANC leaders in mid-1961 to set up the ANC’s underground military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation.
PHOTOS: The world reacts to Nelson Mandela's death
Mandela’s opponents said that if the ANC embarked on violence, the regime would massacre more civilians. Moses Kotane, secretary-general of the South African Communist Party, argued that continued nonviolence could work if activists were more imaginative.  Mandela met with Kotane for a full day to try to change his mind. He argued that South African activists had to consider an armed revolution because angry young men and women outside the ANC were ready to take up arms, and if the ANC did not lead them it would become irrelevant.    Finally Mandela believed he had won Luthuli’s blessing to form Umkhonto we Sizwe and embark on violence. But the timing was terrible. In October, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it was bestowing the previous year’s unawarded Peace Prize on Luthuli, an enormous symbolic victory for the ANC. Luthuli backtracked and again espoused nonviolent methods of resistance against apartheid.


Moe Kelly was on at nine and he was discussing the death of Nelson Mandella, which was announced just before two our time yesterday afternoon.  I got on computer searching World Net Daily for dirt on Mandella because I’ve heard some unsavory stuff about him and I was thinking here is one area where me and the right might agree.  But oddly, aside from the usual paranoid articles they run,  WND only had praise for Mandella.  Even at Fox News they weren’t sure how to react.  They said he did a lot of good things, all the while reminding us that he was a communist.  And I mean he worked with the Chinese Maoist communists- - the hard core stuff.  And at some point he said that terrorism was now necessary because we weren’t getting our way through traditional means.  While I’d like to be in sympathy with that line of thinking, I want to know “how far is far”?  Because I’d heard Mandella and his wife, Winny, were some of the lead people in the “Necklessing’ of people they didn’t like.  They would apparently tie a tire around their neck and kill their victim by setting it on fire.   I guess what bothers me about Mandella is that everything sounds all too propagandistic.  I wonder if it’s how the right wing felt or feels about Obama.  It’s like it assumes mythic perportions and engages in sugary platitudes- - rather than describing either his mind set or the specific things or incidents in his life.  I checked the Wickipedia but wasn’t sure I could trust that.  Rush Limbaugh will put a screwey dimension on literally anything.  He said “When you come down to it, Nelson Mendella much more resembled Clarence Thomas than he does President Obama”.  I was flabbergasted.   I wasn’t sure, aside from the sheer shock value of the remark, just what interests that specific remark was meant to “stroke”.   Right wing terrorist communists who are against affirmative action but still sabotage the government.   Nancy suggested I get more exercise.  That just might be a good idea. 


The unemployment rate figures came out this morning and the rate is down three tenths of a percent to .7% - - which is good news, and so naturally Rush Limbaugh is in a state of consternation about it.  Rush is upset because for the first time in eons there was actually an increase in government position employment.  Rush went on to another of his self referencial phalicies.  He says "Well they rigged the figures in the fall of 2012 to make the economy look better".  But yet when the figures were revised (as Rush suspected) they were revised in all the ways that would make the economy look Better.  But if THOSE figures were artificially high- - is Rush Limbaugh saying that the Obama people are paying Street to make Stock prices seem higher than they are.  But then Rush says, and I quote "You know for a fact they are going to bolster the economic figures to a rosey enough figure to get a democratic congress elected".  Well now, who am I to argue with the words of the Master?  I admire Rush's concern about "bubbles", but why wasn't he concerned about it when it mattered?  This is just another Moe Kelly case of "Being handed money you can't spend".  But it just boggles my mind why Rush Limbaugh would not just say "You know I had my concerns about President Obama, but he really has turned out to be a great President for Wall Street".   But Rush is so obsessed it's all label to him.  Like if Chicago is the President's home town, his side will cheer when Chicago gets turned down for the Olympics.  And some kind of a weapons accord with Syria is horrible news for Rush.  Now an old term is being revived.   They want to do these “free enterprise zones’ where they cut taxes for corporations in the inner city to “help them through the recession” or something, and in exchange they privative police, fire education, and track pick up services.  Gee, why doesn’t everybody do that?  These dingbats on the right have no concept that the reason why their screwy ideas weren’t adopted fifty years ago is because they are just that.  Really dumb, screwey ideas.  I guess I have a problem wrapping my head around the notion that the American people at large will say that governments in bankruptsy or- - long time employees being cut off without a penny- - or even their own low wages, are somehow “just the new normal” that once you “adjust to it” everything will be better than ever.

  If you think Mandela was a brave man- - he lied in court about his non violence and the trick worked.  A real Revolutionary would not hide behind a lie or a technicality like this.  I think it's entirely different if you're in some kind of a shooting war with authorities- - and another thing if you are like Al Qaida engaging in terrorist acts just to kill of maim people.   Even Green Peace has their standards about violence they will and will not engage in.  And remember he got life and got out in 1990 and spend the last 23 years of his life a free man.  And just how many “lifer” felons do you know in this country who run for and get elected President?  I’d also like to know where South Africa fits in the UN votes.  How many times has he voted with the United States, as opposed to what you might call “the communist block”?

No comments: