Originally Posted By TomSawyer <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/05/don-t-sanitize-nelson-mandela-he-s-honored-now-but-was-hated-then.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...hen.html</a> This is a great article and reality check that reminds us that the US government was not a big fan of Nelson Mandela and why. Looking back it seems obvious that Mandela was in the right, but the US government in the early 1980s supported the status quo in South Africa in blind opposition to communism. Mandela was supported by the Soviet Union, so that meant that he and the African National Congress had to be called terrorists by Ronald Reagan. Mandela was critical of the US throughout his life, not out of hatred but out of disappointment that we weren't living up to our stated ideals. I think that we risk sanitizing him in death and sending his message through our cultural Ministry of Truth to rectify our national role in his story from being opposed to him from the start to being his supporter against Apartheid and for freedom.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Excellent article. Its final paragraph: "As with King, it is this subversive aspect of Mandela’s legacy that is most in danger of being erased as he enters America’s pantheon of sanitized moral icons. But it is precisely the aspect that Americans most badly need. American power and human freedom are two very different things. Sometimes they intersect; sometimes they do not. Walking in Nelson Mandela’s footsteps requires being able to tell the difference." Reagan didn't understand Mandela at all and supported apartheid to the hilt. Thatcher was even worse; some of her statements on Mandela were not only wrong-headed, but terribly condescending and borderline racist, frankly. (They reminded me of Churchill's dismissal of Ghandi as nothing more than a "half-naked fakir.") Over here, Cheney was particularly unrepentant over voting against the Anti-Apartheid act; in 2004 or 2005 he said he had "no problem" with that vote - perhaps somewhat in a pique since Mandela had criticized our war in Iraq. Cheney historian John Nichols: "He’s (Mandela's) very blunt about it he says one of the many reasons why he fears Dick Cheney’s power in the United States, and Mandela does say, he understands that Cheney is effectively the President of the United States, he says, one of the many reasons that he fears Dick Cheney’s power is that in the late 1980’s when even prominent Republicans like Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich were acknowledging the crime of Apartheid, Dick Cheney maintained the lie that the ANC was a terrorist organization and a fantasy that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist leader who deserved to be in jail. Frankly it begs very powerful question. If Dick Cheney’s judgment was that bad in the late 1980’s, why would we believe that it’s gotten any better in the early 21st century?" It's easy to praise (and try to sanitize) someone like Mandela after it's become obvious that he had more grace and greatness in his little finger than someone like Cheney had in his entire warped soul. But we shouldn't forget where people stood when it counted.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now this morning, one of her guests pointed out that Mandela remained on the "Do Not Fly" list until July 2008. Every time Mandela wanted to visit our country, a waiver had to be issued so he could enter. He remained on the list because the ANC was still considered a terrorist organization up until then.
Originally Posted By oc_dean He shouldn't be painted as some hero, though... He was a terrorist, who blew up buildings and PEOPLE. Lets not forget that little-o piece of info about Mandela.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< He was a terrorist, who blew up buildings and PEOPLE. >>> ... which would explain why he was on the "do not fly" list.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Mandela blew up buildings and people? While imprisoned? That's a neat trick.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Gee... I cannot find any mainstream credible sources for Mandela as a terrorist. None. All of the web sites which try to paint him as a terrorist murdering white people in South Africa are reeking of conspiracy theory and racism. South African government authorities, OTOH, are not innocent. Not by a long shot. Their murders and atrocities are well documented. I'm surprised to be reading this from Dean. I thought he was smarter than that.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ... as were the American revolutionaries, from the point of view of the British.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The important thing is that South Africa is such a wonderful place to live today.
Originally Posted By schnebs That's debatable. They got rid of all the restrictions and opression associated with apartheid and made the country more democratic, sure, but the country still has crushing poverty, high crime rates (with the possible exception of the areas near Cape Town), and an economy that relies too much on natural resources. Mandela got the country on the right track, but they've still got a way to go - although they're farther along on that track than a lot of countries in sub-saharan Africa.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones What surprised me is that NBC Nightly News did a report that covered, in part, the coming race war in South Africa between land reformers and white farmers. They interviewed a land reformer who stated that he was not going to moderate his stance like Mandela did.
Originally Posted By schnebs I could see something like that happening - in spite of the fact that all they have to do look to Zimbabwe to see how it'd turn out. "Land reform" there wrecked their agricultural industry to reward a few friends of Robert Mugabe - who couldn't even manage to make money off successful farms that were given to them!
