South Africa's Nelson Mandela Dies

[hornadylnl]

I'm struck that some view self-defense as the same as terroristic acts? So necklacing someone is the same as defending your home from a gang breaking down the door? Or a woman defending herself from an assault?

Good to know it's all the same thing in some folks' minds.

Unless we're talking about 'gun violence' like Michael Bloomberg and the Zionsville Moms do.

But now we're comparing apples and kumquats. Jacking continues...

So what do you call apartheid? What do you call slavery and the institutionalized racism that existed from the founding of this country until the 1960's? Would you not call enslaving people, denying them the right to vote, judicial systems obviously stacked against blacks, lynching innocents, etc acts of terror? Stories such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Mississippi Burning, etc are just pure acts of fiction, never happened and were not acts of terror against blacks. And you think using violence to end such horror against a race of people is unjustified?

Again, I'm mystified that there weren't more acts of violence in an effort to end slavery and discrimination in this country. I guess blacks should have just continued to be treated as second class citizens in South Africa and here until whites saw out of the goodness of their hearts to treat them as equals.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm struck that some view self-defense as the same as terroristic acts? So necklacing someone is the same as defending your home from a gang breaking down the door? Or a woman defending herself from an assault?

Good to know it's all the same thing in some folks' minds.

Unless we're talking about 'gun violence' like Michael Bloomberg and the Zionsville Moms do.

But now we're comparing apples and kumquats. Jacking continues...

We're talking about Mandela. He was in prison when necklacing was invented and employed. Do you have any proof that he endorsed the practice? He was certainly the founder the group responsible of these atrocities (and that's what they were, atrocities), but it hasn't been illustated that these were the tactics that he would have employed. He had been in jail for what 20 years when this started to occur? Is your belief that he had a hand, and is responsible for the actions of a group he was affiliated with while he was in prison? I think a better gauge, which would stick, would be what he sanctioned while he was free.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So what do you call apartheid? What do you call slavery and the institutionalized racism that existed from the founding of this country until the 1960's? Would you not call enslaving people, denying them the right to vote, judicial systems obviously stacked against blacks, lynching innocents, etc acts of terror? Stories such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Mississippi Burning, etc are just pure acts of fiction, never happened and were not acts of terror against blacks. And you think using violence to end such horror against a race of people is unjustified?

Again, I'm mystified that there weren't more acts of violence in an effort to end slavery and discrimination in this country. I guess blacks should have just continued to be treated as second class citizens in South Africa and here until whites saw out of the goodness of their hearts to treat them as equals.

I used to wonder that myself, but comparatively, slaves in the US were treated (IMO) better than the people's of SA. This, I imagine, is due to the fact that slaves were expensive property, and in many cases considered almost like family. People weren't all that willing to destroy/injure their own property, and others didn't want to be liable for injuring someone else's property.

In comparison, in Haiti, slave labor was quite cheap, and owners were quite brutal (working them to death). When the Haitians gained the upper hand on their oppressors, they killed every single French white person on the island (foreign whites were spared).

 

[hornadylnl]

I used to wonder that myself, but comparatively, slaves in the US were treated (IMO) better than the people's of SA. This, I imagine, is due to the fact that slaves were expensive property, and in many cases considered almost like family. People weren't all that willing to destroy/injure their own property, and others didn't want to be liable for injuring someone else's property.

In comparison, in Haiti, slave labor was quite cheap, and owners were quite brutal (working them to death). When the Haitians gained the upper hand on their oppressors, they killed every single French white person on the island (foreign whites were spared).

In my 8th grade social studies class, the teacher did several character presentations where he'd dress and play the part of various people in history. One day, he played the part of a southern slave owner. He gave a disclaimer that what he was about to say wasn't his viewpoint but the viewpoint of a slave owner at the time. It seemed so real that we were yelling at him before it was over. One of the points he made was why would he mistreat his slaves because they were very expensive. It would be akin to a modern farmer taking a sledge hammer to his tractor. I believe there is definitely merit to that argument and in many cases was probably true. But freedom is the very foundation of what it means to be an American. No matter how well they were treated, it is wrong to own another person.

It seems that the arguments made here against Mandela is that he was the sole initiator and aggressor of violence and that nothing the supporters of apartheid did could justify violence to end it. It would be like saying any Jew that committed violence to end the holocaust deserves to burn in hell.

 

[jamil]

This conversation is getting ridiculous.

1. Mandela played a sizable role in ending apartheid.
2. Mandela advocated violence, particularly in his youth.
3. Mandela was sympathetic to many communist ideas, though he did not favor communism.
4. Violence didn't end apartheid.
5. Mandela deserves some credit for his non-violent contribution that helped end apartheid.
6. Mandela does not deserve US flags flying at half mast, though I think it's appropriate in South Africa.

If you want to continue arguing about dropping the bomb, go ahead. It's entertaining, but not very relevant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This conversation is getting ridiculous.

1. Mandela played a sizable role in ending apartheid.
2. Mandela advocated violence, particularly in his youth.
3. Mandela was sympathetic to many communist ideas, though he did not favor communism.
4. Violence didn't end apartheid.
5. Mandela deserves some credit for his non-violent contribution that helped end apartheid.
6. Mandela does not deserve US flags flying at half mast, though I think it's appropriate in South Africa.

If you want to continue arguing about dropping the bomb, go ahead. It's entertaining, but not very relevant.

ha, ha ya think?

 

[printcraft]

I'm struck that some view self-defense as the same as terroristic acts? So necklacing someone is the same as defending your home from a gang breaking down the door? Or a woman defending herself from an assault?

Good to know it's all the same thing in some folks' minds.

...................................

The fervor displayed by some around here to see Zimmerman convicted or at the very least have his life ruined seems to make more sense now.

 

[cobber]

The fervor displayed by some around here to see Zimmerman convicted or at the very least have his life ruined seems to make more sense now.

And we have a winner!

 

[Kutnupe14]

The fervor displayed by some around here to see Zimmerman convicted or at the very least have his life ruined seems to make more sense now.

$2 million in debt and new charges.... he's done a good job of ruining himeslf.

 

[Hotdoger]

"We're talking about Mandela. He was in prison when necklacing was invented and employed. Do you have any proof that he endorsed the practice? He was certainly the founder the group responsible of these atrocities (and that's what they were, atrocities), but it hasn't been illustated that these were the tactics that he would have employed. He had been in jail for what 20 years when this started to occur? Is your belief that he had a hand, and is responsible for the actions of a group he was affiliated with while he was in prison? I think a better gauge, which would stick, would be what he sanctioned while he was free. "

From prison he supported the ANC and his wifes' actions. He NEVER denounced them and their actions.

You can cover all you want for them all you want but you are not being TRUTHFUL.