Nelson Mandela has died at the age of 95

[El-Presidente]

I'm sorry I have to be such a grouch on this, guys. I do think that Nelson accomplished quite a bit of good. I also think that he tortured people to death in public in his younger days. I do not like how the media is casting him as a person who is identical in his achievements to Ghandi. The media is flat out lying here in America, portraying him as a jesus or something. I mean the guy actually lit people on fire in public. That is not the quality of some sort of perfect human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

(His wife actually made a statement about burning people. Something about making the world a better place one match at a time or something. Pretty sure the ANC publically denounced this crap. If i'm wrong on that, correct me.)

I don't like lies. Why not celebrate the man for being a human being who managed to accomplish some good things along with some scary things? I know we shouldn't all sit in the darkest corner of the room, wringing our hands and feeling guilty about the worst things we've ever done. I'm just saying, lets live in reality.

Nelson Mandela himself did not set people on fire in public or torture people to death in public. His ex-wife Winnie is widely regarded as a nasty piece of work but what does that have to do with him? Yes, he did found the armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto We Sizwe (MK), but this was in response to the Sharpeville massacre. Yes he did receive what would be regarded as 'terrorist' training but his involvement with MK involved attacks on infrastructure with the possibility of warfare later on. The worst excesses occurred while he was in prison and not involved with the ANC or MK.

He was a freedom fighter who was forced to use non-peaceful means but then again many other good men in history have been forced towards violence to fight an oppressor. To be honest though rage your first paragraph is big pile of bullshit. Who the hell told you that Mandela tortured people to death in public? The organisation he was part of did some incredibly fucked up shit but not Mandela himself. He wasn't a saint but he wasn't the monster you're making out either. As for Gandhi, well he was a sick little monkey as well when you do a little research, he was a racist prick in his younger years (coincidentally during time spent in South Africa). No man is perfect but could you at least tell the truth instead of wild slander?

[El-Presidente]

No, no, no, I just pointed out the fact that the media always treat minority people like they were saints, well except for people with a diagnosis that is.

I agree that the media shys away from discussing the flaws of people who happen to be from ethnic minorities.

[bodie]

I think one of the most endearing things about him was his attitude upon release from prison.  He did not seek any revenge or show bitterness.  27 years is a long stretch.  Instead he seized the moment to make positive changes.

Instead of a vendetta against those that had jailed him and treated his people so badly,  he was able to step over that mo fo and work with these people.  Top bloke. 

['andersom']

If she ever touched his private parts    I bet she wore surgical gloves.

For that, he was probably grateful.  I bet she had cold hands.



It may be a surprise but I really really hated that woman.  Real hate.

I know,

I read "The Century's Daughter" by Pat Barker a while ago. It oozed Thatcher regime. Almost could smell it. Great book btw. I strongly recommend it.

Did it cover the Bobby Sands and the dirty protest?  also there was a woman who leaned into her car and said "you're a monster not a mother" while the TV camera's were filming.  Was any of that in the book?

And did it show a caring, maternal side that perhaps I missed?

It's about an old woman, born at the beginning of the twentieth century. She lives in a house that is rotting away, and on the list to be torn down. You get her history, two world wars, poverty, hopes and hopes going to pieces. And there is the story of a social worker, who should talk her out of her house, but, he just can't. It's set in the time where Thatcher already ruined an awful lot. Very grim, very well written. Both very raw, and with tenderness for the vulnerable misfits of main personas.

['andersom']

I think one of the most endearing things about him was his attitude upon release from prison.  He did not seek any revenge or show bitterness.  27 years is a long stretch.  Instead he seized the moment to make positive changes.

Instead of a vendetta against those that had jailed him and treated his people so badly,  he was able to step over that mo fo and work with these people.  Top bloke.

And that he had been armed, and in the midst of the struggle will have been part of why his vision was accepted. He knew what he was talking about.

Top bloke indeed. South-Africa has been blessed with a few more people like him, able to go for the new, without denying the past, but without the need to endless revenge too. It could so easily have gone different.

[bodie]

If she ever touched his private parts    I bet she wore surgical gloves.

For that, he was probably grateful.  I bet she had cold hands.



It may be a surprise but I really really hated that woman.  Real hate.

I know,

I read "The Century's Daughter" by Pat Barker a while ago. It oozed Thatcher regime. Almost could smell it. Great book btw. I strongly recommend it.

Did it cover the Bobby Sands and the dirty protest?  also there was a woman who leaned into her car and said "you're a monster not a mother" while the TV camera's were filming.  Was any of that in the book?

And did it show a caring, maternal side that perhaps I missed?

It's about an old woman, born at the beginning of the twentieth century. She lives in a house that is rotting away, and on the list to be torn down. You get her history, two world wars, poverty, hopes and hopes going to pieces. And there is the story of a social worker, who should talk her out of her house, but, he just can't. It's set in the time where Thatcher already ruined an awful lot. Very grim, very well written. Both very raw, and with tenderness for the vulnerable misfits of main personas.

Ah I see now.  I thought it was about Thatchers life! My mistake.  I wonder if it is available online,  i like books like that. 

[bodie]

I think one of the most endearing things about him was his attitude upon release from prison.  He did not seek any revenge or show bitterness.  27 years is a long stretch.  Instead he seized the moment to make positive changes.

Instead of a vendetta against those that had jailed him and treated his people so badly,  he was able to step over that mo fo and work with these people.  Top bloke.

And that he had been armed, and in the midst of the struggle will have been part of why his vision was accepted. He knew what he was talking about.

Top bloke indeed. South-Africa has been blessed with a few more people like him, able to go for the new, without denying the past, but without the need to endless revenge too. It could so easily have gone different.

Also the way he made use of his time in prison.   He used his time effectively.  When he wasn't slogging away at quarry rocks. He studied.  He wrote letters.  He forged friendships even with those who held him.  He was resolute and focused.  He did not despair. 

His spirit was never broken and somehow he emerged a better man. 

Then, a man in his seventies propelled into political service.  I think he was President for about five years.  Maybe even more.  It was a job well done.  What an amazing life?  To struggle and persevere and actually be rewarded like that?   

[RageBeoulve]

I'm sorry I have to be such a grouch on this, guys. I do think that Nelson accomplished quite a bit of good. I also think that he tortured people to death in public in his younger days. I do not like how the media is casting him as a person who is identical in his achievements to Ghandi. The media is flat out lying here in America, portraying him as a jesus or something. I mean the guy actually lit people on fire in public. That is not the quality of some sort of perfect human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

(His wife actually made a statement about burning people. Something about making the world a better place one match at a time or something. Pretty sure the ANC publically denounced this crap. If i'm wrong on that, correct me.)

I don't like lies. Why not celebrate the man for being a human being who managed to accomplish some good things along with some scary things? I know we shouldn't all sit in the darkest corner of the room, wringing our hands and feeling guilty about the worst things we've ever done. I'm just saying, lets live in reality.

Nelson Mandela himself did not set people on fire in public or torture people to death in public. His ex-wife Winnie is widely regarded as a nasty piece of work but what does that have to do with him? Yes, he did found the armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto We Sizwe (MK), but this was in response to the Sharpeville massacre. Yes he did receive what would be regarded as 'terrorist' training but his involvement with MK involved attacks on infrastructure with the possibility of warfare later on. The worst excesses occurred while he was in prison and not involved with the ANC or MK.

He was a freedom fighter who was forced to use non-peaceful means but then again many other good men in history have been forced towards violence to fight an oppressor. To be honest though rage your first paragraph is big pile of bullshit. Who the hell told you that Mandela tortured people to death in public? The organisation he was part of did some incredibly fucked up shit but not Mandela himself. He wasn't a saint but he wasn't the monster you're making out either. As for Gandhi, well he was a sick little monkey as well when you do a little research, he was a racist prick in his younger years (coincidentally during time spent in South Africa). No man is perfect but could you at least tell the truth instead of wild slander?

Okay so that was only his wife, and perhaps he had nothing to do with her saying that. But he still used violence. The news is LYING, and giving the youth a false view of what someone who fights for freedom actually does. I'm not saying i'm against what the guy did. I'm saying the way the media an even the president is portraying him REALLY bugs me. Just watch, in a few months people will be saying to their children:

"Now you eat your veggies and follow the rules and one day you'll grow up and teach people how to be peaceful, just like Nelson Mandela and Jesus, honey!"

Cm'on. That's not realistic at all, and everyone knows it. We CAN handle the truth!

[ZEGH8578]

We CAN handle the truth!

We should, anyway.
Like I meantioned earlyer in this thread - even as a teen I would be baffled at the bafflement of my peers, when they thought that their hero Che Guevara had "betrayed them" by shooting people. Shooting people - IN GENERAL - as in, during battle!
What. Did. They. Expect?

I mean, my assumption was ALWAYS that someone like Che Guevara had to shoot people now and then - hell - even shoot a lot of people! It was war! They were engaged in battles! These were also the ages of US-sponsored dictatorships across Latin America. If Rage is angry at US gvt now - imagine how angry latinamericans were at US influence - and US backed dictatorships back then...
It pissed me off! If they're gonna have posters of him in their room - don't get surprised after YEARS of idol-worship, to discover "OH MY GOD - he fought wars in Africa! I thought he was Cuban!" he wasn't Cuban either, you ignorant pissnecks.

I think Che Guevara was a decent feller. Shooting people and all. That's to be expected from an armed revolutionary.

[bodie]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

I remember vaguely some stuff on the news about the townships and the terrible discrimination.   The situation was abysmal.  Peaceful protest against apartheid didn't work.  The cause to take arms was as noble as any.

No need to gloss over or sugar coat the fact he was responsible for the formation of a military wing of the ANC.   It doesn't matter to me. 

The media have a habit of doing the saint thing...look at Princess Diana.  It is annoying because people get swayed by that shit but the truth is out there for anyone who wants to dig around.

[ZEGH8578]

On a side note - notice that I say "people"
I don't like this categorization of people when it comes to war. I know why - I agree with the necesity of it - in practice - at the time! The practical reason is to minimize destruction! We separate combatant from civilian, so to spare the majority of the population (which are civilians)
I feel so sorry for the soldiers of the Iraqi army, for example. What... what on earth... did they do... to deserve such an early death? They're all in graves now :S
Why?
I know why, I'm being rethorical of course - but people were so fine with it! If they react - it is when innocent civilians come under fire - but why is it okay to slaughter defending draftees? Some just-turned 19 Hassan-or-whatever, with his uniform, his mother telling him how handsome he looks, patting his cheek - bam - invasion - bam - WAR

Then words like "insurgent", as if they are something-other-than-human.
Even the definition is murky as hell - "Insurgents! Neither soldier nor civilian!" whaaaaat? So... they're crab-people then wtf are they!? They're LADS! They're just dudes defending their mothers and sisters - yes - mothers and sisters - it's not even about "my country!" anymore when the enemy has landed IN YOUR CITY, and you see houses explode!

I try to imagine what I would think if some foreign country landed here, and begun to blow shit up for political reasons, seeing people on tv going "well, we TRY to minimize collateral damage!", in my mind politics could go take a long fucking hike, and my 2 sisters, my brother, my mother, her dog, my dads dog, stepmother, they'd ALL be on my mind, and I would be terrified for them! Not for "Norway", not for "Democracy" but for those I love! Knowing my dad, he would turn from pacifist to a hunter-of-men in a day

little derailment there, but it's been gnawing on me how lightly people take these concepts, "insurgent" "collateral damage" "minimum casualties" "targeting only uniformed combatants PHEW!"

[odeon]

No, no, no, I just pointed out the fact that the media always treat minority people like they were saints, well except for people with a diagnosis that is.

They don't *always*.

[odeon]

Thatcher famously 'did not negotiate with terrorists' which is why she failed at making any peace in Northern Ireland.   

She was either too up herself or not wise enough to see the bigger picture.

Ooooh don't get me started on Thatcher! 

[El-Presidente]

We CAN handle the truth!

We should, anyway.
Like I meantioned earlyer in this thread - even as a teen I would be baffled at the bafflement of my peers, when they thought that their hero Che Guevara had "betrayed them" by shooting people. Shooting people - IN GENERAL - as in, during battle!
What. Did. They. Expect?

I mean, my assumption was ALWAYS that someone like Che Guevara had to shoot people now and then - hell - even shoot a lot of people! It was war! They were engaged in battles! These were also the ages of US-sponsored dictatorships across Latin America. If Rage is angry at US gvt now - imagine how angry latinamericans were at US influence - and US backed dictatorships back then...
It pissed me off! If they're gonna have posters of him in their room - don't get surprised after YEARS of idol-worship, to discover "OH MY GOD - he fought wars in Africa! I thought he was Cuban!" he wasn't Cuban either, you ignorant pissnecks.

I think Che Guevara was a decent feller. Shooting people and all. That's to be expected from an armed revolutionary.

I always assumed the same. In my mind a freedom fighter had to fight!

[odeon]

Mandela was more clever about it than most, though. No saint, but a really smart man. He is certainly worthy of being honoured now that he is gone.