Nelson Mandela Dead

[davewebbsbrain]

Genuinely surprised at the amount of people calling him a terrorist.

Was a great leader with a powerful voice. RIP

Why are you surprised? It's a fact.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Why are you surprised? It's a fact.

Indeed. I think some people are genuinely unaware.

 

[BrettieAngell]

I am actually ambivalent about the whole thing. It has no bearing on me really.

Same here mate.

 

[chapperzUK]

Why are you surprised? It's a fact.

Because he did so much more, yet some people just want to brand him a terrorist and say "end of". That is what I've been trying to argue for the whole thread, you can't just look at the negatives or just the positives but look at the whole picture.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Because he did so much more, yet some people just want to brand him a terrorist and say "end of". That is what I've been trying to argue for the whole thread, you can't just look at the negatives or just the positives but look at the whole picture.

I have no problem with that, but some people seem to want to put him on a par with really good people, like Mother Teresa, and that, for me, is just wrong. It's like the whole Diana thing over again, saviours of the world, both of them.

 

[chapperzUK]

I have no problem with that, but some people seem to want to put him on a par with really good people, like Mother Teresa, and that, for me, is just wrong. It's like the whole Diana thing over again, saviours of the world, both of them.

Was always going to happen after his death as emotions run higher than normal. IMO he was a great man, but he wasn't perfect.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

The continuing problems in Northern Ireland and the inability of politicians and either community to close the divide show how great was the achievement of Mr Mandela to succeed to such an extent with the greater problems in South Africa. when that FACT is considered and the ripple effect across the world for equality,freedom tolerance, forgiveness and diversity is recognised then his life achievement is clearly immense and worthy of respect.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Question for Chapperz, Pubey , MK etc.

Just wonder how you feel about the Al Qaeda attacks on Western Targets in Muslim lands. Is there that much difference between what Mandela did and what Bin Laden did?

Both used terrorism to attack western people in their own lands to support a belief they had. Both the ANC and Al-Qaeda attacked a shopping mall to kill western hostages? Both committed atrocities (as did the West I am sure).

Do you feel Bin laden is the same as NM?

ANC were fighting for equality and democracy, Al Qaeda fight against both of those concepts - that's a big difference.

 

[Benfleet A1]

No we probably wouldn't, but then you could say the same about black people in Africa.

Ok, I'll answer Pubeys question and at the same time give you a little history lesson seeing as you admit to not knowing much in that department. Pay attention now.

Question for GBJ, TB, DTS etc:

Imagine this.

We're all White British football fans. Imagine our country was suddenly taken over by another race of people (for instance, Australians). Imagine that they ran the country, destroyed our culture (all pubs only served Fosters, the only TV was Home & Away). They started to segregate the Australian immigrants and indigenous Brits. If you didn't meet their laws, then horrible things happened, like:

shot for protesting
everyone was squeezed into 13% of the total land - Yorkshire?
Social conservatism banned lots of stuff.Women were oppressed, many people forced into poverty. Approximately 40,000 people were whipped brutally each year. You weren't allowed to freely move. Fleeing was pretty much impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa

If some inspiring leaders were organising a revolution/militant opposition to this, to establish equality and freedom for the oppressed Brits - would you take part? Would you take part in sabotaging the governments infrastructure? Would you try and assassinate the leaders?

Just curious.

Lets take a deeper look at the scenario presented to us by Pubey.

We're all White British football fans. Imagine our country was suddenly taken over by another race of people (for instance, Australians). Imagine that they ran the country, destroyed our culture (all pubs only served Fosters, the only TV was Home & Away). They started to segregate the Australian immigrants and indigenous Brits. If you didn't meet their laws, then horrible things happened, like:

Lets substitute White British football fans taken over by Austrailians for Indigenous Natives taken over by European White Settlers in North America or European White Settlers in Austrailia or New Zealand. And lets say they took control of those countries, destroyed cultures [tried to force alian religions on them gave them desease's they had never had before]. They started to segregate the new immigrants and indigenous people. I you didn't meet the laws, then terrible things happened like:

shot for protesting Or whole villages razed to the ground and every man, woman and child slaughtered. [America]
Or a govenment act of assimilation begining with the Aboriginal Protection Act of 1869 which meant the forcible removal of children from their families and communities. [Austrailia]
Or perhaps giving the natives muskets in trade which resulted in between 30 to 40,000 Maori killing each other during 1801 and 1840 [New Zealand]

everyone was squeezed into 13% of the total land - Yorkshire?
Or tiny pockets of land called Reservations [America]
Or non acceptance of ownership of land not repealed until 1992 [Austrailia]
Or just plain old confiscation of Maori land period [New Zealand]

Social conservatism banned lots of stuff.Women were oppressed, many people forced into poverty. Approximately 40,000 people were whipped brutally each year. You weren't allowed to freely move. Fleeing was pretty much impossible.Social conservatism banned lots of stuff.Women were oppressed, many people forced into poverty. Approximately 40,000 people were whipped brutally each year. You weren't allowed to freely move. Fleeing was pretty much impossible.

Hundreds slaughtered in battle, tens of thousands starved to death because they were forced from their traditional hunting grounds, shot or hung for leaving reservations, fleeing was a death sentence. [America]
Forced removal of children from families and communities, forced re-settlement, mass decline in population due to introduced diseases[Austrailia]
In tribal fighting made worse through introduction of muskets, introduced diseases. [New Zealand]

If some inspiring leaders were organising a revolution/militant opposition to this, to establish equality and freedom for the oppressed Brits - would you take part? Would you take part in sabotaging the governments infrastructure? Would you try and assassinate the leaders?

Native Indian uprising in America resulted in one victory at little Big Horn then almost complete annihilation over the next ten years or so. Today there is no Native American in national govenment.
Aboriginal rights have only really been reconised since the late 1980's. The vast majority still live on state hand-outs and alcoholism runs in the high 80% of all adult males. No representation at national govenment only minimal at state level.
The Maori people have faired better over the years but their is still a problem with intergration with many prefering to stay within their own communities.

So considering the above and also considering how some feel about the past in South Africa, don't you think the above mentioned countries should do the right thing and hand back to the original indiginous people.

Just curious.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Well said GHG, can't rep you at the moment

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

GHG - very true - near genocide in the cases of USA, NZ and Australia.
The main difference is that the segregation in South Africa was in our lifetime.
What would your answer to your own question be? If it is posed to try to catch people out then its not very valid - is it to back up your argument or to try to make someone else's look shaky?
Giving back land taken two or three generations ago is obviously a lot harder to administer (property maybe changing hands 10 or so times) than bringing to an end a system of racism and segregation that was still in existence when I was a teenager. You'd need a time machine to be able to genuinely mend the other examples.

 

[Pubey]

Ok, I'll answer Pubeys question and at the same time give you a little history lesson seeing as you admit to not knowing much in that department. Pay attention now.



Lets take a deeper look at the scenario presented to us by Pubey.

We're all White British football fans. Imagine our country was suddenly taken over by another race of people (for instance, Australians). Imagine that they ran the country, destroyed our culture (all pubs only served Fosters, the only TV was Home & Away). They started to segregate the Australian immigrants and indigenous Brits. If you didn't meet their laws, then horrible things happened, like:

Lets substitute White British football fans taken over by Austrailians for Indigenous Natives taken over by European White Settlers in North America or European White Settlers in Austrailia or New Zealand. And lets say they took control of those countries, destroyed cultures [tried to force alian religions on them gave them desease's they had never had before]. They started to segregate the new immigrants and indigenous people. I you didn't meet the laws, then terrible things happened like:

shot for protesting Or whole villages razed to the ground and every man, woman and child slaughtered. [America]
Or a govenment act of assimilation begining with the Aboriginal Protection Act of 1869 which meant the forcible removal of children from their families and communities. [Austrailia]
Or perhaps giving the natives muskets in trade which resulted in between 30 to 40,000 Maori killing each other during 1801 and 1840 [New Zealand]

everyone was squeezed into 13% of the total land - Yorkshire?
Or tiny pockets of land called Reservations [America]
Or non acceptance of ownership of land not repealed until 1992 [Austrailia]
Or just plain old confiscation of Maori land period [New Zealand]

Social conservatism banned lots of stuff.Women were oppressed, many people forced into poverty. Approximately 40,000 people were whipped brutally each year. You weren't allowed to freely move. Fleeing was pretty much impossible.Social conservatism banned lots of stuff.Women were oppressed, many people forced into poverty. Approximately 40,000 people were whipped brutally each year. You weren't allowed to freely move. Fleeing was pretty much impossible.

Hundreds slaughtered in battle, tens of thousands starved to death because they were forced from their traditional hunting grounds, shot or hung for leaving reservations, fleeing was a death sentence. [America]
Forced removal of children from families and communities, forced re-settlement, mass decline in population due to introduced diseases[Austrailia]
In tribal fighting made worse through introduction of muskets, introduced diseases. [New Zealand]

If some inspiring leaders were organising a revolution/militant opposition to this, to establish equality and freedom for the oppressed Brits - would you take part? Would you take part in sabotaging the governments infrastructure? Would you try and assassinate the leaders?

Native Indian uprising in America resulted in one victory at little Big Horn then almost complete annihilation over the next ten years or so. Today there is no Native American in national govenment.
Aboriginal rights have only really been reconised since the late 1980's. The vast majority still live on state hand-outs and alcoholism runs in the high 80% of all adult males. No representation at national govenment only minimal at state level.
The Maori people have faired better over the years but their is still a problem with intergration with many prefering to stay within their own communities.

So considering the above and also considering how some feel about the past in South Africa, don't you think the above mentioned countries should do the right thing and hand back to the original indiginous people.

Just curious.

Sounds fair to me. Our treatment of indigenous people was utterly horrendous. Would it be a stretch to argue that Mandela had a positive impact on indigenous people in US, NZ and Australia? In all the their rights have been positively transformed in the last 20 years (although there's a long way to go). They do all have democratic rights however.

 

[chapperzUK]

Sounds fair to me. Our treatment of indigenous people was utterly horrendous. Would it be a stretch to argue that Mandela had a positive impact on indigenous people in US, NZ and Australia? In all the their rights have been positively transformed in the last 20 years (although there's a long way to go). They do all have democratic rights however.

Agree with this. Although, are they still being oppressed in the same way?

 

[Benfleet A1]

GHG - very true - near genocide in the cases of USA, NZ and Australia.
The main difference is that the segregation in South Africa was in our lifetime.
What would your answer to your own question be? If it is posed to try to catch people out then its not very valid - is it to back up your argument or to try to make someone else's look shaky?
Giving back land taken two or three generations ago is obviously a lot harder to administer (property maybe changing hands 10 or so times) than bringing to an end a system of racism and segregation that was still in existence when I was a teenager. You'd need a time machine to be able to genuinely mend the other examples.

I'm not trying to catch anyone out, I'm just pointing out that the bleeding hearts seem to have selective memories or at the very least prefer to forget certain parts of history which might not fit in with their agenda. They could always use the time machine that was used by those claiming compensation for relatives who were supposedly sold into slavery a few years ago. Didn't seem to have any problems proving that.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Agree with this. Although, are they still being oppressed in the same way?

What are you agreeing with? Pubey is replying to what I said, offering an opinion and stating an outcome. You are just bandwagon jumping then asking the same question. Try reading a book to gain some knowledge instead of fumbling about in the dark.

 

[* ORM *]

A minutes applause at a football ground FFS. Sorry this is utterly pathetic and that has nothing to do with my views on him. Good debate btw. Polarised views without degenerating.

Still a ****ing terrorist :smile:

 

[Firestorm]

He never asked me one. And as for Churchill, if he hadn't taken the decisions he did then you and me probably wouldn't be having this little chat.

A number of the really brutal air raids happened well after the threat of invasion had passed

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Even great poeple make wrong choices in the process of life,churchill included.

 

[steveo]

A number of the really brutal air raids happened well after the threat of invasion had passed

But they could have surrendered and stopped it all a any time.

 

[chapperzUK]

What are you agreeing with? Pubey is replying to what I said, offering an opinion and stating an outcome. You are just bandwagon jumping then asking the same question. Try reading a book to gain some knowledge instead of fumbling about in the dark.

Bandwagon jumping? Read the thread over and I was the first one to say we should remember the good he did instead of just brand him a terrorist. I'm agreeing with Pubey that the acts were horrendous and we should arguably hand the land back over.

If you've got any book recommendations then throw them over.