Nelson Mandela dead at 95

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Alot of anger towards him. I guess fighting Aparthied is bad? any of you walk a mile in his shoes? Aparthied made our segregated drinking fountains look like black utopia, South Africa sucked for blacks.....and it was their native land....

Believer that American slavery was right and the union commited war crimes?

Pretty much the same thing, I am sorry equality of man is so hard to believe in, it is, that is why Mandela and others had to take such extreme measures.

Such Rascism.

Sorry to offend anyones white supremacy. Must be the liberal in me, and I voted for the negroid president...2 times... Now whatcha gonna do?

So you call it racist when 92% of deaths were "black on black"? Or is it that I am a racist for pointing out that Mandela and the ANC were more about killing their political competition than they were about actually ending apartheid? It has nothing to do with "white supremacy" - isn't it funny the people that want to elevate Mandela are the ones that scream racist. He killed whites and blacks - and he killed more blacks than he did whites. Does that make HIM racist?

What your pissed about is that I won't respect a murdering thug who is held up as a hero. Well guess what - I don't think much of Che Guevara either. Or Trotsky, Pol Pot, Masu, Mariam, Chavez, Castro or Zedong either. The list goes on and on. Thugs who wanted power and would do whatever it took to get it.

So call me a racist if you like - it has nothing to do with race - it has to do with choices of action. If you call killing 3 women in a bar with a bomb heroism, then we have no common ground. If you call ordering murders from a jail cell - including "neclacing" where a tire was put around someone's neck (usually a black someone from a rival political gang!), filled with a flammable fuel and then lit on fire as a means of execution "heroism" or "fighting for freedom" - then there just is no reasoning with you.

[soopaman2]

Americas civil war had many victims (a million plus dead or wounded on both sides), not intended. But the result made for a free nation.

You got your reasons to hate him, and that is fine with me, but I got my reasons to like him, and I hope that is fine with you.

(in other words, we should agree to disagree )

The results of his work made for a non segregated society. Unless your into white supremacy in Africa, where whites are not native. See my point, we did not belong there, in the first place, telling those people what to do and how, that is my point.

How would you feel were it the other way around? Would you not rebel? We are 200 years past lords and kings, yet ...Nevermind...

And people think Americans have an unfair sense of supremacy, oughta look at how euros still try to play lord and conquerer, even when it is far far over for them

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

(in other words, we should agree to disagree )

I don't hate the man - I hate his actions and the propaganda put out to make him appear beatific. It may sound like I hate him, but I don't. I still wouldn't have much mercy for his soul - but then again, I believe my Creator is a lot bigger in that regard than I am, and I defer to whatever His judgment will be.

As for us agreeing to disagree - I could do that - except for the whole "racist" thing. Calling names and then going "well, can't we just get along" just doesn't sit well with me.

I am sure if I looked you in the eye, insulted you and then held out my hand and said "lets just agree to disagree, slimeball" you'd probably feel the same way.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I don't hate the man - I hate his actions and the propaganda put out to make him appear beatific. It may sound like I hate him, but I don't. I still wouldn't have much mercy for his soul - but then again, I believe my Creator is a lot bigger in that regard than I am, and I defer to whatever His judgment will be.

As for us agreeing to disagree - I could do that - except for the whole "racist" thing. Calling names and then going "well, can't we just get along" just doesn't sit well with me.

I am sure if I looked you in the eye, insulted you and then held out my hand and said "lets just agree to disagree, slimeball" you'd probably feel the same way.

Wow what a stretch.

Nice way to get out of being insensitive and putting it on me. I just asked you to walk a mile in his aparthied shoes.

How would you like to face rascism that made 1950-1960s america look tame?

You seem to subscribe to it when you defended his Boer Oppressors, so pardon my assumption to rascism.


I tried to be nice and extend a laurel branch, but we can debate this, and wreck each other verbally for awhile longer, I got it in me.

I acknowledged what he did wrong, but you never acknowledged what he did right. So who is being unreasonable here?

So mandela had no impact on world events, and deserves no praise, just scorn? Is that your point?

HE DID NOTHING FOR HIS COUNTRY, NOTHING?

(EDIT: all crap aside he is S Africas George Washington, and no outside opinion can take that from the sentiments of the people.

Once again, lets just agree to disagree, I will never see it your way, nor you mine.

It has nothing to do with "white supremacy"

When you defend a state that is built on its belief in white supremacy and post links to "Christian" fundamentalists who believe in white supremacy then it is about white supremacy.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Americas civil war had many victims (a million plus dead or wounded on both sides), not intended. But the result made for a free nation.

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - at that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all. Why should the one who managed economy better, pay for the debts resulting from the other who wasted more than he could afford? there is a reason why the Southern economy and finance system was annihilated so mercilessly by the North. It was to destroy any possible basis for autonomy and to make sure the South could never afford to live independant from the North again.

Sounds familiar to you? You are right - history is repeating itself today. In EUpistan.

I have become extremely hesitent to see the freeing of slaves as a driving motive of the American civil war. It was about money, destroying local sovereignity and centralised power to strengthen control over the creation of money. Once that was secured, the age of real monumental spending frenzies began, slow at first, but with constantly growing pace. It lasts until today.

Slaves - who cares for slaves... pfffft... Not back then. Not today. We just have globalised the slave quarters, to not have them in our sights thta much.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - and that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all.

Sounds familiar to you? You are right - history is repeating itself today.

I have become extremely hesitent to see the freeing of slaves as a driving motive of the American civil war. It was about money, destroying local sovereignity and centralised power to strengthen control over the creation of money. Once that was secured, the age of real monumental spending frenzies began, slow at first, but with constantly growing pace. It lasts until today.

Slaves - who cares for slaves... pfffft... Not back then. Not today. We just have globalised the slave quarters, to not have them in our sights thta much.

Sadly we were the last nation to make slavery a bad thing. Every country has its demons, and even the most die hard of southerners know enslaving someone is wrong, they were slighted by being told what to do by the feds, and I get that, In time the south woulda abolished slavery on there own.


But look at what Mandela did, within a country that is way less tolerant than us. That was my point, some folks seem to think him as evil as Hitler, when all he wanted was an equal voice for natives.

The white Dutch Euros owned S africa for years, with staggering rascism, beyond what we could equate in America all he wanted was a voice. He earned that voice, and no matter how some do not like him, he is a voice of his people, something the people deserve, after being crapped on by Euro colonizers for hundreds of years...


Walk a mile in his shoes, we in America kicked Britains ass, for less.

(edit: who wants outsiders to dictate what is best for us?)

[em2nought]

I bet Hillary is happy she won't have to run against him for the democratic nomination.

[Highbury]

This thread was always bound to turn, but I will put my $0.02 in anyways

I appreciate and value what he did after his release from prison, but I refrain from making him a hero because I also realize he was in prison for more than the color of his skin.

I never believe terrorism is justified. Whether it is trying to get equal rights, or drive a foreign power from your land.

If you disagree with me or find my post inflammatory, I apologize.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Highbury

I appreciate and value what he did after his release from prison, but I refrain from making him a hero because I also realize he was in prison for more than the colour of his skin.

That bit certainly works for me.

Try and keep this thread at an acceptable level everyone.

TIA

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Highbury

If you disagree with me or find my post inflammatory, I apologize.

You should not. There is no right to be not offended, so you owe no apology, especially not for your opinion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Sadly we were the last nation to make slavery a bad thing.

No - Slavery was legal on this planet up until 1981 - when Mauritania formally made it illegal. 116 years after the US War between the States.

But look at what Mandela did, within a country that is way less tolerant than us. That was my point, some folks seem to think him as evil as Hitler, when all he wanted was an equal voice for natives.

And it is this that creates the disconnect. I have linked FACT that shows that he wasn't about "equal voice for natives". He wanted equal voice for the natives that agreed with his political group - the rest he was perfectly happy to have killed. Sounds kind of like the brown shirts in Germany during the 1930's to me....

You claim people want to ignore what he has done - odd - because all I have done is point out what he has done. Somehow that made me a "racist".

The white Dutch Euros owned S africa for years, with staggering rascism, beyond what we could equate in America all he wanted was a voice. He earned that voice, and no matter how some do not like him, he is a voice of his people, something the people deserve, after being crapped on by Euro colonizers for hundreds of years..

I am not defending Colonialism - but you talk about the people being crapped on. Yet he and his ilk, along with their political competition - were responsible for 92% of the deaths that occurred during transition. Black on black killings. So who crapped on the people more - the evil whites who repressed the people, or the blacks who just executed them?

You say I don't give him credit for the good things he did. Tell me - what were they? He didn't write the SA interim constitution. As President, he in fact increased military spending drastically - when his people needed the government to rebuild their society. Should we applaud him simply because he "beat" his rivals - and ignore the way he did it? Should we celebrate his camaraderie and praise of tyrants like Khadafy?

Walk a mile in his shoes, we in America kicked Britains ass, for less.

We declared our independence after following the law as written. Check out the Declaration of Arms, 1775. The "rebellion" came only after working within the system - and we fought our oppressors - not each other. The same can not be said for the ANC - who killed their fellow "blacks" with abandon - and in much greater numbers than they did their "white oppressors". That alone says much.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - at that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all. Why should the one who managed economy better, pay for the debts resulting from the other who wasted more than he could afford? there is a reason why the Southern economy and finance system was annihilated so mercilessly by the North. It was to destroy any possible basis for autonomy and to make sure the South could never afford to live independant from the North again.

This leaves me with a couple of problems.

Problem 1: I can show equal documentation which would prove that nothing in the above post is true, but I can't do it here. Which leads to...

Problem 2: I realize that Soopaman2 referred to the American Civil War first, but his post was about collateral damage. Yours was about causes which, as I have pointed out many times before, are a major side-tracking of the thread. This is especially true for me, because I want to have that discussion but can't and won't do it here. If you want to continue it please start a new thread, or go back to one of the several Civil War threads. If not, I'll drop it after this.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

filled with a flammable fuel and then lit on fire as a means of execution "heroism" or "fighting for freedom" - then there just is no reasoning with you.

Also known as a 'Kentucky"

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This leaves me with a couple of problems.
I'll drop it after this.

Many thanks for your timely gravitas! Now back to Foster's, Lone Star, and Hamm's so Privateer can kick my ass as promised inasmuch as this thread become boering as well as unnecessarily contentious.

However Martin Luther King said it best and I cannot believe that it would have escaped Mandela's notice: "He who accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Apartheid, along with much of the murderous, enslaving, dehumanizing colonialism of three centuries on the 'dark continent' WAS evil. And based on race and or tribalism, markedly so, as in Rawanda and the (Belgian)Congo, to this day. Mandela saw the evil, refused to accept it and did not cooperate with it. He studied evil's war manual and used enough of it to defeat it till no longer needing the tools of it. All government is bad; the trick is to live where it is least worst...and in Africa today that is a tough call; Mandela made South Africa the least worst call at present...

[BossMark]

Nice to see Man utd fans observe a 90 minute silence for Nelson Mandela.