New Testingstan

so Nelson Madela is dead
one of the best men of the twentieth century
RIP

commie terrorist

we will continue to fight social injustice Mr Mandela. You take a rest. You earned it.

evilsoup wrote:so Nelson Madela is dead
one of the best men of the twentieth century
RIP

"Arguably one of the greatest men of the 20th Century"

Really, Tony? Who is going to argue this point? Margaret Thatcher? Ronald Reagan? John "No Sanctions for South Africa" Howard?

thejester wrote:"Arguably one of the greatest men of the 20th Century"

Really, Tony? Who is going to argue this point? Margaret Thatcher? Ronald Reagan? John "No Sanctions for South Africa" Howard?

I've already seen at least one person ask why we were honoring terrorists.

some of the shit andrew bolt's readers have wrote in the comments list is p. fucking funny

Can someone give me the stupid american version of why there are people saying he was a terrorist and worse than hitler?

ummmm because he *was* a terrorist?

why else do you think he was bffs with fidel fucking castro of all people?

When the intentions are ultimately good I think you can call them a freedom fighter.

thejester wrote:Really, Tony? Who is going to argue this point? Margaret Thatcher? Ronald Reagan? John "No Sanctions for South Africa" Howard?

Even when acknowledging the passing of a great figure, it's non-committal phrasing.

one wonders why a non-commital phrase would be used to describe the effect Mandela had on an entire century

timmy wrote:When the intentions are ultimately good I think you can call them a freedom fighter.

I have to say I despise this way of thinking. We should hold our allies and our enemies to the same standards.

I would say that the 'terrorist' label can be defined best along the lines of 'knowingly killing/harming civilians/illegitimate targets'. I don't think the ANC under Mandela did this (they targeted infrastructure and struck at night, to avoid casualties) so I don't think he could really be called a terrorist.

evilsoup wrote:

timmy wrote:When the intentions are ultimately good I think you can call them a freedom fighter.

I have to say I despise this way of thinking. We should hold our allies and our enemies to the same standards.

I would say that the 'terrorist' label can be defined best along the lines of 'knowingly killing/harming civilians/illegitimate targets'. I don't think the ANC under Mandela did this (they targeted infrastructure and struck at night, to avoid casualties) so I don't think he could really be called a terrorist.

yeah, he was in prison for basically the entire time that the MK was active, including the period when they killed most of the 130 people that died due to them

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.
This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:
'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'
Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence."
-Nelson Mandela

evilsoup wrote:

timmy wrote:When the intentions are ultimately good I think you can call them a freedom fighter.

I have to say I despise this way of thinking. We should hold our allies and our enemies to the same standards.

I would say that the 'terrorist' label can be defined best along the lines of 'knowingly killing/harming civilians/illegitimate targets'. I don't think the ANC under Mandela did this (they targeted infrastructure and struck at night, to avoid casualties) so I don't think he could really be called a terrorist.

They did a lot more than that. 'Necklacing,' where you put a tire around someone's neck and then set it aflame, was a common practice of the ANC and ANC supporters. They routinely beat up, harassed, and killed black political leaders who worked with the apartheid government and certain white dignitaries, and targeted all manner of people/infrastructure to get their point across.

Not a condemnation, just a fact.

Also, as a complete sidenote, I've become enamored with the definition of terrorism that says it's an attempt to turn make the environment of a target hostile to the target. I think it captures the depth of terrorism and how it operates both on a physical and psychological level more than almost anything else.

Btw, want to read a Reagan speech on South Africa? I know you do.

I only skimmed through the first page of that before clicking the link to 'The Shocking Sex Secrets of Insects' but it seemed reasonable to me.

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain has denounced punitive sanctions as immoral and utterly repugnant. Well, let me tell you why we believe Mrs. Thatcher is right."

wasn't necklacing one of those things that took place while Mandela was in prison though?
Admittedly he probably got 'lucky' being arrested when he did, since it stopped him from being associated with the most violent bits of ANC activity (and by Desmond Tutu's account prison was a transformative environment for Mandela)

Also, as a complete sidenote, I've become enamored with the definition of terrorism that says it's an attempt to turn make the environment of a target hostile to the target.

I like the thrust of that one, but I think you need to include 'violence' somewhere in there -- as it stands couldn't this definition be applied to the various social justice movements?

Yes. Absolutely.

I think that's probably a good thing.

Edit: Lest this be taken ambiguously, I am pro-terrorism. Not anti-Social Justice (though I find the name problematic on many levels.)

would you care to expand on that? Being pro-terrorism I mean
personally I'm not completely opposed to it in all circumstances. I think that all forms of violence are evil, but that there is such a thing as necessary evil, and so there are some cases where terrorism can be justified

also... it kind of feels like you're defining terrorism to be something significantly different from the way most people would recognise it. I understand that sometimes academic terms can drift away from everyday usage (and vice-versa) but I don't know if that's something you should actively, deliberately contribute to

Straha wrote:"The Prime Minister of Great Britain has denounced punitive sanctions as immoral and utterly repugnant. Well, let me tell you why we believe Mrs. Thatcher is right."

Christ, I just re-read it with an audible groan. "Oh yeah," I said to myself, "Trickle-down economics."

Reagan tricked me from beyond the grave

evilsoup wrote:would you care to expand on that? Being pro-terrorism I mean
personally I'm not completely opposed to it in all circumstances. I think that all forms of violence are evil, but that there is such a thing as necessary evil, and so there are some cases where terrorism can be justified

also... it kind of feels like you're defining terrorism to be something significantly different from the way most people would recognise it. I understand that sometimes academic terms can drift away from everyday usage (and vice-versa) but I don't know if that's something you should actively, deliberately contribute to

I lost a longer post on this, so quickly back to front:

I do think my definition is academic, but I think one of the interesting notions of the past fifteen years or so inside media (including social media, to make a shadow outline of my critique of 'social justice') and culture is the increasing insulation of groups from both ideas that disagree with preconcieved notions of the world and with the academic ideas that help to create those notions. I think the best way to challenge this is to bring these academic ideas and discussions into my 'nonacademic' life. Y'all ain't dumb, and to have this exchange betters us all. So why not?

On Terrorism:

So, the academic definition reflects a growing awareness that all ideas come from specific, protected environments that help to incubate them, develop and spread them. The only way to challenge them in the modern world is to take on these environments, to separate the idea from the environment is now an impossibility. I'd go on but it'd be a short, and unworthy, summary of Sloterdijk's book Terror from the Air which you should read (I can even hook you up with a digital copy if you're so inclined.)

On the violence front, no group fighting for recognition and respect has ever been able to achieve it without using violence, or by acting in such a way so as to compel the state (or other powers that be) into violence against them that also legitimizes the users of those violent acts. If we are committed to our goals, violence is absolutely necessary. Moreover, the main complaint of oppressed groups tends to be that they are illegitimate targets of violence and force. To simply expect them to roll over, or to ask the oppressors to change their ways out of the goodness of their hearts, will always re-entrench new forms of structural inequality. That's unacceptable to me. Violence is problematic, yes, but it is also liberatory and necessary to reshape power relations and rather than act uncomfortable about that I think we need to embrace it and move on.

Straha wrote:Violence is problematic, yes

I don't mean to sound insulting so I apologise if I do, but this is like the most academic phrasing I've ever seen.

Straha wrote:no group fighting for recognition and respect has ever been able to achieve it without using violence, or by acting in such a way so as to compel the state (or other powers that be) into violence against them that also legitimizes the users of those violent acts.

define "group" and "violence", as with standard definitions of these terms the statement is historically problematic

To simply expect them to roll over, or to ask the oppressors to change their ways out of the goodness of their hearts, will always re-entrench new forms of structural inequality.

this is a false dilemma. the alternatives are not passivity or violence. striking workers are not asking their employers to do anything out of "the goodness of their hearts", nor are they threatening anyone with violence.