Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 1

message: Have you all forgotten (Thatcher) that it was the British who invented Apartheid? Mahatma Ghandi was in South Africa before the turn of the 19th century, and had to carry a passbook because he was Asian. That was one of his motivations for the "Big Walk". South Africa was under British rule then... it was also the British who invented concentration camps, rounding up all the Boer women and children during the Anglo Boer War, and storing them in barbed wire encampments, run by tyrants, putting ground-glass into their porridge to kill them off. So much for the Queen awarding Mandela high honours for undoing what her predecessors started.
And whilst were on interesting facts, do all you Mandela-adulators believe that "the end justifies the means", i.e. that horrific terrorism is justified if the enemy is "bad"? If so, you better forgive that other man who believes the same: Ossama Bin Laden.
Apartheid was formally instituted as a system by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party in 1948, and while the British certainly administered the country in a racist fashion, I would not argue that they were the ones who began the whole trend.
As for the "terrorism" part, yes Mandela's organization used violence in persuit of its goals of racial equality and freedom for South Africa. The American founding fathers also used violence. Are we to condemn them as "terrorists"?
----
I'm writing a newspaper article. I come from England and think that it was pretty disgraceful. Margeret Thatcher is an arrogant old hag who didn't care about anything but her opinion. Calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist was completely unjustified when she was ignorin the suffering and exploitation in South Africa. England done nothing so why be sensitive abut it?
------
do you think you could make this page a little more boring? 
its not enough that you degraded the greatest leader of the 
late 20th century to some kinda cereal box description of
a prize package. i think you need to make it even more bland 
and meaningless. you use too many adjectives. try to
take out the picture, and remove references to 
any 'power words', you should called the MK the 'defense wing'
and say he was jailed on charges of 'messing about'. 
----
---
2003/10/07: Removed those "far left" references again for the same reasons as before. The opinion may have some validity, but please contextualise before adding this opinion, by quoting from speeches, defining this 'far left' etc.
2003/9/19: "Questioning George Bush's motives is hardly racist." Maybe not, but his defense of the terrorist who slaughtered 271 innocent Scots in a plane explosion over the small village of Lockerbie is. How can he feel sorry for this madman who, despite the protests of nearly all Scots (not that England gives a damn), will be released after only twenty year? And he has the gaul to visit the survivors and families of the victims in order to make them think the same way? Disgraceful.
FYI: England was sorely hurt - it gave a big damn and still does. From the newspapers, tv, radio stations, people on the street disussions in bars. Such anti England comments are completely unwarrented.
    2004.04.29 USA/UK supporting apartheit was also pretty ******/discraceful & killed loads.  Who was the bigger terrorist?
2003/4/29: Removed the bit about Mandela being exploited by the 'far left'. I don't like removing text, but that just seems wrong and I don't see a way to correct it. Feel free to add it in again if you can back it up. In SA, the 'far left' would be the PAC and Azapo, neither of who've had much time for Mandela, and can hardly be said to be manipulating him. Mbeki's presidency is one that focuses less on reconciliation, and more on development for Africans, which could argubly be termed more left. Or are you counting the TAC as far left, and claiming Mandela's stand on Aids as evidence!?!?
So unless you can back up who this far left is, and how they're manipulating Mandela, I think it should be removed.
2003/5/1: Removed reference to Mandela as a racist!? Questioning George Bush's motives is hardly racist. Calling the comment confusing is POV, and analysis belongs in the Iraq war article, not here, so I've removed it. The whole reference to the speech is not contextualised in the article, getting as much attention as his entire presidency, but that can change over time as the article develops
2003/07/23: I've removed the latter part of the reference discussed in the entry above. I agree that the discussion of Mandela's controversial speech lacks context. If someone else wants to include an expanded discussion of his position on the war on Iraq, I suggest perusing the following articles:
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2710181.stm
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,885964,00.html
----
:This speech, which contained several factual innaccuracies, was quite controversial even among many of his supporters.
What are the "factual inaccuracies"? Without explaining them, I don't think we can include those words and still claim to be NPOV, so I'm removing them. -- Sam
----
Took out this phrase, which seems to be false: "In 1966 he briefly converted to Islam and changed his name to Mohammad Mandela." Fuzheado 04:29, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Mandela converted to Islam.
168.209.98.35
----
According to the local South African newspaper, The Argus, 18 July 2003 pg 7, he did.
:Please provide a link. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен  04:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Subscriber only site. Password protected. Fuzheado 13:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims about conversion 

message: I removed the following POV material from the intro paragraph:
::despite his controversial support for Communist totalitarian regimes and praise for Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro and Moammar Qaddafi. However, during the time of the apartheid regime, some Western politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan considered him little more than a terrorist, and contemporary critics on the political right still question the media's silence on the more radical aspects of his political career, notably his sympathy for Socialist dictatorships.
Criticism of Mandela's ties to certain leaders certainly belongs in the article; it belongs, however, in a section devoted to criticism of him. Talking about "the media's silence" in the intro paragraph (and I deleted references to the mainstream media as "far left") does not a neutral article make.Zantastik 01:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro paragraph pov 

message: I am not sure that Transkei exsisted in 1918. Was it part of the Cape Province then?--Jcw69 08:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transkei 

message: The first paragraph of the article has “Nelson Mandela was born in Mvezo in the Transkei on 18 July 1918.” and then “At age 19, in 1934, Mandela moved to the Wesleyan College in Fort Beaufort”
If you do the math, you can see both of them can't possibly be true. Where is the error in this, and can someone fix it? Sastrawan 08:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1918 or 1934? 

message: The point of this added category is two fold.
*1. Many people actually still consider NM to be a terrorist.  Dick Cheney for example was opposed to his release from prison.
*2. I think it's important to highlight the shift in perceptions that can occur in cases like this because I think it causes a deeper examination of what terrorism is.
The definition of terrorism is a semantic timebomb and in my opinion should generally be avoided but not putting him in this category does a disservice to history and the truth.  He was once involved in violent political activity but is now considered one of the most beloved people on earth.  What a life??
Also, I put it right next to the revolutionaries category because there is frequently a thin line between the two (heh).TitaniumDreads 10:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandela in the Terrorist Category (what's up with that?) 

message: What is the evidence that the CIA turned Mandela in to the South African police in 1962? He doesn't say this in his autobiography.
I have seen a source somewhere - will try and find it again. Seem to remember it was a fairly recent discovery, so Mandela wouldn't have known who turned him in when he worked on his autobiography. Greenman - May 4, 2005
The source I'm thinking of was in print, but here's an online source:: http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/cia_tip.html Greenman - May 4, 2005
-Thanks Greenman - I did actually see that on-line reference but note that the report is dated June 10, 1990 - ie two years BEFORE Mandela wrote The Long Walk To Freedom. Surely if he thought it was correct he'd have mentioned it in his book? Also note that the website you cite is a "political conspiracy research bin" by an author who writes about the "secret world of American Fascisti" and about "CIA mind control operations" - hardly a credible source! That's why I amended the reference to this with the "possibly" but perhaps it should be removed entirely?
: I think the 'possibly' qualifies it well enough so that readers will realise it is disputed.  I don't think it should be removed entirely. Dewet 09:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is all that, I wholeheartedly agree.  But he was also part of the terror tactics the ANC did perform.  Today, the word terrorist is a loaded term, but essentially it is an applicable label. Dewet 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with both FediM and Dewet. It all depends on which side you're on. A freedom fighter to one person is a terrorist to another. I think there should be mention to the fact that Mandela was considered as a terrorist (and still is to the Bush administration) as well as a freedom fighter who trained in terror activities in the Umkhonto we Sizwe training camps --Jcw69 17:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the question of NM being a terrorist depends which side you're on.  He committed terrorism by objective terms(planting bombs etc).  The real (moral) question is if those acts were good or bad.  Most of us would say it's good because ostensibly it won freedom for the people of south africa but of course the families of the people killed by Mandelas bombs probably don't agree.  As a society and in particularly in the wake of 9/11 we see terrorism in a pejoritive context while simultaneously viewing certain people who have perpetuated it as heros (ex. Mandela, members of the boston tea party).  I added NM to the terrorist category and someone has already rm'd it.  Whether intentional or not, I think this is an attempt to clean the conscience of history. TitaniumDreads 18:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA turned him in