Talk:Nelson Mandela/Archive 2

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:: . 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 

message: "I am a freedom fighter; you are a guerrilla; he is a terrorist."  Depends upon the viewpoint.  Which is the neutral point of view? How do we describe a man such as Nelson Mandela?  He fits the definition of each such term, as they have usually been defined.  Is a NPOV always possible?  Too Old 05:22, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
*anyone who would refer to NM as a terrorist in today's loaded use of the term, with its connotations and everything it implies today is clearly an idiot.  the bombing of Fallujah was a terrorist act, and the ones that ordered its destruction are terrorists, the ones that rammed two planes into the twin towers are terrorists. the term changes from generation to generation with one spectacular attack that changes the entire meaning of the word.  in the 1830s up to the 1860s in the brit empire, the term 'democracy' was hardly used by the establishment, it was a term they abhorred because it implied worker and urban class enfranchizement. two decades later the term becomes widely used by the politikos in the UK and elsewhere.  in the 80s, the term 'terrorist' had a different meaning than it does today, the same with the 60s and 70s.  it was actually a chic term in most of europe in the 60s and 70s with che's adventures in latin america and africa, as well as the red army fraction and similar groups in europe. NM would love to be included as a fighter alongside che, but hardly with the real terrorists of today osama, cheney and bush. [f. fanon]
*The annonymous [f. fanon] seems to  have made my point even more forcefully than I did myself.  I have done a brief scan of his contributions, (which I assume to be those from IP 65.49.129.68) which are often are involved with the attribution of one person or another as a terrorist.  
*I especially note the skirmishing regarding Baruch Goldstein. fanon characterises Goldstein as a terrorist, changing a reference to Jewish Fundamentalism to Jewish terrorism.  The Israelis often speak of Palesitian terrorism; the Palestinians often talk of Israeli terrorism.  To my mind, both often use tactics designed to create terror, in pursuit of political aims.  It is obvious to me that both are terrorized and, in retaliation, use more terrorism.  We may see the last Palestinian and the last Israeli die with their hands on each others' throats. 
*I encourage f.fanon to come out of the closet.  His/her contributions seem valuable to me. Too Old 17:13, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
*Too Old:  I doubt there will be a single definition satisfying everyone.  What may be the solution is to not use loaded terms such as terrorist or freedom fighter, but instead contextualise it by explaining clearly: "...involved in acts to spread terror..." as an example. Dewet 21:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: Assuming that 'Thembu' is the same as Tembu (village), can we get a consensus on the correct spelling? TheMadBaron 11:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thembu/Tembu 

message: Mandela never waged guerrilla warfare against the South African government. He launched sabotage attacks, but that's all.
:True.  He identified four levels of response to apartheid, in escalating order:  peaceful protest, sabotage, guerilla warfare, and terrorism.  He was willing to go through all four stages if necessary, but it never got past sabotage.
:I don't think he fits the sense of the word terrorist.  He didn't have the blatant disregard for life that terrorists have.  Whites had dominated South Africa for 300 years, and the ANC had been peacefully protesting for 50 (which achieved nothing other than protesters getting massacred).  He wasn't Ghandi because it wouldn't have worked:  as he put it, the enemy defines the nature of the battle.  Sabotage was chosen precisely because it heightened the pressure with the least possible human cost (as opposed to guerilla warfare or terrorism).  It was chosen as a last resort.
:Terrorists, in my opinion, unnecessarily cause suffering, often as an emotional response that does little to advance a political cause (has Palestinian violence really advanced their cause faster - after 38 years - or has it delayed justice for their people?).  Bin Laden's terrorism obviously had far more to do with hatred than furthering Muslim causes.  Terrorists also purposely aim at people rather than property.  It's not just about whose side you're on; it's about reasons behind the tactics used.
:You can't ignore the connotations of "terrorist" in light of these obvious differences.  To call Mandela a terrorist would be about as inaccurate as referring to him as a "vandal" because he supported sabotage against property.24.64.223.203 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very important to point out here that it the Apartheid government was the first to use violence, not the ANC.  Mandela and his comrades were more or less forced to answer.  Also, if Mandela can be considered a terrorist for blowing up power plants without harming any people, then what is the governement that more than once opened fire on citizens peacefully demonstrating?
Nick.annejohn 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandela was never a guerrilla leader 

message: Were any of these books in further reading used as sources for this article, or are otherwise able to corroborate its contents? If so, we should be citing our sources. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading and references 

message: From the first paragraph this is a celebration, not a neutral appraisal. It may seem uncontroversial, but that isn't enough. Does everyone think armed struggle was justified? Is everyone convinced that semi-permanent ANC rule is democracy in it ideal form, while the apartheid era elections had no trace of democracy in them? Honbicot 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent revision of opening paragraph. Too many "widely"s however. I've replaced one of them with a "generally".Phase1 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Phase1!Swissjames 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not neutral

message: There is no need, and indeed no way, for 'everyone' to believe that the armed struggle against apartheid was justified.  One might just as well require everyone to become a member of the Salvation Army.  What one hopes - at the very least - is that the majority of Wikipedians share this view - if they do not, then why has the first paragraph survived in this form?  Secondly, elections under the apartheid regime were a farce aimed at reinforcing the rights of an ethnic minority.  The majority of SA citizens arguably did not believe in any 'trace' of democracy in apartheid's you-can-only-vote-if-you-are-white elections. Lastly, the opening paragraph does not state that SA under the ANC is the ideal democracy (where, indeed, would one find an ideal democracy?) but that Mandela's leadership was crucial in the early stages of SA's fledgling democracy.Swissjames 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics, or political figures, are never neutral!

message: I posted a picture of Nelson attending a communist demonstration. I really want to make the article accurate and explain any controversy regarding Nelsons past. Please do not delete it. Thanks!
JJstroker 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson at communist demonstration 

message: Like Wikiwizzy, I thought the living people category was superfluous ie if a person is listed in a birth/year category and not in a death/year category ergo the person must be living. However, having read some of the discussion here, I now think the category has some utility.Phase1 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Living people 

message: Please don't add loosely associated tidbits that are only mildly relevant to the article, and more importantly, don't create sections called trivia. They don't serve much purpose other than being a dumping ground for "misc. facts" and the likes. The section from the article can be found below. Do insert them, but only if you can find a way to include them in the article without making them look like disembodied factoids.
Peter Isotalo 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia is not encyclopedic 

message: There appears to be some evidence of vandalism at bottom of article, where garbage about Israeli and palestinian leaders appears in a table below Mandela and  de Klerk?
Regards, Gregorydavid 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any vandalism. All I can see is a succession box of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, which includes Arafat, Peres and Rabin. --Ezeu 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This needs a bit of work:
:The 1955 Freedom Charter Kliptown Conference was justifiably ridiculed by the Africanists for allowing the 100,000 strong ANC to be relegated to a single vote in a Congress alliance, in which four secretary-generals of the five participating parties were members of the secretly reconstituted South African Communist Party (SACP), the most slavish of all communist parties to the Moscow line.
"Justifiably ridiculed" expresses a POV.  And "most slavish of all communist parties to the Moscow line?"  Really?  More slavish than, say, the Russian Communist Party?  I don't doubt it was indeed pro-Russian; I'm just saying the statement is a little silly: clearly there was a communist party somewhere at that time which was more pro-Russian than the SACP. --Saforrest 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV