[yequalsx]

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I too am shocked. That the United States actively supported the Apartheid regime is a great national shame. I'm friends with a woman who grew up in South Africa. She is white. The stories she tells about the attitudes and what happened there during the Apartheid regime are revolting. She thinks Mandela is a saint and is very grateful for his leadership.

Mandela was not a terrorist. He did not deserve jail. That he came out of that experience and did not engage in a campaign of retribution is a testament to the man's greatness. Those that denigrate him do so from ignorance or lack of empathy.

[rayiner]

> That the United States actively supported the Apartheid regime is a great national shame.

The real shame is that The Afrikaner nationlist party that instituted apartheid ran on the platform in 1948, the same year that the Dixiecrats in America ran on a segregationist platform. Apartheid started to crumble in 1990, less than 30 years after George Wallace, as Governor of Alabama, declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!", less than 25 years after he ran for President, and just over 20 years after MLK was assassinated.

Of course, by 1970 the situation in the U.S. was far better than it was in South Africa. But apartheid in South Africa was less far-removed, temporally, from segregation in America than most Americans appreciate. Ronald Reagan, who opposed Mandela as President, spent more of his life living in a legally segregated America than he did living in a legally integrated America.

[JPKab]

I don't know why so many Americans think Ronald Reagan was so great. The more I learn about his policies, the more I think he was the lackwit actor playing politician that his critics say he was. His trickle-down economics BS is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing but a golden shower.

[rayiner]

I don't think Reagan supported segregation. I do think he was willing to support segregation in South Africa to achieve American geopolitical goals. Many people would argue that this is proper and the American President has no obligation to anyone but Americans.

My point was more that we consider segregation to be long-past history, while we consider Reagan to be a President of the modern era. In fact, Reagan was eight years older than George Wallace, and was in his 50's by the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[smsm42]

I don't think Reagan opposed Mandela because he loved the apartheid - but because Mandela was outspoken Marxist with communist leanings (and ANC was allied with communists), spoke many times in support of Castro and was in general complete political opposite of what Reagan stood for.

[iends]

Mandela was more than happy to use violence against the government as a tool in his cause for equality (although later he seemed to regret the need for it). Using violence, he broke reasonable and justified laws. Laws such as planting bombs, destroying property, and physically harming others.

Just because we can all agree that his cause was just, doesn't mean he should necessarily get a free pass from criticism or judgement.

[Crito]

I don't think there is much dispute over what Mandela did or did not do, but rather over what we call it and if we should approve of it.

Whether you call somebody a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" in response to these sort of actions is a matter of perspective. Movements don't get called "terrorists" by people who side with them.

We know this because, in other times in history against other wildly racist and tyrannical regimes, resistance movements have carried out similar violent attacks, but rarely do we hear those groups described as "terrorists". I have never heard somebody describe the French or Polish Resistance as terrorists; they receive the terminology "freedom fighters" because damn near everybody agrees that they were on the correct side of that fight.

So what is the deal with people who chose the "terrorist" terminology, rather than "freedom fighter", for the ANC and Mandela? Do they merely lack perspective, or are there actually still a significant number of people who side with the Apartheid government?

[pyre]

I think it's just an attitude of people that see all of the praise for a public figure as ignoring the possibly not so 'saintly' things that they have done[1]. I would be willing to bet the a majority of people only know all of positive things about Mandela, and few of the negative/questionable things.

I'm not in the camp of calling him a terrorist, but I do get a bit annoyed (sometimes) when the hero-worship seems to present a skewed perspective on reality. For example, I'm annoyed that many US politicians will dote over how awesome Mandela was in expressing their sympathies over his passing, but there is no talk of how we sided against him.

[1] For example, Mother Theresa explicitly withheld pain-killers from the people that she treated because she felt that the pain brought them closer to God. It's unquestionable (to me at least) that treating those people (even with this attitude) was a good thing because they would get no care otherwise. On the other hand, I don't put her up on a pedestal as a perfect human being like others do.

[001sky]

he broke reasonable and justified laws

The logic here escapes me. The purpose of the laws he broke was to support the unreasonable and unjust ones from being challenged. Right? The difference between something like apartheid (or the 3rd reich) and something like a dysfunctional democracy (which will have some bad laws) is the centrality of evil in the core of the system of idendity of the state. Clearly, in SA the apartheid regime was central to the concept of the citizens of SA. Similarly, was the situation under the Nazis.

That being said, the country of SA has not integrated gracefully by any means. The crime and apalling violence has led to many of the best and brightest fleeing the country for the UK and other anglophile countries. One of my classmates from Uni had his wife mudered in a most horriffic manner. The sad realizaton is that there are not really any good success stories in sub-saharan africa, in terms of ethical governance, economic prosperity, and the rule of Law. It boggles the mind that the only way to make things work is (apparently) political strongmen and what are in essence forms of exploitative labour arrangements under one guise or another.

Hopefully it will one day be a better place.

[moolriaz]

This is at best anecdotal evidence for a mass exodus of the 'best and brightest' fleeing SA. The only time I have been mugged, attacked, or stalked was during my time as a student in the UK (have had all three happen). Ironically I suffered a serious racist attack in the UK, where someone tried to stab me because I wasn't the right colour. The only time I have serious feared for my life. I have never had any such problems in SA. I have never been robbed, threatened, or put in a bad racist situation - this has only happened to me abroad.

For many of the millions oppressed during Apartheid, SA is far, far better now. Don't forget crime was rampant during Apartheid, and police protection was not afforded equally to those of difference races. My family, living in non-white areas, had a total of 9 cars stolen during Apartheid. This doesn't happen anymore. Crime statistics are far more accurate now, and show a decreasing trend since Apartheid, though of course it is still high. This crime remains mainly in township areas of SA - set up during Apartheid.

I'm not sure what you mean by success stories. There are numerous successful companies in SA, especially tech companies in the Cape Town. My family have risen from rags through businesses and professional work, and my father was able to rise to a judge where people are now fairly tried regardless of race. I'd say that is a success in the rule of law. Our government is not perfect (which is?), but it sure has come a long way. Just while growing up in SA, malls have risen, houses built for millions who lived in shacks, universities opened up to reflect the demographics of the population - the country has prospered even during the rescission, and property value and sky rocketed in some areas. I have numerous opportunities in SA, and run a startup there.

I carried out research both at Oxford, in the US, and in South Africa. The researchers I worked with in SA are as highly regarded as their peers in their field abroad (bioinformatics), as highly cited, and are happy in South Africa. I know of people going abroad to do PhD's, then returning to lecture here. I only know 1 other person who has moved to the UK permanently, and this is because they have no family in SA and no higher education.

[001sky]

No offense, but you seem quite ignorant of the "non-anecdotal" data. Almost to the point of unbeleivably so.

(1) Lack of Personal Security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_security_industry_in_S...

The private security industry in South Africa is the largest in the world,[2] with nearly 9,000 registered companies and 400,000 registered active private security guards, more than the South African police and army combined

(2) White flight, wealth, brain drain (1990's):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africans_in_the_United_K...

According to the 2001 UK Census, 140,201 South African born people were calling the UK, although most recent estimates put the population (including those of South African descent) at over half a million. Unlike South Africa itself...The 2001 census showed that 90% of South Africans in the UK are White

(3) Objective measures of Violent Crime:

UNODC murder rates most recent year

South Africa 31.8 / 15,940

UK 1.2 / 722

But to the broader point also for context:

Subregion Rate Count Region

    Southern Africa 30.5 17,484 Africa

    Central America 28.5 44,997 Americas

    Eastern Africa 21.9 69,344 Africa

    Middle Africa 20.8 25,330 Africa

    South America 20 79,039 Americas

    Northern Africa 5.9 12,276 Africa

    Northern America 3.9 13,558 Americas

    Western Europe 1 1,852 Europe

    Australasia 1 268 Oceania

SA is basically an ~order of magnitude more violent that north america or western europe base on these data. Furthermore, the variation withing the African data from the sub-saharan regions to the north african ones is quite discernable.

[toyg]

To be fair, this data is old. I personally know quite a few SA expats who've gone back in the last few years, pushed by UK recession and a realisation that things are not that bad back home after all. Mbeki is gone, Zuma should go next year, the sort of feared Mugabe-like regime hasn't materialised.

Yes, there has been a (white) exodus in the late 90s, but it looks like the correction might have been a one-off.

[moolriaz]

Definitely, it's a dangerous country. If you read my response again, I did not disagree with this. I just don't agree that there is a mass exodus of people. The wikipedia article you cite about this doesn't cite any hard data sources, and there are more relevant and recent measures like the most recent SA census.

[001sky]

this doesn't cite any hard data sources

The UK census is one. For each 100k white people in london that is 1% of the white population of SA. So, ~500k is ~5% of the white SA population of ~10 million. Given the dis-proportionate wealth and education (as you illustrate in your earlier posts) of the white SA population, I would call this number "material" if not "mass exodus", because the social (and networking) impact is likely dis-proportionate to the headcount alone. For these reasons, it seems presumptive to keep denying this has ever occurred. But YMMV.

[JPKab]

Not that I disagree with much of what you say, (Mandela was no terrorist) but your first paragraph starts out by pointing out someone citing anecdotal evidence, and then ends with you citing your own anecdotal evidence of racial violence in the UK vs. SA. As if your experience walking around in London vs. whatever part of SA (as you know a huge country) you live in is solid data.

I have white friends from college who were from South Africa, and returned there (Cape Town). They are glad Apartheid is gone, but are unhappy that they have had to watch senior politicians in the ANC sing "Kill the Boers" at rallies in 2013. They also complain of the effects of the BEE. As with other affirmative action programs, it has the effect of fueling racism and resentment while simultaneously (on the positive side) correcting past inequities. Also tying in with other affirmative action weaknesses, it disproportionately benefits the most advantaged members of the favored group(s) while leaving behind the least advantaged from both the favored group and being punishingly unfair to the poor members of the non-favored group. (an Afrikaner boy from a poor home will hurt a company's BEE scorecard, while a black boy whose father is a lawyer will help it)

[moolriaz]

The person who sang that song was convicted of a hate crime, and is now facing criminal charges, so I don't see this as a legitimate reason to run away.

I would like to see some evidence for a mass exodus from South Africa, specifically would be interested to see if large amounts of money have been taken out of the country to fuel this. I don't think any data exists for this. I was pointing out that what was said was anecdotal, and am obviously aware that what I said is too. The issue is that this complaint about SA is simply not a realistic reflection of what is happening in the country.

BEE is necessary in SA. The extent of racial inequality even today is exceedingly obvious to anyone who lives in the country. It definitely isn't perfect, but any census data will still reflect that levels of unemployment among Black South Africans is higher than those of White South Africans (don't have time to look for the source now, but I read a paper on this). I don't see how there is an easy fix for Apartheid, and this is fine. I'm sure if we went and counted the assets of race groups we would find that White South Africans still have a much larger share, and a large majority of white people are employed in family businesses/practices established during Apartheid. Growing up in SA, this is just blatantly obvious to me. The job situation in SA is such that if you are qualified with a technical degree, you shouldn't have a problem getting a job regardless of race.

[JPKab]

The "person" who sang that song was doing so in a huge group of people, and I seriously doubt most of them were prosecuted.

BEE, like any other race-based affirmative action program, is obtuse and unjust. The much more just (and effective) tool for achieving the outcome desired by race-based affirmative action is income-based affirmative action, where income is derived from the person's familial income while growing up. This would effectively cover every person of color in SA anyway, but wouldn't persist for those raised without disadvantages in the new post-apartheid gov't. (in other words its a sliding scale)

Here in the US, race-based affirmative action punishes Asians more than any others. Studies show that they effectively have 50 points plus removed from their SAT scores for college admissions. (There is no allowance made for the fact that they may speak English as a second language and have grown up a laborer's child in a poor urban neighborhood)

On the other hand, a black American whose parents are professionals making 6 figures will be treated as if he has the disadvantages of an inner city child or a boy raised by sharecroppers. The net effect is 200 + points added to SAT score (for a male, the effect is dampened for a female). Make it based on income, and the inner-city child gets the advantage he/she needs, and doesn't have his/her spot taken by the child of professionals who went to private schools.

FYI: I witnessed this scenario first hand in high school. A classmate whose father forced him to work on their fishing boat (his family was dirt poor, and his illiterate father cared nothing for education) had higher SAT scores and grades than our mutual friend (mother a lawyer, father an accountant). Fisherman's son was refused admission to the same schools that professional's son was accepted into. Fisherman came from a poor white family AND he suffered from bouts of severe rheumatoid arthritis. The son of professionals from a privileged background got a welcome mat rolled out for him. If this was an income based system it wouldn't have happened that way.

[scarmig]

Weren't those laws only really enforced when non-white people broke them, though?

After all, the apartheid state was more than happy to bulldoze thousands of people's homes and not pay restitution; it was more than happy to shoot hundreds or thousands of peaceful protestors and not prosecute anyone for it; it was more than happy to take political prisoners, break their limbs, and throw them out of airplanes a hundred miles from the coast; it was more than happy to plant biological bombs of yellow fever and cholera in refugee camps to lower the number of undesirables.

If a law is observed more in the breach than in the general, is it really a law?

[moolriaz]

"Weren't those laws only really enforced when coloured people broke them, though?"

What? 'Coloured' people also refers to a very specific subset of South Africans It doesn't mean what you think it does here.

[scarmig]

You're right--I've revised to convey my meaning correctly. Thanks for the correction!

[iends]

Can you elaborate? When I visited South Africa, a few white people used it to refer to the non-whites. I do not know if they were just trying to be descriptive or discriminatory. Perhaps it didn't mean what I thought it meant.

[nbm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured is fairly accurate.

"Coloured" refers to (and is used self-descriptively by) a subset of people of mixed race of generally one or more of usually British and Dutch ancestry on the "White" side, and generally one or more of various Bantu groups (mostly Xhosa, Zulu, some Ndebele, &c.) or Khoisan ancestry, and sometimes also of Malaysian or other South-East Asian ancestry (from ex-Dutch colonies).

[markdown]

A more descriptive, if not less offensive, term would be half-caste. Half-caste means the same thing everywhere in the world.

I am one.

[emp]

I would get scowled at using that term when I first moved out of SA. It is referring to a specific group of people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds

[iends]

I don't know anything about the laws being enforced. My point was, it's hard to argue that "the moral thing to do" is to harm others or destroy property.

[dannypgh]

I actually think apartheid is a good example of why the moral thing to do sometimes is to harm others and/or destroy property. It's not hard to argue at all. Preventing the suffering of the many by harming a relatively small number of people (or destroying practically any amount of property, really) is a clear win from a utilitarian perspective.

[iends]

I understand your perspective and realize it's an easy argument to make. I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2.

There is not much more to say on this topic with two opposing viewpoints :)

[dannypgh]

Except that the overwhelming majority of the violence of apartheid was against Black people. You have to completely ignore context to think that there's a reasonable comparison between an oppressed people - a people that suffered both imprisonment and slaughter - attacking their oppressor and the US dropping an atomic bomb on a city.

All of the posts here decrying the violence of the ANC are ignorant at best. The violence of the ANC was nothing next to the violence of apartheid. The violence of the ANC was far more selective than the violence of apartheid, which was indiscriminate.

[anigbrowl]

I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2.

A false analogy, since the US was in a position of overwhelming strategic superiority when it dropped A=bombs on Japan. It could easily have set up a naval blockade and waited the Japanese out, or continued it's highly effective conventional bombing campaign, or demonstrated the devastating power of the A-bomb in a thinly populated area - by dropping it on Mt. Fuji, for example, which would certainly have garnered a similar level of attention within Japan.

[coldtea]

>I see the same arguments about America's use of the atomic bomb in WW2.

Only that use was totally unjustified, as Japan was surrendering anyway, a military defeat was already 100% feasible, and the bomb was used needlessy to send a message to the USSR.

[Crito]

Harming others may be morally ambiguous (or clearly just wrong) for some people, but I don't think anybody honestly believes that destruction of property should always be off the table. Industrial sabotage targeting the infrastructure of the tyrannical is a time honored tradition.

[rhizome]

That is a simplistic assessment.

"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 violence with violence."

Civil disobedience was outlawed and then the government used violence against peaceful demonstrators. Only after that did they fight fire with fire, and history tells us it's possible that that may be the only language that governments understand.

[iends]

Ghandi may disagree. Maybe not, I'm weak on history.

I don't agree the end justifies the means, maybe you do, it's far too easy to get into a debate on morality in these topics. :)

[genwin]

You probably agree that the end justifies the means, but not seeing that because you haven't explored the situations in which it would for you.

[rhizome]

I would suggest that while the ends don't justify the means, sometimes the end does depend on the means.

[rayiner]

What legitimacy do laws have, when opposed by a majority of the population and imposed on them by a minority?

Calling the ANC "terrorist" turns the term on its head. "Terrorism" is when a minority group uses violence to achieve goals it cannot achieve politically. When the majority uses violence to safeguard its own well-being, that's not terrorism. That's exercising an ability possessed by people in the state of nature, one not superseded by any legitimate law or social contract. In the terminology of American criminal law, the violence is not only justified (where a crime is deemed to have been committed but the actions mitigated by a compelling justification), but excused (where no crime is deemed to have been committed at all).

[brown9-2]

By the same argument we should criticize and negatively judge the American Revolution as well.

This path of argument seems unable to acknowledge that there are times where "the law" is so unjust that you are left with no non-violent actions whatsoever. I think it's fine if you believe this, but you should be able to clearly say that you believe in nonviolence in all situations and that any deviation from that path is immoral.

[iends]

War is terrible, no matter what.

The laws Mandela broke were not the same ones he thought were unjust, at least, it seems he broke a superset of the laws he thought were unjust. He did this as a means to an end.

I'd like to say I believe in non-violence, but it's one thing to say it, it's another thing not to punch you after you've just pushed my wife.

[ilitirit]

> Laws such as planting bombs, destroying property, and physically harming others.

The problem with this statement is that he did not physically harm others, or instruct others to do so.

[iends]

Do you have a source? Mandela himself was pretty clear on violence being a tool to effect change.

[ilitirit]

In his own words:

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela

The entire speech is worth reading.