quote:

I guess he forgot to mention Kennedy.

Yep...with Teddy gone...we are almost through with them!!!

quote:

That disappeared when UDI was declared.

Ian declaring UDI is why as an American, I can sympathize so much. And also why I admire Ian Smith as a hero.

David,

I certainly remember members of my family writing to number 10 to ask Wilson not to betray Rhodesia and also remember replies where he assured them that he wouldn't do that under any circumstances.

Wilson's & Carrington's attitude (at least ) at the time remind me of those famous words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"One can build the Empire State Building, discipline the Prussian army, make a state hierarchy mightier than God, and yet fail to overcome the unaccountable superiority of certain human beings"

quote:

Mandela = Mugabe?!

No...not quite that. Mandela is NOT = to Mugabe. It is mor like: Mandela<<<Mugabe

quote:

Mugabe = Mandela? Unbelievable for sure. I wish we had had a Mandela.

As David says: Zim would be much better off with Mandela than Mugabe. That is still a poor argument to use to pronounce saint hood upon some one.

As an equine orthopedic surgeon, I prefer the smell of horse shit to cow shit. And certainly cow shit to dog shit for sure!!!

But at the end of the day it is all still shit!

Yes, and one day they will make a movie glorifying Osama as well.

Speaking of Rhodesia and movies I just loved the scence were the American journalist is talking to Leonardo DiCaprio's character in Blood Diamond.

"So says the white South Afican."
"Tsk, I'm from Rhodesia"
"Don't we say Zimbabwe now?"
"Do we now?"

I really liked DiCaprio in that movie.

quote:

With all due respect and genuinely without meaning to insult, you need to re-read them, because you must have an appalling memory.

Steve,
I have a photographic memory. I look at the history through the eyes of an American (whose country also declared UDI from Great Britain) and you look at it through the eyes of an Englishman.

If SA had not cut off Rhodesia's supply lines and if USA would have backed Ian Smith's goverment...Zim would be Rhodesia yet today and a helluva lot better off.

The USA was damn sure better off prior to 1960's than it is today!!!

Kids could roam freely with out fear of abduction...drugs were something you purchased at the drug store cause you were sick...gangs...well they were still thugs but they were on chains out paving the highways by hand out in the hot Texas sun.

And most if not all Texans viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist!

Maybe you need to refocus that photographic memory of yours. You had the independence dates (amongst other things) on the wrong F stop and you're no more sharply focused on who supported Rhodesia after UDI.

Read Foreign Relations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...dence_%28Rhodesia%29

quote:

You had the independence dates (amongst other things)

Steve,
Please go back through my posts and show me where I ever quoted the independence date.

I am not the one resorting to personal quips. I am just sticking to my beliefs. One of which is that Mandela was a terrorist. And that is why he was in jail to begin with.

Yes...technically apartheid ended after the "Bush War" ended. But the SA apartheid government was not the same as it had been in earlier years. And due to its resistance to change it caved to pressure from countries like the US, then under Carter, to isolate Rhodesia. Isolation and lack of support were the death knell for Ian.

But Hell...if you think that was positive progress and RSA is headed in the right direction well...all I got to say is more power to you Buddy! I just disagree.

You did not quote an independence date but your post said that SA got black rule before Rhodesia got it and became Zimbabwe and that was why Rhodesia collapsed...... I corrected you and pointed out that "Apartheid ran from 1948 - 1994" and that Rhodesia got black rule almost a decade and a half before the end of apartheid.

quote:

your post said that SA got black rule before Rhodesia got it and became Zimbabwe and that was why Rhodesia collapsed

My post said: post-apartheid SA gvt bailed on Rhodesia. Technically, that was incorrect.

It should have said a more moderate apartheid SA gvt that was resisting pressure to change its own government caved on Rhodesia to try and save it self.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

With all due respect and genuinely without meaning to insult, you need to re-read them, because you must have an appalling memory.

Steve,
I have a photographic memory. I look at the history through the eyes of an American (whose country also declared UDI from Great Britain) and you look at it through the eyes of an Englishman.

If SA had not cut off Rhodesia's supply lines and if USA would have backed Ian Smith's goverment...Zim would be Rhodesia yet today and a helluva lot better off.

The USA was damn sure better off prior to 1960's than it is today!!!

Kids could roam freely with out fear of abduction...drugs were something you purchased at the drug store cause you were sick...gangs...well they were still thugs but they were on chains out paving the highways by hand out in the hot Texas sun.

And most if not all Texans viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist!

Talk about rose colored glasses,guess it was peachy as long as you didn't have to ride in the back of the bus.

quote:

guess it was peachy

Helluva lot better than today.

Especially if you are a kid. Hell I saw where there is a violent gang in Oklahoma City now called the Locos. They kill quite a few folks aparently. In OKC in the '60's they would mopped those folks up in heart-beat!

Yep...a helluva lot better than today!

Speaking as one who felt the blast from the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995, I don't much care for people who plant bombs. Martin Luther King and Ghandi had some sucess with non violent means to change peoples attitudes thus shaping govermnent policies.

quote:

Speaking as one who felt the blast from the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995, I don't much care for people who plant bombs.

At least that bomber got what he deserved...dead!

quote:

Originally posted by 7kongoni:
Speaking as one who felt the blast from the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995, I don't much care for people who plant bombs. Martin Luther King and Ghandi had some sucess with non violent means to change peoples attitudes thus shaping govermnent policies.

That would have been sound advice to those malcontent citizens in Boston who, in 1775, abandoned reason and persuasion for violence in their efforts to cast off the shackles of British tyranny. Where was 7kongoni when we needed him? After all, we could now be the proud nation that triumphantly brags, "freedom is worth arguing for".

Fortunately, in the US there has long been the recognition that freedom is indeed worth fighting - and if necessary - dying for. Obviously there are those on this board for whom freedom holds no such value, and I feel sorry for them. Mandela, on the other hand, was not content to live in servitude to a state that refused to give him and his people equal rights under the law. Not surprisingly, he has said he was inspired by the following:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (The American Declaration Independence)

7kongoni and Lane have overlooked the fact that rarely has social change of any significance taken place without violence employed as an instrument for such change. It took a war between the states to end slavery in our own country - not sit-ins or protests. Violence was used to achieve a women’s right to vote, the end of slavery, and the end of colonialism. Martin Luther King had the advantage of fighting for change in a society where his vote, and those of his followers, had equal weight to those that stood in opposition to equal rights. Even so, he could not curtail violent riots in Washington, Chicago, and Watts, each of which were in themselves cumulatively persuasive. And Gandhi benefitted from the corollary - and violent - efforts of the Jugantar Party (members of which not only conducted bombings in India against the British, but also assassinations in England) and later the Gahadar Party, among others inclined towards violent change.

As I wrote earlier, I have little doubt that many of those most critical of Mandela's tactics would be among the first to adopt them were they to be subjected by their government to what black South African's faced: disenfranchisement, seizure of property, prohibition against political representation, and lack of equal redress in the courts. But the truth is that so long as the people that are suffering from a denial of basic human rights are ethnically or racially different, many - like Lane - will turn their backs and apply standards quite different from what they expect for themselves and their kind. In any but a just society, non-violence as a tool for change is often little more than a palliative encouraged by those for whom change is anathema.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

your post said that SA got black rule before Rhodesia got it and became Zimbabwe and that was why Rhodesia collapsed

My post said: post-apartheid SA gvt bailed on Rhodesia. Technically, that was incorrect.

It should have said a more moderate apartheid SA gvt that was resisting pressure to change its own government caved on Rhodesia to try and save it self.

You are funny.

What you should have said in your original post is what you are now saying, which is what you would have said in your original post if only you had known what the hell you were talking about in the first place.

You are bending facts and choosing heroes to suit your prejudices.

You need a horse pill-sized dose of reality and objectivity, IMHO.

If I had been a black South African during Mandela's day, I would have been hanged. Hell, if I had been a black American during my own lifetime, I would probably have been executed!

I have the utmost respect for those who are able to bear up, and remain non-violent, under the unremitting strain of being treated like dirt.

Mandela is not a saint, but he is a better man than most have been or will ever be.

IMHO, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by 7kongoni:
Speaking as one who felt the blast from the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995, I don't much care for people who plant bombs. Martin Luther King and Ghandi had some sucess with non violent means to change peoples attitudes thus shaping govermnent policies.

That would have been sound advice to those malcontent citizens in Boston who, in 1775, abandoned reason and persuasion for violence in their efforts to cast off the shackles of British tyranny. Where was 7kongoni when we needed him? After all, we could now be the proud nation that triumphantly brags, "freedom is worth arguing for".

Mandela, on the other hand, was not content to live in servitude to a state that refused to give him and his people equal rights under the law. Not surprisingly, he has said he was inspired by the following:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (The American Declaration Independence)

* * *

As I wrote earlier, I have little doubt that many of those most critical of Mandela's tactics would be among the first to adopt them were they to be subjected by their government to what black South African's faced: disenfranchisement, seizure of property, prohibition against political representation, and lack of equal redress in the courts. But the truth is that so long as the people that are suffering from a denial of basic human rights are ethnically or racially different, many - like Lane - will turn their backs and apply standards quite different from what they expect for themselves and their kind. In any but a just society, non-violence as a tool for change is often little more than a palliative encouraged by those for whom change is anathema.

KPete, your posts on this thread have been truly excellent. Fact based and well-reasoned. Unlike so many others.

Well said!

What mrlexma said above +1...

I may be able to think it,but I can't put it in words any better than that;kpete;well said....

Some things are absolutely worth fighting for. Violence is called for. My point is that it should be man to man, not man to baby.

quote:

Originally posted by 7kongoni:
Some things are absolutely worth fighting for. Violence is called for. My point is that it should be man to man, not man to baby.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm guessing then that you're only in favor of the unilateral use of, as you call it, "man-to-baby" violence? I say that inasmuch as I know of no evidence whatsoever that Mandela was involved actually or tangentially in the death of a child. Do you?

On the other hand, are you familiar with the Sharpeville Massacre? In this incident, South African police opened fire on thousands of protestors killing 69 people, including 8 women and 10 children. It all occurred in March 1960, when a group of almost 7,000 people protested outside the Sharpeville police station. They arrived without carrying their obligatory 'Colored or Black Pass Book' daring the police to arrest them for violating what was clearly a racist law. Police later claimed that some in the crowd threw stones at their patrol cars. The police lined up armored vehicles along with officers carrying Sten submachine guns, and once in front of the protesters, opened fire on the crowd killing or injuring 250 unarmed people. The Sharpeville police chief denied giving the order to shoot, but was quoted as saying, "the native mentality does not allow them to gather for a peaceful demonstration. For them to gather means violence."

Now, if this happened to your family, by your government, would you feel that the machinery of that government to be fair game in a guerilla campaign? Obviously Mandela couldn't raise a formal army per se, what with the highly effective military, police, and intelligence resources focused on suspected dissidents. So Mandela's tactics in his asymetrical fight against the government were described by a subordinate: "When we knew that we (were) going to start ... to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like Pass (Book) offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed." Was Mandela able to control everyone within his ranks? No. But his intent was nevertheless made clear, if occasionally ignored. And so it is with every army, including ours.

Having travelled to South Africa now for 30 years, I know full well that most white South Africans were desirous for change, being well aware of the injustices faced by their black countrymen. They understood that circumstance and time had seen the evolution of their government to one that was preoccupied with protecting the privilege of the the minority while failing to protect the human rights of the majority. Most everyone, white and black, was waiting for the right time, and the right person, to lead the country to a future that would ensure mutual respect, equality, and a sense of national unity. Time has proven that Nelson Mandela was that person.

Thanks for the historical perspective. I guess my thoughts are shaped by what Timothy McVeigh did. He blew up a building in response to what happened at the branch dividian compound in Waco. He thought he was a freedom fighter, fighting against a government he thought was oppressive and tyranical. I guess we all act according to our experiences and I experienced the OKC bombing. So, I'll stick to my guns. I don't think much of people on either side who target non-combatants. I also believe Mr. Mandela did a wonderful job managing the transition to majority rule. Maybe this sheds some light on my thoughts.

History is a strange thing. Often it takes many years for the old wounds to heal and the realization of whether it was truly good or bad to come through the haze of resentment. When one takes an unbiased look at the rest of Africa, with few exceptions, it is only the most scared who cannot admit RSA is indeed lucky to have had Mandela! It is not perfect by any means but it sure is a lot better off than the rest of the contenent who have realized the change from white to black rule.

When I have met those liberals who think whites have no place in Africa I remind them that many - especially in South Africa - have family histories there dating farther than many whites in north America! Whether Mandela's motive was emotional based on something like that or purely economical, recognizing that few blacks were capable of taking over daily business... who knows?
Today while whites find fewer oportunities than before, oportunities do exist. Far more than had a Mandela not played such a large role in the transition! That cannot be argued.

Most interesting about this thread is the arguements are not coming from Africans (or in Steve's case, an adopted African). I'm not discounting the right to anyone's opinion but perhaps there is a lesson there. Those on the ground living this have a much different view than those living it on vacation of through books! The old "walk a mile in his shoes" adage.

quote:

Originally posted by 7kongoni:
Thanks for the historical perspective. I guess my thoughts are shaped by what Timothy McVeigh did. He blew up a building in response to what happened at the branch dividian compound in Waco. He thought he was a freedom fighter, fighting against a government he thought was oppressive and tyranical. I guess we all act according to our experiences and I experienced the OKC bombing. So, I'll stick to my guns. I don't think much of people on either side who target non-combatants. I also believe Mr. Mandela did a wonderful job managing the transition to majority rule. Maybe this sheds some light on my thoughts.

It does, 7kongoni, and I respect those thoughts. To a large extent, perhaps not always for the better, we're all products of our personal experience.

Kim, great posts!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Kim, great posts!
Peter.

+1

Brett

quote:

IMHO, of course.

mrlexma,

You should change your post-script to IMAO...in my arrogant opinion!

My first personal quip of this thread. My Great Grandfather's last name was Davis. His great uncle was Jefferson Davis. As a steward of science...DNA runs strong!!!

quote:

Some things are absolutely worth fighting for. Violence is called for. My point is that it should be man to man, not man to baby.

That is best point made thus far!

If you read the bottom of my posts...It says: "Nothing wrong with a little shooting...just as long as the right folks get shot!"

Kim,
You are right about me fighting for what I believe in, hence, my continuance of this post.

quote:

Time has proven that Nelson Mandela was that person.

Kim,

While your post is full of facts, you end your story in subjection. Your use of the word "proven" is very loose.

quote:

Karoo:

Could you please enlighten us to why Mr Mandela was jailed for 27 years. What were the charges and what was he and the others who stood trial in the Rivonia case charged with and what they were acquited on? What was his position at the time?

I wonder what would the same charge in the USA bring a perpetrator, life or the chair?

Only getting round to answering this now and hope it has not been re-hashed a hundred times.
Speaking as a white rancher, professional hunter and landowner who has a lot to lose, the fact remains that Apartheid was simply evil and needed to be challenged. Mandela was is not an inherently violent person but cannot be blamed for being forced to act in any way he could to topple an illegitimate government. Remember that the Nationalist Party loaded the legal benches with their cronies and had a mini war with the white opposition in the process.
I do not vote nor support the ANC, but do try and distinguish right from wrong, and thereby admire the courage and integrity of some leaders lack thereof of others.
(Here endeth the lesson!)

quote:

Most interesting about this thread is the arguements are not coming from Africans (or in Steve's case, an adopted African). I'm not discounting the right to anyone's opinion but perhaps there is a lesson there. Those on the ground living this have a much different view than those living it on vacation of through books! The old "walk a mile in his shoes" adage.

I am trying to represent the RSA residents whom I know personally. If you go back to my original post, I said: "My friends in RSA tell me..."

quote:

Apartheid was simply evil

I want to go on record as agreeing totally with this statement. I have NEVER said I was pro-apartheid. I just don't happen to believe that Nelson Mandela was God's gift to RSA.

As an example: This is a hunting web-site. If RSA's government gets anymore left winged, a hunter won't even be able to get his/her rifle to RSA to hunt with or even get it through the Jo'berg airport to get to another country. It is not the pro-apartheid views I am fighting for...it is the far-left views that come with the Mandela founded government that I am vehemently resisting.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

IMHO, of course.

mrlexma,

You should change your post-script to IMAO...in my arrogant opinion!

My first personal quip of this thread. My Great Grandfather's last name was Davis. His great uncle was Jefferson Davis. As a steward of science...DNA runs strong!!!

You are killing me, you are so funny.

You really should change (and shorten) your rather lengthy, derivative and awkward signature line to this:

Always wrong, but never uncertain . . . DNA runs strong!!!

And please take a long walk.

quote:

And please take a long walk.

Judging form your attitude...I would think most folks around you would run not walk!

Now, now chaps, Christmas is looming, tis the season of goodwill. No more , rather let's

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
Now, now chaps, Christmas is looming, tis the season of goodwill. No more , rather let's

David

Okay. It stops being fun when it becomes too easy, anyway.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

I believe Mandela was God's gift to South Africa. Perhaps much like Corazon Aquino was God's gift to the Philippines. They appeared at the right time to avoid a bloodbath during a power handover.

I guess in a way Fidel Castro was God's gift to Cuba, Hugo Chavez was God's gift to Venezuela, and Robert Mugabe was God's gift to Zimbabwe. I guess the citizens of those countries got what they deserved because they did nothing to prevent it.

I was amazed at the Venezuelan way of protest. They all went out on their balconies and beat on their pots and pans. What exactly did they think that would accomplish? Was that supposed to scare Chavez off?

People once in a while rally around the right person. Mandela was the right guy. Aquino was the right person. Fujimori in Peru.

When Mugabe dies, buckle your chin strap.

The government of the United States is gradually, inexorably becoming more and more opressive. It will be interesting to see what the future brings here. I may not be around to see it, but things here could get very bad, and quite violent, if some changes aren't made in another direction.

As a fellow Texan, let me apologize for Lane (ledvm). You see, he went to Texas A&M (which is partially my fault) and for an Aggie, he is actually quite literate.

In fact, he is just literate enough to swallow much of the bile being broadcast, printed, and electronically distributed, thus it is difficult for him and alot of other folks to understand the difference between a Mandela and a Mugabe (who began at least a bit better than his outlandishly corrupt end, which is near.)

I don't have too much use for violence. But who is it on this board who would reject the notion of armed resistance to protect one's family and rights?

As for "black majority rule", that is something of a misnomer and implies a racial test for those in leadership. What the fledgling democracies of Africa like the RSA, Namibia, and perhaps Botswana and a handful of others have is simply majority rule. The fact that the vast majority happens to be black is neither here nor there. Many white Aficans are involved in the governments and institutions of these nations.

The whites were, in many ways, also victims of the PW Botha and similar regimes. Institutionalized denial of rights impacts humans negatively, no matter what their race (which is not to say that it was not much better to be white than black in Aparthied Africa, just that Apartheid denied all in the effected countries many opportunities.)

I appreciate the enlightened comments from those of you who actually live and work in southern Africa. My host in Namibia spent years as a "voluntary conscript" in the war against majority rule. While he certainly does not agree today with everything his government does (nor do I with mine), his comment to me was that all the years of war against majority rule and oppression of native Africans were a waste that robbed all in his country of its wealth and pursuit of a better life.

So, give Lane a break and maybe he'll eventually get around to reading a better class of literature.