A violent Marxist/Socialist/Communist who eventually advocated peace. The Occupy (bowel) Movement could learn a lot from him.
You really didn't understand Apartheid did you? Why don't you just tune into FOX and see what their opinion is. Yours should align with theirs.
OK I'll take your words literally. Where am I supposed to try Apartheid? It doesn't exist anymore. I think you just couldn't bring yourself to say something kind about the Great Nelson Mandela so you of course attack me. I just find it interesting that the Righties here can't say something kind about a man who is on par with some of the greatest leaders in the world. Hum?
I believe it still does, all-be-it probably not to your definition. And I never said you had to try it today. I assume you have been around for a few years - long enough to have been alive when YOUR apartheid was still around. And, no, I did not directly attack you only your supposed knowledge of apartheid being greater than coin's. But I will bet I am the only one here to have lived anything approaching it.
Last time I checked, apartheid only existed (exists) in Africa. Although you might be able to stretch a point and call many Arab countries apartheid. BTW, the last time I checked, the major cities of the north were the most segregated cities in the US.
What part of my statement didn't you understand? Was Mandela influenced by Marxism? Was he a socialist? Did he belong to a communist organization? Do you even know the man's history? I'm not saying that his personal story wasn't noteworthy. After all, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But, that's not really saying much; they practically give those things away these days.
I really do not think he understands what he is saying or what Mandela has done. Not trying to belittle Mandela, but Obama won a a peace prize also. Just saying.
Right. I'm not belittling Mandela, either. I'm just stating facts. I understand at the time in his life when he said this, he felt as if violence was probably necessary. I don't condone violence as most of you know, so I don't necessarily agree with Mandela's statement, "There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence - against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate." If such were the case, citizens could take up arms against their government for any grievance. Mandela felt that his government had gone too far and that it was time to consider peace talks and non-violence as inadequate methods of change. But, where is the line drawn? In Mandela's case, his government was oppressive and racist. Who is to say that John Doe in modern-day America doesn't feel the exact same way about his own government? But, if John Doe were to make the same statement about our current American government that Mandela made about his, the Department of Homeland Security would probably be knocking at his door. In a sense, perhaps the US government has become, in some ways, not unlike the South African government that Mandela fought against. Perhaps America will one day find its own Mandela (but, hopefully, not a socialist one).
If you want to experience Apartheid Lite, go to an Indian Reservation, that's what it was modeled after, right down to the casinos. Apartheid was an extremely complex issue with many factions both Black and White plus Asian and Indian thrown into the mix. The whites had two factions, English and Dutch. English decedents favored English common law with no racial dividends, the Dutch decedents favored a more Germanic approach built around racial divides. The blacks consisted of 10 tribes roughly divided into the African Nation Conference (ANC) which favored socialism and the Zulus which favored capitalism. Unfortunately, the evening news told an American story and dumbed it down to a replay of the US Civil Rights movement staring Nelson Mandela as Dr. Martin Luther King. It is an African story, with many different factions and tribal disputes. The fact that Nelson Mandela could find common ground among these factions and piece together a country, in itself is amazing, and deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. The townships were very much like US Indian reservations and treated as their own sovereigns. Sun City was located in a black township and not segregated. They catered to white Afrikaners offering such forbidden goodies as drinking, gambling, and other activities they craved but would never fess up to.
How did I know that the Right-wingers would disparage the great Nelson Mandela? Because they have a history of doing it. When there was a world-wide movement to divest in South Africa to help end Apartheid, both Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher (Who called Mandela a terrorist) were against it. They chose to support the white regime that was brutally repressing the other 80% of the country. In fact, when the U.S. Congress passed legislation to divest in South Africa, Reagan vetoed it setting up the only veto override of foreign policy in the last century. Ronald Reagan, Apartheid supporter. Do you trolls ever get tired of being on the wrong side of history? Apparently NOT! That's OK, smarter people are here to help you along.
No problem. Since you only accused me of spinning something you neglected to specifically identify, I thought a picture was fitting. Non-specific criticisms are your forte.