MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
95 YEARS OF AGE.
A SAINT HAS DIED!
Comments
In the eighties, National Review called Mandela a "terrorist". Morons.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 5:35pm
WELL PUT!
Aaron, the right in this country has continually castigated this fine leader as being a commie.
Even after the fall of the USSR, he is still labeled as a socialist (they mean communist of course. hahaahaha)
It is over.
The left won in South Africa.
The right lost in South Africa.
Are all things fine in South Africa?
Hell no.
And all things are not fine right here in the good ole USofA.
But damn!
The world has changed all over the world and folks like MLK and Mandella and a host of others, HAVE CHANGED THE WORLD.
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 6:15pm
He was a terrorist - he set off 60+ bombs in one day, was recruiting weapons from other countries, was trying to follow the Che Guevera way, pushed for increased sabotage and if not successful, more violence. Of course using the term doesn't discuss what the apartheid government was doing, whether terrorism is sometimes justified, etc.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 6:33pm
Mandela attacked military targets; generally they were sabotage attacks that didn't even kill soldiers. By Peracles' standard, anyone who isn't a pacifist is a terrorist.
On rare occasions, the ANC killed civilians(Mandela was in prison at the time, and wasn't responsible for it), but its hands were cleaner than those of most national liberation movements.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 7:22pm
Look, the basic issue is he was a terrorist. And a freedom fighter. (and the South African government was full of murderous thugs at the same time). He was willing to get much more violent to support his cause, as were all freedom movements of the time. Post-9/11 we've gone all wobbly with our PC "all terrorism is bad" (except when it's US drones, bombings or Gitmo facilities doing the terrorizing), but yes, Mandela professed terroist ideas to reach his means, and his sabotage attacks were hardly "military targets" - they were attacks on everything government and infrastructure (see below). Great guy, historically admirable, but like all things, a mixed bag when you look closer - may have been justified, maybe not - YMMV. Deal with it.
--
In June 1961, Mandela sent to South African newspapers a letter warning that a new campaign would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention. Knowing that no such call would be forthcoming, Mandela retreated to the Rivonia hideout to began planning, with other supporters, a sabotage campaign. The campaign began on December 16, 1961 when Umkhonto we Sizwe saboteurs lit explosives at an electricity sub-station. Dozens of other acts of sabotage followed over the next eighteen months. (Indeed, the government would allege the defendants committed 235 separate acts of sabotage.) The sabotage included attacks on government posts, machines, and power facilities, as well as deliberate crop burning.
Mandela spent much of the early months of the sabotage campaign at the Rivonia safe-house, where he went by the name of "David." At Rivonia, Mandela met with other leaders to shape strategy and plan a possible future guerrilla war against the South African government. His goal, he always said, was not to establish a government ruled by blacks, but to move to a multi-racial democracy that would abolish repressive laws that separated African families, restricted their travel, imposed curfews, and denied other basic human rights. In February 1962, Mandela left South Africa to garner support from foreign governments for the goals of the ANC and to receive six months of military training is Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Acting on a tip, probably from the CIA, South African officials arrested Mandela shortly after his return in October.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 2:43am
Blowing up inanimate objects is NOT terrorism. Government buildings might be considered military targets, but I'll have to check the Geneva protocols.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 8:26am
There are many people who, because they applaud his motives, deny that John Brown was a terrorist.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 8:33am
So then burning inanimate objects on a lawn is not terrorism either? Breaking out someone's inanimate windows isn't terrorism?
And yes, (re: Mandela burning crops), Sherman's burning a swath through Georgia was considered by many to be a proper military target. The South still feels terrorized to this day. As I said, your mileage may vary.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:41am
Yeah, well Lee and Jefferson Davis and all his comrades were traitors to their country and terrorists of the first order.
Do you really wish to get into this?
by Richard Day on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 3:15pm
Dagblog Lame Comment of the Week Award to Anonymous pp:
Sherman's burning a swath through Georgia was considered by many to be a proper military target. The South still feels terrorized to this day.
.....and on a thread about the death of Nelson Mandela......
BTW if you know jackshit about Sherman's march to the sea, Georgia was so 'terrorized' that the chickenshit rebel supporting plantation owners routinely left their wives at home with the slaves, as Sherman approached, while the Good Ole Boys hauled personal ass to safer territory.
In addition, Southern Storm, Sherman's March to the Sea relates how the Georgia legislature and land owners were so 'terrorized' as Sherman advanced that instead of discussing how to stop Sherman, they were bickering until the last minute in Milledgeville (the capitol of Georgia), over county lines in order to reduce tax rates for the most connected land owners, taxes which supported the rebel troops. Sherman was also very particular in selecting which plantation residences to destroy, selecting only those of dyed in the wool rebel politicians to torch.
by NCD on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 4:46pm
1) If Mandela broke someone's windows, no, I wouldn't call that terrorism. We aren't talking about neighborhood vandalism, but about a liberation struggle. And did Mandela blow up private homes? Pipelines and industrial equipment aren't the same as a house; they would be called "strategic targets".
Under the current Geneva Protocols, the houses and barns Sherman destroyed wouldn't be considered lawful military targets. But how many crops did Mandela burn? A few dozen acres, maybe? Not equivalent to Sherman's doings.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 5:25pm
Coming at this slightly differently--and admittedly with little knowledge of the Mandela history in detail--isn't the question:
Was the terrorism Mandela engaged in effective, one, and two effective at helping the country move beyond the violence inherent in the apartheid regime to a kind of better peace?
And with one and two in mind, was it morally justified?
Or, to take another 90 degrees, would it have been justified even if had not been effective?
IOW, every terrorist has his rationale, but how do we decide if it's a good rationale?
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 8:59am
1) I think we can usually dismiss this question - because Mark Twain returned to steal a ripe watermelon didn't make it less stealing than him taking the ripe one first.
2) This is more the crux of Huck's plaint - "we tried to feed ourselves, Jim, so it ain't stealing". Escalated when your people are imprisoned, beaten, tortured, you can certainly make a good case for "justified". We have no trouble saying fighting Hitler was justified, and are pretty good at justifying our myriad smaller engagements and bombings, so I think Mr. Mandela will rest quite well with himself - plenty of moral imperative.
(contrarily, an action that might be justified but is reckless loses its moral rectitude - you can analyze Mandela under this light if you care, maybe a few quibbles, who knows.... less than the guys who tortured Biko to death and then got amnesty)
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:46am
Not sure #1 can be entirely dismissed, especially from the terrorists' POV and when we're thinking about our response.
IOW, does violence simply beget violence or more violence? Does it ever cause the "oppressor" to reflect or otherwise cause a positive reaction in him?
So, one of the arguments against terrorism could be stated as: Violence never (or seldom ever) solves anything. But is this true? In the case of WWII, violence solved a lot, but how about in situations where terrorism was applied?
Was John Brown inept or poorly resourced and funded...or was his mission doomed by its very nature as "terrorism"? Leaving aside a lot of historical detail here to get at the question in principle.
Similarly, we're frequently told we're not going to give in to terrorism or negotiate with terrorists. Or, if we do X, the terrorists win. Etc.
Maybe #1 and #2 fade into each other in my thinking. But if I have a genuine beef about a guy with his foot on my neck, is terrorism an effective way of getting him to remove his foot? Or does it just "harden his heart" and cause him to press down harder and end up killing a lot more people in the process?
The Twain example isn't good, because terrorism is committed to force change in someone else--not just fill one's own needs, e.g., hunger.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 10:15am
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 10:16am
Thus the North settled the issue of expanding slavery in the United States.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 11:16am
Wasn't apartheid vile enough to justify rebellion? Was it not appropriate for South Africans to fight for their own freedom. If the South Africans were terrorists, what was the apartheid government and the rest of the population who stood by and let racist abuse occur. Would a more useful term be freedom fighters?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 8:06pm
Here is the structure the South African government used.here are the crimes committed by the South African terrorists.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 8:26pm
YES!
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 9:02pm
I never said it couldn't rationally be justified. I just said it was "terrorism". Just because people in 2013 now get fainting spells when the word is used doesn't mean it doesn't have a valid place - especially as retailiation against terrorism. Oops, the fed are at my door, gotta go...
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:48am
In 2013 as in previous times people try to be specific in identification. Freedom fighter encompasses the use of violence, hence the word fight. Freedom fighter indicates that a person is acting against an oppressor. Are there any rational people who would suggest that the South African government did not oppress native South Africans?
Terrorist allows for the possibility that one is trying to.demoralize a legitimate government. People have not become squeamish, they differentiate. Nelson Mandela is being hailed as a hero by the overwhelming majority. The Boston Bombers are regarded as terrorists.
Calling Nelson Mandela, who used violence to combat a murderous and oppressive government, a freedom fighter separates him from the Boston Bombers,
Are you suggesting that Mandela and the Boston Bombers are the same?
by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 10:45am
It's terrorism if you target civilians. The way I've heard it, Mandela didn't, although I confess I could be misinformed. Blowing up pipelines and other lifeless objects isn't terrorism, and targeting such objects is often within the laws of war. And if Mandela blew up a few soldiers, they were legitimate targets.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 4:23pm
It's terrorism if you mean to terrorize for tactical advantage. (Ok, you can add the civilian population if you like) . It's just a word meaning to terrorize.
I think someone blowing out the electricity to the whole Eastern seaboard or taking down the internet, that would have significant terrorizing potential, and yes, of the civilian population. Freaking people out, making them afraid, making them think that rule of law (or agreed rules of warfare) can't protect them, that's a terrorist tactic. Hitting the WTC with hijacked planes was about putting on a show to terrorize. But it's just as true that the DC snipers, while doing their thing, terrorized a significant part of the Washington D.C. population, and they had no goal or motive except to terrorize, for the feeling of power I guess.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 5:03pm
Nearly all Catholic Church saint stories start out with the saint being a sinner, doing some bad stuff. Because they know this is a good hook! To make them seem like real humans!
The NYTimes obit does use the word terrorism for that period in his life and for the ANC, here's full enough excerpt to get the nuance:
Is that kind of nuance okay with you, where the person did some bad thinking and learned from that, or must he be presented as a saint for every minute of his life, for him to work as an icon and inspiration?
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 1:53pm
Seems to me that freedom fighter includes the use of violence. That does not indicate innocence. Mandela will be remembered as a hero and a freedom fighter. Since the definition of a freedom fighter includes the use of violence to bring down an oppressive government, why do you object to the term?
by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 7:38pm
I don't! I think he was a complex human being who went through many phases and changes in belief in his 95 years of life and that therefore many labels would apply to him! I think you arguing about something that's silly, trying to find one word to describe his whole being and life. As if that would help his image. As if his image in the world right now needs help! Furthermore, I think he gets a lot of the worldwide adulation because of the progression he made from those early years, not what he did during them. So the labels anyone applies to the early years don't really matter that much in the scheme of things.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:08pm
As I have been saying he will be remembered as a freedom fighter by most. I expect to heart he wingnuts using Communist and terrorist
Mandela tried the Ghandi approach and was met by the massacre of native South Africans in Sharpeville in 1960. The ANC terror happened while Mandela was inprisoned.De Klerk knew Mandela, the freedom fighter, was the only one who could quell the impeding violence.
Labels do matter
by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 10:44pm
Labels are stereotypes that are useful for political agitprop purposes (and perhaps for other things like demographic marketing.)
Labels are the enemy of good histories and biographies, and the latter are where my own sympathies lie.
After someone who has lead a huge and long, rich and varied life dies, I sort of find using labels offensive. If we can't avoid making someone like that into a cartoon figure described with a one or two-word label, there is no hope for approaching any problem, topic or human condition with nuance.
It is clear from his record that he was associated both with what some would call freedom-fighting and with some would call terrorism at certain times in his life. At other times in his life he was associated with neither, and with other things like statesmanship, neo-liberal economics, Africanism, anti-communism, and even (horror of horrors!) moderate views....etc. etc., etc.
Anyone who uses a life like his as a one-dimensional political cudgeon, I think more's the pity. The only somewhat appropriate label I have seen used is "father of his country," along with all the saintly, good, middling and bad implications that could come along with that term.
by artappraiser on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 10:59am
See Coates; no labels or stereotypes there, even....rejects all grand narratives....
Especially this part:
by artappraiser on Wed, 12/11/2013 - 6:03pm
Mandela was not nonviolent. As I noted before, the ANC discussed sabotage (property destruction without loss of life), terrorism (causing loss of life), guerrilla warfare and open revolt. Mandela was angry, but pragmatic. He began with sabotage. He was arrested prior to the use of terrorism. He did not support the use of necklacing.
De Klerk kept murderers and terrorists imprisoned, but freed Mandela. Mandela could quell the violence.
ANC killed 19 people in an attack on a nuclear power plant in 1982. Mandela was in prison.
Given Mandela's understanding of terrorism and De Klerk's understanding of terrorism, do you have evidence of terrorism committed by Mandela?
Mandela was not nonviolent, but he was not a terrorist. Martin Luther King Jr was not just peaches and cream. Malcolm X never committed an act of terrorism. All three were considered threats to the white power structure. It is the white power structure that needs the label terrorist (Communist) to justify their fear of men asking to be treated as men.
by Rmrd5755 (not verified) on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 9:06am
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 9:39am
George Washington is remembered as a great leader in the colonists fight for freedom, not as a terrorist against the British. Quantrill's Raiders are remembered as outlaws, terrorists if you will. The Raiders killed 150 men and boys in Lawrence, Kansas they are not remembered as freedom fighter.
Say what you will, those who are respected have their images cleaned up to freedom fighter, not terrorist. Those who admire John a Brown, Denmark Vesey, etc do not label them terrorists but freedom fighters
Can you name a respected "terrorist" accepted as a hero by society where there has not been an image cleanup?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:25pm
Let me be the first Dagger to find fault : ANC governance hasn't been pretty.
by NCD on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 6:19pm
Well what came before?
Was that pretty?
Again...
Is the USofA that pretty?
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 6:32pm
Is true, and one could say his dream turned to a mess when he no longer had the power to mitigate. It doesn't much diminish the worldwide power of the personal story of this one man, though.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 12:41am
Here are some other thoughts:
In the U.S. Congress, lawmakers were ready to show their opposition to the South African regime with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, a bill that imposed tough sanctions and travel restrictions on the nation and its leaders, and called for the repeal of apartheid laws and release of political prisoners like Mandela, then leader of the African National Congress (ANC).
The measure passed with bipartisan support, despite strong and largely Republican opposition. President Ronald Reagan was among those most opposed to the bill, and when he finally vetoed the measure over its support of the ANC, which he maintained was a "terrorist organization," it took another vote by Congress tooverride it. Among the Republicans who repeatedly voted against the measure was future Vice President Dick Cheney, then a Republican congressman from Wyoming.
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 9:43pm
We didn't get much news coverage of the violence that went on in South Africa until we had access to satellite tv. This was in the 1980's when you could buy the very large dishes that you could set up in the back yard. That was when many of us started watching the BBC. That is where I first saw the coverage. I think that had a lot to do with our involvement and serious support for the ANC started in the 1980's. There were groups that had been pushing divestment in the 1960's and 1970's in our country, but the general populations didn't really understand until the 1980's.
by trkingmomoe on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 10:29pm
I gotta think about this for awhile.
But I am sure, absolutely sure you are right about this.
I mean, we had so little info as far as news around the world!
Well put Momoe!
No, WE had so little info about what was going on in 'the world'.
Well put!
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 10:37pm
Mandela
by Donal on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 9:47pm
YES! AGAIN!
We who know something about HISTORY!
YES!
Thank you Donal.
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 9:53pm
A quibble. You should throw in that on top of that all, he lived to age 95, and at his death at such an advanced age, far from being forgotten, he is being eulogized as a hero by all the world's major leaders. Yes, no one would believe the story if you made it up...
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 9:55pm
Yes, exactly right again!
No one would believe the story if you made it up...
Thank you.
I hereby render unto AA the Dayly Dagblog line of the day, given to all of you from all of me;
DAMN, THAT WAS GOOD! HA!
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/05/2013 - 10:13pm
Well thank you, Mr. D, but it's not rocket science to see this. For example, the NYT has published a nine-page obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela_obit.html
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 12:38am
In my defense, I was already under the covers when the thought hit me. I knew I had to get up and write it out or I'd never fall asleep. So I kept it short.
by Donal on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:19am
Maybe the question--was Mandela a terrorist?--is the wrong question.
He used some of the tools of terrorism, but he clearly went way beyond them.
A terrorist might be someone who is "stuck" with terrorist methods. Uses them exclusively, or almost exclusively, and eschews other means.
Here again, nuances and making distinctions are important.
OBL, I would say, is a terrorist, and AQ is a terrorist organization.
The PLO, perhaps, began as a terrorist group, but has moved beyond it to at least some degree.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 12:23pm
Or Sinn Fein?
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 11:14am
Yeah, from what I know.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:27pm
I'm having trouble seeing Mandela as a 13-dimensional chess type. As he noted early on, he had 4 levels of resistance available to him, and he started out with the least damaging. Bravo, at least an intelligent game plan. No, he didn't denounce violence, because he wasn't dealing with the British whose conscientious wives would lead the domestic movement against Indian atrocities.
But what did he actually do? Mostly he sat in jail for decades, and refused to leave under compromising terms. Again, a noble stand, and in the end very helpful in enabling his stature, but not 13-dimensional.
And then, his last characteristic seems to be that for someone who spent 30 years in jail, he turned out to be a really nice guy who could put people at ease, had some steadfastness of morals, and could smooth track the fast transition to majority rule and provide an informative but not overly punitive review of apartheid - letting the country move forward.
If you want to consider how bad it could have been, there are a number of prime examples such as Mugabe and Mobutu, or Mandela's own wife Winnie. (though to be fair, it was easier for Mandela not to be tempted by power by sitting in jail rather than running the day-to-day operations of an outlawed and persecuted resistance)
There's a good parallel between Mandela and Guzmão of East Timor.
I like my heroes with human flaws and complexities, not superficial 1-dimensional features. The book (not movie) "Last Temptation of Christ" is a wonderful example of how humanness enhances rather than detracts from a character.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/13/2013 - 5:10am
The outpouring of feeling from the South African public to Nelson Mandela's life seem to suggest your viewpoint is limited to yourself.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/13/2013 - 8:52am
I don't see the claim that he was a 13-dimensional chess type; maybe I missed it.
If you like your heroes with human flaws, then isn't Mandela the hero for you?
I guess the temptation to glorify or condemn folks on their way up Mount Olympus is hard to resist. Somehow, we feel the need to do it.
I'm a bit like you and AA: I like to explore all the nooks and crannies of a person's life and see what was what. Keep that broad brush in the pail.
It's possible to describe big achievements in a way that makes them seem ordinary, and I think you've done that a bit here. For example...
"...and could smooth track the fast transition to majority rule and provide an informative but not overly punitive review of apartheid - letting the country move forward."
That's a HUGE accomplishment in my book, a point you allow in your next sentence where you describe how bad it could (easily) have been. "Smooth track"? What about the courage and personal and leadership qualities required to do that? Could he have accomplished that if he had not been held in such high esteem by so many people?
But overall, I don't see anyway around it: Mandela was a great man who made many sacrifices for his people and country. He could've just decided to leave bad enough alone and gone about his business like other people did. It's good and necessary to uncover all of him, including his flaws, but it seems churlish to deny him this honor.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/13/2013 - 9:48am
The bottom line is that most men abused and imprisoned like Mandela would not have turned out the way he did.Mandela's ability to be angry but to forgive for the good of the country makes him 20-dimensional.
The idea that people who praise Mandela, Martin Luther King, etc don't take into consideration the warts is ridiculous. Mandela was not nonviolent but he began with the least lethal option as a beginning. Martin Luther King was nonviolent, but realized that he was aided by the threat that Malcolm X represented to those in power.
At the end of the day, both men accomplished great things. The need to search for flaws in individuals seems to me as much of a problem as those who claim that we should get the dirt on the guy. Bias is in operation in either case.
Mandela committed violence, Martin Luther King put children at risk. Mandela was a poor father. Martin Luther King Jr was an adulterer. The important part of both stories for future generations is how did both men find the courage to do what they did.What internal mechanism kept them going? That is the more important question to me. The tabloid stuff is just mental catnip.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/13/2013 - 10:34am