Previous post
Next post
Former South African president Nelson Mandela died yesterday at the age of 95. He is internationally respected, and even revered, for his role in transforming South Africa out of the legacy of apartheid.
While the accolades and tributes will be pouring in over the next few weeks – probably until the state funeral that is currently in the planning stages actually happens – I have been pondering over what I, as an American conservative, think and feel about Mandela’s passing.
First, let’s get one indisputable fact out of the way. Nelson Mandela was a Communist. With a capital C, because he actually was a member of the South African Communist party. Sympathetic historians have been eager to sweep this affiliation under the rug because of the highly negative connotations. Be that as it may, and the fact that Mandela himself may have wanted to forget it, he was indeed a part of communism while it was in its political heyday.
Second, Mandela was no pacifist. His wing of the African National Congress, UmKhonto we Sizwe, was a terrorist group, directly responsible for bombings that killed innocent people. The more I read about it, it gives me chills to think about what he did. How bad was it? Amnesty International – yes, Amnesty International – refused to take up his case in the 1960’s because of his terrorist past.
Third, he was a largely ineffective administrator when he was actually president. Though the ANC switched from its initial communist ideals to a free market economy, Mandela apparently saw himself as more of a “nation builder” than an actual day-to-day leader and manager of a country. Many commentators point out that he willingly relinquished the presidency after his term was up, and even Charles Krauthammer yesterday categorized that as being in the manner of a George Washington, in a continent which continues this day to be largely tribal and leaders tend to not give up power without a fight. Perhaps he realized that being a figurehead and a national symbol was simply easier than having to run a government. (Which kind of reminds me of our current president, but that’s another story for another day.)
I was a young teenager when apartheid was officially ended in 1994. I received a heavy dose of the American media propaganda of the day of Mandela’s life story. Lots of parts were conveniently left out or glossed over. The American policy – both on the governmental and media fronts – was to treat him as a national figure, and not hold him to the same account that other leaders often are. I am sure that we will be hearing those glowing stories yet again (and naturally, anyone who brings up the inconvenient details of his past will be called a racist or an apartheid supporter or something equally stupid) as his nation lays him to rest.
But history takes a longer view of those inconvenient details. Nelson Mandela did many great things in his later years. But he was, in many ways, the Boston Marathon Bomber in his earlier days. Did he redeem himself enough to wash out those earlier crimes – that violence which Amnesty International itself refused to associate with? Will we be hearing from the victims of the UmKhonto we Sizwe bombings in the media anytime soon? Just because his goal was noble – seeking an end to apartheid – does that lead us to saying that his means of protest were justified?
I believe we will all be called to account someday for the entirety of our actions, not just the ones remembered at our funerals. History has yet to call Nelson Mandela to account for the entirety of his life story. I don’t anticipate that it will happen in the next month, but perhaps in twenty years, there will be more clarity and a better account of the real Nelson Mandela.
In the meantime, this American conservative sends condolences to those who grieve at Mandela’s passing, and to those who grieve over the innocent victims who died as a result of his actions. Surely, we can all acknowledge that they justly deserve our sympathies as well.
Merle says: My viewpoint is simple; NO, his later life DOES NOT wipe out his communist/terrorist past !!! Those people are still dead.
I say GOOD RIDDANCE !!!
Merle
Kate says: One less Commie is a good thing.
GWB says: I won’t say good riddance, but I will ask why our schools are flying their flags at half-staff today. We have so demeaned that gesture. The man was not American, and he wasn’t serving in office when he died, so there is no reason to go half-staff.
I agree with Deanna that it is a mixed legacy. Partly due to him, SA came out of its black/white inversion without turning into Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. That’s a huge positive. But he was a terrorist and a communist. So… mixed bag. I hope he made peace with the Lord before he departed this earth, because that’s the only legacy he will care about for the next eternity.
Deanna Fisher says: Thanks, GWB.
Jen says: I have a friend who emigrated from South Africa to the USA during the height of post apartheid, his tales of what life was like for whites (the overwhelming reason he left his life and family and brought his immediate family here) is chilling. It was and still is, all about reparations and revenge.
I don’t believe Mr Mandela did anything to help curb revenge seeking by blacks, rather he shrugged if off as just due.
“It was and still is, all about reparations and revenge.
I don’t believe Mr Mandela did anything to help curb revenge seeking by blacks, rather he shrugged if off as just due.”
Sounds eerily familiar to our own Commie in Chief.
F.D.R. in Hell says: Mythology is our friend. 👿
Eleanor in Hell says: JFK is nodding in agreement, Franklin. 😉
Kate says: I love you Roosevelts.
Melanie says: My husband and I recently chatted with a friend who moved to the USA from South Africa. There was something about Mandela on the news, and so my husband asked our friend about him. We both expected the generally glowing reports we’d heard via the MSM here in the USA. Surprisingly (to us), she was quite vehement in her dislike for the man, and she proceeded to tell us why – mostly telling us things similar to what you wrote about in this post. I was shocked because previously all my information about him had come from the MSM. It was a timely lesson on the dangers of depending on the MSM for “news”. Selective reporting, distortion and editorializing are the norm. RIP, Mandela. You are now facing God who is the only being that truly knows your heart and the story of all you did during your lifetime.
Merle says: Sure makes a difference when you listen to “other” media sources outside of the mainstream media in the US.
Merle
Zombie John Gotti says: Thank you for writing this. I am tired of hearing about his unjust imprisonment for his anti-apartheid views. He was imprisoned for his terrorist activities. Yes, he drew a target on himself because of his views, but there were many people more outspoken than he was that didn’t resort to terrorism. That would be much like comparing a member of the Black Panthers in the 60’s to Martin Luther King, Jr. Both had the same goals but different tactics. MLK use legal tactics. The Black Panthers not so much.
Deanna Fisher says: Thanks for reading! And for commenting!
So, if a man is held as a political prisoner, winds up being released, and then leads a government resistance organization which uses violence as its tactic, and then winds up as his country’s leader, our friends on the left will all honor him, right?
Of course, I was talking about Menachem Begin. Oddly enough, I don’t remember all of the effusive praise when former Prime Minister Begin went to his eternal reward, but, then again, it’s probably just Old Timer’s Disease setting in.
GWB says: Excellent reference. *sinister grin*
Who can come up with other folks who have done this? (There’s bound to be a Scotsman r Irishman in the bunch.
ALman says: A question was raised about the flying of the American flag at half-staff. Lately, I’ve lost track of who can order this and under what circumstances. So, I referenced this site http://usflag.org/. I quote the following: United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Section 175 (Position and manner of display):
“(m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. . .”
Section 178 (Modification of rules and customs by President):
“Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.”
Of course, we realize that the current occupant of the oval office does what ever he wants, as well as many of his supporters. So, what’s with rules and regulations anyway?
GWB says: I wonder when that was amended, because I don’t recall it including foreign officials way back when. Of course, even then, it says it’s for officials and foreign dignitaries – not former foreign presidents and such.
James Ralston says: VictoryGirls/Kate,
Since the FB thread is closed, I am posting my comment here.
As I mentioned, I read the link you sent, but I won’t respond to it. Posting a link to someone else’s writing is one of the worst ways to defend one’s own writing. It’s a distraction and a diversionary tactic and is not used by serious people because it changes the conversation from what LibertyGirl wrote to what Backbencher wrote and I’m not interested in running down that rabbit hole.
LibertyGirls/Kate made a set of claims in her own word, so she has the obligation to defend them in her own words. If she fails to do that, then all honest and serious readers will have to conclude a number of things, among them that her failure to articulate a defense of her own claims is because she doesn’t understand her own claims well enough to defend them on her own.
That’s a shame because LibertyGirls/Kate certainly write an engaging piece and I looked forward to a response that was more carefully researched and informative than the original piece. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. Maybe it’s time to rethink the use if “courageous” in your motto.
ROS says: James,
Both Kate and Deanna substantiated their comments with numerous links. I’m not certain if you just have difficulty with reading comprehension, or if you have some sort of obsessive disorder. That you either do not understand or simply disagree with them does not render their arguments invalid, rather it signifies that you’re a myopic thrower of tantrums who refuses to accept any thoughts differing from your own.
That is your problem, not theirs. Deal.
Deanna Fisher says: James,
I believe you are trying to talk to ME, since I am the author of this piece that apparently has stuck in your head.
If you have a FACTUAL rebuttal to any of my three points in this article, you are welcome to try them here. The three points were:
1) Nelson Mandela was a Communist.
2) Nelson Mandela used violence as a political weapon through his arm of the ANC, UmKhonto we Sizwe.
3) Nelson Mandela was not an effective administrator as South Africa’s first democratically elected president.
If, however, you have no factual argument to make, and simply want to continue making veiled or not-so-veiled insinuations about my intellect, or my perceptions on race (which, as a minority woman, I find absolutely hysterical that you are so concerned with how I deal with racial differences), then I have no interest in having a dialogue. When you want to call me a racist the same way that my three-year-old likes to call his brother a “blockhead,” that’s not a conversation. That’s a temper tantrum. I have enough of those here in my house. I have no time for that kind of juvenile discourse on this blog.
Ruthie Thompson says: His opinion is that you are “obligated” to make him understand even though you have clearly expressed your position and posted sources for your wonderful article. Remember James, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Ruthie Thompson says: Hmmm… that is a very interesting “opinion” James. I’m not sure of the link that Kate posted that you didn’t understand. I am not sure WHY you feel that Kate has an “obligation” to defend her writing to you just because YOU don’t understand. I believe Kate to be very courageous and very able, if you will, to defend her own writing. But if your opinion is that she won’t do that or she doesn’t understand, then that is YOUR opinion. Sometimes we expect our readers to be informed especially if they are going to comment on our posts. We don’t always have the time to do your research for you. We can give you the information. What you do with it is up to you. Also, I think it funny that you refer to us as Victory Girls, but throughout your comment you use the words Liberty Girls. Almost as if you are wanting to be somewhat demeaning. Personally, Liberty Girls is not so bad, but as you know, we are the Victory Girls. Not sure what your reason but whatever it is may be an indication of why you felt a need to post this comment of your opinion on this post about Kate. Of course, this is just MY opinion, too.
Kate says: Well, James. Welcome to Victory Girls Blog!
That said, are you a stalker or creeper or something? I mean, seriously James, multiple links to substantiate our position on Mandela the Marxist were provided to you by myself, Deanna in her post, and other readers of the Victory Girls Facebook page – to the point of complete redundancy. It isn’t our responsibility to: 1) make sure you read those links or, 2) make sure you comprehend those links.
You don’t want to run down a rabbit hole in pursuit of our position? Ok. But you want us to chase you and your pedantic arguments with more and more and yet more proof. Not happening, James.
The good and decent thinking people of the world, at times, have to choose to disagree. We’re there James. We utterly and completely disagree with every one of your points, we will not be changing our position in the foreseeable future, and unlike you with us, refuse to follow you all around the interwebz like a freaking stalker. Now…are you good and decent and thinking? That seems to be in question.
Tread softly here.
Catherine Wilkinson says: Ladies, you obviously are overestimating the comprehension skills of our friend James. You’ve reasonably and soundly trounced his weak…arguments (I guess that’s what you’d call them) several times. Yet he continues to write in silly circles and can’t even get the name of the author of this post or the name of the “Victory Girls” blog right.
It’s clear he’s a misognynistic troll who’s probably a racist on top of it all. Sorry, James, we are the Victory Girls, and you just lost.
James Ralston says: Sorry for the mix-up in names, I meant no offense. Apparently reading and writing on my phone while commuting on a train is not optimal and I’ll be more careful with those details.
The objections stated in the several responses to my comment are as overly defensive as they are curious and flimsy. Yes, my points about how to make a case are my opinions, but they are not mine alone and since they are not of the nature of a simple personal preference, they can’t be dismissed out of hand simply because they can be characterized as opinions. Rather, they echo widely shared standards among people who take these kinds of conversations seriously such that it goes without saying that anyone making a claim about the state of the world, about our commn reality, and how we should think about it, is soley responsible for substantiating her claims if she wants to be taken seriously and not have her motives suspected. The only real way to be taken seriously and avoid having one’s motives suspected is to present substantiating evidence and reasons for one’s assertions in one’s own words to prove one genuinely understands what one is saying.
My questions to the author, Deanna, which are still unanswered, are essentially:
1). Why does it matter that Mandela was a Marxist (I’ve clearly accepted that he was) when he didn’t implement Marxism when he had a chance to do so?
2). What violent crime was he convicted of committing?
3). Why would you condemn him for being an ineffective leader when nation building is an important task for a national leader (and that doesn’t even get into the no-win trap you have set up for Mandela had he been an effective Marxist leader, a side-effect of poor reasoning)?
4). How the article’s arguments can make sense against a global and historic record where national heroes have often been connected to radical political movements, violence and “nation-building” activities.
To distill it further, what hard evidence can you provide to support your contrary and severly critical opinion of Mandela when so many other national figures, including many of our own (I already provided one counter-example that undermined your claims), do not receive such harsh treatment?What could explain the different conclusion, a difference that a reasonable person could consider to be unfair to Mandela and/or unfair to those who disagree with you?
You’ve made bold and damning assertions, but haven’t backed them up with sufficient – or sometimes any – facts or intelligible reasons, you’ve only made more assertions or restated the original ones (that’s a tantrum). All the insults you throw at a detractor won’t change the very simple and ever more obvious fact that you have assumed for yourself a privilege to which no one is entitled, the privilege of simply making stuff up.
GWB says: The only real way to be taken seriously and avoid having one’s motives suspected is to present substantiating evidence and reasons for one’s assertions in one’s own words to prove one genuinely understands what one is saying.
This is incredibly myopic. Why should I (or any of the Victory Girls) waste time, energy, and pixels restating something on the internet? Where dynamic linking to source material is the very essence of the medium?
1) It matters because it is a huge reason the US didn’t jump on the Mandela bandwagon. It wasn’t racism, it was part of the Cold War. It also matters because it shows his inclinations were not toward freedom where economics was concerned.
2) I don’t recall if he was convicted, but he was ostensibly in prison for his terrorist activities (as the head of a political party committing terrorist accts), not because he was a black politician.
3) Wow, there is a huge difference between ‘nation-building’ and governance. He did poorly at the governance part (which is what he was supposedly elected to do).
4) So what? The point is that Deanna was writing from the perspective of all the adulation this man has received. If you don’t grasp that, then your reading comprehension needs work.
All the insults you throw at a detractor won’t change the very simple and ever more obvious fact that you have assumed for yourself a privilege to which no one is entitled, the privilege of simply making stuff up.
Now you’re just trolling.
Deanna Fisher says: If you refuse to read the links that have been provided to you, time and again, and demand that I continually explain my opinion, again and again, what else am I to assume except that you have no interest in having a real dialogue?
As an American, I have no interest in making an idol out of another country’s political icon. As a conservative, I don’t revere politicians as a rule, especially ones who have espoused Marxist ideals. Politicians are generally elected to BE efficient administrators. Those who are not are usually determined by history to have failed in a primary part of their job. And if you have read any of my other writings, you will know that I am quite harsh on American politicians, as are the rest of the Victory Girls. But we tend to focus more on current events, not lengthy historical pieces reflecting on the many faults of past political leaders.
I don’t write to please you, or to explain my “suspect motives” to you. I gave you links, Kate gave you links, and short of giving you a time machine, there is nothing more that I can say to you. Except to wonder if you demand this kind of explanation from every author of every single blog post or article on the internet that you disagree with. Your fixation on this one article is, quite frankly, creepy.
Ruthie Thompson says: Just an FYI, Deanna. Your article regarding Mandela is right on. And GWB ~ Muah !
James Ralston says: Deanna Fisher,
I have asked you to specifically list or to give specific details of the particular violent crimes Mandela was specifically convicted of committing and you’ve refused to do so. Instead, you presented Lee Jenkin’s article, as though that cheap trick were sufficient to support your own writing. Though it is inadequate, it is apparently the best you can do, so I’m going to treat his words as if they are your own and hold you to the implications that flow from that. I will treat them as if they are your own because that’s how you’ve offered them. As you’ll see, your methodology, or rather your credulity, prejudice and laziness, is fraught with peril.
You wrote: “James there is no doubt that Mandela’s wing of the ANC, UmKhonto we Sizwe, was a terrorist group, directly responsible for bombings that killed innocent people. Even AI wouldn’t take up his case in the 60’s because of that. Here’s a link with additional source material. –kate http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/”
While Jenkin’s makes three major claims, only one of these overlaps with your article, that Mandela was a violent killer. I’m not going to address Jenkin’s other silly points about South African military expenditures or South Africa’s alliances with some dubious characters since you didn’t address them in your own article and besides, as Americans, who are we to point fingers at such things?
Your article and Jenkin’s article are such jumbles of errors, lies, misdirection and misconceptions that there’s no systematic way to deal with them, except to “take it from the top” using Jenkin’s article since you claim it as “source material” and you’ve aggressively offered it in your defense. For my part, I’ll be using the original source documents, the actual court records from the Rivonia Trial conducted in South Africa between 1963 and 1964, as well as some other original documents from that period. These are all easily available to anyone interested in the facts and the truth for the very low cost of a Google search. You should try this approach some time, it’s really quiet interesting and rewarding.
Together you and Jenkins state, as if it were fact, that Nelson Mandela plead guilty to committing violence against hundreds of persons (Jenkins cites 156 acts explicitly). Together you claim that Mandela was responsible for violent acts that you obliquely allude to. Jenkins may be less aware of his own ignorance than you are of yours because he actually lists some “highlights” in his article. Separately and together you both incorrectly claim that Mandela’s case was rejected by Amnesty International because he was so violent.
Let’s start with Mandela’s plea. Mandela’s plea is the first really important fact claim that you make along with Jenkins and it is simply and utterly wrong.
Mandela plead NOT guilty to all the charges in the Rivonia Trial in December of 1963 in response to the Second Indictment. Mandela famously said, “My Lord, it is not I, but the government that should be in the dock. I plead not guilty.” Without a plea of NOT guilty, there would have been no Rivonia Trial at all. You can peruse the photo copies of the original court documents and transcripts of almost the entire trial at the link below, marked as Rivonia Archives. All the defendants plead NOT guilty.
There aren’t any good explanations for getting such a simple thing wrong at the start of the article, or for relying so heavily on such shoddy work that you’d offer it as the foundation of your own thoughts and writing. After all, the way an accused person pleads is usually easy to understand and easy to find out. To make such a fundamental error indicates that neither of you knows what you’re doing, both of you suffer from the same reading comprehension problem, neither of you did any real research of your own, or the two of you are simply lying to make some other point. The answer is most likely some weighted combination of all four.
But it’s not just that you have the plea wrong. Jenkins, and you, wrote that Mandela plead guilty to 156 violent acts, having “signed off on the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children.” He then lists the “highlights” among those acts. Nothing in that summary of claims is true, not even your math.
Mandela was charged with 2 counts of sabotage, items #40-#193 (which doesn’t add up to 156) in Appendix B of the Second Indictment (see Second Indictment for the limitation of acts for Mandela and see Appendix B for the list of particulars).
As to the charges, the “highlights” Jenkins listed were not part of the indictment and occurred while Mandela was in his third decade of an isolated life sentence on Robben Island. Mandela was never implicated, charged, tried nor ever entered any plea to those acts, ever. Jenkin’s trick, his slight of hand, depends upon the two of you believing that your readers can’t think and read at the same time and won’t be able to notice the temporal shift from the early 1960s clear into the 1980s. Instead you two want your readers to adopt a ridiculous notion that because Mandela had founded a group decades earlier, he was forever responsible for that group’s actions. Logic like that would require us to hold Jesus responsible for the Inquisition and to consider George Washington responsible for Jim Crow. To any thinking person, especially a conservative who values “personal responsibility,” Jenkin’s point is just ridiculous nonsense. In actuality, each of the acts you and Jenkins point to as “highlights” in Mandela’s career or terror was dealt with in the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. Those responsible were identified, confessed and were either cleared or implicated further. You can read about each one of these “highlights,” at the link I’ve provided to the reports from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the end of this comment. But you won’t find Mandela’s name mentioned anywhere, not because of some grand conspiracy to hide his involvement, but simply because he wasn’t involved and therefore had no reason to come before the only body in the country that could have absolved him had he needed it. If Mandela had been involved in the “highlights,” he had every reason to go before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and absolutely no reason not to do so.
Without means or opportunity, and with no substantiating evidence provided by you or by Jenkins to prove Mandela was communicating from Robben Island, from which not even a photograph of Mandela emerged during his imprisonment, nor any evidence the government that had pursued him, prosecuted him and incarcerated him for decades was somehow conspiring with him to defeat his isolated life-sentence and enable him to wage a terror campaign, the allegations made by you two in the “highlight” list have to be rejected as manipulative lies and racist propaganda.
Rather that deal with ridiculous and insane nonsense like the list of “highlights” you and Jenkins stand by, let’s deal instead with the real charges Mandela faced in the Rivonia Trial. The simple fact is Mandela had what most people would consider a rock solid alibi: he was in jail when the acts of sabotage listed in the indictment occurred. Each act he was accused of, #40-#193 of the Second Indictment was committed while Mandela was behind bars, after having been out of the country for months prior to that.
The judge in the case recognized the strength of this defense, “it must be borne in mind that Accused No. 1 [Mandela] was arrested on the 5th of August, 1962 and was thereafter convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and he has been in prison continuously since the first date mentioned. It’s hard to see how he bore this in mind given that he later essentially said without a shred of supporting evidence, “yeah, but since he never said he wasn’t the leader while he was in jail, I’m going to pin all this on him.” He convicted Mandela of all the acts committed on that list even though Mandela had been in custody and then in prison at hard labor the whole time (Judgement, p.28-38).
Similarly, despite ample writing and denials by Mandela that he was not a Communist as charged, the presiding judge convicts him of this crime of association and thought by specifically citing a talk Mandela gave at a conference. The judge quotes Mandela’s notes, considering the following sentence proof enough that the A.N.C. was communist, “Clear that in this area there are great reservations about our policy and there is a widespread feeling that the A.N.C. is a Communist dominated organization.” Really? There is a widespread feeling that the G.O.P. is a Fascist dominated organization and you could agree or disagree, but should that be enough to convict any Republican who writes such a thing to a life in prison? Even I would argue “no” on that score because I believe, and I think when pushed you would agree too, that thought crime is a kind of law that is unconscionable to any American.
You and Jenkins think you are delivering a coup de grace by pointing out, incorrectly, that Amnesty International, that liberal darling, wouldn’t take up Mandela’s case because he was so violent. Sorry, but that’s wrong too.
Amnesty International did not refuse to take up Mandela’s case at all. It only declined to give him Prisoner of Conscience (PoC) status, which means AI would not call for his unconditional release. Considering a person to be a PoC is just one thing that Amnesty International does, and few people receive this status from AI, even today. As a matter of fact, you can see from the linked document (Amnesty International), that only 3 persons, one from the East, one from the West and one from the Third World are granted PoC status at any given time. AI, formed during the time Mandela was being vexed by South African authorities on treason charges they couldn’t get to stick, was only a few years old when Mandela was convicted in the Rivonia Trial. Regardless, Mandela was served by AI before and after AI deciding against granting PoC status to him. AI specifically saw Mandela as deserving of protection because of AI’s Article 19, which asserts a universal right to political thought and expression. AI worked effectively to ensure that the defendants in the Rivonia Trial didn’t get the death penalty and protested against his treatment in prison during and after the trial. To state, as you both do, that Mandela was too odious for AI is simply wrong and you could have been right if you had done some research on the matter instead of giving in to group-think.
I’ve included a link to AI’s 3rd annual meeting where the matter of Mandela is discussed in detail. You can see for yourself that Jenkin’s assertion is based upon a highly selective mis-quote that he hopes you don’t check, and he was right about you apparently, but not everyone who reads him is quite so careless about what he puts into his own head as you apparently are. You can read Amnesty Internationals account of what its membership thought the fledgling organization should do about Mandela at the link I’ve provided to a photo copy of the original Freedom of Religion and Thought Annual Report, June 1, 1964 – May 31, 1965 (Amnesty International), the same document you and Jenkins cherry-picked for a quote.
Thought crime, the inability to confront and cross-examine witnesses (the testimonies of “X” and “Y”), non-specific charges that could not plausibly been committed by the defendant and guilt by association are things we don’t tolerate in our own system of justice. Actually, we don’t recognize them as justice at all. If we can’t recognize a trial as fair and just, then as Americans, we can’t respect the verdict either. Conservatives are famous for railing against kangaroo courts, Mao’s show trials and political persecution, why not this one? And I’m not revising history either. The Rivonia Trial was world-wide news when it was happening. The trial was so suspect that the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on a vote of 106-1 (South Africa being the only objection) condemning apartheid repression and calling upon South Africa “to abandon the arbitrary trial now in progress and forthwith to grant unconditional release to all political prisoners and to all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed apartheid.” (UN Resolution 181). In another vote, on June 9, 1964, just two days before the Rivonia Trial ended, the UN Security Council voted 7-0 to pass UN Resolution 190 urging South Africa to end the Rivonia Trial and grant amnesty to all the accused. (UN Resolution 190).
Though the types of documents needed for confirmation are still shrouded behind diplomatic relations, there were widely reported accounts at the time that Adlai Stevenson and the British Government were working diligently on behalf of Nelson Mandela and the other accused men.
Finally, if the UN and other international machinations to end the trial doesn’t convince you that the trial was politically motivated and not in response to actual criminal wrong doing, consider the circumstances of Mandela’s release from prison.
Mandela was not released because of new DNA evidence. He was not released because witnesses recanted their testimony against him or because new witnesses came forward to implicate someone else. He was not released because of his good behavior or for humanitarian reasons or because he was eligible for parole. He was released when the South African government could no longer support Apartheid and for no other reason. The political realities had outstripped the political conviction by the early 1990s and holding Mandela and maintaining Apartheid was no longer politically viable. Nothing says Mandela was a political prisoner convicted of trumped up charges like a politically motivated release from prison and the unbanning of the A.N.C just days earlier.
So all of the facts and presumptions that you and Jenkins presented are false. What can we make of that?
One implication is that if either of these two articles were to be edited, surgically changing the false claim with the mundane facts that should be there, none of the conclusions or sentiments expressed in the article make any sense whatsoever. They read as though the authors have slipped their lines like a boat incompetently tied to a buoy, finding its own path to the rocks in the slightest breeze. We’re not looking at a reasonable disagreement or a slightly different interpretation of the same information. We’re looking at something significantly different.
When I encounter an article that isn’t researched at all, that is filled with internal inconsistencies and slights-of-hand to convey meaning that the evidence can’t support, I have to conclude that the piece is intended to serve another purpose beyond giving voice to someone’s “opinion.” After all, an opinion that’s based upon falsehoods isn’t worth very much, even to the person who pretends to hold it. I’m left to ask what an opinion so formed actually says about the person who holds it. What are the implications to asserting falsehoods, especially these particular falsehoods?
Another clear implication is that you had your conclusions first, and failing to find facts to support those conclusions, or not liking the facts you found, you made up your own facts because the conclusions were more important to you than reality. Why would someone do that? One way I determine what could be the motivation behind such a deception, real or accidental, is to consider who else tells the same lies to themselves and to others. If I can find others executing the same intellectual dishonesty and self-deception, at the cost of others’ freedoms, then I might gain some insight into your motivations.
I can’t say with any certainty where each of your false claims came from, except that I can say that you got your claims from Lee Jenkins because you insist that I understand that to be the case. But the Internet is an amazing thing to find out who is saying certain things. When I search for these kinds of statements I was not surprised that I turn up a lot of right wing web sites.
But I was surprised when I found two groups where ALL of these false assertions are repeated again and again. One is the white supremacist, racist web site, Stormfront (sorry, I’m not going to dignify it with a link, so you’ll have to check that sewer yourself) and the other place, obviously, is in the Rivonia Trial itself, the arguments presented by the South African government during its half-century long racist defense of Apartheid.
I think that’s some pretty uncomfortable company to keep, but it might actually be a good fit for you.
I’m sure you’re going to claim these things don’t make you a racist, and maybe these things don’t, but there’s something else you’ve written, your own defense against my charge of racism against you. You asserted, before thinking, that as a minority you can’t be racist. This is in fact a racist claim because you’re claiming a racially-based moral superiority. You see, racism is the unsubstantiated belief that one race is inherently superior to another, or that one race has invested in it, by virtue of its race, certain superior physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, sexual, etc. capabilities – or that certain races are immune to the defects found in other races. That’s racism. Racism is not the identification of race-based injustices in the world, racism is not the efforts some undertake to remediate the legacy of racially-based injustices, racism is not work performed to bring greater justice and equality to all. Racism is found where a person claims superiority over another based upon race alone.
It’s three strikes against you. You’ve thrown away some of the most important aspects of your American standards of justice and due process to support a racist and politically motivated foreign verdict as legitimate, indulging in cultural relativism and putting you squarely on the side of the racist apartheid government that prosecuted Mandela. You made a race-based, racist, self-defense of your own motivations, claiming a race-based moral superiority and immunity to racism itself. You presented in your own writing, and in writings of others you insisted could speak for you as if they were your own words, the same false words, unsound reasoning and lies made by avowed white supremacists and racists in the Stormfront website. Given these three things, you can’t be surprised, offended or dismissive when I call you a racist because if you are saying the same things that the racists are saying, then you sound like a racist.
Sources:
Rivonia Archives, http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory/U/collections&c=AD1844/R/. Note: the links are quite slow.
Nelson Mandela’s Speech from the Dock, http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/images/header/HistoryPapers_banner5.jpg.
Second Indictment, http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory_enhanced/U/Collections&c=158452/R/AD1844-A2-1.
Appendix B, http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory_enhanced/U/Collections&c=158454/R/AD1844-A2-3. Note: cover page is incorrectly labeled as Appendix A, handwritten corrections throughout the document and its conformity to descriptions elsewhere leave no doubt that this is actually Appendix B.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/decisions/2001/ac21003.htm.
Judgement, http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory_enhanced/U/Collections&c=158560/R/AD1844-A32-3.
Amnesty Intenational, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL10/001/1965/en/08f6fbc5-fe17-4d24-8b6b-c181135bd8b4/pol100011965eng.pdf.
UN Resolution 181, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/unresolution1881.pdf.
UN Resolution 190, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/seccouncil190.pdf.
30 Comments