It is inconceivable that over 80 of the respondents voted no, somehow believing that a man instrumental in breaking slavery/apartheid AND THEN WORKING SUCCESSFULLY TO AVOID A CIVIL WAR was not a net gain to the world.
Truly inconceivable, not "Princess Bride" inconceivable.
Yet Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 and the armed force he was sent to prison for raising was under his direction and was responsible for bloody acts of terror. There are some skeletons in his closet so that could be what the 80 or so respondants that said no might be considering.
I said yes but I have seen a few stories today that lead me to believe that he isnt quite as saintly as the media would have us believe. But again I take these stories with a grain of salt until I hear more provable things which will eventually come out.
Mandela was a flawed human being who accomplished incredible good in the totality of his influence upon the world. If you demand binary answers to all of human experience, you are a fool.
I am not sure really how to answer this so I havent voted today. As the other Kyle on here has pointed out there is really no yes no answer here. I just read a blog that once again, I have my doubts about it's accuracy. However it makes a plausible argument that Mandela's actions did help abolish apartheid but, if this was a good or bad thing? That can be argued.... Look at the blog I'm gonna post and see for yourself.
I will have to study this subject some more. I have a feeling that Mandela's reputation might (and I said MIGHT) be a little overinflated and overstated. I could be wrong but as I said before, time will tell.
Kyle Slocum,
you very eloquently summed it up. If you can't separate the faults of the human being from the accomplishments then you are, in context of the poll question, willing to say that the world would be a better place if Apartheid were still rule of law in South Africa.
It took an extremely destructive civil war to rid our country of slavery. Mandela was instrumental in avoiding that war in South Africa. I think that is a net gain.
Jeff believe it or not thats exactly what people ARE saying. Read even some of the article I posted. It's not looking good for south africa at all. I have seen pretty broad articles saying the same thing as well. As ugly as the notion of apartheid was it did work there and every gain it produced has been lost. Medically, financially and stability wise.
Whats the old saying....you can argue ideas til your blue in the face but once those ideas are put into place, you can't really argue the results.
Tim your right a Civil war may have been avoided but at what cost? The old adage may well be applied from what I have read about the slide in South Africa.
Because it seems that just being given their country they haven't really appreciated or have any desire to continue it. It's like with our children when we just give them tings they take it for granted, But when we make them earn things then they learn the value of what they have.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Let's not forget people that, if the "American Revolution" happened in today's world, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc...., would have been considered "terrorist!"
John.....thats simply not true. None of our forefathers bombed english settlements nor took english soldiers hostage. You need to re-examine terrorist definitions before saying generalizations like that....
Kyle, the terrorist title can be placed on our forefathers. Not all terrorists target civilians or take hostages. Terrorism can be political and economical as well. Our forefathers defy the British Monarchy and British Laws. They made a political stance against the British. The Boston Tea Party was an economical blow as well as a statement. Tea was a high volume trade item. Let's not forget that, not all colonists were happy about or for the revolution.
Look at the world today (Syria, Libya, Egypt), there all rebellions everywhere. Take Egypt for example, President Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and treated it as a revolution against a dictatorial government.
It is amazing that, President Obama and our government are not involving themselves again with Egypt since; the Muslim Brotherhood is believed to have terrorism ties.
Kyle, though you and I do not believe our forefathers were terrorists. There are those who can argue their actions are no different the terrorists of today.
Heck, you can almost debate that, President Obama's actions are terroristic in nature. He has lied, failed to work with others unless it is on his terms or nothing at all. He continues to attempt more governmental control of our lives. Kyle, it is your opinion on how you feel and to me you hold a blind eye on the issue. Mandela also, wanted freedom for his people yet he was classified a terrorist.
Every single instance you mention John involves the use of violence as a means of coercion. Name one instance our forefathers used terrorism to achieve any goal in forming the country. According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias...
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
Full Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Now if you want to classify our country's indian wars from that time as terrorism I'll accept that but this country was NOT established under acts of terrorism.
Even your example makes no sense there John, you said "President Obama's actions are terroristic in nature. He has lied, failed to work with others unless it is on his terms or nothing at all. He continues to attempt more governmental control of our lives." Thats not terrorism, thats called politics.
Terrorism is NOT economic actions or political actions. But as shown above it is the use of violence to achieve a political end.
It is inconceivable that over
It is inconceivable that over 80 of the respondents voted no, somehow believing that a man instrumental in breaking slavery/apartheid AND THEN WORKING SUCCESSFULLY TO AVOID A CIVIL WAR was not a net gain to the world.
Truly inconceivable, not "Princess Bride" inconceivable.
"You keep using that word, I
"You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means..."
~Inigo Montoya
Yet Nelson Mandela was on US
Yet Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 and the armed force he was sent to prison for raising was under his direction and was responsible for bloody acts of terror. There are some skeletons in his closet so that could be what the 80 or so respondants that said no might be considering.
I said yes but I have seen a few stories today that lead me to believe that he isnt quite as saintly as the media would have us believe. But again I take these stories with a grain of salt until I hear more provable things which will eventually come out.
Tim,,,, I agree 100%
Tim,,,, I agree 100%
Actually it’s eminently
Actually it’s eminently conceivable that people voted no.
Kyle pointed out reasons why it is conceivable; I’ll point out another.
Many are people are not familiar with the term “NECKLACING”. Winnie Mandela is eminently familiar.
For those who are not, here is one link of many by doing a search for “necklacing”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
Mandela was a flawed human
Mandela was a flawed human being who accomplished incredible good in the totality of his influence upon the world. If you demand binary answers to all of human experience, you are a fool.
I am not sure really how to
I am not sure really how to answer this so I havent voted today. As the other Kyle on here has pointed out there is really no yes no answer here. I just read a blog that once again, I have my doubts about it's accuracy. However it makes a plausible argument that Mandela's actions did help abolish apartheid but, if this was a good or bad thing? That can be argued.... Look at the blog I'm gonna post and see for yourself.
http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/black-south-africans-lived-…
I will have to study this subject some more. I have a feeling that Mandela's reputation might (and I said MIGHT) be a little overinflated and overstated. I could be wrong but as I said before, time will tell.
Kyle Slocum, you very
Kyle Slocum,
you very eloquently summed it up. If you can't separate the faults of the human being from the accomplishments then you are, in context of the poll question, willing to say that the world would be a better place if Apartheid were still rule of law in South Africa.
I had noted "net" gain to the
I had noted "net" gain to the world...
It took an extremely destructive civil war to rid our country of slavery. Mandela was instrumental in avoiding that war in South Africa. I think that is a net gain.
Jeff believe it or not thats
Jeff believe it or not thats exactly what people ARE saying. Read even some of the article I posted. It's not looking good for south africa at all. I have seen pretty broad articles saying the same thing as well. As ugly as the notion of apartheid was it did work there and every gain it produced has been lost. Medically, financially and stability wise.
Whats the old saying....you can argue ideas til your blue in the face but once those ideas are put into place, you can't really argue the results.
Tim your right a Civil war
Tim your right a Civil war may have been avoided but at what cost? The old adage may well be applied from what I have read about the slide in South Africa.
Because it seems that just being given their country they haven't really appreciated or have any desire to continue it. It's like with our children when we just give them tings they take it for granted, But when we make them earn things then they learn the value of what they have.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Let's not forget people that,
Let's not forget people that, if the "American Revolution" happened in today's world, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc...., would have been considered "terrorist!"
John.....thats simply not
John.....thats simply not true. None of our forefathers bombed english settlements nor took english soldiers hostage. You need to re-examine terrorist definitions before saying generalizations like that....
Kyle, the terrorist title can
Kyle, the terrorist title can be placed on our forefathers. Not all terrorists target civilians or take hostages. Terrorism can be political and economical as well. Our forefathers defy the British Monarchy and British Laws. They made a political stance against the British. The Boston Tea Party was an economical blow as well as a statement. Tea was a high volume trade item. Let's not forget that, not all colonists were happy about or for the revolution.
Look at the world today (Syria, Libya, Egypt), there all rebellions everywhere. Take Egypt for example, President Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and treated it as a revolution against a dictatorial government.
It is amazing that, President Obama and our government are not involving themselves again with Egypt since; the Muslim Brotherhood is believed to have terrorism ties.
Kyle, though you and I do not believe our forefathers were terrorists. There are those who can argue their actions are no different the terrorists of today.
Heck, you can almost debate that, President Obama's actions are terroristic in nature. He has lied, failed to work with others unless it is on his terms or nothing at all. He continues to attempt more governmental control of our lives. Kyle, it is your opinion on how you feel and to me you hold a blind eye on the issue. Mandela also, wanted freedom for his people yet he was classified a terrorist.
Every single instance you
Every single instance you mention John involves the use of violence as a means of coercion. Name one instance our forefathers used terrorism to achieve any goal in forming the country. According to Dictionaries and Encyclopedias...
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
Full Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Now if you want to classify our country's indian wars from that time as terrorism I'll accept that but this country was NOT established under acts of terrorism.
Even your example makes no sense there John, you said "President Obama's actions are terroristic in nature. He has lied, failed to work with others unless it is on his terms or nothing at all. He continues to attempt more governmental control of our lives." Thats not terrorism, thats called politics.
Terrorism is NOT economic actions or political actions. But as shown above it is the use of violence to achieve a political end.