We just got this email from PM listener Ann Andrews. Have YOU met Mr Mandela?
I am nearly 78, and so I have had a long time to read about Nelson Mandela, we all knew what a remarkable person he was.
But I only saw him once, quite close to me, when he came to Brixton with Prince Charles.
We were packed in a side street near the railway bridge, so tightly that if any one who smoked wanted to light up they could not raise their hand to get their cigarettes out of their breast pockets.
The crowd went quiet as he and Prince Charles mounted the steps to the balcony where he was going to speak to us.
There seemed to be as many different citizens surrounding me as there are countries in the world.
As he raised his hand in that familiar gesture the crowd bellowed, and each one managed to get both their arms above their heads to idolize him.
Huge black men, tough and rough white men, asians, western europeans like me, and eastern europeans, and of course, African men and women had tears in their eyes, and black and white women were openly sobbing.
And as he spoke I realised that he had something much greater than charisma, something more enigmatic than holiness, and that was why he was able to do more than any other person now on earth to help us become better human beings.
I am crying as I type this, so strongly do I feel.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
No, but Ann's message makes me wish I had.
xx
ed
Have I ever met Nelson Mandela, sadly no. But I have no doubt that he is one of the greatest human beings ever.....period.
Such humility & humanity is so very rare today. He is an outstanding example of what mankind can aspire to!
DIY
Am a fun of Mandela, but raising his statue at Parliament square is uncalled for. He did a lot for Africans and instead should be well remembered on the African continent. He did nothing for the British. It is like raising Blair's statue in Korea.
It should be noted that his greatness could not have been recognized if it wasn't for the British colonial struggles. In a way it can be concluded that he defeated the British supremacy and am not convinced they should be the ones to honour him.
Oh Eddie, what a question to ask! This morning I had hoped to be on a train to London to witness the unveiling of the statue - but it was not to be (for reasons too boring to reveal).
I lived as a child in aparteid South Africa - we moved there when I was 6 years old. I told my grandmother, before we left, that I would marry a black man and live in a mud hut - and I was sure that was the case. I was only 6, and my image of Africa was very naive, but I saw no issue in what I told my grandmother, nor did I feel worried by it. Imagine my confusion when I got there and discovered the reality. Even then, as a small child, I hated the inequalities, the degradations, the general iniquity of apartheid, of exclusion, of prohibition, of perceived superiority.
We hated life in that society, and returned after three years, having intended to remain permanently. The experience of it coloured my attitude to life and our responsibility to others. We feared that there would, one day, be a blood bath. You have to remember that there were intense barriers across society in South Africa, not just between whites and non whites. We lived in Natal, with a very large Indian population, and also there were the perceived layers within the African communities based upon tribal affinities, and of those of mixed race.
Nelson Mandela is not a saint, but he and others who took on the establishment in South Africa in a way which somehow managed to conserve much of the best while ridding South African society of most of the worst, performed a miracle in that country. Through adversity, he managed to keep alive a tremendous magnanimity and sense of balance. With De Klerk - himself a brave and fowardlooking man - he brought his country from out of the darkness of apartheid and into the light of true democracy.
South Africa still has many issues to address, but at least it has avoided the greatest evil of all - that of a bloody civil war.
Sorry I didn't get to see you, Mr. Mandela, but I salute you and wish you every happiness in your remaining years.
I couldn't help thinking such a statue would be a good thing in Zimbabwe, as a monument to someone who could. But that would have to wait until the removal of the man who couldn't.
Did anyone else catch the debate about the Nelson Mandela statue that was on Front Row the other evening? (20th ,I believe)
Some former head of the Nation Gallery claiming the statue to have no artistic merit and not suitable for being sited in Traalgar Square - near South Africa house, as Tony Benn would wish.
Apparently, to have sited it in Trafalgar Square would have been to imply that the piece is of greater artisitic value than it is.....
Who does this puffed up old f*rt think he is?
Surely the point is that the statue is being erected to recognise Mandela's contribution to the struggle for freedom and democracy in South Africa. I am sure there will be the usual hoo-ha about the statue (too big, too small, too prominent, not prominent enough etc). It was never commissioned solely as a piece of art; it is a tribute to a man who has achieved far greater things than any gallery director or art critic ever will.
Now, reading Sunday Grammar's posting and Vyle Hernia, I am a bit puzzled that there should be any reluctance at honouring Nelson Mandela in this country. And to compare Blair in Korea with Mandela in Britain does show something of a lack of knowledge of historical relevance.
The reason my family emigrated to South Africa is precisely because of the very close links between our two nations at that time (South Africa being, then, a member of the Commonwealth). Britain played a significant role in the governance of South Africa from the early 20th century, having spent the preceding century in a tug of war with the Boers over who should be the colonial masters. At the time I was living in South Africa, Britain still had a significant influence alongside the Afrikaaners in the Union of South Africa. In very general terms, the South Africans of British descent were held in more esteem than those of Boer descent (i.e. the Afrikaaners) by indigenous Africans, and the link between the two countries is, I believe, largely as a result of the more humane attitude of the British South Africans towards non whites during the apartheid era.
To its credit, Britain was also a centre of ongoing resistance to the policy of apartheid during the darkest decades from the late 1950s until Nelson Mandela was released. I well recall taking my place in the regular sit downs at Sussex University to protest at the ongoing relationship between Barclays Bank and the South African economy. Oh, and our main hall on campus was - still is - Mandela Hall.
I'm sure there are other froggers out there who can add to these ruminations on why Nelson Mandela has a particular place in the hearts of the British.
Big Sister (7):
I suppose the question is "What did he ever do for us?" for small values of "us".
Certainly that's a question Glaswegians ask about the prominent statue of the Duke of Wellington in the city centre. But we don't bother too much about it, we certainly don't decry the statue's existence or placing, we just keep giving him a traffic cone for a hat. (And one for his puir horse!)
As for NM, I've never met him, but I did once get a "Free Nelson Mandela" in a packet of cornflakes.
Mandela is a great man who deserves not only the statue in Great Britain but in South Africa.
In the crazy "we will eat ourselves" world we now inhabit - we'll be talking more about this in the programme tonight. Ann was kind enough to email us - we posted it here on the blog...and now I've interviewed her, and put to her one of the comments here on this page. Have a listen - it's scheduled for about ten to six at the moment - though that may change.
Big Sis (7) I wasn't saying anything against having NM's statue in London.
Eddie - What's this about eating ourselves? Did you omit "To death" or something?
Have just seen what obesity is like. Fat man took shortcut across grass to his car, and had to ask fat spouse to get out of car and help him step over 18" barrier. Good job they had a diesel car, but even that was slow pulling away.
Sorry, Vyle, if I misunderstood your point. No offence intended.
I'm so looking forward to hearing Ann tonight.
Let us not forget his acts of violence including murder. As for 27 years in prison he was offered parole if he renounced violence. Some hero.
I haven't met him but I was there this morning. The occasion was quite moving at times and there was an usual atmosphere about the place: people were talking to each other, all in good humour.
The Mandela magic, I am guessing...
(account of the event and pics can be found on my blog...)
I would like to tell Sunday Grammar that his argument holds no water: There is already a statue of an African in parliament square (of the racist Boer general Jan Smuts).
Many of us don't see ourselves foremost as English or British, or white or black. We see ourselves as human beings first and foremost, and Mandela represents not only Africa and the interests of Africa, but the interests of all human beings who wish to make the world a better place for all.
To UpTheTrossachs (6) I would like to add that one would have to be hard-pressed to claim that the existing statues in Trafalgar Square (apart from Nelson's) have any artistic merit whatsoever.
Two commemorate the occupying Indian army forces (Sir Charles Napier and Sir Henry Havelock) while a third is an equestrian statue of King George IV.
I was there!
Can't say that about many things, but I bunked off work the day Mandela visited Brixton. We waited from early in the morning, and as Anne so eloquently describes, all of Brixton Life was there.
We were outside the Portuguese cafe near the sports centre (where Mandela came out of), with about a million other smiling people.
I'd been in South Africa (and hitch-hiked round it) just after the referendum and just before the vote, when the country was buzzing with the excitement that was to come- Mandela for President!
However this visit to Brixton was like nothing else, any street party, royal visit or sporting event, as everyone was so pleased to be there, and so pleased that, as he said (maybe the day before?) he wanted to "put us all in his pocket and take us home".
We only got a glimpse of him, smiling serenely, but it stuck with me, and the statue will be my first port of call next time I take my children to London.
Duh!!!
Read (14): "there was an UNusual atmosphere..."
What a sprightly & fluent Ann Andrews was on the programme. I'd never have guessed she was 78!
I remember watching the Live Aid concert on TV, 17 years ago. When Nelson Mandela came on stage, the crowd went wild and my unborn baby turned a somersault in the womb, thereby escaping a breech birth, so thank you Mr. Mandela!
Okay, yes, I suppose Mandela's some sort of hero to some people (but not me, his ex-wife, or the relatives of those his violence murdered). But isn't there something nauseous about honouring living people with statues? It smacks of all those dreadful effigies of Stalin and Mao. As for whether it should be in Trafalgar Square - why not? The place has become such a mess and an eyesore, I think yet another nasty sculpture would not be out of place. Am I glad he stood up for what he believed in? Of course. But apartheid was a South African evil, not a British one, so I'm unsure why anybody should really think that it is right that any square in the British capital should be given over to an effigy of a living foreigner. I suppose it's some sort of sop to anti-traditionalists, and multiculturalists. Those of us who such gestures are calculated to offend are used to this sort of empty nonsense. I hope wherever it is the pigeons treat it appropriately.
I was there at the concert given for Mandela at Symphony Hall, Birmingham, when he visited shortly after he had been released from jail. The concert had got underway and about two or three acts in, the lead singer of Aswad paused and introduced the great man, and the houselights went up as a spotlight picked Mandela out on a balcony high and to the side of the hall, nearly directly opposite me. As one person, the entire hall rose to its feet and gave Mandela the longest, most passionately felt ovation I've ever heard. A tear came to my eye then, and it's there again now. Throughout the long dark years of apartheid I (a long-standing AAM member) had never dreamed that I'd ever even be in the same country as this inspirational giant of a human being, yet here I was in the same room as him. I understand Ann's email completely.
As I've said before, Nelson Mandela isn't a saint, cisco and Andrew Mashkov, but I'm pretty sure he's a better person than most of us here.
Given the very many wrongs done to him personally and to the non-whites in South Africa, I think he has behaved with admirable restraint. He is not Gandhi, and never advocated peaceful resistance (which would, in any event, have been useless in apartheid South Africa. Have you forgotten the atrocities committed towards unarmed black civilians, such as Sharpeville? And, speaking from personal experience of my time living there, I can only describe the treatment of non whites as disgraceful and utterly humiliating.
Nelson Mandela represents, to many many people, the embodiment of how the human spirit can rise above the worst excesses of human behaviour, and that is why I, and so many others, will always love him.
A few historical facts about Nelson Mandela.
Mr Mandela was convicted in an open and free court of law of sabotage and terrorism. He himself, while admitting his guilt, said that he expected the death penalty.
He would have been released from prison many years before he actually was but steadfastly refused to renounce violence as a precondition.
He and his party the ANC were, and are, friends and allies of the PLO, the IRA, and Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF)
He and his party are committed to destroying Western civilization in South Africa and are on record as trying to "undo the damage of 300 years of white colonialism"
Thanks for this piece, Eddie and the team!!
I only wish I had met him.
And the insular narrow-minded total lack of any generosity or even simple humanity towards the one man - who steered a whole nation away from blood and vengence - from the small minority on this blog will ever continue to amaze and perplex me.
All peoples everywhere have a right to be free.
Paul (24),
"He and his party are committed to destroying Western civilization in South Africa"
If so, what about "Truth and reconciliation and Desmond Tutu?
and are on record as trying to "undo the damage of 300 years of white colonialism" "
I think that's a noble aim, and as for making common cause with other oppressed groups, it's understandable. The PLO, in fact, arose only in response to violent expulsion and dispossession by a colonial enterprise. There are similarities also for the IRA and the origins of ZANU/PF.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
I'm not sure what Paul Thompson's point is, but I don't like it.
Britain, as the colonial power, was partially responsible for implementing apartheid, a pernicious and violent system that oppressed the majority of people in their own land. The white nationalist settlers who won the 1948 election proceeded to implement "grand apartheid" - removing the limited/qualified black franchise, and tightening up things like the group areas act, and the bantustans. However they were acting on certain principles that Britain had introduced: unfair hut taxes, migrant labour, land reservations, racial discrimination, etc.
In the 1940s and 1950s, Mandela and his associates in the ANC youth league launched a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience. This was supressed with increasing violence by the white regime, culminating in the Sharpeville Massacre and the banning of the ANC and other liberation organisations. Anticipating this, Mandela had launched an armed wing with the intention of overthrowing the illegitimate government. Remember that in 1950 there was only one free country in Africa - the rest were under unjust colonial rule. Mandela had exhausted all peaceful means, and therefore he and his party exercised the right (enshrined in the UN charter) for people to resist occupation. In contrast the British government granted full independence to the white regime in 1961.
It was only many years later, following international struggles by many people around the world, not least in South Africa itself, that South Africa finally achieved liberation. That we have a democratic and stable country is a testament to the efforts of people like Mandela. At his trial he expected to be executed for treason, but this does not mean he acknowledged "guilt".
Mandela is a great internationalist and anti-colonial hero, like Gandhi before him.
Paul Thompson (24), and others
I'm not that up to speed on this issue, but while I have certainly seen some evidence of "white flight" (the number of white S Africans around here, who at one time were the largest group in this block of flats), I know of some "English" white S Africans who have actually gone back - but while keeping assets in the UK as an insurance (and their kid is British, being born here). I don't think they are being romantic, but are realistic about the ANC etc, but feel that they can (at present) still have a better life there than here. It's probably not sweetness and light in SA, but it does look as if black and white are beginning to trust each other. I wonder what the Afrikaaners think/are doing, they being the group who were the more responsible (which does not let the English off the hook).
And I think Nelson Mandela is a big factor this, unlike Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Whatever exactly he personally did in the '60's, (as opposed to what he advocated), he showed remarkably little bitterness on his release or even after he was elected President.
But then I knew a White (young) Rhodisian who thought that he could go back to the newly renamed Zimbabwe for a better life.
No, I haven't met Nelson Mandela but, along with hundreds of others, I demonstrated against his imprisonment in the early 1960s.
The world was such a different place then - black people had no rights in South Africa or Rhodesia, and even in the United States, there were demonstrations when they tried to admit black students to white colleges.
It was a much more innocent time, though. We thought we were going to change the world with Bob Dylan!
Inox Feline (8),
Why is Wellesley [Wellington] in your city? He was famously rude about his city of birth (Dublin). I'm not aware of any incident in Scotland that concerned him - Portugal, Spain and Belgium (in that order) were his stamping grounds before a PM-ship.
I have, on more than one occasion, had to battle bureauocracy regarding his family name, rather than his title, getting it spelt correctly....oh dear. makes me an old f*rt...again...
So a posh woman cries while typing an email... how sweet
I did have a smile when Gordon Brown praised Winnie Mandela. It reminded me of Mother Theresa and her fetish for tinpot dictators.
Deepthought (30):
I have no idea why Welly has a statue in Glasgow,I've never managed to unearth any connection.
If you want to see his cone-hat, there's a good picture on wikipaedia under the "glasgow Gallery of Modern Art" section.
Hm. Definitely a lot of trolling on this thread. Why does this remind me of the thugs who chose the Notting Hill Carnival to have a little 'fun'?
It's very interesting and also disturbing, reading some of the comments on the blog.
As a pacifist,I have some deep concerns about events in his history.
However, Mandela's role in improving the lives of so many people and his determination ,fortitude and humility in his later life make him worthy of respect, don't you think?
I would love to shake the hand of this elderly, frail and wise man. I shan't, but I shall look at the statue soon.
Mollyxx
Lucas;
Britain did not implement apartheid as a colonial power. It was introduced after World War 2 by the National Party under Verwoerd, in alliance with the Afrikaner Party of Daniel Malan.
Britain may indeed have paved the way with the first Pass Laws at the end of the C19th, but it never condoned Apartheid, indeed the word was not formulated until after independece. The British administrations also implemented similar laws in Australia and elsewhere. But it was the British proclamation of the equality of the races which prompted the Boers to pack up their wagons and set off on the Voortrek out of sheer disgust at the mere notion of such a thing.
The Union Act of 1910 marked the independence of the Union of South Africa from British control. Apartheid as a fact came 38 years later on.
Smuts is recorded as having been first to use the word, during WW1, but he and his United Party later moved away from the concept. It was this, and his closeness to the Allied cause during WW2, which resulted in their eclipse after WW2 and the rise of the 'Nats' who promptly passed the thing into law in 1948.
Incidentally, for those who still persist in thinking of Smuts as a died-in-the-wool racist he imprisoned Vorster and his cohorts during WW2, hardly the kind of thing you would do to a fellow believer.... Amongst those associates of Vorster at that time was one P.W. Botha.
Anyway, Britain granted independence to South Africa as as self-governing Dominion in 1910. Apartheid's first mention wasn't for another seven years. taken together with the C19th declaration of the equality of races there's not much room in there to say that the British were responsible for that revolting policy.
You're half-correct about the ANC Youth League. In 1949 the ANC leadership was turned over by the ANCYL, led by Sisulu, Tambo and Mandela. Their scheme was predominantly non-violent, as you say. But the response of the Nats was to pass further laws making their protest illegal, so that the ringleaders could be jailed. Violence only truly erupted at Sharpeville, which the ANC splinter the Pan-African Congress were responsible for initiating. It was this violence which finally convinced the ANC to adopt a guerilla policy also.
The architect of that policy was one Nelson Mandela. It was even named 'Plan M' after him. So from a certain perspective Mandela was certainly a guerilla, a terrorist and a planner of murderous acts of carnage. He admitted as much in his trial and expected the death sentence as a result.
South Africa was not under 'unjust colonial rule' in 1950. All of its leaders were born and raised in South Africa, they were not newly-arrived colonialists. Their regime may have been repugnant, but they were also Africans themselves.
Africa has always seen tribalism at the root of its conflicts. Whether the Ndebele against the Shona, or the Xhosa against the Zulus it was a part of African history. What was happening now was a white African tribe against black African tribes.
The sorriest part of the whole tale is that the majority of deaths amongst the black population were caused by other blacks. Such was their loathing for each other based in historical roots. Lest it be forgot the original inhabitants were the Khoi and the San tribes. In broad historical terms they were ousted by the Zulu, who were themselves pushed out by the Xhosa, both parts of the Nguni peoples. So neither of the now-predominant tribes can claim to be the true occupiers of the land. They were themselves immigrants from the Niger valley.
Of course tribalism still exists, the ANC represents the Xhosa, and Inkhatha the Zulus. There is little blending there.
To summarise Mandela; there is no doubt that the man of the last twenty years or so is a noble figure and a genuine world-class statesman. His combination with F.W. de Klerk and his magnanimity of character has probably saved South Africa from internal upheaval and mass slaughter in a Civil War post-apartheid. In all that he has said and done since his release he has set a benchmark for standards of behaviour by opressed or formerly-opressed peoples the world over.
But a full assessment of his character cannot airbrush over the actions which he planned and caused to be executed in his former guise of an unsuccessful paramilitary leader and planner. That they were carried out againt the apartheid regime provides mitigation but does not excuse nor condone them.
The complexities of trying to analyse the life of someone like Mandela are great. His early path was both shameful and futile in that it caused waste of life with no hope of success. But if he realised that it was futile and pondering on that turned him into the man we see today then perhaps it was a necessary evil.
DeepJohn;
White flight from SA is a reality, even now. Working in IT for the last 9 years, largely around the South-East, I have never worked in any company which did not have a number of white South Africans on the payroll or as contractors. Most are Uni educated, highly intelligent, well-paid.
To a man and woman they have left because despite their sheer ability they cannot get work, they find a queue of less able black South Africans getting jobs ahead of them on quota grounds. So they bring their professionalism, hard-work ethic and wonderful character over here.
My life has been the richer for working with them, I can only imagine that the real loss is South Africa's. They all hanker to go back, they feel strongly attached to their native soil. But they all know that so long as the job market is skewed they never will. All they ask now is equality, an abolition of preferential treatment and affirmative action for all peoples. In that they are remarkably egalitarian, much more so than the current rulers of their homeland. That was the vision which Mandela espoused, now undermined by his successors.
I can imagine that some will sneer at that idea. Those who supported equal rights for the black population do not support equal rights for the whites now. Equality is only what the people in charge want it to be.
Si.
BigSis;
that's not entirely fair. There's one commentator who is simply provocational and makes no contribution to debate. The rest represent a braod swathe of opinion. You cannot assess the character of a person like Mandela without stating where you are looking.
If you look at his post-release persona it's unmitigatedly good. If you look at the whole man there are disturbing aspects to his story. You can mitigate them, but you can't ever excuse them.
If other people do not share your upbeat view of the man let them have their opinions, as you have yours. As Feefs has reminded some of us recently that is what makes this Blog better than the others (other Blogs are available).
Si.
Simon:
"Those who supported equal rights for the black population do not support equal rights for the whites now. Equality is only what the people in charge want it to be."
I cannot agree with you on that - though I think it wasn't exactly what you meant. I know I am not alone in having supported equal rights for the black population and also supporting equal rights for the white population now. Equal rights is, well, just that: Equal rights. For all.
Si:
I was only referring to that rather mindless "eejit" who chose to spray his/her graffiti on this thread. As you, of all people, should know, I've never been dismissive of reasoned argument.
Too much to read in detail here, but I wouldn't think it will take long to undo the damage caused by 300 years of colonialism. Mugabe's had a good shot at it, and demonstrated how little damage there had been.
Sis;
Then there are no equal rights in SA now. Mandela's great vision, espoused in his Presidential acceptance speech, of one single multicultural nation at peace with itself has gone. Affirmative action and quotas are in. Genuine equality is out.
A friend from Durban came here with his wife and tiny daughter some seven years ago. He has dual-nationality, UK and SA. He made a good living and was well-liked. Nevertheless he found it hard to settle and eventually returned home to run one of this fathers two companies (both in highly specialised areas of engineering). He was informed that if he did not take certain people onto the board then he would get no business from Government sources and measures would be taken to put him out of business entirely.
The men named were black and entirely unqualified for the job of running any kind of business, let alone one of that particular nature. They had no background or qualifications of any kind to do so. The intention was that they would provide a fig-leaf to the people looking at quotas, for their annual salary. He refused to take them on because of this. The father sold up (for a fair price) and both businesses were taken over by members of the black community. My friend and his family re-migrated back to the U.K. sadder but wiser than before. His parents remain in SA. Both businesses folded within 12 months.
Where's the equality in that? Lives damaged and business destroyed for the sake of appearances? That's idiocy, not affirmative action. Many other companies bit the bullet and took these kinds of people on, simply to stay in business. I would suggest that forcing employment of unsuitable persons of any kind under threat, simply to remain in business is just another form of corruption.
Whatever your justifiable personal distaste for apartheid there is no merit in the current state of affairs either.
Si.
Si:
You are wasting your time trying to reason with BigSis. To people of that type a posh woman's tears say more than all the facts in the world.
Just one thing, the pass laws were not introduced by the British, they existed prior to the 2nd Boer War. And they formed a small part of the case made by Milner in support of the Uitlanders.
Si and Sis,
Sad, but still no bloodbath. There has to be some way to help folks climb the mountain which is the advantage enjoyed by folk of European ancestry - based upon decades (or centuries) of exploitation.
I agree quotas ain't it, but some sort of leg-up is required.
xx
ed
When Mandela came to Oxford University some years ago, I spent weeks petitioning the powers that be to be allowed in to the conference hall at the business school to see him. It was not to be.
However, I was told where the car would drop him off, and the entrance to the school that he would be using. I pedalled madly across town, but was a little late and on the wrong side of the police cordon. "No", I was told "you can't go through". But when the great man arrived, I saw him get out of the car. And I dissolved into tears. The policeman saw my reaction, clearly gauged i was not a threat, and let me through. I stood a a foot or two from him, knowing that I was in the presence of a greatness that has shaped the modern world. This was a privelege that I would tell my grandchildren about!
Ann is right in her "something much greater than charisma, something more enigmatic than holiness" appraisal - she puts it beautifully.
Whatever Mandela's detractors say, the fact that he experienced such tremendous, inhumane brutality from his captors on a daily basis, and yet steered the country away from brutality makes him akin to a saint.
In forgiving others so proactively, he made South Africa steer a better course to the future. And watching his forgiveness and his humility, has taught all of us who are prepared to listen a lesson for our own lives.
Once again I am feeling woefully ignorant about matters. I had it in mind that Mandela had been a man of peace all his days and I was unaware of the guerilla tactics employed by the ANC. This has aroused genuinely mixed feelings; as a man instrumental about bringing about such a profound change (which I'm sure had/has worldwide implications) surely such a monument is appropriate yet do the actions of his early days deserve such an honour.
This debate also raises that prickly question of whether violence can ever be condoned; sometimes it does seem to garner results.
eeore;
If you're expecting a 'thank you', forget it. I was also left profoundly unaffected by the e-mail contents above and the interview ast night on the programme. But I have to say that you're bang out of line. BigSis and I may disagree on a few things from time to time, but I respect her and her opinion more than almost anyone else on this Blog.
Now go and hide your attitude in a dark room somewhere, there a good little bigot.
Oh, for reference; the British sovereignty in the Cape was recognised in 1815, decades before the Boer Wars. Slavery was abolished in 1833, a primary cause of the Voortrek, as I noted earlier. But the 'Masters and Servants Ordinance' of 1841 re-established white control of the black population. It also introduced an early version of what would later become known as Pass Laws. The British did it first. Nothing to be proud of.
Si.
Si: I think we're talking at cross purposes here. From my own understanding of the current situation in SA, it is indeed hard for white South Africans - the goalposts having been moved. However, there are many who supported equal rights for all who still hold firm to that view - but there may well be many who have also shifted their view now that there is a black majority government in power. This, I suppose, was always a strong possibility, particularly given what had gone before.
However, I remain hopeful that, with time, the balance may be adjusted in such a way that people are recognised by merit alone. Speaking personally here, I'd like to see black South Africans having equal access to a reasonable living standard, and all the other advantages which we somewhat take for granted in our developed country.
Thank you, by the way, for what you have said in response to eeore. It is quite clear from their comment that their only intention is to offend. They won't, however, get very far with me, I'm afraid - they've misjudged their mark by a long way.
I am sorry to say that I think the discussion in this thread has been hijacked.
The complex strategies adopted by the British imperialists in South Africa (designed to counter competing Dutch imperialism and to subjugate African indigenous populations) seem to me to have nothing to do with the case.
Which is simply this. Why is the majority in office in RSA but economic and social power remains overwhelmingly with a white minority?
This is partly because of the settlement Mandela had to accept, i.e majority rule with minority power.
But it is also because of the odd alliance in practice between two very different post Apartheidt white groups.
The one group congratulates iteslf rightly for its fight against Apartheidt. The other points to the economic efficiency of the white minority in South Africa.
What they have in common is a determination that the first shall remain first and the last remain last.
It will not be this white alliance of left and right that will give up its priveleges and take its place in the mines and the factory benches of RSA. I ask the left specifically, who will do the manual work in an egalitarian RSA?
Theirs, left and right whites alike, apparently is an inalienable right to remain members of the leisure classes. Symbolically lionising Mandela suits both these groups.
He is a Prince by hereditary right and he is exceptionally talented. His white leftie supporters from RSA expect to write novels and make documentaries about their political challenge to Apartheidt, at worst play international professional sport and even get the odd Cabinet post here. The right find Mandela confirms their notion of a natural aristocracy of talent (international sport again!) - which just happens to include the whole of the white minority in RSA and a few, a very few black people.
I will explain how irrelevant the debate about Mandela's past as an activist is at the Glass Box for Wednesday.
What is relevant here is how Mandela has rejected the communist tradition in the ANC so that in the future RSA industry will continue to serve individual profit rather than the majority's wlelfare. Which of course suits liberal left and right alike. (For these days the liberal left is at best concerned with the eradication of the most extreme poverty. Equality is no longer part of their agenda).
Well, we now all seem to agree that it is the futre in SA which is what we need to discuss, not the past.
But as a matter of record an accurate account of the past would be... well. the truth.
Take (36) for example.
Can any of that be quite right?
The Caledon code of 1809 dominated in SA for the next 20 years.
Ordinance 50 was relatively short lived.
The legislation that followed in '41 was MORE repressive.
You think the Brits in Kenya, Zimbabwe etc of that time were out of line with Brits in South Africa? No, they just didn't have the Dutch to compete with.
What's in a name? British policy in South Africa was and is racist.
Why in the case of this correspondent does everything he says have to be checked against a dispassionate authority - and always be found wanting. The catch is that he says everything with such an (unwarranted) air of authority. See link. What does he disagree with there?
Incidently, what DOES he think Ghandi was doing in South Africa?