Subheading: Republicans were wrong about South Africa's great liberator. Now they have to say something nice about him
I'll bite: He's dead Jim.
Nice enough? No? Read on.
Article by a leftist named Alex Halperin.
For right-wing pundits, talking about Nelson Mandela is a minefield. Nice. Mandela could tell you something about minefields. He didn't? You mean you didn't do your homework? Or did the right wing fever swamp eat it?
Throughout the Reagan administration, American conservatives regarded South Africa's apartheid government as a bulwark against communism, especially compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. A generation of conservative operatives, including the disgraced Jack Abramoff and the very influential Grover Norquist writes in National Review, "Like many other anti-Communists and Cold Warriors, I feared that releasing Nelson Mandela from jail, especially amid the collapse of South Africa's apartheid government, would create a Cuba on the Cape of Good Hope at best and an African Cambodia at worst." And it turned out worse than Cuba.
Indeed, the right was hardly vocal in opposition to Apartheid. On Twitter, The Nation's Lee Fang pointed to an 1986 column by William F. Buckley arguing that the U.S. should "Continue our moral pressure by all means. But stop trying to fine-tune South African policy from the White House; pull back on the one-man, one-vote business; and c) forget blanket sanctions." This is like Paul Ryan's plan to fight poverty through "spiritual redemption." He was wrong then and he is wrong now. I was on the anti apartheid side at the time. It was the right thing to do. But the result sucked and it will get even worse. You can lay that at Mandela's feet.
In the eyes of many conservatives, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist-- He was a terrorist, and now he is an ex-terrorist.
indeed some are still saying so today--so they might be understandably tongue-tied when he ascended to the pantheon of great men. Yesterday pundits compared him to, among others, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington (from Charles Krauthammer!), Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. A rough comparison, might be if history in the Middle East had turned out differently and conservatives had to say something nice about Yasser Arafat. I am certain Brezhnev would say something nice about the good head Arafat gave him. When was the last time you talked to a conservative,let alone many of them, Alex? Those "conservatives" are like the "house negro" label you hanged on Herman Cain. I no more subscribe to the notion that Mandela was a human rights hero, than I would Bull Conner was a police hero in Alabama.
Some of the more gracious commentary acknowledges being wrong about Mandela. Murdock goes on to write:
Far, far, far from any of that, Nelson Mandela turned out to be one of the 20th Century's great moral leaders... He also was a statesman of considerable weight. If not as significant on the global stage as FDR, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan, he approaches Margaret Thatcher as a national leader with major international reach. Holy Sh*t! What a gross lie!
But even well after Mandela had been freed and elected president, he was hardly universally beloved among American conservatives. As my colleague Joan Walsh points out, he infuriated the right in 2003 when he criticized the Iraq war. The exact quote, The Other McCain points out, was "All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. There is no doubt that the U.S. is behaving badly. Why are they not seeking to confiscate weapons of mass destruction from their ally Israel? This is just an excuse to get Iraq's oil." So, Mandela being correct on the Iraq war remains a sore spot. Some conservatives felt the need to point this out upon his death. Mandela was wrong. You failed to address any of the things the US did do in Iraq that had everything to do with the mission and nothing to do with your narrow perceptions. If we had just wanted the oil we would have made a deal with Saddam, it would have been easier. Then we would have invaded Alberta...
On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly's head almost exploded since Mandela's story doesn't conform exactly to politics as he usually understands them:
He was a communist, this man. He was a communist, all right? But he was a great man! What he did for his people was stunning!... He was a great man! But he was a communist! O'Reilly is half right. Replace "great man" with "murdering basdard", and he'll be exactly right.
O'Reilly's guest Rick Santorum pulled us back down to the expected level of discourse when he said Mandela stood up to a "great injustice," and then compared the legally sanctioned and brutally enforced segregation of millions of people to the "ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people's lives, and Obamacare is at the front and center of that."
Venturing further into the fever-swamp, it's possible to find the worst kind of garbage. On his Facebook page, Ted Cruz posted a strongly worded memorial to the great man and some took issue.
Mmmm... I found something I disagree with Cruz on.
Sad to see you feel this way Ted. He was a terrorist. I guess you have only seen the Hollywood movies
Let's not forget that Mandela called Castro's Communist revolution "a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people." A lot of individuals who said they were conservatives said nice things about Mandela. I was stunned too.
Meanwhile Michelle Malkin's site Twitchy, brought it all back to groundlessly mocking President Obama, firmer ground for most of her comrades.
#2
Throughout the Reagan administration, American conservatives regarded South Africas apartheid government as a bulwark against communism, especially compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.
And today Washington works quietly with the ANC Gov't of South Africa [discreet Mil-to-Mil cooperation, LE and CT support to the 2010 World Cut, etc, etc.].....as a partner and "bulwark against" radical Islam and terrorism in Africa. Please explain to me the subtle differences.
I'll concede Halperin his title point, but it's not just 'conservatives' who have a Mandela problem. There is plenty of denial to go around.
#3
On the positive side Mandela did not become a tyrant when he had the opportunity. This makes him a much better man than most post colonial leaders.
But a moral authority or champion of freedom he was not.
He conducted realpolitik, the amoral pursuit of one's own interest. If tyrants were useful to his people then he didn't care one bit about the brother tyrants' victims.
Mandela was not a despot, but despotism's friend and enabler.
"would create a Cuba on the Cape of Good Hope at best and an African Cambodia at worst."
Mr Halperin should pay attention to the sequence of historical events.
First Castro was one the above mentioned despots that Mandela befriended and enabled.
Second SA's transition happened after the Soviet Union's unlamented demise.
#4
Addendum:
Here's a quote from Mandela's 1995 autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom": "For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others."
According to his own definition of freedom Nelson Mandela was not a free man especially post 1990.
Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANCs executive committee, he had personally signed off in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had signed off for while he was in prison convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F W de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line? Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced the use of violence to further the cause of freedom.
#6
OK, Plantation Party, you want something of note, here you go. Mr. Mandela worked, campaigned and fought for majority rule in his country. Why to you fight, undermine, and resist majority rule in your own country?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/08/2013 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
To the list at #7, perhaps we could add Charles Manson. Oh, wait! Those were Hollywood celebrities he and his cohorts murdered. He'll have to finish out his days in prison.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/08/2013 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Some people felt South Africa would experience white flight, a rise in crime, and a drop into the third world under Mandela. Some people were right.
[Pak Daily Times] The Islami Jamaat-e-Tulaba (IJT), the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami ...The Islamic Society, founded in 1941 in Lahore by Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, aka The Great Apostosizer. The Jamaat opposed the independence of Bangladesh but has operated an independent branch there since 1975. It maintains close ties with international Mohammedan groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood. the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. The Jamaat's objectives are the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law. It is distinguished by its xenophobia, and its opposition to Westernization, capitalism, socialism, secularism, and liberalist social mores... (JI), has metamorphosed into a bit of a joke in recent times -- one that is more sardonic than funny. The IJT resorts to violence ostensibly to safeguard their much touted ideology of peace; vie to safeguard women's integrity by harassing them into conforming to their version of modesty; declare a man responsible for the killing of thousands of fellow citizens a 'martyr'; earn their proverbial bread and butter courtesy anti-US chants despite supporting the US being a part of their raison d'etre, and sometimes they set buses ablaze merely days after complaining about the lack of buses on their campus.
Last week, IJT activists clashed with coppers, the Punjab University (PU) administration and, for all practical purposes, most of Lahore, after being ordered to clear hostel number 16 for the accommodation of girls, which resulted in chaos and a traffic blockade on University Road. Hostel number 16 and hostel number one are renowned hubs of the IJT but that was not the only reason the PU administration took the decision to convert it to a girls' hostel. It was also a manoeuvre to balance skewed accommodations since, despite formulating virtually half of the student strength in the university, the girls still do not have sufficient rooms.
For the university administration, it was an act of hitting two birds with one stone but, for the IJT, the stone struck the spot where it hurts them the most since it pinched the organization's nerve centre with booze, bhang and bullets being dug out of rooms in hostel number 16. While the former is one of the many aspects that add scorn to the sardonic joke, it is the latter that makes it not quite so funny, especially after a member of al Qaeda's 'suicide squad' was placed in durance vile Please don't kill me! from the hostel in September this year after being sheltered by the IJT.
When the criminal mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was arrested from a JI women's wing leader's house in Rawalpindi almost a decade ago, the JI's links with al Qaeda were -- or should have been -- established. However, today is that tomorrow you were thinking about yesterday... handlers of the terrorist organization's suicide squad staying in university hostels is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The newly surfacing alliance between the IJT and al Qaeda is more menacing than the many linkages that exist of the establishment and political parties, going all the way down to the grassroots. The IJT have their stranglehold in most top universities and colleges in Pakistain while the JI has a massive financial influx solely dedicated to bolstering the aforementioned alliance under the shroud of running schools, madrassas and charities.
The killing of Abdur Rehman, an IJT activist in a drone strike in North Wazoo on November 29, 2013, has further thrown some extremely deadly cats among very vulnerable pigeons. Abdur Rehman, who was involved in the Mehran Naval Base attack, was an NED student, expelled from the university owing to severe shortage of attendance. The fact that he was killed in a drone strike adds credence to the security agencies' claim that members of the IJT are now well and truly an active part of al Qaeda. And have been for over a decade now.
While the security agencies have unravelled how IJT activists have been recruited to be trained by al Qaeda (a process started by the Islamic Medical Association's president, Dr Arshad Waheed) over the past decade, echoes of the JI and IJT being banned are reverberating from various quarters as well since the 'Shaheedgate' episode starring JI chief Munawar Hassan, which saw the establishment turn against its historic chum. Even so, a more pertinent question than the potential banning of the JI is ensuring the security of campuses all over Pakistain where the IJT is providing 'guest rooms' for al Qaeda Death Eaters to stay in. When some of the most wanted Death Eaters are seen 'hanging out' in some of the biggest universities in the country, the vulnerability of the security situation is self-explanatory.
The JI and the IJT are proving themselves to be a political smokescreen for terrorist organizations, and their reaction following Hakeemullah Mehsud's killing showcases where their allegiance lies quite unambiguously. Maybe taking a leaf out of Bangladesh's book would be a great idea for Pakistain but, before that, some serious security measures need to be taken to make sure the sardonic joke of student politics is purged out of university campuses. For, the worst of worst fears could come true if al Qaeda has the last laugh.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/08/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
Mr Greenfield says what needs to be said, but not in the tasteless, classless manner I would. A good read nevertheless.
An excerpt:
In the new apartheid, the black government represses a white minority and abuses its power over the black majority in ways that Western liberals would never tolerate if it were being practiced by men with Dutch last names. Every government crime is covered up by more incitement against the white minority with each generation of activists struggling to outdo the previous generation in its anti-white racism.
There has been no moment of transcendence that endured. No cure for the things tearing the nation apart. There is no new spirit in South Africa. There is a new apartheid defined not by law, but by hate. Freedom and democracy are equally vaporous under the rule of a political movement obsessed with the vicious pragmatism of power now being exercised by Mandela's African National Congress successors.
As attempts are made to explain the causes for our own so-called 'knock out game' we continue to blindly return to political and economic motivations. I tend to agree with Smuts and her suggestions of a more primeval cause.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Pak Daily Times] The Islami Jamaat-e-Tulaba (IJT), the student wing of the 
Wazoo
