[yt]T7HyuLPWF9I[/yt]
I think he's getting a bit deconstructionist here. A couple of thoughts:
1) Admiring someone for something good they did does NOT mean you have to accept other bad things they might have done.
2) In the American Revolutionary War, innocent civilians were killed all over the place (as is pretty much unavoidable in war). Yet, I'm unaware of George Washington saying the acts he committed were wrong. If we're looking for consistency here, if Mandela was a terrorist then so was Washington (as George III would certainly have considered him to be, had the word existed at the time).
3) So, what came about after the revolution was in many ways worse than what predated it. As if THAT'S never happened before! I mean really, is it Mandela's fault that the current president is an AIDS denier?
I think all of my objections fit into one of those three categories.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 10, 2013, 03:18:28 PM
2) In the American Revolutionary War, innocent civilians were killed all over the place (as is pretty much unavoidable in war). Yet, I'm unaware of George Washington saying the acts he committed were wrong. If we're looking for consistency here, if Mandela was a terrorist then so was Washington (as George III would certainly have considered him to be, had the word existed at the time).
Which sounds like a reason to not have war in the first place, as you've once told me.
Quote from: T dog on December 10, 2013, 03:44:15 PM
Which sounds like a reason to not have war in the first place, as you've once told me.
Pretty much.
Quote from: T dog on December 10, 2013, 03:44:15 PM
Which sounds like a reason to not have war in the first place, as you've once told me.
It's a reason not to create war; it's not a reason not to defend yourself when others wage war against you.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 10, 2013, 04:07:43 PM
It's a reason not to create war; it's not a reason not to defend yourself when others wage war against you.
I suppose. I didn't bother to watch the video, tbh.
Wow even around here Mandela is a divisive subject.. I actually don't know mucho f anything about the man. Havn't seen much testimony or evidence either way so I would have tolabel myself clueless.-
From the sounds of the vid, he's another Che. Hailed for taking down a tyrannical government as long as you ignore the fact that he replaced it with his own brand of tyranny.
"So, what came about after the revolution was in many ways worse than what predated it. As if THAT'S never happened before! I mean really, is it Mandela's fault that the current president is an AIDS denier"
If Stef speaks the truth, he implemented communism. The country going to shit was as inevitable as the tides in that case.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 11, 2013, 04:22:44 PM
If Stef speaks the truth, he implemented communism. The country going to shit was as inevitable as the tides in that case.
Communism was the only other thing to do at the time. It was the Cold War, remember. It was either oust the current government and implement a communist one to get the protection of the Soviets, or stick with Apartheid.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 11, 2013, 04:22:44 PM
If Stef speaks the truth, he implemented communism. The country going to shit was as inevitable as the tides in that case.
Pretty much, look at Zimbabwe.
You guys all know about Rhodesia right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia
Before it was Zimbabwe it was known as the Bread basket of Africa now its the basket case of Africa.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 10, 2013, 03:18:28 PM
I think he's getting a bit deconstructionist here. A couple of thoughts:
1) Admiring someone for something good they did does NOT mean you have to accept other bad things they might have done.
2) In the American Revolutionary War, innocent civilians were killed all over the place (as is pretty much unavoidable in war). Yet, I'm unaware of George Washington saying the acts he committed were wrong. If we're looking for consistency here, if Mandela was a terrorist then so was Washington (as George III would certainly have considered him to be, had the word existed at the time).
3) So, what came about after the revolution was in many ways worse than what predated it. As if THAT'S never happened before! I mean really, is it Mandela's fault that the current president is an AIDS denier?
I think all of my objections fit into one of those three categories.
1) But what good did HE do? As Stef pointed out under Madiba's reign South Africa went from lynching blacks to lynching EVERYBODY.
2) My only quibble with this point is the ends they sought. Washington was fighting for a freer society (even though he did own slaves) Mandela wasn't.
3) No, but he is still very much to blame for bringing about its current political system
[yt]AGiONBhfL1o[/yt]
Quote from: Dallas Wildman on December 11, 2013, 07:31:13 PM
2) My only quibble with this point is the ends they sought. Washington was fighting for a freer society (even though he did own slaves) Mandela wasn't.
Does anyone have any specifics on Washington's beliefs about slavery? If he was an Abolitionist, he would hardly have been the only such person who found himself in the embarrassing position of also owning slaves and having difficulties freeing them.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 13, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
Does anyone have any specifics on Washington's beliefs about slavery? If he was an Abolitionist, he would hardly have been the only such person who found himself in the embarrassing position of also owning slaves and having difficulties freeing them.
Washington and Jefferson both ran into legal difficulties freeing their slaves. For example, any freed slave could be captured and resold 12 months later.
It's things like this that which should make you wary of ANY attempt at deconstruction. Usually, as I've pointed out here, they're completely devoid of context and not at all sympathetic to the Catch-22s many of these people found themselves in.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 13, 2013, 09:53:43 AM
Washington and Jefferson both ran into legal difficulties freeing their slaves. For example, any freed slave could be captured and resold 12 months later.
It's things like this that which should make you wary of ANY attempt at deconstruction. Usually, as I've pointed out here, they're completely devoid of context and not at all sympathetic to the Catch-22s many of these people found themselves in.
Washington did free his slaves in the end though, didn't he?
The talk about the USA founders reminds me of this video Stef made:
[yt]p25Rz2eP7s8[/yt]
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 13, 2013, 12:33:38 PM
Washington did free his slaves in the end though, didn't he?
Only in his will, the only way he could. By the time Jefferson had died, they'd closed that loophole.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 13, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
Only in his will, the only way he could. By the time Jefferson had died, they'd closed that loophole.
This is the kind of problems freeing slaves I was referring to.
Trying to bust Washington's and Jefferson's chops because they owned slaves that the State refused to allow them to free is just stupid. (IIRC, Jefferson at least was noted for doing everything he was legally permitted to do to avoid causing harm to his slaves himself.)
Quote from: evensgrey on December 14, 2013, 06:12:32 AM
This is the kind of problems freeing slaves I was referring to.
Trying to bust Washington's and Jefferson's chops because they owned slaves that the State refused to allow them to free is just stupid. (IIRC, Jefferson at least was noted for doing everything he was legally permitted to do to avoid causing harm to his slaves himself.)
Including not having them do much work. He drove Monticello into the ground in the process.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 13, 2013, 09:53:43 AM
Washington and Jefferson both ran into legal difficulties freeing their slaves. For example, any freed slave could be captured and resold 12 months later.
It's things like this that which should make you wary of ANY attempt at deconstruction. Usually, as I've pointed out here, they're completely devoid of context and not at all sympathetic to the Catch-22s many of these people found themselves in.
You've mentioned before that slavers could purchase themselves and thus buy their own freedom. Why couldn't he just sell the slaves to themselves for free?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 14, 2013, 08:34:42 PM
You've mentioned before that slavers could purchase themselves and thus buy their own freedom. Why couldn't he just sell the slaves to themselves for free?
Some states didn't allow slaves to buy their freedom, or be freed in other specific ways. Since this was, legally, considered to be a matter or property law, it was exclusive state jurisdiction. (And there was at least one state that specifically disallowed a freed slave to reside within it, and stated that any freed slave who remained within the state for more than a year after being freed forfeited their freedom and reverted to being a slave again, owned by whomever would capture them.)
Incidentally, the buying your freedom thing was often abused in places where it was allowed. This was a common practice in the very similar system of slavery used in Rome, for instance, where a slave would usually not be able to accumulate the money to buy their freedom until they were old, effectively purchasing a replacement slave for their master. A similar problem would tend to occur in any such system that allowed slaves to buy themselves. (Besides, legally it makes no sense. A slave has to be a legal chattel, and a chattel is definitionally not able to enter into any sort of contract. Legally, it would be like you shoes buying themselves.)
Quote from: evensgrey on December 14, 2013, 11:57:46 PM
Some states didn't allow slaves to buy their freedom, or be freed in other specific ways. Since this was, legally, considered to be a matter or property law, it was exclusive state jurisdiction. (And there was at least one state that specifically disallowed a freed slave to reside within it, and stated that any freed slave who remained within the state for more than a year after being freed forfeited their freedom and reverted to being a slave again, owned by whomever would capture them.)
That would be Virginia, Jefferson and Washington's state.