Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbooth | Hacker News Reader

AND of peace.

Mandela was in prison for 27 years, oppressed his whole life before and after that, and once he gets power, his watchwords? Truth and Reconciliaton.

That's why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because with any other leader (just pick a country on the same continent, Zimbabwe's right next door) that situation turns into a shitshow at that point.

The fact that he was in the ANC isn't what makes him notable, plenty of other guerilla leaders in Africa who threw out colonialists or white minority rule. That's not why we're talking about him. What he did when he won made him notable.

The "he wasn't peaceful" idiots on this thread are either incapable of seeing the big picture or fighting some dumb US domestic political battle.

View on HN

I agree what he did after he won was amazing, and a great precedent, but I value the victory against Apartheid by ~any means (largely non-violent) more, mainly because if he hadn't won that victory, he wouldn't have been in a position to be noble in victory.

(I don't think the Rhodesia precedent was exact, as the white rulers of Rhodesia were probably far more acceptable, and blacks far less oppressed, than they were in RSA; RSA was sufficiently self-sufficient that this could have gone on indefinitely. The other cases were anti-colonialism, which is also different; the Boers were not particularly tied to any European power, so there was no European state pulling out to end the colonial situation, either.)

Let me get this right. Your logic is that intentionally bombing and killing mothers and children at civilian shopping malls are perfectly okay as long as apartheid exists.

Did I get that right?

You have (at the time of my writing this) 3 comments, all in this thread, all anti-Mandela to the point of being almost pro-apartheid. Nice throwaway account!

Nice ad hominem that completely ignores the argument!

Calling your comments 'pro-apartheid' is certainly not ad hominem.

You can be anti-apartheid, whilst also disagreeing that a good solution is to start bombing shopping malls and railway stations.

Of course it is, it's the very definition. Obviously he's just trying to justify his stance, but you're still disregarding his argument which could be just as easily made by someone pro-apartheid or anti-apartheid since it's orthogonal.

Blowing up civilians is probably required at times, I don't know, but the exact border line where it moves from acceptable to unacceptable is a difficult one. Some people (justly) hold that it is always unacceptable and there is definitely nothing wrong with that stand. Others are more pragmatic and can accept that killing 10 civilians is preferable to having 10,000 slaves.

It's not an easy answer, don't dismiss it as an ad hominem.

Weren't all those bombings carried out when Mandela was in jail? He was certainly responsible for a lot of industrial sabotage and preparations for armed revolt, but I'd put that in an entirely different category.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com