StrangeSox

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) And rape, and violent crime, and corruption, and one-party rule. Democratically elected in fair, free elections "one-party rule." Mandela's intention was the end of racial supremacy and the establishment of a democratic society. That was accomplished. What the ANC does now in no way, shape or form lessens the validity or moral righteousness of Mandela and what he worked, fought and sacrificed for. And again, you seem to be whip-lashing back and forth between "America rulz for re-establishing (very limited aristocratic) democracy!" and "maybe that whole one-man, one-vote thing isn't really worth it and white oligarchical rule in SA really wasn't so bad?"

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) Because its his ANC that has presided over this mess. He created it, he entrenched it and its the idolatry that he carried that makes it so powerful and immovable. go read a book you ignorant buffoon.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) Yet you just wave over them. The closest anyone came was challenging America's first 20 years of existence, which was kind of stupid because America did a whole lot of good in its first 20 years. I don't view any issues SA has right now as the direct and inevitable result of the end of apartheid or of Mandela's work specifically. You, apparently, think "we" need to consider a trade-off between white supremacy and poverty/crime, and that Mandela is somehow personally responsible for any current problems with the ANC or SA.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:07 PM) Life expectancy has gone down. Crime has gone up. Its gotten worse. I could link this but copy/pasting on my phone is an ordeal. I dont want to. For whom? And why is this Mandela's fault? For your argument to make any sense, it seems to be implying that the end of white-minority rule of SA necessarily leads to things 'getting worse.'

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) He targeted innocents to punish the guilty. Which is, despite being a word I dont like using, terrorism. the f*** are you talking about? South Africa has issues. Nobody has denied that. The problem is the rest of the garbage you've said that looks like it's been cribbed from stormfront or the John Birch Society. A white dude in the US musing over whether the end of apartheid was really "worth it," cool. Sums up the typical libertarian view pretty well, though. Forgive me if I take your concerns here as less than sincere, since you routinely seem to derive pleasure from kicking the poor and suffering in this country.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) I had been drinking and went a little off the res. Lets reel this back in. I dont hate Nelson Mandela, I actually kind of admire Mandela's violent streak to an extent. He did what he thought he had to do, it was bad in South Africa and peace wasnt going to solve anything. What I have a problem with is him indiscriminately targeting civilians and the brutality he oversaw. He was not a saint as so many like to portray. He killed a lot of people. the f*** are you talking about? The ANC may or may not have problems now, over a decade after he left office. The country has gotten worse for whom? The Africans who were oppressed for generations under the Apartheid government?

Apartheid's Useful Idiots

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:05 PM) Years more than money. Kudos. years are just a way to spread it out, think of it more as $250 for 5-6 years of actual good play

That is an absurd amount of money

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) It probably was true of specific tribal groups. There is significant documentation of people arriving in villages and finding it filled almost entirely with dead bodies with no signs of violence. But it certainly wasn't a holistic number. There were probably a few million AmerInds in North American when Europeans started arriving in significant numbers, and there is no way that disease took that number to a few tens of thousands in a short timeframe due to disease. Late 19th century estimates had the entire AmeriInd population estimates around 10 million at first contact, but more modern estimates range from 50 to 100 million. edit: here's a NatGeo article from a few years ago reporting on a study of DNA that found about a 50% drop in population 500 years ago http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...netics-science/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Was that the end of his 4 hour "closing argument" at his trial? It was the opening but yeah, here it is in its entirety: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/mandela.htm

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole. Thanks, and that's always a good point to keep in mind with pop-science books. The 95% number specifically was for tribal groups in the Massachusetts area, but there's evidence of similar depopulation in the Amazon and other areas. And we'd expect it to be a lot more pronounced in the areas of first contact versus, say, the Pacific NW. edit: and I think it's also credited with playing a large role in the Spanish conquest of the Maya and the Incas.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 08:36 AM) The top political issue that Mandela was trying to achieve at the time he turned towards violent tactics (and the ones he was directly involved in were quite deliberately targeted to minimize the loss of human life). How much blood lost to get blacks voting rights in the USA? 650,000 lives lost. And, of course, let's not even get into some of the reasons the apartheid regime felt so comfortable in their position. Couldn't have had anything to do with the USA backing them because the black majority that wanted voting rights and, ultimately, full political rights also had (gasp!!!) Marxist sympathies And don't forget that he turned to violence only after the SA government used brutal, violent tactics to suppress non-violent protest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre There is nothing inherently morally wrong with violent resistance. It must be judged based on the cause being fought for and the realities at the time.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 08:27 AM) Did you seriously just say that? The ignorance of some people just blows my mind. You honestly think that the Native Americans "lost" because they didn't fight hard enough? It had nothing to do at all with the fact that the whites were far more advanced technologically and vastly outnumbered them in almost all instances? That's seriously like the United States overtaking a third world country and saying that they last because they didn't try hard enough. Please just go away. Charles Mann's 1491 includes some references to research that indicates that as much as 95% of the indigenous population in the Americas was wiped out purely from first-contact diseases without even taking into account the later genocides. Imagine the shock to your society when everyone is dropping dead from strange new illnesses. It was far worse than the Black Plague. By the time white settlers really got a foothold and started expanding, much of the native society was in tatters, almost post-apocalyptic. edit: here's a google preview of the book and the section talking about it None of that excuses the horrible things that were done and the marginalization that continues to this day, though. Just a few days ago, the Seminoles celebrated Polly Parker's escape from the Trail of Tears. They are one of if not the only native society to not be displaced or wiped out.

It's pretty weird that someone would, on one hand, point to the US and the re-establishment of democracy* as its great achievement while at the same time trying to denigrate a man who was instrumental in bringing democracy to another country. *well, for white, male, land-owners anyway, at least for the first century or so.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:30 AM) Lol, "What was America doing that was so great in thr 1790's huh?" Is reinventing democratic government for the first time in a millenium not good enough? lol good read a history book you dope

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:23 AM) Gays are discriminated against on one f***ing issue that nobody shuts up about. wrong. hahaha go read a book

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:06 AM) Its a violent country, and that violence comes from a violent past. Apartheid was eventually doomed to our globalised world, the sanctions were piling up and old allies turned their back on the Apartheid Govt. The chance was there to do it without violence, and he passed it up and went out for blood. Hey, all they had to do was wait several decades, maybe a couple of generations, and it'd have been gone! That argument is almost as dumb as the "slavery was on its way out anyway" argument. edit: for reference, Mandela began his struggles against Apartheid in 1941. The ANC itself had been founded in 1912. Apartheid didn't end until 1994, and that international pressure came largely thanks to courageous leaders like Mandela and Tutu. He worked for two decades, 1941 until 1960, on a non-violent end to apartheid, and others had worked before him. He did not pass up any opportunity and go "out for blood." edit2: guess which President wanted to veto sanctions against apartheid SA?? I'm sure everyone will be shocked at the answer!

You know I'm just shocked, shocked I tell you, that duke has a more positive view of apartheid south Africa than he does of Nelson Mandela.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:06 AM) Today's South Africa is more corrupt than Rwanda and the President is comically stupid. Hes noted numerous times his beleif that HIV doesnt lead to AIDS and when he had sex with/raped (he got acquitted IIRC) an HIV+ girl he claimed a shower protected him from the disease. Plus the country is basically a smoldering pile of s*** with a rich-poor gap that defies imagination. Its a violent country, and that violence comes from a violent past. Apartheid was eventually doomed to our globalised world, the sanctions were piling up and old allies turned their back on the Apartheid Govt. The chance was there to do it without violence, and he passed it up and went out for blood. Once it was inevitable the ANC was taking control of course he preached reconciliation and peace. He won, he got what he needed out of violence and its not like he was going to need to get oppressive to force the guilted and vastly outnumbered whites to fund this massive reperations and welfare scheme thats clearly sinking the country. there is nothing wrong with violently opposing a white supremacist state who is eager to use violence to oppress you.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 11:23 PM) What next Robert E. Lee was a terrorist, too? Nathan Bedford Forrest... Over the last 20-30 years, you would think his military career (mostly in the cavalry) was the equal of Jeb Stuart. Many of the atrocities he committed during the Civil War have been brushed away or covered over by revisionists. The South lost that particular war...and NBF eventually went on to found the KKK. So Duke, do you think Nathan Bedford Forrest is more of a hero than Mandela? both of those men should have swung from a tree for their crimes against humanity and for leading an armed insurrection in the name of slavery. Nbf especially.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 06:06 PM) He was a murderer and war criminal that got a free pass. Go back to storm front

One of the greatest fighters for justice in human history. RIP. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/world/africa....html?hpt=hp_t1 eta: jesus christ the comments on that, why did I subject myself

Well that sucks. Comcast gets to charge on both ends now. eta: well it looks like the FCC chair said he thinks they should be able to, but it's not the official FCC policy yet. Killing net neutrality in favor of the big telecoms would be awful. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12...rnet-fast-lane/