SA reads discussion
This topic is about
Kill Mandela
Kill Mandela
>
Week two
Thanks, Adele, for the thread and the warning.I shall post a discussion point soon to start Week Two off. Having fun! What a great group!
Here is the opening discussion point for Week Two. It is a tough one, but I believe this group is mature enough to handle it with sensitivity:York and Boxer grapple with a moral dilemma that is common, in one way or another, to all the characters in KILL MANDELA. All have suffered at the hands of others; all must choose how to respond in their personal and public lives.
‘I don’t know what to do. He’s done a terrible thing, but so have I. I killed that man in jail!’
‘But that was self-defence.’
“Many would say that what Andile did was also self-defence.’
‘What? How is throwing a rock through an old lady’s windscreen self-defence?’ York struggled to keep the indignation, the anger, from his voice.
‘To Andile, and many like him, he was defending himself against the white man’s attack on his freedom and dignity.’
‘Is that what you say?’ York couldn’t hide his incredulity or his anger.
‘No! It’s not what I say! But I do say that I can’t judge others on the matter. It’s a question that the ANC debated for many years – before Mandela decided that the struggle for freedom couldn’t only be with words, but with weapons too. A rock’s a weapon.’
There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to rape, or fight back. He stopped his attacker. The homicide was incidental. It was self-defense, unquestionably. Andile felt justified because he had been wronged, but he murdered a person, almost at random, in revenge for what had been done to him. His victim just happened to be of the same race as his oppressors, and he probably couldn't even have been sure of that. In a war, the murder of civilians is a war crime. The murder of the woman in the Audi by Andile can be seen in that same light, even though there wasn't a war in the conventional sense.
There were the phrases 'petty apartheid' and 'grand apartheid.' I'm not clear on what these mean. could you elucidate?
Buck wrote: "There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to rape, or fight back. He stopped his attacker. Th..."Buck,
Thanks for adjusting the focus for us here.
Yes, I have always wondered how I would react should I find myself in either's shoes. York's reaction is fairly typical of middle and upper class South Africans, that in any conflict you should fight by the rules. But that is because the rules favour the strong, not the weak. The weak have to fight by their own rules, and with what they have got.
I often laugh at political commentators after yet another protest march in SA has turned violent: they decry the violence, saying that protestors should do so peacefully. Ha ha!
Buck wrote: "There were the phrases 'petty apartheid' and 'grand apartheid.' I'm not clear on what these mean. could you elucidate?"Buck,
Petty apartheid was always present in SA from colonial times. It was evident in the separation of the use of amenities for the whites and non-whites.
However, when the National Party came to power in 1948, they immediately set about Grand Apartheid: the geographical separation of races. Hence forced removals from white allocated areas, and the creation of separate black homelands.
This was not a unique method in modern history of dealing with the challenge of what to do with 'uncivilized' indigenous people in territory conquered by the West, but it was definitely the most highly organized version of it. And the most violently enforced.
Shock and horror about start of week 2... Truly heartbreaking.
Shock and horror about start of week 2... Truly heartbreaking.
Adele wrote: "Shock and horror about start of week 2... Truly heartbreaking."That was a difficult chapter to write, Adele. I chose to write it from Jack's point of view, because I knew that he could handle the horror better than York. And also because...later chapters will make this clear. However, I didn't fully spare York.
John wrote: "Buck wrote: "There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to rape, or fight back. He stopped his ..."Hi John
I'm enjoying your book so far: easy to read and engaging. I like your writing style.
Regarding the attack on the motorists, I agree with Buck. To kill civilians at random when fighting against a government is wrong in my view. The victim might even have been a supporter of the ANC (allthough unlikely).
You say that the weak have to fight with what they have got, by their own rules. But killing somebody who might be completely innocent? I would not be able to live with myself if I had killed in the way that Andile had. This might sound a bit rich coming from a privileged whitey, but I would probably remain poor and oppressed if I had to kill like that in order to escape my situation.
However, we know that several attacks like this one did take place before democracy, so some people clearly felt different.
Dan wrote: "John wrote: "Buck wrote: "There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to rape, or fight back. He..."Dan,
Welcome and thanks for joining the discussion. I looked at your website - looks like a great life! Congrats on living your passion.
I believe the germ of who we are will determine how we respond to a given set of circumstances. Boxer and Andile reflect that.
Your use of the word 'probably' is the operative one for me. I suspect that we do not really know who we are until we are tested beyond a certain limit. There are different categories of limits:physical endurance, emotional strain, mental stress, social injustice...
Most of us 'privileged whiteys' never get to experience the full range.
John wrote: "Dan wrote: "John wrote: "Buck wrote: "There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to rape, or fig..."Ja, you'll never know until you walk in their shoes, but there is an ideal to strive for and allthough, as you put it, the germ of who we are might determine our actions to a large extent, I hope that we could sometimes go against our instincts and try to do what we believe is right.
John wrote: " But that is because the rules favour the strong, not the weak. The weak have to fight by their own rules, and with what they have got. I often laugh at political commentators after yet another protest march in SA has turned violent: they decry the violence, saying that protestors should do so peacefully. Ha ha!"Dr. King, the preeminent leader of the civil rights movement in America, advocated peaceful protest. Ultimately it was successful in opening the eyes and changing the minds of a majority of Americans. The widespread use of violence on the part of the protestors could have been disastrous for the movement. The approach of Nelson Mandela, of reconciliation rather than retribution, is the right way.
It may be hard to know what one might do under duress, in an emotional state, or in a rage. I hope that if evil was done to me or my family that I would not lower myself to the level of the evildoer. Because your adversary is despicable is just an excuse to become despicable yourself, not a justification. If I did vile things in reaction to vile things done against me, I would always regret it.
The old saying is "Two wrongs don't make a right." I prefer to say, "Evil does not justify evil." It is what I believe.
Andile, in doing what he did, and in threatening boxer if he didn't ascent, was no better than the masters of apartheid. He may have felt justified, but it was just an excuse for having sunk to evil. He was no more justified than Peaches or the CCB.
Did Andile act out of revenge for what was done against his own family? Or against his people?I think I would surely be vengeful against acts against my immediate family, i.e. My husband/child. Maybe parents/closest friends. (Sorry, I don't know what I would exactly in that situation.) But I am sure that I would go against the perpetrator himself. Not against his political party or his people ad a whole. Whether his actions was justified by his political alliance or not.
Its personal. Not political.
Killing random people from a bridge over a highway isn't war. Killing people in their beds isn't war. Its murder.
The two saddest characters in the novel so far,for me, is Lillian and Jan, without either of them seemingly having real motivation worth mentioning for being so, besides the obvious in Jan's case.
I have some suspicions around this murder, john. Lets see if I might be right...
Dan wrote: "John wrote: "Dan wrote: "John wrote: "Buck wrote: "There certainly is a difference between what Boxer did and what Andile did. Boxer was forced into a situation where he had to choose to submit to..."Going against our instincts. I like that, Dan. Could that be the evolution of the human spirit?
Buck wrote: "John wrote: " But that is because the rules favour the strong, not the weak. The weak have to fight by their own rules, and with what they have got. I often laugh at political commentators after y..."An unequivocal opinion, Buck. Many black South Africans would disagree with it, I fear. Your example of Dr. Kings approach to civil disobedience is relevant to a point - black peoples suffering under apartheid was far more severe than their American counterparts. They would argue that they had been patient and passive for two centuries longer than American black people.
Having said this, I must also confess to having little sympathy for Andile or his actions as I wrote his parts of the story. I did sense a more deep-seated propensity to evil in him that went beyond the purely political struggle for liberation.
Vicki wrote: "Buck wrote: "John wrote: " But that is because the rules favour the strong, not the weak. The weak have to fight by their own rules, and with what they have got. I often laugh at political comment..."Vicki,
This is an area that I am at a loss to pronounce on. KILL MANDELA'S tagline is:
'Freedom is at the heart of all happiness'.
Each character responds to the restriction of their freedom in a different way. Of all, I feel that Boxer had the most evolved approach. He chose understanding and forgiveness until his actual life was threatened; only then did he act in defence.
Adele wrote: "Did Andile act out of revenge for what was done against his own family? Or against his people?I think I would surely be vengeful against acts against my immediate family, i.e. My husband/child. M..."
Yes, Adele. I think the final word on this is that Andile's target was random and without thought. If it had been a police van he had dropped the rock on, I think this discussion would have a different tone.
Adele wrote: "I have some suspicions around this murder, john. Lets see if I might be right..."Adele,
You will have to send your suspicions to me privately, and I will post them in a later thread, wrong or right. We shall see how good a sleuth you are.
Adele wrote: "The two saddest characters in the novel so far,for me, is Lillian and Jan, without either of them seemingly having real motivation worth mentioning for being so, besides the obvious in Jan's case."They are sad, Adele. I think it is because their unhappiness stems from a wrong done to them in their childhood. We have special empathy for those who suffer as children...but then, we might have to make a case for Peaches as well.
Life is complicated and happiness is fragile - this is one of the themes running throughout KILL MANDELA. A case could be made for and against the actions of all but a few. We shall, hopefully, be able to identify clearly who those few are at the end.
The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occupation.A man comes to your property and takes it over, violently. This man then puts you in a shed in the corner of your own yard with no-few amenities to survive (80 percent of population put in 13% of the land). He legislates that your education can only be in support of what he does (as manual and unskilled). He beats you and imprisons you if you ask any questions about your own house that he has violently taken over.
The man's children grow up in that yard and continue practices and behaviours that sustain the occupation - they attend the schools, live in the yard and themselves develop attitudes that justify why the owner of that property should live in the shack)
Now the question arises. What should the man and his children in the shack do? What does peace and forgiveness mean in this situation?
What does innocent mean?
For the occupier and their offspring who continue to maintain the conditions (forcefully and violently) that robbed the owner and his children of their home and severed the cultural and indigenous practices and knowledge, of managing that property? Who is really innocent? Can innocence exist among those who occupy 87% of the man's property?
In this scenario - what is a moral dilemma?
Diane wrote: "The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occupation.A man comes to your property and takes it ove..."
Diane,
Thank you for that powerful parable - reminiscent of those told by the master of all parables, Jesus. It helps one understand the bitterness of a person like Andile, and why he would resort to random acts of violence in his resistance to the injustice of the colonial occupation of his motherland.
Religion aside, perhaps the example of the Jews and the Roman empire is an apt one to look at in this regard. The occupation by the powerful of the land of those less powerful has been happening for millennia, and is not a purely African phenomenon. It has always resulted in the dispossession and suffering of those so occupied. The powerful have always exercised their power over the weak. Might = right has been the way of the world for all of recoded history.
Jesus represented a people (the Jews) sorely oppressed and dispossessed by a nation (the Roman Empire) more technologically advanced and powerful than they were. His teachings and advice to the poor and weak on how to deal with injustice and corruption by those who ruled over them may well be a starting point for us in looking at our South African example? Are his teachings still relevant today? Are there other teachings that are more so.
Is this ever going to end: the cycle of the powerful taking what they need or want from the less powerful? If so, how will that end be achieved?
Jack's thoughts as he ponders these issues in KILL MANDELA, are relevant:
‘Would their tactics be less aggressive if the ANC had as many guns as they’ve got?’ Jack’s thoughts ran along a regular set of preoccupations. Not likely, he told himself: the Afrikaners had twice fought the British with the same pig-headedness. A further thought popped into his head and he scribbled it down as well:
‘The world could be changed by the single act of a powerful nation agreeing to negotiate with a weak one.’
Now that’s something I’d like to see one day,’ he said aloud to the mountain. ‘In this lifetime?’ he grimaced.
Vicki wrote: "I think its important to know that when the other 83% is taken back by the rightful owner that its not destroyed and reduced to dust, but build upon and improved. This is where man has to make up h..."Vicki,
Will the meek inherit the earth? In other words, will there come a time when doing what is morally 'right' becomes the norm?
No, not as the earth and it's peoples stand right now. Might is still right.
The meek will only inherit the earth if:
1) The meek are in the majority - democratic meekness.
2) The earth itself changes - the hope and belief of organized religion.
Until then, the meek (less powerful) will have to continue their struggle against the not so meek (more powerful).
Is this the way of evolution? Survival and progression of the fittest. Are we perhaps trying to reverse the most basic force in nature by hoping for it to be otherwise?
John wrote: "Diane wrote: "The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occupation.A man comes to your property an..."
Sjoe! John, I was responding to your overall question which relates to moral dilemma
So I was asking the broader question - how can one define "moral" in a situation like this (hence painting a picture that brings it close to home for everyone - if we imagined it in our own homes). For as long is we make the issue - distant - it will be difficult to understand and relate to the perspective and realities of Andile.
This book is about South Africa, hence limiting my discussion to SA, and not the other instances you describe. I have not made any reference to this being purely an African experience - I was responding to the theme you raised. I will also stay away from the religious discussion, because that too can open another can of worms all together.
I wonder if what is moral or what presents a moral dilemna changes depending on the vantage point from which you view the situation? I think your book is attempting to show the vantage points
Vicki wrote: "I think its important to know that when the other 83% is taken back by the rightful owner that its not destroyed and reduced to dust, but build upon and improved. This is where man has to make up h..."Vicky sorry, I should have said 87 percent.
The question John put before us was moral dilemma, and not what happens to the land of the owner after he takes it back. So was not really sure how to respond ...
But since you have raised it, I will venture to say, that if someone occupied your property, and then they leave. After they left, I don't think you would appreciate if they told you what to do with your home. Why?
--- From what basis would they have a higher moral or other perspective to tell you what to do with your house, your gardens, your children etc?
--- On what basis would they feel the need to interfere with issues in your house, if they really conceded that it is not theirs, but in fact yours. Unless they still have an interest in it - or unless they had no intention of really letting it go?
But more importantly,
--- Why would they think or have that preconceived idea or feeling that you would "destroy it and reduce it to dust" ? What would be sponsoring thought behind this fear?
Diane wrote: "John wrote: "Diane wrote: "The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occupation.A man comes to you..."
Diane,
You have not said so, but am I to assume from your comments that you are in agreement with Andile’s actions? I have some sympathy with you if this is so, as you can see from my previous comments.
Yes, I agree that religion is a can of worms when discussing moral issues; this is why I prefaced my sentence with, ‘religion aside’.
Thanks for rightly pointing out that KILL MANDELA does indeed provide many perspectives on one of the moral issues in the book. Indeed, truth and morality is relative to the experience and viewpoint of the person experiencing it. There is no absolute truth or morality in normal world experience outside of organised religion. If we do not ascribe to the moral standards of a religion, then we are left to make up our own minds and morals in any given situation. In this scenario, the more powerful imposes their moral standard on the less powerful.
This is why, in my opinion, it is a moral dilemma. A dilemma arises when there is a difficult choice to be made on a matter. Which choice is the ‘right’ one. My right one is not somebody else's right one. Jan believes in justice (of the powerful) and so does Andile (of the weak)… and yet, their views of justice are diametrically opposed. When we do not use a standard to judge the rightness or wrongness of our actions, then we must expect the world we have today.
History often helps us to see moral dilemmas more clearly. When we see that the dilemma we are pondering is not an isolated or unique one, but has arisen and been dealt with over and over again in the course of time, then we must try and learn from that experience. What can history teach us that will help us to understand our own position?
This is why I broadened the scope of our discussion - in the hope that it would provide us a more elevated vantage point from which to see our own problems and challenges in South Africa.
Boxer, for me, still provides the only view in KILL MANDELA that has the potential to bring all the others towards some form of consensus on the matter. Perhaps this is why most readers are instinctively drawn to him. In many ways, Boxer possesses the attribute so admired by the people of the world in Nelson Mandela: the ability to see truth/morality from different points of view without sacrificing his own.
Like Mandela, Boxer is exposed to the morality of understanding and inclusiveness through his mother, and the morality of force and violence through his father. I think it is to his father’s credit, who finally renounces violence, that Boxer is able to take the wisest approach to this matter of all KILL MANDELA’S characters.
Mod
York and Boxer grapple with a moral dilemma that is c..."
The intent separates these two young men. Andile intended to kill someone. Boxer had no option but to fight, killing wasn't the intent and if he could have avoided it, he would have.
Then we have their subsequent emotions. Andile is cold and callous, his only regret is that he didn't hurt more people. Boxer is remorseful.
The law, as it stands now, would recognize the difference in these two acts.
Mod
Vicki, I agree that I would kill to protect my nearest and dearest, if I had too.
I am seriously not convinced that that is what Andile is doing. We do not know about the woman he killed but her husband went to thank Boxer for trying to assist, not necessarily the action of one who hates.
Lisa wrote: "John wrote: "Here is the opening discussion point for Week Two. It is a tough one, but I believe this group is mature enough to handle it with sensitivity:York and Boxer grapple with a moral dile..."
As the author, I am comfortable with both assessments, Lisa.
But - and I do not know why - there is still a small corner of my heart that identifies with Andile. Diane's parable maybe. Maybe it's a reflection from deep down inside myself that I, too, have the capacity for violence if abused.
And this is what makes the attitude of Mandela, and most black South Africans, more special to me: that they could find it in their hearts to forgive. The next move must come from those who benefited from the colonial occupation of SA. We must sacrifice more. Jack should be our example in this.
We are an amazing mix of people, and I believe that we will prove that again to the world.
Mod
I see a lot of young men with characters like Andile. Torn by their own hatred, they court disaster and seek reprieve in substances; yet they spiral downward, consumed by their own hatred. Their ends are often messy, pitiful and premature.
John wrote: "Diane wrote: "John wrote: "Diane wrote: "The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occupation.A ma..."
Mandela is an Andile too. He formed MK the military wing of the ANC - he took up arms and he fought. He arranged for training and himself was trained. Up until Mandela formed MK, they (the ANC and PAC) had been the Boxer character portrayed - one that is liked because it does not disrupt or threaten the status quo, the current power dynamic.
This did not bring about change. When he formed MK, which threatened the status quo, then he was called a terrorist (a merciless killer that is 'bitter')
Mandela believed in the saying of Fredrick Douglas “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning”
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress"
I have always liked this narrative of Douglas because it talks directly to the issue of Power, which is NEVER given up - it has to be demanded. All of those years of the ANC and PAC playing the Boxer character bore no fruit. Because power concedes nothing without a demand.
Mandela became an Andile because being the Boxer character did not create the change that he and others, and the forefathers thought it would. Boxer's character doesn't challenge the status quo so it is comfortable, sits easy and becomes lovable.
Andile and Boxer exist in Mandela. Andile and Boxer exist in me. I know that when I play Boxer, I am liked because I do not threaten the status quo, but when I threaten the status quo, I become a pariah - I am called 'bitter'
I guess what I am doing here is urging all of us to embrace both characters, or at least develop Andile's character sufficiently beyond the ogre or 'bitter'.
If you embrace Mandela, embrace both the Andile in him and Boxer in him. In doing so you do not deny him his own right to make the demand, to disrupt the status quo for his inalienable right as a human being.
This issue is one that we do not discuss openly but one that simmers dangerously in the underbelly of South Africa.
When Mandela left prison, he became Boxer and with that gave away the economic freedom of the majority of black people. He was loved for this, he is celebrated for this. Because he did not threaten the status quo. But it came at a tremendous cost to the majority. It has created and sustained the most unequal nation in the world. If he had come out demanding that the economy should also be transferred, would you still love him as much as you do now?
(Btw that question is a generalised one and not directed at you specifically John)
Before joining this group I was not a student of South African culture, politics, or history. My understanding is very limited. But I had thought that Mandela was a political prisoner. I didn't know that he had been materially responsible for atrocities, like Andile's. I remember hearing that Winnie Mandela had been responsible for 'necklacing', but I didn't think that Nelson Mandela had been involved in such acts. Nelson Mandela wasn't convicted for torture or murders, was he?The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists may have a lot to do with who is doing the labeling, but there is a distinction. Terror is a political or military tactic, but it isn't a necessary part of guerrilla warfare. Atrocities don't help a good cause, in my opinion. A movement for justice may prevail, but it will be in spite of atrocities having been committed on its behalf
I have only read halfway into the book. So far, Andile's character has only exhibited negative traits. Except for his interaction with Boxer, we don't really know him. I identified him as a typical 'bad guy'. His reaction to oppression may be understandable, but it isn't pardonable.
To say that Boxer didn't challenge the status quo isn't quite accurate. He wasn't Kentucky and Chips' first victim. When he stood up to them, he did challenge the status quo.
Lisa wrote: "We all have a great capacity for violence John- Freud would call it our Death instinct. What marks us as individuals is how we harness or utilize that capacity for violence. I do pity Andile his ci..."'Death Instinct'. I love that phrase - am going to use it in my sequel somehow.
Thank you for an educated assessment of Andile as a character. This helps me to understand him better; I'm excited about the possibilities for his future development.
Diane wrote: "John wrote: "Diane wrote: "John wrote: "Diane wrote: "The way I can best respond to this question you put before us John is by laying out a scenario, in case we forget the realities of violent occu..."
Diane,Thank you for your valuable insight into the possibilities of a character like Andile. The feedback I am getting from all concerned is stimulating for me as an author. From henceforth Andile has a lot more potential for growth and development for me than before.
Your references to the nature of power, and how it is never given up without violent struggle, is a moot point.
In one way it confirms our earlier discussion that, in this world, might is right - and it works both ways, for the powerful and the weak. The powerful take what they want by force; the weak strive to take it back again by force. In this way we have a never-ending spiral of violence, as seen so clearly in the ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle-East especially.
Is this the way it must always be? An important question to ask, and to answer.
However there is another way to respond to power, as demonstrated by both Ghandi and Martin Luther King. MLK in particular is an interesting example - why do you think he was able to achieve so much with relatively so little violence? Perhaps our American readers can help us with a perspective on this.
Violent revolutionaries come and go. They are only ever remembered by their own people, and then not for long. It takes something more than just violence or force to capture the imagination of the world, and to have the potential to change the world.
Mandela, for me, was such a revolutionary. The world celebrates him not for his prowess as a fighter, but for his wisdom to know when to stop fighting and employ something far more powerful than a fist in his struggle for his people's freedom. If Mandela had persisted with violence as his primary approach to South Africa’s problem, and demanded that the powerful give up all the spoils of their power (economic rights), then we would still be fighting today. The freedom fighters did not possess the power needed to violently overthrow the apartheid regime and take back what they had lost to conquest over 300 years previously.
Mandela provided the difference. Because of his wisdom, the West saw fit to employ their economic power on the side of the ANC to force the SA govt. to submit to meaningful change in SA. This would never have happened had Mandela emerged from prison determined to continue the revolution by force.
And so, yes, Diane, I think your plea to see both sides to Andile, and to Mandela, is a valid and valuable one. Mandela the revolutionary Andile; Mandela the Boxer negotiator. Without both parts to his character, SA would be a far worse place than it is today.
The process of change was started by Mandela the fighter, and finished by Mandela the negotiator. It is precisely that he comprised both parts, and not just one, that he will be remembered by all the world for a very long time to come. He was truly an astounding human being - an inspiring example of the true potential of Africa’s peoples. Africa is the future, if we can follow his example.
Viva Mandela!
Buck wrote: "Before joining this group I was not a student of South African culture, politics, or history. My understanding is very limited. But I had thought that Mandela was a political prisoner. I didn't ..."Buck,
You make an excellent point here. There is indeed a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. You are asking the questions:
Would Mandela have ever thrown a rock through the windscreen of a random car?
Would Mandela have lit the match (or looked on) that necklaced someone that disagreed with his method of struggle?
During the period (1990-1994) of negotiating a new constitution, black-on-black violence raged in the townships as the various black parties struggled for dominance at the negotiating table. Mandela risked his life on more than one occasion by intervening on the streets without protection.
Desmond Tutu risked his life on one memorable occasion when he intervened in a necklacing.
There is a difference between atrocity and struggle. One is heroic; the other is cowardly.
Diane,I am sorry you have chosen to depart the discussion on Goodreads because of our differing perspectives.
Our purpose here is to review a book, and not necessarily to find agreement on matters outside of the book's scope. I value your unique insights and opinion on the characters and issues in KILL MANDELA, and apologize if I have in any way indicated otherwise.
I hope you will return at a later time.
I think it is time to change the discussion point. As I indicated at the start, I provide these as an option, and not as a prescription, to the thread.How do you feel about Jack's decision here? Do you think he made the right one? Do you think his decision was consistent with his character?
For those of you who have read ahead, be careful to keep your comments to the time frame of this thread.
'Jack didn’t feel good about playing a double game with Jan, but it was the best thing for now. The more he knew, the safer he and Alpheus would be. He’d have to continue to be both Mandela’s Postman and Assassin for another few days.'
Vicki wrote: "His decision was consistent with his character as we know it so far. Jack is what is commonly known as a Draadsitter, but is it because he wants to keep the peace or is so starved of anything blemi..."For our non-South African members, 'Draadsitter' translates as 'Fence-sitter'.
Thanks, Vicki. Glad to know I can always rely on you to tell it straight.
Poor Jack! He came all the way from England to help out with the revolution, and he gets called a draadsitter! I think he is probably horrified at the epithet applied to him, but I don't think he'll come straight out and tell you so. He's far too kind for that.
I'm keen to know if others agree with Vicki on this one.
I think Jack is very tactful/diplomatic. Maybe a "people-pleaser". He doesn't like outright conflict. He will test the waters before making a outright stand. That way, he can adjust to situations as they arise without making too many waves, but at the same time, he is able to stick to his beliefs until, when he gets the opportunity in this self-made comfort zone, he can slowly introduce his point of view.
Adele wrote: "I think Jack is very tactful/diplomatic. Maybe a "people-pleaser". He doesn't like outright conflict. He will test the waters before making a outright stand. That way, he can adjust to situations a..."Adele,
You and Vicki see elements of both weakness and strength in Jack, although 'draadsitter' and 'people pleaser' are both pretty damning labels.
It has been my experience in life that most people prefer a straight-shooting bad guy to a sweet-talking nice guy. We always cheer for the naughty boy or girl in reality shows or competitions, and find the good ones boring or irritating. As human beings we seem to be wired for stimulation, not for passivity.
This is an interesting phenomena to me. Help us out here, Lisa.
I see a lot of myself in Jack. I hate affronting people. I will always try to accommodate somebody else's views while still trying to have mine creep in unnoticed so that its just "there". That way I don't upset people if I radically disagree with them. It is a subtle thing. Maybe not a bad thing, but rather a skill that I have learnt to use in situations that need defusing.
Adele wrote: "I see a lot of myself in Jack. I hate affronting people. I will always try to accommodate somebody else's views while still trying to have mine creep in unnoticed so that its just "there". That way..."Jack is the character with whom I most identify.
Vicki wrote: "I should have said that Jack comes across as a Draadsitter, but I don't for one second believe he is. I would just like him to open his mouth sometimes and stand up for himself and what he truly be..."Cannot fault you there, Vicki. Jack is accused of just that by both members of his household, Lillian and York. I cannot help but feel a bit sorry for the poor guy. He is trying to do what is best for everyone else...perhaps there is a lesson to be learned in this for us all - except you, Vicki. Seems like you learned that lesson a long time ago?
Adele wrote: "I see a lot of myself in Jack. I hate affronting people. I will always try to accommodate somebody else's views while still trying to have mine creep in unnoticed so that its just "there". That way..."Adele,
Imagine a world where nobody tried to keep the peace. It would be a pretty hectic place. The thing with nice gals and peacekeepers is that they are only truly appreciated when they are no longer there.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you have to die or disappear to be appreciated! It's just that people take kindness for granted until it is withdrawn...only then do they appreciate it. Perhaps you should withdraw it now and again. Don't make the same mistake Jack made.
Mod
I can understand why Jack only has some info though, I'm sure that only the higher ups knew everything, it's for protection.
I think Jack tries to fix things, he doesn't think of anything or anyone as irreparably broken. Many men would leave Lillian, he doesn't, and I'm not sure why except that he doesn't want her to suffer more.
This extends to his friendship with Jan, he wants to save Jan too.
Buck wrote: "Adele wrote: "I see a lot of myself in Jack. I hate affronting people. I will always try to accommodate somebody else's views while still trying to have mine creep in unnoticed so that its just "th..."Thanks, Buck. I hope you will give us more insight into Jack's character as we move along. In fact, I have a special job for you later in Week 3 thread. Please remind me if I forget.
SPOILERS ALERT:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT ENTER DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVENT READ CHAPTERS IN ADVANCE