SA reads discussion

Part 6

I finished the book last week and have returned it to the library, so I am completely out of whack with which parts happen in which discussion weeks. I'll play a long as best I can.

Goodness Lisa, I'm slowly plodding along. Enjoying it, but just having very little time to read at the moment. I just started Part three!

It's quite a shopping trip that NM is on! It interesting to see how many other countries were also fighting for independence at the same time not just African ones, not to mention the civil rights movement in the US.

I was a bit disappointed with the role of the PAC.

Hi folks! Hope you are enjoying your Easter break.
Here is the opening blog post for Week 4:
FROM GHANDI TO MANDELA
http://www.johnmountford.com/blog/

Indeneri wrote: "It's quite a shopping trip that NM is on! It interesting to see how many other countries were also fighting for independence at the same time not just African ones, not to mention the civil rights ..."

Indeneri, nothing has changed since the PAC conflict.
The curse of African liberation movements has always been that they could not work together for a common purpose. A 'winner-takes-all' mentality has always persisted, as power, and not liberation, becomes the primary motivator. The ANC and Inkatha slaughtered one another in the run-up to elections in 1994, while today in 2014 it seems that the ECONOMIC FREEDOM FRONT - EFF - is squaring up to take over the fight.

I wondered about whether a nonviolent faction could ever have brought about the change in South Africa, or in any oppressive situation. I'm thinking principally of American slavery and also the Jewish Holocaust. War resulted from both (among, of course, other reasons), and I have a hard time believing that things would have changed without violent intervention. I'm guessing that maybe the same would be true in South Africa.

Sarah wrote: "I wondered about whether a nonviolent faction could ever have brought about the change in South Africa, or in any oppressive situation. I'm thinking principally of American slavery and also the Jew..."

If you are right, Sarah, and I suspect you are, it does mean that the old adage, 'fire with fire', is true. There will always be a place for violent revolutionaries in the future. Ghandi's special place in history as the only non-violent, successful revolutionary is assured?

I enjoyed this insight into Mandela's personality:

"Although I am a gregarious person, I love solitude even more."

The world is full of brilliant introverts, and they have their place. But to change the world, you have to both hate it and love it. Great religious leaders of the past possessed this unique characteristic.

John wrote: "Indeneri wrote: "It's quite a shopping trip that NM is on! It interesting to see how many other countries were also fighting for independence at the same time not just African ones, not to mention ..."

You're right John. Government is considered a prize to be won rather than a service to the nation.

I finally got my copy this weekend from the library, so I'll be going back to read all of your earlier comments. If I have questions, should I ask them here, in Week 4?

Great news Karlynne, maybe post in relevant weeks as you go along, we keep the threads open.

So far, I'm loving the style of this book. I can hear his voice!

Karlyne wrote: "So far, I'm loving the style of this book. I can hear his voice!"

I experienced that as well, Karlyne. The editor was sensitive enough to retain Mandela's unique style of speaking in his writing.

An interesting change in policy that Mandela does not see fit to explain:
"Although the Executive of the ANC did not allow white members, Umkhonto we Sizwe was not thus constrained. I immediately recruited Joe Slovo..."
Have the whites, coloureds and Indians in the ANC always been no more than useful pawns?

John wrote: "An interesting change in policy that Mandela does not see fit to explain:
"Although the Executive of the ANC did not allow white members, Umkhonto we Sizwe was not thus constrained. I immediately r..."

It's a very interesting question (and I don't know the answer either).

I remember a brief discussion here at SA reads a while back about whether or not Mandela had always been non-violent.

He was the one who formed the MK, after the Sharpeville Massacre, feeling that one must fight fire with fire. The MK was autonomous, so that the ANC could retain its ideal of non-violence. Of the various types of violence, they chose sabotage as being the least deadly, and perhaps the most effective. They rejected terrorism and guerrilla warfare. In their first act of sabotage, one of the MK was killed.

So Mandela did stray from the path of non-violence established by Ghandi and followed by M L King Jr., the two men with whom he is so often compared. I was unaware of all this before reading his book. (I was ignorant of South Africa, for the most part.)

It was the reconciliation, following the end of apartheid, that makes Nelson Mandela great in the eyes of the world, in my eyes at least. I don't condemn him for his founding of the MK, but of course his history would be sweeter if he had prevailed while steadfastly holding to nonviolence. It's unknowable whether or not things would have ended differently, or not ended at all, without the MK.

Buck wrote: "I remember a brief discussion here at SA reads a while back about whether or not Mandela had always been non-violent.

He was the one who formed the MK, after the Sharpeville Massacre, feeling th..."

The struggle eventually prevailed, Buck, because the USA and Britain decided that it should. MK were an insignificant factor in comparison to the power of sanctions. The end of the Cold War was the death-knell for apartheid. MK was little more than an onlooker in the process.
I personally cannot find much to support Mandela's decision to embrace violence as a political tool. After 30 years MK was still no closer to an armed overthrow of govt. than when it started. Civil disobedience, if properly organised, would have been more effective, and certainly wouldn't have put him in jail for 27 years. The armed revolution was a glorious failure.

John, Thank you for that response. That didn't come across in the book.

I didn't think that it was Mandela's goal was to overthrow the government by force, but that the disruption caused by sabotage elevated the struggle. Do you think that the MK actually hampered the achievement of the ANC's goals?

Buck wrote: "John, Thank you for that response. That didn't come across in the book.

I didn't think that it was Mandela's goal was to overthrow the government by force, but that the disruption caused by sa..."

I do, Buck, because it lost them the moral high ground for 30 years until it suited the West to act. Mandela, and the ANC, were listed as terrorists by the West, forcing the ANC to look to the Communist Party, Moscow and Cuba for support. I believe the Indians were right: a more organized form of internal defiance would have kept the West on side throughout, and would have effected change more naturally. It was obvious that apartheid could not persist indefinitely, but the communist threat kept the govt. from the negotiating table far longer than was necessary.(IMHO)

Being listed as a terrorist organization is a pretty big deal with the U.S., at least since 9/11. I guessed the MK was listed, but didn't know that Nelson Mandela was, or the ANC. Also, I hadn't known that Mandela was imprisoned for acts of violence. I thought he was simply a political prisoner. That's a pretty big step, from terrorist to the Nobel Peace Price.

I tend to agree with John. The ANC in exile was not very effective and it was a combination of factors such as sanctions, the end of the Cold War, the debt standstill (the SA government could not borrow internationally from 1986), and renewed internal resistance via organizations such as Cosatu and the UDM that would eventually end apartheid. Bombs by MK added fuel to the fire, but also cost the ANC some international support.

Carolien wrote: "I tend to agree with John. The ANC in exile was not very effective and it was a combination of factors such as sanctions, the end of the Cold War, the debt standstill (the SA government could not b..."

Spot-on! Thanks, Carolien.