Nelson Mandela, RIP


I didn’t like Nelson Mandela’s communism, but in all other ways he was a truly admirable, dignified, and iconic figure, who stared down a tyrannical system, mouldered for decades in prison and, through the strength of his personality, ensured that South Africa transitioned fairly peacefully from an apartheid nation to a nation that, at least in the law books, considered all citizens equal regardless of skin color.

My very limited understanding of events in South Africa today, though, is that the peace he achieved was very tenuous, and that white South Africans are feeling increasingly less secure.  Indeed, from what I’ve read, many are bracing themselves for race riots now that he’s gone.  In other words, it appears that his legacy will not outlast him.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. jj says

    No use for this guy.  He was a commie – as you point out – he was a terrorist; he was a murderer; his lovely wife, the winsome Winnie, inventor of the ‘necklace’ was if possible worse; and the only thing that kept him ‘peaceful’ after getting out of jail was the looming presence of five million Zulu.  The Zulu, under Mangosuthu Buthelezi, did not like: (A) Desmond Tutu; (B) Russia; (C) Communism; (D) China; or (E) him.  He walked quite softly around them.  The Zulu had a disconcerting habit of listening to just so much of the BS, and then the minute it inconvenienced them people got killed.  (“You strike, that’s fine.  Your strike spills out into the streets and makes my bus run late, I’m going to kill you.”  And they did.  And on more than occasion for precisely that sort of reason.)  Mandela was a Commie revolutionary, but he never had a shot at the typical Commie bloodbath.  Thank Buthelezi, who spent several years looking hard at Mandela for that ‘peaceful transition.’  Without him, and the threat of some real violence on a biblical scale, courtesy of one of the great warrior cultures of all time, it wouldn’t have been so damn peaceful.

  2. lee says

    It’s not been that peaceful. Admittedly, it also has NOT been Zimbabwe. But like “polar-bearing” and the “knock-out game,” here, there is not much coverage of what goes n there. Pretty much when white people are murdered, especially in the country, nothing is done. Usually, a whole family is wiped out in the murder. Their property winds up reverting to the “state” because no family members want to take it over. It’s slower than Zimbabwe, but ultimately, it will achive the same effect.

  3. says

    On a purely human level, death is always a tragic thing, but as far as the admiration is concerned, I don’t know. He wasn’t as great as he is often portrayed to be, Bookworm, nor does he have such a good legacy as he is said to have. He and his party, the Afrikaans Nationaal Congres or ANC may have throughout history shown a respectable face to the outside world, but there is an Oz behind the curtain, so to speak. There is a whole lot more than the MSM tell you about Mandela and the ANC (not to mention that present leader and president Jacob Zuma is a total piece of human waste) and you should look into it. It would shine a different light on at least part of the admiration and eulogies on Mandela and the ANC. 
    Apartheid wasn’t a good or moral system, but to some extent, it did work. You can’t say South Africa is much better off today – just think about the HIV/AIDS problem in the country and its horrific crime rates, not to mention corruption and criminality in its leadership and politics. Especially the Boer People, the white South Africans, are everything but better off today. In fact, to some extent it seems the blacks are now doing reverse Apartheid.
    I’m not one to rejoice about deaths, and perhaps Mandela had some redeeming features, but don’t expect any admiration, eulogies or mourning for this guy from me.

  4. says

    He’s just another tin pot dictator, like the guy who took over Rhodesia.
    It was tribal politics first, and it was how he got his power to begin with, with a little European white guilt helping it along.
    Both South Africa and Rhodesia had a functioning economy and legal system, as well as a social class upgrade system, but like the Palestinians wrecking the greenhouses that Israel left behind, the African power factions that took over from the European whites had no idea what this “cargo cult” was made from.

  5. says

    South Africa produces some of the best martial art students and curriculum. You know why? Because it’s easy to get some hardcore experience just living in South Africa. It’s not all or even mostly class room knowledge and lectures.
    The houses are fortified with tall walls, because the bandits and goons would just jump over them otherwise. The poor have to deal with not having such things.

  6. Mike Devx says

    My attention on South Africa has been limited.  It seems to me they replaced a truly terrible system (apartheid white rule) with something that has been merely bad – mostly nepotism and corruption, with a tendency toward socialism and dictatorship.  Basically, they’re turning into another very troubled African nation.

  7. Caped Crusader says

    Give them 10 more years and you will have another Zimbabwe. Even I was SHOCKED. when I viewed the African continent after finding a new website —- —- which shows in realtime every airplane in flight in the entire world. Just take a looK any time of day. Over the ENTIRE continent of Africa just a very few airplanes, and those few only in South Africa and Kenya  — the rest of the continent essentially blank; while planes appear as bee swarms over most of the world. A STUNNING visual lesson; almost unbelievable.

  8. Caped Crusader says

    Not so long ago I was standing in line having some keys made and a young lady told the key maker they had recently relocated from Zimbabwe. I said, “Isn’t that the one that used to be Southern Rhodesia?”. With tears in her eyes she said, “Yes”.

  9. Matt_SE says

    I don’t know if it was the Zulus keeping Mandela in check or not, but a couple of things are clear:
    1) He was a better, more-peaceful man despite being a Commie than that ideology usually turns out.
    2) Whatever benefits he had as a leader don’t translate to those around him. His own family is full of opportunists, as are the national politicians.
    3) If whites make up only 9% of the population as I hear, then what they do won’t matter.
    Personally, I expect factional in-fighting among the blacks…maybe civil war.

  10. Caped Crusader says

    Nothing to do with Mandela, but for those of you who checked out — flightradar24 — I found another neat website  — — that allows you to enter any flight number and tract it in real time, as it progresses in the sky. Very useful if you must meet someone at the airport.

  11. 11B40 says

    So far, a couple of less obvious points have come to mind upon Nelson Mandela’s death.
    One is will Africa, north and south, east and west, ever straighten itself out. In a kind of Samuel Huntington “The Clash of Civilizations…” analysis, it’s been quite a while since the end of European colonization and what’s to show for it ? I mean, it’s not like Africa is without resources now, is it ? I think of how South Korea has straightened itself out in a similar timeframe and from similar problems and yet Africa stumbles one step forward and another back. It sure seems to me that tribalism and Islamism are not healthy environments for children or countries.
    The other is the bit of South Africa’s current President Zuma’s speech announcing the death, that made reference to Nelson Mandela’s desire for a non-racist, non-sexist (???) South Africa. That would be President Zuma of the four (at last count) wives. Forward !!!

  12. Caped Crusader says

    Memory jog from 30-40 years ago; thought I remembered Chief Buthelezi appealing to Christians in America for support. This may explain his stabilizing influence against Communism.
    “I rejected the armed struggle because, as a Christian, I am committed to a nonviolent and peaceful struggle. But people take their own initiatives, because it is a Lebanon type of situation here.”

    I rejected the armed struggle because, as a Christian, I am committed to a nonviolent and peaceful struggle. But people take their own initiatives, because it is a Lebanon type of situation here.
    I rejected the armed struggle because, as a Christian, I am committed to a nonviolent and peaceful struggle. But people take their own initiatives, because it is a Lebanon type of situation here.

  13. jj says

    Not so much about Mandela, but about South Africa, and the history thereof.  I can recall (I visited a couple of times) when most of what you heard in this country seemed greatly at odds with what you saw when you were actually there on the ground.  (70’s, 80’s.)  I saw black farms and villages cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous than anywhere else in Africa.  A government that both wrote and published laws, and then reported violations of them, including civil rights ones, far more honestly than any other nation in Africa.  (Which made them easy to criticize, but their record in that area was a good deal better than most of Africa.)  The country ran by those laws, not by corruption.  It was the only country in Africa without massive crime and endemic starvation.  In both the cities and in the tribal lands you saw people as proud and self-actualizing as any in Africa.  Speaking to people, black people, from other countries who regularly traveled to South Africa, they were always glad to get there.  They felt safe there: they knew that to do their business they wouldn’t be expected to have to bribe anybody, and there was no danger of anything bad happening in dark of night.  A very, very, very different picture than what we all saw in the press back home.
    The inter-tribal repression and discrimination that was – and is – common in the rest of Africa had no place there.  And I thought: what if the rulers in Preatoria had black skin instead of white?  And because, as Ymarsarker points out, you tend to think of things in Africa as being tribal – you think of it that way because it largely is that way – let’s try a thought-experiment.  Herewith, the history of South Africa – in tribal terms. 
    In the beginning, what is now South Africa was inhabited by the !Ke (‘Bushmen’) and the Khoi-Khoi (‘Hottentot’) tribes.  By about the beginning of the 17th century, though, other tribes began to invade, annihilating the original inhabitants as they came.  These tribes included the Venda, Nguni, Sotho, Themba, Swazi, Tsonga, Zulu, Xhosa, and Boeru.  They all moved in by land from the northeast, except the Boeru, who landed in boats along the coast.  Of the original !Ke and Khoi-Khoi so few remain there is no chance whatever of them ever having a say in anything at any time ever.  They were wiped out.  (As Mark Twain says: not an acre of ground on the planet is in the hands of the original owners.)
    Around 1770 the Boeru collided with the migrating Xhosa, and though the Boeru were primarily farmers they managed to drive the Xhosa back eastward.  Right around this same time, another sea-going invader tribe, the Britu, arrived on the beaches.  They became more or less allied with the Boeru.
    From this cultural stramash, the Zulu arose from a tribe of a few thousand to become ferocious warriors.  Led by a series of unscrupulous but tactically brilliant chiefs they pretty quickly destroyed or enslaved pretty much everybody but the Boeru and Britu, and soon enough collided with them.  The boat people managed – and it took some managing; it wasn’t at all easy – to subdue the Zulu in 1879, thereby making themselves the principal tribes of the region.
    But, it didn’t tale long for the Britu and Boeru to fall out themselves, and within a short time they were at each other’s throats.  Their differences were settled by 1902, with the Britu emerging on top.  And then over time the Britu became exhausted by adventures elsewhere, and the Boeru became the nominal authority for much of the remainder of the 20th century.
    Under Boeru rule South Africa became a prosperous African nation.  Its crime rate and unemployment were the lowest on the continent.  Its literacy rate was the highest on the continent, and its people were the healthiest.  It’s wages were exceeded only by the oil producing countries.  From about 1945 to 1985, the Boeru carved out parts of the territory they conquered a century or so earlier, and gave them back to the tribes they conquered as homelands.  Generous, you might think, (the only other people on the planet to ever do it was us), but, somewhat oddly, this program was seen as one of the Boeru’s major crimes against humanity.
    Day-to-day ruling methods of the Boeru were also unique for the general run of Africa.  The following practices, common and routine in the rest of the continent, were pretty much unknown among them: 1) murdering outgoing officials upon accession of a new government; (2) armed soldiers routinely extorting money from the populace; (3) diverting huge sums of government funds to private pockets; (4) demanding and then stealing foreign aid; (5) police actively participating in crime; (6) black markets in goods and currency; (7) requiring bribes for ordinary business transactions.
    Nevertheless, it was, as you may recall, frequently suggested – by the entire world – that foreign governments should intervene to oust the Boeru.
    That’s the history in, more or less, tribal terms.  If the ‘Boeru’ and ‘Britu’ happened to have black skin, would the entire world have united in demanding that they go away?  I don’t think so.  I think South Africa, as they ran it, would probably have been the model for the rest of the continent to aspire to.  I think the outside attempts to force them from their government would have been regarded as unconscionable meddling in another country’s ‘internal affairs.’  But of course, they were white.  That’s where the world drew the line.  Behavior that was – and still goddamed well is – tolerated every goddam day in black African tribes became unendurable in a white African tribe, and that is why they had to go.
    Not much about Mandela, but perhaps a very basic basis for thinking about what’s gone on, and what goes on, over there.  Take the Boers and the British, make them just another pair of tribes, how different was it?  The only ways in which it was different than the rest of the continent was: it was a much healthier place.

  14. jj says

    Yeah – I think that’s true, Crusader: the Dutch became African.  The British didn’t, any more than they became Indian.  Wherever they went the Brits tended to remain as Brits.  And – to my mind – it just makes it even more stark that the big issue was that what was/is okay for a black African tribe is not okay for a white African tribe.  The Afrikaners damned well are an African tribe.  They just happened to have white skin.

  15. says

    A lot of what people think they know about apartheid comes from cultural contamination, Leftist propaganda, and basically going with the flow. Until people use their own resources to experience or discover the reality, they can only rely on experts and those with hidden agendas to tell them what was going on back then. But for those without the access to direct experience, those who cannot find people who have lived in Rhodesia or South Africa before the power change, you just have to reason it out.
    There’s an Authoritative version of history and everyone obeys the Piper, so it feels natural to go along with the flow. But that’s not the river of truth. Most people are not capable of resisting authority, in any sense of the meaning. They cannot rely on their own judgments, and this causes a crippling of necessary functions. A person that never got out of bed, due to a coma, for years will have muscle atrophy and difficulties standing let alone walking. First one must obtain the strength to resist going with the flow.
    Most of what people know before the Age of the Internet and during the modern and post modern Leftist occupation of Western civilization, is a mere fiction. Not just a pleasant moral fairy tale but a harmful fiction as well. Because believing in the fiction doesn’t cause any immediate negative side effects, people think they are safe, and thus they flow along with the river, peacefully enjoying their cruise. Up until the waterfall comes up at Niagra, then they think “somebody needs to fix this problem”.

Leave a Reply