Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
and was something of a hypocrite.

Show me someone who was alive as long as he was involved on sweeping cultural changes who isn't. Life isn't polite enough to allow you perfect consistency and black and white views.

There are levels of hypocrisy. For example, Mandela was always very studiously silent about Robert Mugabe's killings and intimidations throughout the nineties. Despite being repeatedly asked about it by various journalists and whatnot, he always fell back on 'no comment' until as late as 2008(and even his remarks then were very devoid of committal or blame). I've always considered that to be something of a hole in the view of him as a man who supposedly stood for peace and equality.

There is also the fact that even in his biography he admits to signing off on authorising bomb attacks which killed hundreds. Sure, he helped overthrow apartheid, etc. But I'm responding to this deification of him we seem to be bombarded with in the West. Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

But now we have to sit through half a million sickeningly airbrushed views of the man and his past in the mainstream media for the next week and a half. And as a historian, that sort of thing just quite frankly irritates me.

 Ketara wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
and was something of a hypocrite.

Show me someone who was alive as long as he was involved on sweeping cultural changes who isn't. Life isn't polite enough to allow you perfect consistency and black and white views.

There are levels of hypocrisy. For example, Mandela was always very studiously silent about Robert Mugabe's killings and intimidations throughout the nineties. Despite being repeatedly asked about it by various journalists and whatnot, he always fell back on 'no comment' until as late as 2008(and even his remarks then were very devoid of committal or blame). I've always considered that to be something of a hole in the view of him as a man who supposedly stood for peace and equality.

There is also the fact that even in his biography he admits to signing off on authorising bomb attacks which killed hundreds. Sure, he helped overthrow apartheid, etc. But I'm responding to this deification of him we seem to be bombarded with in the West. Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

But now we have to sit through half a million sickeningly airbrushed views of the man and his past in the mainstream media for the next week and a half. And as a historian, that sort of thing just quite frankly irritates me.

I don't know if the airbrushing is sickening, it's as though it was needed to give South Africa it's own, I would argue needed, Gandhi figure. He was also very good at being that healing father for the nation and being that figurehead needed for the West's sympathies.

Because our sympathies should have been on the side of the downtrodden and fairly terribly treated black majority. If he provided the pivot on which to lever change, then I cannot see the harm in a bit of deifying, to be honest.

He indeed signed off on bombings and violence, as did the Founding Fathers of the US, who are now basically saints in the United States, used and invoked to provide legitimacy to anything political in the same hallows as 'What would Jesus do?'. But, from a certain outside window, looking in, they were the leaders of a violent terrorist uprising. You are a historian, Ketara, you know how public opinion, guided, will come to a conclusion about freedom fighters or terrorists.

And, given how his people were being treated, was violent response so unreasonable? I honestly don't know, I wasn't there to watch the daily subjugation, beatings, disappearances, poverty and suffering. I don't know if I can condemn that violence knowing just a part of the backdrop it existed against. Would another Gandhi have worked in South Africa, or simply been disappeared and remains found a couple of months later. If he'd been another Gandhi, would he still have been touring the earth till his dying day, exiled from his home, like the Dalai Lama?

I was displeased with his silence on Mugabe, as though he was reluctant to speak out due to Mugabe's previous position as the 'liberator' of Zimbabwe, but many African premiers were reluctant to stand, or be seen to stand with old colonial powers against 'one of their own', I also believe his family had ties to Mugabe (son in law or something). And it should be remembered that he did stand up and denounce Mugabe in 2008, during the height of his excessive violence. So he did come though, when so many of Africa's leaders still have not denounced that monster. It is a minor failing and I don't think it compares to the unification of the nation and becoming an ambassador for peace and integration across the earth.





All that said, I am now dreading airtime being given to Winnie... she can really go die in a fire. Terrible creature.

Unfortunately for Mandela and the ANC it became a case of fight or simply lose, the apartheid government made the first move at Sharpville and then subsequently rounding up 18,000 and outlawing the ANC and PAC.

At this point there was its hardly surprising they were forced to resort to terrorism.

Though I would agree that overlooking certain less than tasteful events is not right.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Thankfully de Klerk was able to see how the country would have been completely torn apart if things didn't end peacefully.

 Ketara wrote:

There are levels of hypocrisy. For example, Mandela was always very studiously silent about Robert Mugabe's killings and intimidations throughout the nineties. Despite being repeatedly asked about it by various journalists and whatnot, he always fell back on 'no comment' until as late as 2008(and even his remarks then were very devoid of committal or blame). I've always considered that to be something of a hole in the view of him as a man who supposedly stood for peace and equality.

They chose the right man as a figurehead, but ended up tye wrong man as president. Mandela was a useless leader once he was out. He fethed up handling of the AIDS crisis and fethed up the economy. The only bit of good news was that he kept most of the bargains that were arranged when apartheid ended and that prevented a bloodbath. However Mandela and all following SA leaders are firmly part of club dictator and it is plain which way the nation is heading and it explains why a blind eye is turned to Mugabe as what happens in Zimbabwe will eventually be the case in South Africa. It will just take longer as the nation is richer and because China and major western countries don't want the resource bucket to tip over.

 Ketara wrote:

There is also the fact that even in his biography he admits to signing off on authorising bomb attacks which killed hundreds. Sure, he helped overthrow apartheid, etc. But I'm responding to this deification of him we seem to be bombarded with in the West. Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

We have to accept a man can change, Mandela entered prison a terrorist, he left prison something else. In time it will be airbrushed out theat he entered prison a terrorist.

 Ketara wrote:

But now we have to sit through half a million sickeningly airbrushed views of the man and his past in the mainstream media for the next week and a half. And as a historian, that sort of thing just quite frankly irritates me.

Because if you aren't lining up top mourn its taken as confirmed you must be a hate filled far right crazy.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I don't know if the airbrushing is sickening, it's as though it was needed to give South Africa it's own, I would argue needed, Gandhi figure. He was also very good at being that healing father for the nation and being that figurehead needed for the West's sympathies.
Because our sympathies should have been on the side of the downtrodden and fairly terribly treated black majority. If he provided the pivot on which to lever change, then I cannot see the harm in a bit of deifying, to be honest.

This is true, Mandela was a crerated figurehead and a good choice. He was in prison he could do nothing so he could be chosen as a figurehead for an exiled movement who couldnt feth things up until after his release.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

He indeed signed off on bombings and violence, as did the Founding Fathers of the US, who are now basically saints in the United States, used and invoked to provide legitimacy to anything political in the same hallows as 'What would Jesus do?'. But, from a certain outside window, looking in, they were the leaders of a violent terrorist uprising. You are a historian, Ketara, you know how public opinion, guided, will come to a conclusion about freedom fighters or terrorists.

Mandela changed in prison, tactically. He also had time enough to mellow and for the hype to settle on his name so he was already a 'saint' when he first walked out of prison.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And, given how his people were being treated, was violent response so unreasonable? I honestly don't know, I wasn't there to watch the daily subjugation, beatings, disappearances, poverty and suffering. I don't know if I can condemn that violence knowing just a part of the backdrop it existed against. Would another Gandhi have worked in South Africa, or simply been disappeared and remains found a couple of months later. If he'd been another Gandhi, would he still have been touring the earth till his dying day, exiled from his home, like the Dalai Lama?

There were figures who could be classed as Ghandiesque, Desmond Tutu is the closest, but none in any authority had the selflessness of Ghandi, at its core the ANC is all about the gravy train and power not liberation or empowerment.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

All that said, I am now dreading airtime being given to Winnie... she can really go die in a fire. Terrible creature.

Not much fear of that, Winnie Mandela, she didn't have the hype shield but did have access to celeb status and abused it long ago so apatheid exploited this and she never recovered. She is no more popular in Africa than anywhere else.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
He indeed signed off on bombings and violence, as did the Founding Fathers of the US, who are now basically saints in the United States, used and invoked to provide legitimacy to anything political in the same hallows as 'What would Jesus do?'. But, from a certain outside window, looking in, they were the leaders of a violent terrorist uprising. You are a historian, Ketara, you know how public opinion, guided, will come to a conclusion about freedom fighters or terrorists.

There's quite a difference between bombing civilians from the shadows in a bid to create terror and organizing an army to fight another army. Just food for thought. I know some like to pretend that as long as some violence is justified, all violence is justified, but that's not really how it works.

The dude was, at one point in his life, what we would happily define as a terrorist. We're going to be seeing a lot of him over the next week not because of his accomplishments, many of which are worthy of recognition, but simply because the Western world can't help but fall all over itself to prove it was on the right side of the apartheid issue all along.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


I don't know if the airbrushing is sickening, it's as though it was needed to give South Africa it's own, I would argue needed, Gandhi figure. He was also very good at being that healing father for the nation and being that figurehead needed for the West's sympathies.

You see, I would argue that if anyone from that period/geographical area should be taking that role, it's good old Desmond Tutu. He rigidly advocated non-violent resistance, instead championing protest marches and economic pressure Gandhi style. He was even jailed like Mandela for a period of time.

He indeed signed off on bombings and violence, as did the Founding Fathers of the US, who are now basically saints in the United States, used and invoked to provide legitimacy to anything political in the same hallows as 'What would Jesus do?'. But, from a certain outside window, looking in, they were the leaders of a violent terrorist uprising. You are a historian, Ketara, you know how public opinion, guided, will come to a conclusion about freedom fighters or terrorists.

I'm not saying necessarily that violence was necessarily the wrong answer to rid themselves of apartheid (although I feel it should be noted that something like 90% of people killed by the ANC were black). But that to portray a man who championed killing as a method of change(he issued a statement to that effect) as a man of peace and liberty just strikes me as bizarely inaccurate.

I was displeased with his silence on Mugabe, as though he was reluctant to speak out due to Mugabe's previous position as the 'liberator' of Zimbabwe, but many African premiers were reluctant to stand, or be seen to stand with old colonial powers against 'one of their own', I also believe his family had ties to Mugabe (son in law or something). And it should be remembered that he did stand up and denounce Mugabe in 2008, during the height of his excessive violence. So he did come though, when so many of Africa's leaders still have not denounced that monster. It is a minor failing and I don't think it compares to the unification of the nation and becoming an ambassador for peace and integration across the earth.

It should be remembered that Mugabe was responsible for all sorts prior to the 21st century, such as the Matabeleland Massacres. Mandela studiously ignored his atrocities for twenty years before issuing a bland blanket statement. Which surprises me not in the least, as you've said yourself, all the African old guard tend to stand together. But to know that and then sit down today and read of Mandela who 'may be compared to the likes of Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa, as a great moral figure of our times' just strikes me as absurd.

Give it fifty years and he'll probably match Winston Churchill in terms of inaccuracies between public memory and the actual reality.

I guess Mandela just appears to have been "deified" because of the horrendous and disgusting regime he helped end. When his actions are contrasted with theirs does it really seem so unreasonable?

I'd really recommend reading Long Walk To Freedom. Mandela was a complicated man and he did not try to hide this or smooth it over when thinking about his past.

I big contrast in Mandela's life regarding his actions before and after prison was the reconciliation committee. There was a great opportunity for revenge after he became president, instead he pushed for forgiveness.

RIP Nelson Mandela.
He changed so much, and now he is gone the world will be poorer for it.

Manchu wrote:
I'd really recommend reading Long Walk To Freedom. Mandela was a complicated man and he did not try to hide this or smooth it over when thinking about his past.

Certainly. You'll note I mentioned the book earlier. My comments are targeted at the media and glorification of the man as opposed to the man himself.

Do you think he's totally unworthy of a glorified reputation?

Also I suggested reading the book (including, as necessary, re-reading). For example, I do not think this is true:

 Ketara wrote:
There is also the fact that even in his biography he admits to signing off on authorising bomb attacks which killed hundreds.

RIP in peace Morgan Freeman

Very sad though.

 Ketara wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
and was something of a hypocrite.

Show me someone who was alive as long as he was involved on sweeping cultural changes who isn't. Life isn't polite enough to allow you perfect consistency and black and white views.

There are levels of hypocrisy. For example, Mandela was always very studiously silent about Robert Mugabe's killings and intimidations throughout the nineties. Despite being repeatedly asked about it by various journalists and whatnot, he always fell back on 'no comment' until as late as 2008(and even his remarks then were very devoid of committal or blame). I've always considered that to be something of a hole in the view of him as a man who supposedly stood for peace and equality.

There is also the fact that even in his biography he admits to signing off on authorising bomb attacks which killed hundreds. Sure, he helped overthrow apartheid, etc. But I'm responding to this deification of him we seem to be bombarded with in the West. Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

But now we have to sit through half a million sickeningly airbrushed views of the man and his past in the mainstream media for the next week and a half. And as a historian, that sort of thing just quite frankly irritates me.

I work with Indians(one of the advantages of working in an international company) and Ghandi fans they are not. They tell me Ghandi was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Hindus at the hands of Muslims, due to his part in dividing India. They also tell me a large portion of Hindus think this way. I'm not saying this to put down Ghandi, but to point out that people are human, no matter how hugely they effect events for good. Mistakes are made in the heat of the moment because there are always those times and events a person is in the center of that influence their action that hindsight and history say were less than intelligent or bad.
I remember reading about villages that had existed for generations, and homes being razed in the 1970's so whites in South Africa could build holiday homes in those places. Treat people like second class citizens in their own country, couple that with killing them and theft of land that provides their livlihood and something's going to give.

 Ketara wrote:
Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

Gandhi was a racist in his youth, and he supported apartheid.

 dogma wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Gandhi, he ain't. He helped kill people. Lots of them. And there were many of other people involved in the overthrow of apartheid, some worse than him, some better than him.

Gandhi was a racist in his youth, and he supported apartheid.

Indeed Gandhi refused to protest alongside Black People against British oppression.

Gandhi protested against the treatment of higher caste Indians in South Africa. His protests were successful and led to higher caste Indians being able to ride in the same carriages as the white people whereas before they had to share with the black workers and lower caste indians. He also served briefly with the British military in South Africa, albeit as a medic.
Another "great leader of the left" was Che Guevara who ended up being openly racist towards black people after working with them in Africa as part of anti-colonial militias.
Very few people ever live up to their hype.

In regards South Africa today, I'm at a loss to see what this healing is. I've never been there but speaking to people from there and reading some of the news from there, I see a lot of rhetoric from the government that is anti-white due to the apartheid era.
That seems to suggest that they really haven't moved on. The country is also bleeding professionals due to the levels of violence there and discrimination against non-black people.

While most of the South Africans I've met have been white (British and Afrikaaner), there have also been a number of Indians and coloureds (that's what they call themselves) and they've all left for the same reasons - safety and better opportunities.
The ANC is running the place like a personal cash cow and is threatening to do the same kind of land grab that Zimbabwe did in the early 2000s which led to the collapse of commercial farming in that country.

What is ironic is that the hated colonialism seems about to be replayed there with the arrival of the Chinese who are likely to be the next big group that invests there. The locals don't seem to care about running a modern country and I don't recall any criticism from the part of Mandela on the corruption and mismanagement of the country by his party.

 Ketara wrote:
As someone who lived in the southern end of Africa for quite a long period of time, it is interesting to note that a lot of people there (black and white alike) do not hold him in anywhere near the same esteem as the West does. But then again, he's come to symbolise the end of apartheid over here and is venerated on that basis, as opposed to his actual life actions so much.

Nor is Ghandi held to the same esteem in India that he is elsewhere in the world. On the ground the politics of a country are so complex, and mired in so many viewpoints and the personal ambitions of so many people, but externally people just want a simple narrative, one heroic person to know about and admire.

That said, in Mandela's case that actually speaks to the quality of what he achieved with Truth and Reconciliation, because internally there would have been so much drive to prosecute the people who committed so many atrocities in enforcing the apartheid regime, and perhaps almost as much drive within the still very important white establishment to move on, speak no more of that evil. But Mandela took South Africa in another direction, allowed people to air their grievances and be genuinely heard, without looking to prosecute each case. It was simply a genius piece of nation building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Which is fine and all, but the man wasn't quite Gandhi

Ghandi wasn't Ghandi either. The same process that stripped away all the complicating parts of Mandela's legacy in to a single message of 'what a lovely man' worked in exactly the same way on Ghandi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
I'd really recommend reading Long Walk To Freedom. Mandela was a complicated man and he did not try to hide this or smooth it over when thinking about his past.

Yes, very much so. The fact that he was a part of the cycle of violence that the regime and resistance had locked themselves in to, and managed to play a major part in breaking that cycle is kind of the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
Gandhi protested against the treatment of higher caste Indians in South Africa. His protests were successful and led to higher caste Indians being able to ride in the same carriages as the white people whereas before they had to share with the black workers and lower caste indians. He also served briefly with the British military in South Africa, albeit as a medic.
Another "great leader of the left" was Che Guevara who ended up being openly racist towards black people after working with them in Africa as part of anti-colonial militias.
Very few people ever live up to their hype.

Ghandi didn't 'serve' as a medic in WWI. At the outbreak of the war he actively recruited other Indians to work as medics, and later in the war recruited Indians to fight as soldiers.

And picking out Che Guevara's racism is a bit like pointing out Stalin's boorish table manners. Guevara committed staight up atrocities, particularly in the prison camps he ran after the war.


As to whether people live up to their hype... ultimately I think that's just a bad question. Who gives a gak if someone was as incredibly awesome as simplistic narrative claims? What matters is actually learning about these people as real, complex figures living through real, complex history. Ghandi held some views in his young life that were quite false, and made some political compromises that were both cynical and foolish, and nor was he right about everything even in his final days - he remained committed to a very idealised version of Indian village life that would have kept millions of people in absolute poverty.

But to simply point out the failings of these men without putting them in the context of the great things they accomplished is just lazy cynicism. The great things are still there, and it's just that in recognising the rest we can properly understand that these were great things accomplished by very human, flawed individuals.

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As someone who lived in the southern end of Africa for quite a long period of time, it is interesting to note that a lot of people there (black and white alike) do not hold him in anywhere near the same esteem as the West does. But then again, he's come to symbolise the end of apartheid over here and is venerated on that basis, as opposed to his actual life actions so much.

Nor is Ghandi held to the same esteem in India that he is elsewhere in the world. On the ground the politics of a country are so complex, and mired in so many viewpoints and the personal ambitions of so many people, but externally people just want a simple narrative, one heroic person to know about and admire.

That said, in Mandela's case that actually speaks to the quality of what he achieved with Truth and Reconciliation, because internally there would have been so much drive to prosecute the people who committed so many atrocities in enforcing the apartheid regime, and perhaps almost as much drive within the still very important white establishment to move on, speak no more of that evil. But Mandela took South Africa in another direction, allowed people to air their grievances and be genuinely heard, without looking to prosecute each case. It was simply a genius piece of nation building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Which is fine and all, but the man wasn't quite Gandhi

Ghandi wasn't Ghandi either. The same process that stripped away all the complicating parts of Mandela's legacy in to a single message of 'what a lovely man' worked in exactly the same way on Ghandi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
I'd really recommend reading Long Walk To Freedom. Mandela was a complicated man and he did not try to hide this or smooth it over when thinking about his past.

Yes, very much so. The fact that he was a part of the cycle of violence that the regime and resistance had locked themselves in to, and managed to play a major part in breaking that cycle is kind of the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
Gandhi protested against the treatment of higher caste Indians in South Africa. His protests were successful and led to higher caste Indians being able to ride in the same carriages as the white people whereas before they had to share with the black workers and lower caste indians. He also served briefly with the British military in South Africa, albeit as a medic.
Another "great leader of the left" was Che Guevara who ended up being openly racist towards black people after working with them in Africa as part of anti-colonial militias.
Very few people ever live up to their hype.

Ghandi didn't 'serve' as a medic in WWI. At the outbreak of the war he actively recruited other Indians to work as medics, and later in the war recruited Indians to fight as soldiers.

And picking out Che Guevara's racism is a bit like pointing out Stalin's boorish table manners. Guevara committed staight up atrocities, particularly in the prison camps he ran after the war.


As to whether people live up to their hype... ultimately I think that's just a bad question. Who gives a gak if someone was as incredibly awesome as simplistic narrative claims? What matters is actually learning about these people as real, complex figures living through real, complex history. Ghandi held some views in his young life that were quite false, and made some political compromises that were both cynical and foolish, and nor was he right about everything even in his final days - he remained committed to a very idealised version of Indian village life that would have kept millions of people in absolute poverty.

But to simply point out the failings of these men without putting them in the context of the great things they accomplished is just lazy cynicism. The great things are still there, and it's just that in recognising the rest we can properly understand that these were great things accomplished by very human, flawed individuals.

I think we're on the same wavelength here.

 sebster wrote:


Ghandi didn't 'serve' as a medic in WWI.

No he didn't so I have no idea where you got that from. Ghandi was involved with the "British" military in South Africa against the Zulus at the beginning of the 20th century.

And picking out Che Guevara's racism is a bit like pointing out Stalin's boorish table manners. Guevara committed staight up atrocities, particularly in the prison camps he ran after the war.

The point is that he is still popular amongst black people and amongst communist sympathisers today, both groups who focus on his earlier efforts in Cuba and because someone stuck his face on a t-shirt that supposedly represents freedom from oppression and bigotry.

As to whether people live up to their hype... ultimately I think that's just a bad question. Who gives a gak if someone was as incredibly awesome as simplistic narrative claims?

I guess for people who don't care about things like the truth or integrity such concepts are indeed confusing.

cadbren wrote:
No he didn't so I have no idea where you got that from. Ghandi was involved with the "British" military in South Africa against the Zulus at the beginning of the 20th century.

Ah, misread, I thought you were referring to an old myth. But if you're just talking about hm serving as a medic for a brief period, what in the hell has got to do with anything?

The point is that he is still popular amongst black people and amongst communist sympathisers today, both groups who focus on his earlier efforts in Cuba and because someone stuck his face on a t-shirt that supposedly represents freedom from oppression and bigotry.

"Popular with black people"? Which black people? All of them?

And communists believe lots of stupid things. That's why they're communists. None of that has anything to do with any damn thing at all, except for you trying to make some kind of silly point about 'the left'.

I guess for people who don't care about things like the truth or integrity such concepts are indeed confusing.

And what did I fething say in the next fething sentence after the bit you quoted? "What matters is actually learning about these people as real, complex figures living through real, complex history." So yeah, truth matters, shame you didn't read one more sentence of my post as you would have learned I was saying that too.

The point, though, is to actually learn the whole truth, the good and the bad and learn how they co-exist. Not to just learn a bunch of factoids that disprove the common myth and figure you can spout them off and impress everyone with how learned and cynical you are.

 sebster wrote:
The point, though, is to actually learn the whole truth, the good and the bad and learn how they co-exist. Not to just learn a bunch of factoids that disprove the common myth and figure you can spout them off and impress everyone with how learned and cynical you are.

But it's more fun to go "He did good, so the bad doesn't matter!" "Nope, he did bad so the good doesn't matter!" (continue until fist fight...)

What we see here is my old High School English class come to life:

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;

40k quote of the day: "We are judged in death for the evils we destroy in life". Felt it fit in rather nicely.

 d-usa wrote:
But it's more fun to go "He did good, so the bad doesn't matter!" "Nope, he did bad so the good doesn't matter!" (continue until fist fight...)

What we see here is my old High School English class come to life:

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;

I quite like that. Thanks for posting it

I remember having to memorize the whole speech...

text removed.

Reds8n

But then I wouldn't get to read his tantrums!

I think most people understand that he(Mandela) was a complicated figure. No one with any sense is going to treat him as a saint, but it's really not disputable that he was a rather big deal and his death is culturally significant*.

*

Nothing like a bit of Universal relativity to get your gak in perspective. Especially when described as poetically as Sagan does.

Basically I think about that whenever I get worked up about anything.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think most people understand that he(Mandela) was a complicated figure. No one with any sense is going to treat him as a saint, but it's really not disputable that he was a rather big deal and his death is culturally significant*.

I think most people with any damn sense at all understand that expecting anyone to be a saint is silly. No-one has a great impact on history without getting their hands dirty at some point.

That's the big problem with the way we look at so many people - we look only at their faults, and not their achievements overall. It means someone who does nothing but keep their distance from anything messy or difficult is lauded, while people who get stuck in are called 'contraversial' at best.