History is written by the victors.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by boncho

 

Ha, you are usually right and the point was certainly a valid one - just a bad example! Personally i like using Mandela and the ANC for that point.

Could you elaborate a bit more on that point please?

vvv

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Absolutely. Mandela is renowned now for gaining power for black South Africa and for fighting apartheid. For many, he is a shining example of the term "Freedom Fighter". However, during these struggles, the ANC supported the IRA, they planted bombs that killed and injured innocents, etc. Therefore, to other people, Mandela is a terrorist.

The same analogy actually also exists with Gandhi (which surprises a lot of people who only know the sanitised version of his life).

Regarding Mandela, my own view (as with most things) is somewhere between the two. Do i honestly believe that in the early days (in particular) he was bothered about innocent casualties? No, i really do not. I believe that he believed that innocent casualties where an acceptable part of his struggle. I believe he would have done pretty much anything in order to further his cause.

On the other hand, i also believe that what the ANC accomplished is actually rather impressive and that subsequent actions have atoned for earlier crimes.

There are other aspects also but i think the above demonstrates that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

reply to post by Flavian


Who is this "other people" mate?

You know I am from SA, where Mandela is held in high regard. The ANC had many ties with communist Russia in their early days, and many of its members was indeed trained in Russia. Yes, they are generally credited as being freedom fighters, so much so that Mandela actually became our president. It could be said that the ANC was responisble for the fall of Apartheid. Although, the full story is never told I fear.

vvv

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Well, ok, to protestants in Northern Ireland that were victims of IRA actions supported by the ANC. To people in Spain and France that were the victims of ETA violence, backed by the ANC. The list actually goes on and on.

Within South Africa, to some that were in Inkatha and to some Boers.

I am not sure what is taught in South Africa but are you aware of ANC committing terrorist acts during the apartheid era? Obviously, some will argue that the ends justify the means but others will stick to arguing that these were acts of pure terrorism - this just further demonstrates my point though as to why they are a good example to use for this analogy.

Like i said earlier, the truth is usually somewhere nearer the middle ground. It is unquestionable that Mandela and the ANC achieved great things. However, it must also not be forgotten (or whitewashed from history) that they also have a fair amount of blood on their hands.

reply to post by Flavian


Oh yes, of course I am aware that they commited what can be perceived as terrorist acts. From their POV though, it was fighting for freedom, but yes, I understand your analogy now, thanks.

Yeah, look the image of the ANC in SA is being portrayed as the oppressed ones, the ones that suffered. To an extend it is true, however, the history books don't talk about the terrorist acts they commit.

Since about 2000 most history regarding the whole Apartheid regime has been either changed, or removed from history school text books.

vvv

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Since about 2000 most history regarding the whole Apartheid regime has been either changed, or removed from history school text books.

Sounds like it would have been quite worthy to be included in your OP.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Whilst being in the UK, i can still remember this happening very clearly (well, the news coverage anyway!). When it is mentionned these days, no one can remember the conflicts between the ANC and Inkatha (think that is the correct spelling?). Instead, they simply think it was black versus racist white.

Actually, the situation was a lot more volatile and complex than that. This is equally true for most other conflict situations. People try to over simplify them in order to get a solution but that is not always the best policy - indeed, it can actually inflame situations rather than resolve them.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Since about 2000 most history regarding the whole Apartheid regime has been either changed, or removed from history school text books.

 

Sounds like it would have been quite worthy to be included in your OP.

True, and I did consider that. However, I did not want it to become about my country, or my history. I am very patriotic, and sometimes gets a bit carried away, when that subject is covered.

vvv

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

 

Whilst being in the UK, i can still remember this happening very clearly (well, the news coverage anyway!). When it is mentionned these days, no one can remember the conflicts between the ANC and Inkatha (think that is the correct spelling?). Instead, they simply think it was black versus racist white.

Actually, the situation was a lot more volatile and complex than that. This is equally true for most other conflict situations. People try to over simplify them in order to get a solution but that is not always the best policy - indeed, it can actually inflame situations rather than resolve them.

Oh yes, and what was reported in the mass media, was mostly BS. Half truths, and convenient twisting of facts, to paint a certain picture. It was not just the black on white violence that was so wild spread, but also a lot of black on black violence.

And as you rightfully say it was very complex. Because of the diversity of tribes, ie, Xhosas, Zulus etc etc, who does not share the same ideals, it gets very complicated. Today Inkatha Freedom Party, IFP, and Anc, rarely see eye to eye on anything, while the "white parties" are in the minority.

vvv

History has always been written by the victor, I don't think that will change. Oral history is supposed to be passed on by regular people. We are constantly told to disregard anything told to us by others and trained that only the information given to us by the present people with authority and special training is real. Certification is needed because these people are certifiably brainwashed.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Sorry for going off topic a bit but ( )

I once saw an ethno centric map of Africa. After seeing it, i am not so surprised by all of the conflicts that we constantly see on the media in parts of Africa. You see these nice new countries with straight, sweeping border lines and then see the same places on the ethno centric map - the diversity within each area is huge! For example, around the hook of Africa area, there are over 600 differing ethno groups - and a handful of countries.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Well, OP, I have to say that I believe you have hit the nail on the head here. Since my high school years I have looked at history a bit differently than most due to one of the best history teachers I've ever known. I'll never forget what he told us on the very first day of class "Remember that history is made up of two words.. his, and, story and that at times leaves little room for fact". He then proceeded to take us on a 2 year journey into history that taught us to dig for facts from both sides to formulate a closer approximation of the truth.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I've argued that with my history teacher in high school many times. So much so I got detention... We were talking about Christopher Columbus and what a great adventurer he was. I had to ask, "Why aren't we talking about the genocide of the Natives instead is quest to find spices?" It sounded rediculous to me that we were not talking about the real implications of Columbus' journeys. War and conquest of unexplored lands. I believe the text books should all be rewritten with an objective view. Maybe that just it. Keep the new generations in the dark so as to repeat the errors of our past. Look at all the wars going on today. Don't you think that if the kids were tought the truth they would think twice before joining the war of the rulling class?

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
i didn't take the time to read your thread to be honest, mostly because i found it funny you took two qoutes from the beginning of MW2 (Modern Warfare 2, yes the Video Game)

Who cares if even if it would come from a video game, the truth is truth even in the devil's tongue.
Source prejudice! (Even if the OP explained the source)

Originally posted by XLR8R
We were talking about Christopher Columbus and what a great adventurer he was. I had to ask, "Why aren't we talking about the genocide of the Natives instead is quest to find spices?" It sounded rediculous to me that we were not talking about the real implications of Columbus' journeys.

On that subject...why would they want spices SO MUCH that they would travel halfway around the world to get em?
I mean, I like basil and pepper but I wouldn't go to that much trouble.

Of course, if the spices wanted we're something like opium and other drugs, than maybe the rich elites would be financing such a project since they are bored of their days anyway.

I am 90% sure this was the main reason to find another route to Asia.

Another thing that is similar that I would like to point out...

Inventors

Most inventions created by women, slaves, employees, students are always stolen or attributed to the most influential and rich man that could get his hands on that invention. AKA, the victor.

Today, when an invention doesn't suit the elites in place, they just suppress it, but it, kill the inventor.

Or as George would say...
"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? "

reply to post by User8911


I totaly agree. Did you know a woman invented the phone before Alexander Graham Bell. Her name was Elisha Gray. A better model too. As for the spices, they were infact very expensive luxuries back in the day but yeah, opiates would of been the better choice.

Originally posted by User8911
Another thing that is similar that I would like to point out...

Inventors

Most inventions created by women, slaves, employees, students are always stolen or attributed to the most influential and rich man that could get his hands on that invention. AKA, the victor.

Today, when an invention doesn't suit the elites in place, they just suppress it, but it, kill the inventor.

Good point. From my own research I have discovered this too. TPTB really are a bunch of cheating, lying, murderous and lazy scumbags.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by User8911

 

I totaly agree. Did you know a woman invented the phone before Alexander Graham Bell. Her name was Elisha Gray. A better model too. As for the spices, they were infact very expensive luxuries back in the day but yeah, opiates would of been the better choice.

This Elisha Gray?
en.wikipedia.org...

Pretty uhm interesting lady you picked there :p