Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I'm not to sure what you're getting at with your quote from me here?
Anyway, I seriously think that you are muddying the waters bringing all of the other conflicts into this discussion. The South Africa situation was a colonial remnant, and part of the "western world" that was mistreating the majority of the population. As a result, naturally the standard that the South Africans were held to is the rest of the western world who had long since abolished this policy and treatment of people.
|
Segregation was evident in the US in the 1960s, thats quite recent when you look at the violence in the 70s-80s in South Africa. To some
extent it still exists in some southern states today -- most notably Alabama.
We're talking segregation here, not slavery which was abolished many years previous so in retrospect "had long been abolished" is not true.
I'm bringing in other situations as examples and comparisons, they are all relavant in there own way. In parts of the world in this day and age, women are still second class, this should not be. In parts of the world, some religious groups or races are still second class, this should not be. Just as in South Africa, colors where second class, that should not have been. All i'm saying is it's a constant transition. From womens rights in America/Britain to women being able to vote, to the US abolishing segregation in the mid-60s to some Arab countries slowly allowing women more freedom to South Africa abolishing it's segregation...it's a constant change. When you look at the big picture, blacks shouldn't have been segregated even in the 1950s, we should have been way past that, but we where not. Which brings me back to South Africa.
As i have just said, Bottom line is, all of what i've said are acts of wrong doing and i'm not defending any of these acts, all i'm saying is you have to be held accountable, no matter what the majority of the public may think. Murder is Murder. Segregation is Segregation. Punish both or punish neither. Mandela was reponsible for deaths of innocent civillians and used tactics that are/have being used in Columbia, Iraq, Panama, Palestine etc yet only difference is, all of the latter are considered criminals, yet Mandela is a hero...kind of a double standard. From an Arab prespective, i'd assume the invasion of Iraq is seen as very demeening and supressive, hence the attacks by terror groups yet they are hardcore criminals, yet Mandela was organizing the same types of things and he isn't.
I'm all for his passion and determination, i'm in support of what he wanted to accomplish but nevertheless it comes right down to accountability and even though he was fighting oppression, so to are the Insurgents in Iraq. They're all still criminals through the way they chose to fight.
and again...If you have a bone to pick with segregation in the
21st century, give
Israel a call.